Incident: Boeing 787 Dreamliner Production-Related Structural Defects Impact Delivery.

Published Date: 2021-07-13

Postmortem Analysis
Timeline 1. The software failure incident with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner occurred in August [116408]. 2. Published on 2021-07-13. 3. Estimated timeline: August 2021.
System unknown
Responsible Organization 1. Boeing Co - The software failure incident was caused by Boeing Co due to production-related structural defects in the 787 Dreamliner aircraft [117007, 116408].
Impacted Organization 1. Boeing Co - The software failure incident impacted Boeing Co as they had to cut 787 production due to finding production-related structural defects [117007]. 2. United Arab Emirates airline flydubai - The incident led to flydubai agreeing with Boeing to cut the number of 737 MAX aircraft it will take delivery of by 65 [117007].
Software Causes unknown
Non-software Causes 1. Manufacturing quality issue related to the fuselage not being joined together to meet precise standards on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner [116408]. 2. Unacceptable gaps around the forward pressure bulkhead on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner [117007].
Impacts unknown
Preventions 1. Implementing more rigorous quality control measures during the manufacturing process to catch defects early on [117007, 116408]. 2. Enhancing the inspection process to ensure that the fuselage parts are joined together to meet precise standards [116408]. 3. Conducting thorough verification processes to confirm that the aircraft components meet the required standards [116408]. 4. Improving communication and collaboration between Boeing and regulatory bodies like the FAA to address manufacturing quality issues promptly [117007, 116408].
Fixes 1. Boeing identified a way to fix the 787s that haven't yet been delivered to customers and will inspect them before delivery [116408]. 2. Boeing will continue to take the necessary time to ensure its airplanes meet the highest quality prior to delivery [117007]. 3. The FAA will review data to determine whether similar modifications should be made on 787s already in commercial service [117007].
References 1. Boeing Co (BA.N) statement [117007] 2. United Arab Emirates airline flydubai statement [117007] 3. U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) statement [117007] 4. Boeing's website [117007] 5. FAA statement [116408]

Software Taxonomy of Faults

Category Option Rationale
Recurring one_organization (a) The software failure incident having happened again at one_organization: - Boeing Co disclosed a new issue with the 787 Dreamliner widebody jet, which has been facing problems since August [Article 116408]. - The latest production-related flaw involved unacceptable gaps around the forward pressure bulkhead, as reported by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration [Article 117007]. (b) The software failure incident having happened again at multiple_organization: - The article does not mention any similar incidents happening at other organizations or with their products and services.
Phase (Design/Operation) operation (a) The articles do not mention any software failure incident related to the design phase of system development. (b) The software failure incident mentioned in the articles is related to the operation phase. Boeing disclosed a new issue with the 787 Dreamliner widebody jet, where some of the planes' fuselage was not joined together to meet precise standards, raising questions about the verification process to ensure they meet the standards. This issue was identified during the operation or inspection of the aircraft, indicating a failure related to the operation phase of the system [116408, 117007].
Boundary (Internal/External) within_system (a) within_system: The software failure incident reported in the articles is primarily related to within_system factors. Boeing disclosed new production-related structural defects in its 787 Dreamliner aircraft, including issues with the fuselage not being joined together to meet precise standards and unacceptable gaps around the forward pressure bulkhead [116408, 117007]. These defects were identified by Boeing itself, indicating internal issues within the manufacturing and quality control processes of the company. The FAA mentioned that Boeing would fix the problem before the planes are delivered, further emphasizing the internal nature of the issue. (b) outside_system: There is no specific mention of the software failure incident being caused by contributing factors originating from outside the system in the provided articles. The focus is primarily on internal production-related structural defects and quality issues within Boeing's manufacturing processes.
Nature (Human/Non-human) human_actions (a) The articles do not mention any software failure incident related to non-human actions. (b) The software failure incidents mentioned in the articles are primarily related to manufacturing quality issues with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner widebody jet. These issues include problems with the fuselage not being joined together to meet precise standards, questions about the verification process to ensure standards are met, and unacceptable gaps around the forward pressure bulkhead. Boeing has been working with the FAA to address these manufacturing quality issues and has identified ways to fix the problems in undelivered planes. The FAA has stated that these issues pose no immediate threat to flight safety, and Boeing is taking the necessary time to ensure the highest quality prior to delivery [116408, 117007].
Dimension (Hardware/Software) unknown (a) The articles do not mention any software failure incident related to hardware issues. [116408, 117007] (b) The software failure incident mentioned in the articles is related to production-related structural defects in Boeing's 787 Dreamliner aircraft. These defects were found in the fuselage and forward pressure bulkhead, indicating issues originating in the manufacturing and design of the aircraft rather than in the software itself. The defects required forensic inspections, costly repairs, and modifications to ensure quality standards were met before delivery to customers. The FAA confirmed that the manufacturing quality issue posed no immediate threat to flight safety, and Boeing was working on fixing the problem for undelivered planes. The software failure incident was more related to the physical components and assembly of the aircraft rather than software issues. [116408, 117007]
Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) non-malicious (a) The articles do not mention any malicious software failure incidents related to the Boeing 787 or 737 MAX issues reported. Therefore, there is no evidence of a failure due to contributing factors introduced by humans with the intent to harm the system. (b) The software failure incidents related to the Boeing 787 and 737 MAX issues are non-malicious. The failures are attributed to production-related structural defects, quality flaws in the aircraft, unacceptable gaps around the forward pressure bulkhead, and issues with the fuselage not meeting precise standards. These issues were not caused by malicious intent but rather by errors or faults in the manufacturing and inspection processes [117007, 116408].
Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) unknown The articles do not mention any software failure incident related to poor decisions or accidental decisions.
Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) accidental (a) The articles do not mention any software failure incident related to development incompetence. (b) The software failure incident related to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner was not due to accidental factors but rather due to manufacturing quality issues and problems with the inspection process to ensure precise standards were met during the joining of fuselage parts [116408].
Duration unknown The articles do not mention any software failure incident related to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner production issues. Therefore, the duration of the software failure incident, whether permanent or temporary, is unknown based on the provided articles.
Behaviour other (a) crash: The articles do not mention any software crashes that led to the system losing state and not performing any of its intended functions [116408, 117007]. (b) omission: There is no specific mention of software omission leading to the system omitting to perform its intended functions at an instance in the articles [116408, 117007]. (c) timing: The articles do not discuss any software failures related to the system performing its intended functions correctly but too late or too early [116408, 117007]. (d) value: There is no indication in the articles of software failures resulting from the system performing its intended functions incorrectly [116408, 117007]. (e) byzantine: The articles do not describe any software failures related to the system behaving erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions [116408, 117007]. (f) other: The software failure incident mentioned in the articles is related to production-related structural defects in Boeing's 787 Dreamliner aircraft, leading to quality flaws and costly repairs to address these issues. The defects involved unacceptable gaps around the forward pressure bulkhead, and there were concerns about the verification process to ensure precise standards were met during the assembly of the planes. This can be categorized as a quality control issue rather than a specific software failure behavior [116408, 117007].

IoT System Layer

Layer Option Rationale
Perception None None
Communication None None
Application None None

Other Details

Category Option Rationale
Consequence property, delay, non-human, theoretical_consequence, other (a) There is no mention of any deaths resulting from the software failure incident in the provided articles [116408, 117007]. (b) There is no mention of any physical harm to individuals resulting from the software failure incident in the provided articles [116408, 117007]. (c) There is no mention of people's access to food or shelter being impacted due to the software failure incident in the provided articles [116408, 117007]. (d) The software failure incident impacted Boeing's production and delivery schedules, leading to delays in delivering aircraft to customers. This resulted in financial implications for Boeing and its customers [116408, 117007]. (e) The software failure incident caused delays in the delivery of Boeing aircraft to customers due to the need for inspections and repairs to address quality flaws in the aircraft [116408, 117007]. (f) The software failure incident affected the production and delivery of Boeing aircraft, impacting the company's operations and financial performance [116408, 117007]. (g) There is no mention of any real observed consequences of the software failure incident in the provided articles [116408, 117007]. (h) The articles discuss potential consequences of the software failure incident, such as the impact on Boeing's production rates, delivery forecasts, and financial performance. The incident led to delays in aircraft deliveries and additional costs for inspections and repairs [116408, 117007]. (i) The software failure incident also resulted in a major customer partially canceling a 737 MAX order, indicating a financial impact on Boeing [117007].
Domain transportation, manufacturing, utilities (a) The failed system was related to the manufacturing industry, specifically affecting Boeing's production of aircraft such as the 787 Dreamliner and 737 MAX jets [117007, 116408]. (g) The incident also impacted the utilities industry indirectly as Boeing's aircraft are essential for the transportation of people and goods, which in turn affects the demand for power, gas, and other services [117007, 116408]. (m) The software failure incident does not directly relate to any other industry mentioned in the options provided.

Sources

Back to List