Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unexpected cracking found on critical Boeing 737 Next Generation part

komonews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 127 posts

Re: Unexpected cracking found on critical Boeing 737 Next Generation part

#11

Post by ReptileMan »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #6
ReptileMan wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They literally stay only the turn around time in commercial aviation in busy operations. At least that is the goal. And of course maintenence and repair. And an airframe is used over decades. Add some serious safety factor and you are up there at 90000. But since the 737 max grounding, NGs have seen more usage. So bad news for Boeing. And heaven forbid another grounding - there will literally be not enough physical p…

> there will literally be not enough physical planes to fly in the skies. It'd be interesting - flight prices go up and people realise they didn't need to fly as much as they thought they did?

This is one of the questions I want to see answered in stimulation not in real life. There is a lot of discretionary flying, but there are place whose connection to the world is plane.

You will also have route cancelations. And there will be social costs along the economical as well. All in all unpleasant situation.

It will be good to have someone that understands airplanes to comment on how severe the issue is and possible remedies.

The media have incentive to drum up the issues with boeing and be a tad sensationalist.

From what I understood it will require disassembly of quite a big chunk of the airplane. So it will be expensive and worse slow.

Re: Unexpected cracking found on critical Boeing 737 Next Generation part

#13

Post by acjohnson55 »

phire wrote: post #7
tus88 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One flight a day for 90,000 flights is 246 years. You are right.

Sometimes they fly routes that are only 30min long. With a 30min turnaround, that could mean a flight every hour. If they kept one plane flying round trips all day, they might fit 16 flights into a day and theoretically burn through the 90,000 cycles in under 16 years.

Are there examples of routes like this you know of where a 737 is used?

Re: Unexpected cracking found on critical Boeing 737 Next Generation part

#14

Post by samstave »

9nGQluzmnq3M wrote: post #8

For context, the 737 NG is previous iteration of the 737 (before the MAX) and among the most popular aircraft ever built, with over 7000 in service. Grounding this would absolutely cripple the airline industry. However, the NG also has an excellent safety record, and 35000 cycles is equivalent to 5 flights (takeoff & landing) every day for 10 years. So while this may lead to extra checks on older aircraft, it's highl…

What is the actual safety record of the B-52, which i subjectively consider to be the safest machine in history.

How would the B-52 match up against modern commercial airliners? (Does anyone, other than boeing, even track this stat?)

The calc would be something along the lines of;

Date-of-design -> completion, testing, commissioning, hours in flight - accidents, crashes,pilot error, time in service, fuselage age, etc...

I am subjectively of the opinion that the B-52 is the greatest aircraft ever made.

Re: Unexpected cracking found on critical Boeing 737 Next Generation part

#15

Post by markdown »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #13
phire wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes they fly routes that are only 30min long. With a 30min turnaround, that could mean a flight every hour. If they kept one plane flying round trips all day, they might fit 16 flights into a day and theoretically burn through the 90,000 cycles in under 16 years.

Are there examples of routes like this you know of where a 737 is used?

There are routes like this, but none with anywhere near the ridiculous schedules (16 flights per day) suggested.

Re: Unexpected cracking found on critical Boeing 737 Next Generation part

#16

Post by moandcompany »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #13
phire wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes they fly routes that are only 30min long. With a 30min turnaround, that could mean a flight every hour. If they kept one plane flying round trips all day, they might fit 16 flights into a day and theoretically burn through the 90,000 cycles in under 16 years.

Are there examples of routes like this you know of where a 737 is used?

LAX-LAS, LAX-SJC, LAX-OAK for example.

Not quite 30minute flights but approaching there at ~40min and ~50min.

Southwest airlines for example exclusively flies a fleet of 737-type variants. Cadence for some of these flights can be over 10x daily, in each direction. The total fleet can see 4k+ flights per day.

Re: Unexpected cracking found on critical Boeing 737 Next Generation part

#17

Post by ethagknight »

samstave wrote: post #14
9nGQluzmnq3M wrote: post #8

For context, the 737 NG is previous iteration of the 737 (before the MAX) and among the most popular aircraft ever built, with over 7000 in service. Grounding this would absolutely cripple the airline industry. However, the NG also has an excellent safety record, and 35000 cycles is equivalent to 5 flights (takeoff & landing) every day for 10 years. So while this may lead to extra checks on older aircraft, it's highl…

What is the actual safety record of the B-52, which i subjectively consider to be the safest machine in history. How would the B-52 match up against modern commercial airliners? (Does anyone, other than boeing, even track this stat?) The calc would be something along the lines of; Date-of-design -> completion, testing, commissioning, hours in flight - accidents, crashes,pilot error, time in service, fuselage age, etc…

Tell me more of this b-53 safety record

Re: Unexpected cracking found on critical Boeing 737 Next Generation part

#18

Post by heavyset_go »

kjar wrote: post #10

I’m not flying anymore. Between the GHG annual personal emissions and the stunning staggering massively deadly failures of rushed Boeing product launches. Finally I will note the whole damn process is dehumanizing and terrible.

The worst part of these revelations is that the aviation industry is exalted as the standard other industries should look up to when it comes to safety.

If Boeing can't escape the perverse incentives that tempt every company, then what company can and why are we relying on this economic model to drive such a high stakes industry?

Re: Unexpected cracking found on critical Boeing 737 Next Generation part

#19

Post by Pfhreak »

9nGQluzmnq3M wrote: post #8

For context, the 737 NG is previous iteration of the 737 (before the MAX) and among the most popular aircraft ever built, with over 7000 in service. Grounding this would absolutely cripple the airline industry. However, the NG also has an excellent safety record, and 35000 cycles is equivalent to 5 flights (takeoff & landing) every day for 10 years. So while this may lead to extra checks on older aircraft, it's highl…

The part was found damaged at 35,000 cycles. That means it took less than or equal to 35,000 cycles. It's not clear whether it cracked earlier, how many such failures would be needed to down the plane, etc.

Re: Unexpected cracking found on critical Boeing 737 Next Generation part

#20

Post by albertgoeswoof »

kjar wrote: post #10

I’m not flying anymore. Between the GHG annual personal emissions and the stunning staggering massively deadly failures of rushed Boeing product launches. Finally I will note the whole damn process is dehumanizing and terrible.

It’s still a very safe method of transport, relatively speaking.

But your other points are 100% correct.

Post reply on HN