21–30 of 127 posts
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.
I will agree though that the TSA has made things pretty dehumanizing.
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…
https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52-safety.htm indicates 76 B-52s destroyed in accidents across 7.5 million flight hours.
They're not perfectly comparable sets of numbers, but the B-52s look substantially riskier on a per-hour basis.
Note the aluminum curve in the graph here [0], it never levels off horizontally.
My understanding is this effectively means the modulus of elasticity for aluminum parts is forever diminishing. Aluminum is a metal that's "work hardened", it's basically becoming increasingly brittle the more cyclic stress it experiences.
I'd been told in the past that commercial planes are regularly X-rayed for cracks as part of their maintenance, because of their extensive use of aluminum.
None of this should be a surprise except that it's supposedly "unexpected" in the pickle fork. These vehicles have always been high maintenance machines, in order for them to be safe all the structural aluminum must be regularly inspected for cracks, the cracks should be expected and parts replaced as needed.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_limit
Edit:
Out of curiosity I did some digging for photos of this part and more information, this thread delivers some insightful links and citations:
https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/625886-737ngs-have-crack...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Assuming a proper maintenance schedule, we can reasonably reduce that time window.
TL;DR: a crack in a critical part was found in one plane during a routine inspection. But you wouldn't know that unless you read all the way to the middle of the article. This is a non-story engineered to create outrage and clicks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.