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

61–70 of 127 posts

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

#61

Post by inimino »

SomeOldThrow wrote: post #26
heavyset_go wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Relying on profit-motivated companies to consistently provide value at safety critical levels seems short sighted.

That's why we rely on regulation and oversight for safety, and profit motive and competition to provide value.

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

#62

Post by xvector »

samstave wrote: post #48
ceejayoz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm indicates 79 fatal 737 incidents with about a quarter billion flights under their belt. 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.

Thank you for this! 76 machines destroyed, carrying (obstensibly) nukes.. from 7.5mm flight miles == .00001% risk of failure. Did I do the math correctly? With ZERO nuke detonations... And a flight carcass of nearly 70 years old now???

It is almost impossible to get a nuke to accidentally detonate. Has nothing to do with the B52. Let alone 1 in 76, we’re talking 1 in millions.

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

#63

Post by dredmorbius »

samstave wrote: post #48
ceejayoz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm indicates 79 fatal 737 incidents with about a quarter billion flights under their belt. 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.

Thank you for this! 76 machines destroyed, carrying (obstensibly) nukes.. from 7.5mm flight miles == .00001% risk of failure. Did I do the math correctly? With ZERO nuke detonations... And a flight carcass of nearly 70 years old now???

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but shifting the goalposts from airframe incidents to ordinance safety really doesn't suit this discussion.

The B-52 is an interesting case of a set of exceptionally long-service individual airframes, with current planned utilisation of aircraft built in the 1960s continuing through the 2050s. The original design being from the 1950s.

That said, B-52s likely have a lighter overall duty-cycle, are subject to risks not typical of most (though not all) airliners (hostile enemy fire), and yes, face consequences of incidents beyond the scope of commercial aviation, though my understanding is that live nuclear weapons haven't been carried as a routine practice since the 1968 Thule Air Base incident and the immediate discontinuation of Operation Chrome Dome:

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_cra...

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

#64

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

mieseratte wrote: post #27
Pfhreak wrote: post #19

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.

The article indicated the crack was found not during a regular inspection, but during modifications: "Boeing notified the agency of the matter after it discovered the cracks while conducting modifications on a heavily used aircraft."

And they only found the cracks in other aircraft after specifically looking for it after they noticed the crack in the first aircraft, so it doesn't sound like something checked as part of routine maintenance.

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

#65

Post by [deleted] »

xvector wrote: post #62
samstave wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for this! 76 machines destroyed, carrying (obstensibly) nukes.. from 7.5mm flight miles == .00001% risk of failure. Did I do the math correctly? With ZERO nuke detonations... And a flight carcass of nearly 70 years old now???

It is almost impossible to get a nuke to accidentally detonate. Has nothing to do with the B52. Let alone 1 in 76, we’re talking 1 in millions.

[deleted]

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

#66

Post by ddingus »

r00fus wrote: post #43
Xcelerate wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird. I never used to be afraid of flying at all, but the 737 MAX crashes sort of "triggered" the fear for me. I still fly frequently but I find the experience terrifying now. As a data scientist, I know the odds of something going wrong are extremely low, but unfortunately I'm not able to rationally control my emotions during flight; the fear is involuntary and difficult to suppress. It also doesn't help that…

Maybe if you watch more terrifying accidents involving other modes of travel? Car travel is statistically much more dangerous. Seriously I see the 737 Max debacle as an exception that proves the rule. But the dehumanizing part can be fixed. We may in the future look on the TSA security theatre as an era of incredible FUD.

I sure hope you are right about that.

I feel the TSA will just continue to grow. It is being fed threats and has nothing else to do but grow.

I want security, but damn.

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

#67

Post by m0zg »

kube-system wrote: post #52
m0zg wrote: post #29

>> We're told this is very much an ongoing investigation, and that it's unclear whether or not this is a widespread issue. 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.

> Another source tells us Boeing quickly reported the issue with the single plane to the FAA last week, and now more planes with similar cracking have been found.

How many? Could be as few as 2. Out of thousands.

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

#68

Post by Transfinity »

elif wrote: post #46
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.

As for direct GHG emissions, the most efficient mode of travel depends on many factors involving the models, occupancy, and route, but generally speaking, planes can become more efficient than trains for distances >= 700 miles.

Source: https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/getting-there-greener

Turns out motor coaches (e.g. Greyhound busses) are the most efficient at pretty much any distance.

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

#69

Post by axaxs »

alan5 wrote: post #2

> Engineers design pickle forks to last the lifetime of the plane, more than 90,000 landings and takeoffs, a term known as "flight cycles" in the aviation industry, without developing cracks. That number made me do a double take. Seems planes never stay on the ground for very long.

Not an aerospace engineer, but this seems like a weird way to measure airplane life. A transpacific plane could have 1/10 the cycles but equal airtime, and one would think that the stresses of flight are worth considering. Wonder why it's not measured in hours, like say, tractors, or miles flown. Do we measure any other engined vehicle this way?

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

#70

Post by desc »

gmueckl wrote: post #36
txcwpalpha wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. I don't see why that's "the worst part". Flying is the safest mode of travel, and among airliners the 737NG is one of the safest planes in aviation history. The fact that cracks have been discovered doesn't change that, and the routine inspections which have discove…

In fact, finding and correcting faults in airplanes happens constantly. Up until the Boeing debacle this was just something that happend while nobody was looking. Now journalists are riding the scare wave generated by the relevations following the 737 max crashes and dragging all these fairly routine happenings out into the open with disproportionate coverage.

The primary reason why air travel is so safe is that each and every failure in production becomes a major news item for days.

So the system broke somehow, and the news will keep hammering it until someone somewhere learns their lesson. We hope.

Yes, they will go after a bunch of false positives too in the process, but the thing with weeding out the true negatives reliably is that you have to be paranoid about the false positives too.

Cutting the margins too fine and skipping the 'paranoid, inefficient' checks is how we got here.

Focusing a really big spotlight on the entire industry is part of the feedback loop.

Post reply on HN