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

Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

channelnewsasia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 126 posts

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#91

Post by diggan »

lolinder wrote: post #34

The plane in question was JA56AN [0], which according to PlaneSpotters.net was delivered in June 2009 [1]. Forbes [2] indicates that the service life of a fight deck window is ten years (it's not clear if that applies to the windshield as well as passenger windows)—if that's accurate, it's likely that this is completely unrelated to Boeing's significant manufacturing problems lately. Unfortunately for Boeing it doesn…

> if that's accurate, it's likely that this is completely unrelated to Boeing's significant manufacturing problems lately.

I'm not sure how "recent" lately is referring to here, but it seems Boeing have had engineering/manufacturing issues for quite some time.

About the 787 Dreamliner:

> Early 787 operations encountered several problems caused mainly by its lithium-ion batteries, which culminated in fires onboard some aircraft. In January 2013, the U.S. FAA grounded all 787s until it approved the revised battery design in April 2013. Significant quality control issues from 2019 onwards caused a production slowdown and, from January 2021 until August 2022, an almost total cessation of deliveries.

Maybe it's just finally catching up with them?

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#92

Post by JumpinJack_Cash »

How many buildings collapse in the world daily? How many catch fire and burn to the ground?

How many trucks and cars self combust or lose a wheel?

How many trains derail out of the tracks?

Aviation people and regulators are so paranoid, they hold a chokehold on global economic growth, maybe only nuclear regulators causes more GDP and quality of life losses.

Instead of grounding them or demolishing them send these plane to Africa, they will take them

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#93

Post by hx8 »

diggan wrote: post #91
lolinder wrote: post #34

The plane in question was JA56AN [0], which according to PlaneSpotters.net was delivered in June 2009 [1]. Forbes [2] indicates that the service life of a fight deck window is ten years (it's not clear if that applies to the windshield as well as passenger windows)—if that's accurate, it's likely that this is completely unrelated to Boeing's significant manufacturing problems lately. Unfortunately for Boeing it doesn…

> if that's accurate, it's likely that this is completely unrelated to Boeing's significant manufacturing problems lately. I'm not sure how "recent" lately is referring to here, but it seems Boeing have had engineering/manufacturing issues for quite some time. About the 787 Dreamliner: > Early 787 operations encountered several problems caused mainly by its lithium-ion batteries, which culminated in fires onboard som…

> Boeing moved its corporate headquarters [there] in 2001 when they opted to leave Seattle for Chicago.

It's been going downhill since management physical separated itself from engineering/production.

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#94

Post by jbverschoor »

discordance wrote: post #59
jbverschoor wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://avherald.com/h?search_term=cracked+windshield&opt=1&... Most of them are Boeing it seems: 14x Airbus 35x Boeing 5x Bombardier 3x Embraer

For a fair comparison, this should be measured against flight hours per manufacturer

A quick search gave me 12K vs 10K planes. I couldn't find the actual hours or number of flights

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#95

Post by [deleted] »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #73
hef19898 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Branding didn't really matter. The MAX had to be a 737 for certification and crew training. Boeing cut corners during development, MCAS. And it seems that they are cutting corners as well in manufacturing, supplier management and quality insurance. There is nothing to funny about any of that.

> The MAX had to be a 737 for certification and crew training. I don't believe that this is correct. They could have called it anything, it's the type rating that matters.

[deleted]

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#96

Post by onetimeuse92304 »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #73
hef19898 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Branding didn't really matter. The MAX had to be a 737 for certification and crew training. Boeing cut corners during development, MCAS. And it seems that they are cutting corners as well in manufacturing, supplier management and quality insurance. There is nothing to funny about any of that.

> The MAX had to be a 737 for certification and crew training. I don't believe that this is correct. They could have called it anything, it's the type rating that matters.

That's absolutely not true. 737 MAX IS 737, lengthened. It is not a completely new plane, it is not a plane that just accidentally or by design looks like 737. It IS 737, with slightly different behaviour because of the fact it is lengthened and it has engines moved.

And the story of the MCAS is that Boeing needed this system to make 737 MAX to behave in entire envelope. But introducing new major system would require re-certifying pilots so the hid the fact, downplayed importance of it.

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#97

Post by [deleted] »

onetimeuse92304 wrote: post #96
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The MAX had to be a 737 for certification and crew training. I don't believe that this is correct. They could have called it anything, it's the type rating that matters.

That's absolutely not true. 737 MAX IS 737, lengthened. It is not a completely new plane, it is not a plane that just accidentally or by design looks like 737. It IS 737, with slightly different behaviour because of the fact it is lengthened and it has engines moved. And the story of the MCAS is that Boeing needed this system to make 737 MAX to behave in entire envelope. But introducing new major system would require…

[deleted]

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#98

Post by notahacker »

lolinder wrote: post #34

The plane in question was JA56AN [0], which according to PlaneSpotters.net was delivered in June 2009 [1]. Forbes [2] indicates that the service life of a fight deck window is ten years (it's not clear if that applies to the windshield as well as passenger windows)—if that's accurate, it's likely that this is completely unrelated to Boeing's significant manufacturing problems lately. Unfortunately for Boeing it doesn…

Cockpit windows are also manufactured by a third party specialist glass company (i.e. PPG Aerospace, not Boeing), cost about the same as a new car precisely because they get subject to the sort of stress that is inclined to break a layer, and subject to regular inspection. Plus in this case it appears the other layers of the window did their job and avoided anything more than an annoyingly expensive but routine return to base.

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#99

Post by avereveard »

jbverschoor wrote: post #43
eropple wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a 2022 report, trivially searched-for on Google: > According to the Federal Aviation Administration, more than three dozen instances of cracked windshields have been reported by airlines over the past five years. https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article260551697.html

https://avherald.com/h?search_term=cracked+windshield&opt=1&... Most of them are Boeing it seems: 14x Airbus 35x Boeing 5x Bombardier 3x Embraer

Blatantly Overlooked Engineering Inadequacies, Now Grounded

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#100

Post by nearlyepic »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #73
hef19898 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Branding didn't really matter. The MAX had to be a 737 for certification and crew training. Boeing cut corners during development, MCAS. And it seems that they are cutting corners as well in manufacturing, supplier management and quality insurance. There is nothing to funny about any of that.

> The MAX had to be a 737 for certification and crew training. I don't believe that this is correct. They could have called it anything, it's the type rating that matters.

You're right on. For example, the 757 and 767 share a common type rating.
Post reply on HN