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

111–120 of 126 posts

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

#111

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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.

Boeing was trying to piggy back on existing 737 certification. If they certified it as a new plane, the certification would be more extensive and the pilot training would be different (which could have been a better route given the size of the engines they installed on it).

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

#112

Post by seanmcdirmid »

djha-skin wrote: post #46
ta1243 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boeing made a business decision to brand a new model as a "737". They wanted to trade of the reputation of the 737. Instead they tarnished it.

Further, they allowed the old planes to tarnish the reputation of the new ones. If they had made of completely different brand name, then a 10-year-old 737 wouldn't get mixed up with a new plane.

But its more like the opposite: the new MAX planes are tarnishing the reputation of the older ones. This one incident being a more standard problem that hasn't gotten much attention in the past.

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

#113

Post by notahacker »

eastbound wrote: post #104
notahacker wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 retur…

So in summary, Boeings break down like MacDonnells[1], but it’s not Boeing’s fault, it’s the fault of the entire ecosystem, but not Boeing, just everyone involved with Boeing, we get it. Entire denial of ownership of problems should be patented as a business model. So that no other manufacturer can copy it for 20 years. [1] McDonnell planes were known for falling apart, doors flying in the air, lengthened planes whic…

no, in summary, airframers all contract out their windshields to the same few specialists, whose replacements are routinely retrofitted without OEM involvement, and cracks developing in a windshield designed to be resilient to a crack developing in one of the layers is not an unexpected phenomenon.

(And fwiw the bit that fell off the DC-10 that the unlawfully overloaded Concorde ran over was an engine part on a GE engine incorrectly retrofitted [twice] by Bedek and Continental respectively shortly before it detached, so it'd be difficult to imagine anything that had less to do with the half of the airframe OEM that didn't design the the non-engine parts that didn't fall off over quarter of a century earlier. Might as well get angry at Bill Gates for air traffic control failures)

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

#114

Post by steve1977 »

ta1243 wrote: post #39
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…

Boeing made a business decision to brand a new model as a "737". They wanted to trade of the reputation of the 737. Instead they tarnished it.

I think the problem was rather that they did not actually develop a new model, but instead pimped their existing one to compete with Airbus neo variants.

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

#115

Post by 35mm »

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…

It sometimes feels dishonest whenever an event is published in the news without having the typical frequency of occurrence.

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

#116

Post by zirgs »

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…

> But introducing new major system would require re-certifying pilots so the hid the fact, downplayed importance of it.

Is it typical to hide critical systems from pilots in the aviation industry? Or is only Boeing doing that?

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

#117

Post by throwaheyy »

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…

No, what parent said is true: they could have changed the model number if they so chose to, and kept the same type rating. The 757 and 767 have the same type rating for example.

Whether they call it 737, 737 Max, 73Seven, 838 or whatever else is just marketing and has no bearing on keeping training compatibility. Only the type rating matters for that.

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

#118

Post by bob778 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #111
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.

Boeing was trying to piggy back on existing 737 certification. If they certified it as a new plane, the certification would be more extensive and the pilot training would be different (which could have been a better route given the size of the engines they installed on it).

No, it is a variant of the 737 so using the certification is correct. They weren’t trying to avoid additional certification, it just wasn’t required as it’s a variation of an existing type

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

#119

Post by vonthecreat0r »

rootusrootus wrote: post #41
pcurve wrote: post #38

This happened a few times to 737. With picture https://twitter.com/HawaiiNewsNow/status/1658175996925734912 Another one. https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Avelo-flight-from-Tw... It's not specific to 737. 787 also had a bunch of cracked pilot window issues not related to external impact. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eemw9RNkU_k

It's also not specific to Boeing. All airplanes get cracked windows sometimes.

Doesnt a plane at high altitude with a cracked window at those speeds (900+ kmh/hr) pose a risk of exploding from too much cabin pressure especially if it's the front window; regardless of brand/company??

which may mean perhaps weather is to be factored before we blame a brand regardless; because no matter how you put it:

every company in any industry does things differently. Sometimes their practices are far from optimal, but at the very least they meet baseline before blaming or considering shareholders or quality control as the only culprit....

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

#120

Post by seanmcdirmid »

bob778 wrote: post #118
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boeing was trying to piggy back on existing 737 certification. If they certified it as a new plane, the certification would be more extensive and the pilot training would be different (which could have been a better route given the size of the engines they installed on it).

No, it is a variant of the 737 so using the certification is correct. They weren’t trying to avoid additional certification, it just wasn’t required as it’s a variation of an existing type

It is definitely a variant of the 737, but tacking on those extra large radius engines that the original airframe wasn't designed for and 737 pilots weren’t trained for virtually made it into a new plane.
Post reply on HN