11–20 of 188 posts
The headline is missing an important bit. Boeing knew of the flaw, and sent a letter to airlines about it. In 2011.
Well yes but Boeing also said it "would not result in a safety of flight condition." There's a lot of gray going on here.
The headline is missing an important bit. Boeing knew of the flaw, and sent a letter to airlines about it. In 2011.
Well yes but Boeing also said it "would not result in a safety of flight condition." There's a lot of gray going on here.
Doesn't seem like gray to me. It seems a company who has a history of cutting corners and ignoring or downplaying safety problems did exactly that in this case too which resulted in the deaths of many people. UPS made an error here as well in trusting Boeing when they said it wasn't a safety issue and they should have installed the revised bearing assembly out of an abundance of caution, but I don't know much they would have known back in 2011 about the changes at Boeing that prioritized profit over safety following the merger with McDonnell Douglas
Every five years feels too infrequent. These are planes that are 30 years old and have done 100,000 hours of flying. Apparently UPS policy is to keep them around for about 35 years to maximize the ROI. But maybe once they hit a particular age they need to be inspected deeply every few months. I am not an expert, however. Can metal fatigue be detected with such infrequent inspection?
Sounds like it is included as part of standardized airplane checks based on age of aircraft + hours flown. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_maintenance_checks#AB... On things like D check, the aircraft is essentially completely taken apart and inspected at that level typically taking 50,000 man hours and 6 month-1 year of time.
The article mentions the cost and that Boeing underestimates it. When you divide the cost by the number of hours, it seems very reasonable. Parts and materials being included. I’m surprised any job that extensive isn’t even more expensive.
I’m guessing that manufacturers know of lots of flaws in the parts they make.
The headline is missing an important bit. Boeing knew of the flaw, and sent a letter to airlines about it. In 2011.
The headline is missing an important bit. Boeing knew of the flaw, and sent a letter to airlines about it. In 2011.
Well yes but Boeing also said it "would not result in a safety of flight condition." There's a lot of gray going on here.
Insane that we can have places like the skunk works create the sr71 and operate on shoe string budgets but the largest passenger plane company in the world can’t accurately assess risk on planes far under the former planes Mach 3 record
I also expect that they were much less complex than an aircraft that provides a comfortable, pressurized cabin; the high level of safety mentioned above; freight capacity; etc.
Also, despite Boeing's recent problems, I would guess that commerical passenger planes are far more safe than they were decades ago when the SR-71 was developed. Accidents were much more common despite many fewer flights, iirc.
To reduce negative outcomes, we use risk management: assessing the likely lifetime cost of the flaw, and taking cost-effective measures to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. As a familiar example, redundant mass storage drives are much more cost-effective than high-reliability mass storage drives.
Insane that we can have places like the skunk works create the sr71 and operate on shoe string budgets but the largest passenger plane company in the world can’t accurately assess risk on planes far under the former planes Mach 3 record
I don't see that as a valid comparison. SR-71s could operate with a much higher level of risk than commercial passenger planes. IIRC, SR-71s leaked fuel on the ground, and their wings dragged on the ground without special attachments. Pilots needed special pressure suits, etc. I also expect that they were much less complex than an aircraft that provides a comfortable, pressurized cabin; the high level of safety menti…