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

Boeing knew of flaw in part linked to UPS plane crash, NTSB report says

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 188 posts

Re: Boeing knew of flaw in part linked to UPS plane crash, NTSB report says

#171

Post by jacquesm »

atoav wrote: post #167
palmotea wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think every company operating Boeing aircraft should have reviewed their stance on Boeing directives in light of MCAS and the aftermath by now. If they did not that is a failure of sorts as well. Actual question: would an airline have the engineering competence to second-guess an airplane manufacturer's engineering guidance? They operate airplanes but don't build them, and I'd assume they'd out of necessity need…

If my elevator manufacturer sent me a note about my elevator wire, but says I have to not do anything, because it is probably nothing my number 1 question would be: Why did you need to tell me about the wire then? The answer is an attempt to transfer the liability to me. The liability for a thing they think could happen, but didn't tell me about.

That's a very astute observation, I had not clued in to this and I'll be looking for that pattern from now on. Thank you.

Re: Boeing knew of flaw in part linked to UPS plane crash, NTSB report says

#172

Post by p_l »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #128
WillPostForFood wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, the MD-11 was designed by McDonnell Douglas, and manufactured by McDonnell Douglas in 1991, before the Boeing merger. A McDonnell Douglas DC-10 failed in a similar way in Chicago in 1979, so it the issue may go way back.

I'm reasonably certain it was McDonnel Douglas that acquired Boeing with Boeing's own money. Most likely everyone who designed that plane has retired at this point anyways.

It's commonly trotted out, but the people who spearheaded the disastrous changes including mass outsourcing were Boeing for life - with McD people writing alarming memos about outsourcing goals set for Dreamliner

Re: Boeing knew of flaw in part linked to UPS plane crash, NTSB report says

#173

Post by nobodyandproud »

autoexec wrote: post #164
nobodyandproud wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> out of an abundance of caution I’m sorry, but this phrase has worn out its welcome.

How? I'm not particularly attached to it, but it seems to continue to be a commonly used expression and this is the first time I've seen someone raise an objection to its use.

Because the phrase and mindset leads to the wrong lessons and actions.

In aviation, there is little room for error. It’s also the case that resources and time are limited. So there are multiple constraints.

We both agree that Boeing is the big problem. I’d also say its a problem of the FAA and the aviation industry.

But UPS? Why would they be taking action “out of an abundance of caution”?

The worst you can say for UPS is they could have sought a second opinion out of “an abundance of caution”, and recommendations of next actions and how.

Keep in mind UPS core competency isn’t aerospace and aeronautical engineering.

Would they even be able to assess the risk of changing said bearings en masse?

The actual lesson here is that most of the advisories and self-certifying from Boeing over the past 30 years need to be reconsidered; most likely redone, by independent third parties and also an FAA with a mandate to be fully independent.

Re: Boeing knew of flaw in part linked to UPS plane crash, NTSB report says

#174

Post by butvacuum »

jacquesm wrote: post #171
atoav wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If my elevator manufacturer sent me a note about my elevator wire, but says I have to not do anything, because it is probably nothing my number 1 question would be: Why did you need to tell me about the wire then? The answer is an attempt to transfer the liability to me. The liability for a thing they think could happen, but didn't tell me about.

That's a very astute observation, I had not clued in to this and I'll be looking for that pattern from now on. Thank you.

It is, unfortunately, a thing. And, far more common than most realize. Responsibility hot potatoe sucks.

Re: Boeing knew of flaw in part linked to UPS plane crash, NTSB report says

#175

Post by Someone »

jacquesm wrote: post #57
ethbr1 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After watching the below video, it's the excess bearing play and thus no-longer-constrained force directions that would seem to be the issue. With a proper tolerance bearing in place, the force is constrained so that other parts are only stressed in directions they're well suited to handle (because the bearing takes the load). Once the bearing develops excess tolerance, you've got a bucking engine that (to your point…

> The fact that Boeing supposedly modeled this and came up with non-safety critical in the event of bearing breakage... curious how that will turn out. They'd have to show at least one plane with a bearing gone that still flies as intended. I suggest we break one on purpose, put the full complement of Boeing execs on that plane to prove its safety given the alternative of retracting that statement.

> They'd have to show at least one plane with a bearing gone that still flies as intended.

That depends on the meaning of “safety of flight”. I don’t know what it means in aviation, but do not rule out that there is significant room between “flies as intended” and “result in a safety of flight condition”.

For example, if an engine were to complete drop off the plane, would that necessarily result in a safety of flight condition, or does “the plane will be able to continue take off and land again” mean safety of flight isn’t affected?

Re: Boeing knew of flaw in part linked to UPS plane crash, NTSB report says

#176

Post by Der_Einzige »

renewiltord wrote: post #52
nickff wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a matter of fact, the same issue did occur to US-based-airlines, and the pilots did catch it. That does not however answer the question of whether they just got lucky, or were more skilled, though there are some indications that it may have been skill.

Most likely just luck. These days US pilots can’t keep their planes separate from their helicopters so we're not exactly sending our best up there.

It’s true that they don’t send their best

Between US pilots having to lie about their mental health and then having average pay far lower than people who use Claude code daily, they really aren’t sending their best.

Unironically whatever you think pilot training involves, we should probably double it. This would be extra good as raising the prices of flights will make fewer people fly. Far too many people right at this moment who shouldn’t be flying are flying.

If we could finish by forcing all airline seats to be at business class quality (thus average flight ticket costs are about 2X now as economics of scale kick in), than flying would become a humane practice rather than war crimes in the sky.

Re: Boeing knew of flaw in part linked to UPS plane crash, NTSB report says

#177

Post by Der_Einzige »

throwaway173738 wrote: post #97
blitzar wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

My favorite is when the pedestrian in the shoulder was difficult to see.

Charlie Kirk thought black people shouldn’t be allowed to be pilots. This is a man we are supposed to celebrate according to MAGA…

Re: Boeing knew of flaw in part linked to UPS plane crash, NTSB report says

#178

Post by 15155 »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #143
palmotea wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think every company operating Boeing aircraft should have reviewed their stance on Boeing directives in light of MCAS and the aftermath by now. If they did not that is a failure of sorts as well. Actual question: would an airline have the engineering competence to second-guess an airplane manufacturer's engineering guidance? They operate airplanes but don't build them, and I'd assume they'd out of necessity need…

I would say no. UPS bought the planes from Boeing. Boeing built them, Boeing identified the flaw, Boeing notified it's customers, and said it wasn't an issue. Frankly I put it squarely on Boeing.

> UPS bought the planes from Boeing

No, UPS bought the plane from Thai Airways International.

> Boeing built them

No, McDonnell Douglas built the plane in question; Boeing hadn't merged with MD at the time this aircraft was manufactured.

The other elements are probably true, but this was not a Boeing aircraft.

Re: Boeing knew of flaw in part linked to UPS plane crash, NTSB report says

#179

Post by thomascountz »

12_throw_away wrote: post #144

Reading the actual NTSB report [1], my first reaction is just my usual awe at the professionalism of the NTSB. They started with a 3000-ft-long debris field and in the end could say "here are the microscopic stress fractures in the left pylon aft mount bulkhead's wing clevis spherical bearing assembly's ball element's forward bearing race". [1] https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Documents/DCA26MA024%20I...

I share your awe of the NTSB and their reports. Here's my favorite quote from the Alaskan Airlines door plug incident[1]:

   We determined that the probable cause of this accident was the in-flight separation of the left MED plug due to Boeing’s failure to provide adequate training, guidance, and oversight necessary to ensure that manufacturing personnel could consistently and correctly comply with its parts removal process, which was intended to document and ensure that the securing bolts and hardware that were removed to facilitate rework during the manufacturing process were properly reinstalled.
[1]: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA24MA063.aspx

Re: Boeing knew of flaw in part linked to UPS plane crash, NTSB report says

#180

Post by ethbr1 »

Someone wrote: post #175
jacquesm wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that Boeing supposedly modeled this and came up with non-safety critical in the event of bearing breakage... curious how that will turn out. They'd have to show at least one plane with a bearing gone that still flies as intended. I suggest we break one on purpose, put the full complement of Boeing execs on that plane to prove its safety given the alternative of retracting that statement.

> They'd have to show at least one plane with a bearing gone that still flies as intended. That depends on the meaning of “safety of flight”. I don’t know what it means in aviation, but do not rule out that there is significant room between “flies as intended” and “result in a safety of flight condition”. For example, if an engine were to complete drop off the plane, would that necessarily result in a safety of fligh…

Some of it may be related to the 3-engine design, if Boeing had modeled that 2 engines still provided sufficient power in all scenarios.

But a takeoff does seem like the worst time to catastrophically lose 1/3 power, even without FOD intake by the central engine.

Post reply on HN