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

Post by tempest_ » Fri, Jan 16, 2026, 6:13 AM UTC

dghlsakjg wrote: post #25

vsgherzi wrote: post #13

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

Look up the hull loss numbers on the SR-71. More than a third of them were lost in incidents despite never making contact with the enemy. It was also insanely expensive to operate: $300k/hour in 1990 dollars, and there aren’t reliable numbers on development costs with all of the black budgets.

Post by mrtksn » Fri, Jan 16, 2026, 6:17 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #5

I recall a lot of fingerpointing minutes after the crash by people blaming the presumably foreign maintenance crew. Even now there is a lot of uncertainty around this crash, maintenance - or lack thereof - or even wrong maintenance could still be a factor. But given the location of the part asking for a 'visual inspection' is a pretty strange move, the part is all but inaccessible when it is in its normal position an…

Post by mmooss » Fri, Jan 16, 2026, 6:24 AM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #24

mmooss wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

the SR-71 leaking fuel on the ground was not a design flaw. it was designed to be operated at speed where things would expand to fill in. if they were filled in on the ground, they'd have no place to expand at speed/temps. the risk assessment was that it was better to leak fuel on the ground rather than blowing up at speed/temp

Post by mrtksn » Fri, Jan 16, 2026, 6:33 AM UTC

nickff wrote: post #36

mrtksn wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> blaming the presumably foreign maintenance crew The same happened with MCAS, the pro-Boeing argument was that if those were American pilots it would have been fine.

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.

Post by benced » Fri, Jan 16, 2026, 6:54 AM UTC

mrtksn wrote: post #37

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.

I'm sure that a flaw in the plane can be handled more gracefully by the more skilled set of pilots however that's not the point really. Their point was that the flaw in the plane wasn't a big deal and the loss of life and equipment wasn't Boeing's fault, which wasn't true.