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

Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 87 posts

Re: Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal

#41

Post by jasonvorhe »

seniorivn wrote: post #31
resolutebat wrote: post #18

Unsurprisingly, it's an old airframe (built 1994), operated by a state-owned African carrier: rarely a recipe for good maintenance. It's quite unlikely that Boeing is in any way to blame for this. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/387749

Airlines are strictly regulated by Boeing/Airbus/western institutions, this airlines wouldnt be able to fly to safe countries if their airplanes didnt pass regular official certifications, Boeing and Airbus provide that. The same way as pilots are certified by boeing and airbus to fly their planes

It seems you missed the stories about Boeing using parts made of low quality materials and that the whistleblowers died under mysterious circumstances.

Re: Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal

#42

Post by debo_ »

robin_reala wrote: post #32
resolutebat wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly is "juiced up" about "Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal"? I'd be hard put to craft a more neutral/factual/boring summary of what just happened. Update: Apparently "crash" is misleading here since the plane was never airborne, it aborted takeoff but veered off the runway and likely hit something since the wing caught fire.

If a car veered off a motorway and hit something then caught fire then I’d be using the word “crash” in the headline.

Cars can't fly. We are mostly concerned with planes falling out of the sky (which is the most common interpretation of a "plane crash") not bumping into something on the ground.

Re: Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal

#43

Post by gklitz »

resolutebat wrote: post #18

Unsurprisingly, it's an old airframe (built 1994), operated by a state-owned African carrier: rarely a recipe for good maintenance. It's quite unlikely that Boeing is in any way to blame for this. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/387749

> rarely a recipe for good maintenance

True, and it’s Boing, which is rarely a recipe for good quality of safety.

Re: Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal

#44

Post by p_l »

Yotsugi wrote: post #10
afavour wrote: post #5

As ever, best to wait and see. Pilot error is a thing, poor maintenance is a thing. This isn’t the MAX variant Boring has had so much trouble with.

Ironic to see this considering planes could land and takeoff by themselves since 60's and the only reason why it's not all of them that can do this is because of greed.

You're very much uninformed on what is involved in having AUTOLAND (yes, capitalization was part of the name) happening, or automated takeoff.

Reality is that unless you're landing at minority of airports in the world, you can't use automated landing, and takeoff isn't automated until at least you pass into a SID route or into normal climb.

And it's not just "greed" - deploying and maintaining setup to support automated landing (ILS Class 3b with extensions and DME, among others) is non-trivial technically and to do safely can require over a year of testing.

Aircraft autopilots are also simply said very dumb PIDs 99% of the time.

P.S. L-1011 wasn't even the first plane with AUTOLAND equipped, that goes to Trident 2E

Re: Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal

#45

Post by AnimalMuppet »

huygens6363 wrote: post #28
resolutebat wrote: post #18

Unsurprisingly, it's an old airframe (built 1994), operated by a state-owned African carrier: rarely a recipe for good maintenance. It's quite unlikely that Boeing is in any way to blame for this. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/387749

One, that’s not that old and shouldn’t be crashing on take-off and two, the narrative that it’s shady African carriers that are to blame is getting old. In fact, it’s exactly what Boeing always says right before they are in fact to blame.

Boeing designs from 1994 are not the ones that have been in the news for design and manufacturing problems. Boeings built in 1994 are not generally falling out of the sky. They don't have MCAS. They don't have plug doors mis-installed.

Yes, that's not that old. But 30-year-old airframes have 30 years of maintenance, and by then, the maintenance aspects start to predominate over the design aspects as a cause of crashes.

Re: Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal

#46

Post by Dalewyn »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #45
huygens6363 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One, that’s not that old and shouldn’t be crashing on take-off and two, the narrative that it’s shady African carriers that are to blame is getting old. In fact, it’s exactly what Boeing always says right before they are in fact to blame.

Boeing designs from 1994 are not the ones that have been in the news for design and manufacturing problems. Boeings built in 1994 are not generally falling out of the sky. They don't have MCAS. They don't have plug doors mis-installed. Yes, that's not that old. But 30-year-old airframes have 30 years of maintenance, and by then, the maintenance aspects start to predominate over the design aspects as a cause of crashe…

1994 is 30 years ago, not 20.

Yes, we're old. News at 11.

Re: Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal

#49

Post by amelius »

ceejayoz wrote: post #40
amelius wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's clear but that was not the question. I'm thinking about maintenance.

The vast majority of maintenance is done by non-Boeing mechanics employed by airlines and their contractors. They generally cheap out on it as much as they can get away with. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/airplane-maintenance...

Ok. I'm surprised the Boeing MBAs haven't seen the maintenance aftermarket as a big opportunity but perhaps there are laws in the way.

Re: Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal

#50

Post by Dalewyn »

resolutebat wrote: post #20
IndySun wrote: post #6

Can the BBC reign in its news headline writers and reverse a fairly recent (5-10 years?) policy of juicing up what was 'unbiased' news? But in fact, I have a rose-tinted view of the BBC so I should just reign in my reactions instead.

What exactly is "juiced up" about "Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal"? I'd be hard put to craft a more neutral/factual/boring summary of what just happened. Update: Apparently "crash" is misleading here since the plane was never airborne, it aborted takeoff but veered off the runway and likely hit something since the wing caught fire.

Besides the already mentioned use of the word "crash", the headline could have just said "737-300" right there and been infinitely more helpful and descriptive.
Post reply on HN