5 ms·

From the article: The company did not name the supplier, nor did it identify the part, although the Wall Street Journal earlier reported that the defect involv

From the article: The company did not name the supplier, nor did it identify the part, although the Wall Street Journal earlier reported that the defect involved certain titanium parts that are weaker than they should be. - It would seem that we would need to know what kind of part this is if we want to continue flying and trusting Boeing. Is it a part in the kitchen of the plane or a more critical holding the jet engines. It would seem this might be a critical part as it is titanium.

doikor 5y ago
Even if it was some more critical part it could just mean that it has a lifetime of 10 years instead of 15 or 20. Or just needs to be checked more often so adding a bit to the maintenance costs until it is replaced. Worst case is that it is some really important part that is not designed to be changed during the lifetime of the plane making fixing it really hard (or impossible)
- kova12 5y ago
  Or it could mean that a wing might fall off next time plane is under stress. We don't know, and since it's our life on the line, we do deserve to know
  - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
    If the damn FAA hasn't issued a AirWorthiness Directive, you'll be fine. 99.999999999999% of people have no idea what any of this info actually means or how to process it. COVID has proven this fact
    - kova12 5y ago
      based on FAA stellar record in that matters, I'd say we still better be informed
    - dahart 5y ago
      The FAA failed to issue an Air Worthiness directive until after both 737 Max crashes. We have to hope that’s fixed, but until there’s more evidence, the FAA’s failure to ground a plane doesn’t give me much comfort.
      - jaywalk 5y ago
        Bullshit. The FAA issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive a week and a half after the first crash, and grounded the entire 737 MAX fleet three days after the second.
        ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        Bullshit. Their job was to check the design and make sure it doesnt have glaring flaws. If they did their job, and didn't hire part-time engineers who worked for boeing at the same time, 500 people would still be alive.
        jaywalk 5y ago
        That has nothing to do with what I said or the comment I was responding to. That being said, yes I think everyone agrees that the FAA was far too lax in the certification process. Doesn't change the fact that the post I replied to contained objectively false information that I corrected.
        rafale 5y ago
        Is the final accident report out yet? I wonder if they are gonna blame the pilots for failing to handle a runaway trim situation regardless of what caused it (the infamous MCAS in this situation). It's a memory checklist item, they should have cut the electric trim motors and trimmed manually (assuming the plane hasn't gone in a deep dive at that point,the forces on the control surface would make it impossible to trim manually).
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        They're probably gonna blame the airlines, Boeing and the pilots. Planes don't crash unless damn near every party involved does something wrong. Boeing has a responsibility to not build hard to operate junk. Failing that the airlines have a responsibility to train the pilots on said junk. Failing that the pilots still have a responsibility to to understand how the junk works. They probably will minimize the blame on the pilots since both Boeing and the airlines were pretending that the new plane was the same as the old plane for regulatory compliance reasons and in light of that messaging you can't really expect people to learn about the differences themselves. What they won't blame at all but probably deserves a mention is a long and expensive type certification process that provided the incentives for all the dominoes on the Boeing and airline side of things to line up the way they did. Nobody at Boeing or the airlines was attempting to achieve this outcome. They were trying to achieve a marginally better 737 within the bounds of the existing regulation.
- nolok 5y ago
  You say "just" as if it wasn't important. I understand why you say that, but you clearly don't realise how much % of airplanes crash ends up being caused by maintenance skipping a beat. Shorter beats means a lot more skips.
ncallaway 5y ago
While I agree that Boeing should tell us which specific part it is, they are making the claim that it’s not an “immediate flight safety concern”. The fact that their PR team felt the need to include the word “immediate” indicates to me it’s more important than a kitchen part, but that whatever it is likely has redundant systems that can handle a failure of this part. I do think Boeing is being a little too tight lipped on this. I think a decade ago, many would have let the questions end at Boeing’s statement, but their trust has really been harmed over the last 10 years, and I’d like them to provide more information. > "While our investigation is ongoing, we have determined that this does not present an immediate safety of flight concern for the active in-service fleet," a company spokeswoman said in an emailed statement.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  That's pretty weasily wordy though, it is only immediate if it has just failed and then suddenly it is a safety risk? That's way too ambiguous for my taste, and given the state of trust with Boeing I think more transparency here would be better.
- jasode 5y ago
  >>It would seem that we would need to know what kind of part this is if we want to continue flying and trusting Boeing. >While I agree that Boeing should tell us which specific part it is, In general, it's bad business etiquette to publicly name & shame defects/mistakes made by business partners or company employees. Whether a supplier messed up a titanium part or a Facebook employee misconfigured a router, you don't call out their names in public. Yes, it's understandable we readers would want to know all the dirty details but Boeing giving us that may also have the opposite effect: less safety instead of more. In this case, it was the supplier that notified Boeing about the defect. If Boeing publicly outed that supplier to the press, that adds perverse incentives for the supplier (and other suppliers) to not notify airplane manufacturers in the future which creates unsafe planes. On the other hand, it's probably good if Boeing privately notifies the FAA inspectors so they are alerted to it. Maybe they already shared that information.
  - magicalhippo 5y ago
fsagx 5y ago
little birds say Boeing has already made the move to bring the part in-house: https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraft/news/21230827/delaware-judge-approves-boeings-purchase-of-tect-aerospace-in-wellington-for-198-million https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraft/news/21230827/delaware...
hef19898 5y ago
If it is flight critical, Boeing has to publish official announcements through the FAA and EASA. If not, they don't any passengers don't have to worry too much.
outsidein 5y ago
Maybe this? https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/11/15256008/3d-printed-titanium-parts-boeing-dreamliner-787 https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/11/15256008/3d-printed-titan...

doikor 5y ago

Even if it was some more critical part it could just mean that it has a lifetime of 10 years instead of 15 or 20. Or just needs to be checked more often so adding a bit to the maintenance costs until it is replaced. Worst case is that it is some really important part that is not designed to be changed during the lifetime of the plane making fixing it really hard (or impossible)

kova12 5y ago
Or it could mean that a wing might fall off next time plane is under stress. We don't know, and since it's our life on the line, we do deserve to know
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  If the damn FAA hasn't issued a AirWorthiness Directive, you'll be fine. 99.999999999999% of people have no idea what any of this info actually means or how to process it. COVID has proven this fact
  - kova12 5y ago
    based on FAA stellar record in that matters, I'd say we still better be informed
  - dahart 5y ago
    The FAA failed to issue an Air Worthiness directive until after both 737 Max crashes. We have to hope that’s fixed, but until there’s more evidence, the FAA’s failure to ground a plane doesn’t give me much comfort.
    - jaywalk 5y ago
      Bullshit. The FAA issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive a week and a half after the first crash, and grounded the entire 737 MAX fleet three days after the second.
      - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        Bullshit. Their job was to check the design and make sure it doesnt have glaring flaws. If they did their job, and didn't hire part-time engineers who worked for boeing at the same time, 500 people would still be alive.
        jaywalk 5y ago
        That has nothing to do with what I said or the comment I was responding to. That being said, yes I think everyone agrees that the FAA was far too lax in the certification process. Doesn't change the fact that the post I replied to contained objectively false information that I corrected.
      - rafale 5y ago
        Is the final accident report out yet? I wonder if they are gonna blame the pilots for failing to handle a runaway trim situation regardless of what caused it (the infamous MCAS in this situation). It's a memory checklist item, they should have cut the electric trim motors and trimmed manually (assuming the plane hasn't gone in a deep dive at that point,the forces on the control surface would make it impossible to trim manually).
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        They're probably gonna blame the airlines, Boeing and the pilots. Planes don't crash unless damn near every party involved does something wrong. Boeing has a responsibility to not build hard to operate junk. Failing that the airlines have a responsibility to train the pilots on said junk. Failing that the pilots still have a responsibility to to understand how the junk works. They probably will minimize the blame on the pilots since both Boeing and the airlines were pretending that the new plane was the same as the old plane for regulatory compliance reasons and in light of that messaging you can't really expect people to learn about the differences themselves. What they won't blame at all but probably deserves a mention is a long and expensive type certification process that provided the incentives for all the dominoes on the Boeing and airline side of things to line up the way they did. Nobody at Boeing or the airlines was attempting to achieve this outcome. They were trying to achieve a marginally better 737 within the bounds of the existing regulation.
nolok 5y ago
You say "just" as if it wasn't important. I understand why you say that, but you clearly don't realise how much % of airplanes crash ends up being caused by maintenance skipping a beat. Shorter beats means a lot more skips.

ncallaway 5y ago

While I agree that Boeing should tell us which specific part it is, they are making the claim that it’s not an “immediate flight safety concern”. The fact that their PR team felt the need to include the word “immediate” indicates to me it’s more important than a kitchen part, but that whatever it is likely has redundant systems that can handle a failure of this part. I do think Boeing is being a little too tight lipped on this. I think a decade ago, many would have let the questions end at Boeing’s statement, but their trust has really been harmed over the last 10 years, and I’d like them to provide more information. > "While our investigation is ongoing, we have determined that this does not present an immediate safety of flight concern for the active in-service fleet," a company spokeswoman said in an emailed statement.

jacquesm 5y ago
That's pretty weasily wordy though, it is only immediate if it has just failed and then suddenly it is a safety risk? That's way too ambiguous for my taste, and given the state of trust with Boeing I think more transparency here would be better.
jasode 5y ago
>>It would seem that we would need to know what kind of part this is if we want to continue flying and trusting Boeing. >While I agree that Boeing should tell us which specific part it is, In general, it's bad business etiquette to publicly name & shame defects/mistakes made by business partners or company employees. Whether a supplier messed up a titanium part or a Facebook employee misconfigured a router, you don't call out their names in public. Yes, it's understandable we readers would want to know all the dirty details but Boeing giving us that may also have the opposite effect: less safety instead of more. In this case, it was the supplier that notified Boeing about the defect. If Boeing publicly outed that supplier to the press, that adds perverse incentives for the supplier (and other suppliers) to not notify airplane manufacturers in the future which creates unsafe planes. On the other hand, it's probably good if Boeing privately notifies the FAA inspectors so they are alerted to it. Maybe they already shared that information.
- magicalhippo 5y ago

fsagx 5y ago

little birds say Boeing has already made the move to bring the part in-house: https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraft/news/21230827/delaware-judge-approves-boeings-purchase-of-tect-aerospace-in-wellington-for-198-million https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraft/news/21230827/delaware...

hef19898 5y ago

If it is flight critical, Boeing has to publish official announcements through the FAA and EASA. If not, they don't any passengers don't have to worry too much.

outsidein 5y ago

Maybe this? https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/11/15256008/3d-printed-titanium-parts-boeing-dreamliner-787 https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/11/15256008/3d-printed-titan...