7 ms·

Boeing 737-900ER: Second model to be inspected after 737 MAX 9 blowout

134 points by mindracer 3y ago

water9 3y ago
For reference there were only 52 of these planes made compared to 171 max-9 varients
- cromka 3y ago
  „United, which has 136 737-900ER aircraft, expects the inspections "to be completed in the next few days without disruption to our customers."” And that’s United only. They were manufactured for over 10 years.
  - water9 3y ago
    The point is Boeing doesn’t even make this aircraft anymore. It’s like doomsday apple because the iPhone X has a battery defect. as sad as it is, the loss of life doesn’t actually change the value of the company because flying is dangerous and will always. I mean for God sakes Beings that can traverse solar systems also crash and nobody really doubts that only their existence
    - ulfw 3y ago
      Why does 'not even make this aircraft' matter even 1%? How is that relevant? People are ACTIVELY flying these aircrafts by the thousands each day. It's these people, these human beings, that are to be saved from a potential crash. Not Boeing, not the manufacturer.
- Thervicarl 3y ago
  Wikipedia says there were 505 Boeing 737-900ER ordered and 505 delivered between 2007 and 2019. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_Next_Generation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_Next_Generation
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
numpad0 3y ago
Context from own memory: reportedly, -900ER and MAX 9 shares the same plug-type-plug-door / the dummy filler panel that blew off; the part is not a MAX-specific design.
- coredog64 3y ago
  Correct. However, even were there a difference, these are primarily assembly issues. All 737 fuselages are built by Spirit in Wichita with final assembly in Renton. If 757s were still rolling off the line I’d want the FAA to check those too.
  - inferiorhuman 3y ago
    These are not primarily assembly issues. The newest -900ER is ~5 years old which means all -900ERs have been through a heavy check where the bolts would've been inspected.
- LatticeAnimal 3y ago
  Yup, the article says that.
BorgHunter 3y ago
Here is the SAFO issued by the FAA: https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/SAFO737900ER.pdf https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/SAFO737900ER.pdf Reuters says there are 411 737-900ER planes that have plugs instead of exits: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/details-boeing-737-900er-fleet-2024-01-22/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/details-b...
pajko 3y ago
There might be another loose bolt issue, this time in the rudder control system: https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-closely-monitoring-inspections-boeing-737-max-airplanes https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-closely-monitoring-inspecti...
- imglorp 3y ago
  A failed door plug might kill several people. A failed rudder will kill all of them.
  - jsharf 3y ago
    I think planes can still fly with the rudder loose? If the bolt falls out and it loses control, wind will push it into the neutral position and then flying will still be possible with other control surfaces? But I guess if the pilots don't know and it happens suddenly at a critical moment or if the bolt causes the rudder to get jammed, then that would be really bad. But I assume it falling out would result in the rudder loosely returning to neutral...
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      There have been rudder-caused crashes in the past, on the 737. (That's not that shocking as the 737 is a very high production airframe.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_585 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_427
    - SoftTalker 3y ago
      The rudder is necessary for directional control specifically turns, and for flying straight in a crosswind. I've heard of a few cases where applying more/less power on the right/left engines can sort of crudely achieve the same thing, and you might get lucky and get on the groud without crashing, but loss of the rudder would be a serious emergency indeed.
      - addaon 3y ago
sremani 3y ago
How much of this is related to boomer nerds being booted or retiring. Has our skill and knowledge in Aviation has atrophied? I know Financial Engineers are menace to the society because of their pre-mature optimization of bottom line. Did Boeing lose any skill or knowledge due to moving out large swath of their factory floor to South Carolina from Washington. which book or website has this kind of information?
- steve1977 3y ago
  I'm just reading Flying Blind by Peter Robison which talks exactly about these things (haven't finished it yet).
  - sremani 3y ago
    Thank you, bought the audiobook.
- jbm 3y ago
  Not sure why you are being downvoted; this is a common concern post Covid with early retirements and companies no longer investing in training. I don't know if it is true, and I hope someone can address the substance of the argument.
  - steve1977 3y ago
    Well with Boeing the problems started long before COVID though. Basically with the reverse-takeover of McDonnell Douglas, so more than 25 years ago.
  - pfannkuchen 3y ago
    I’m guessing it’s because of the phrase “boomer nerds”. But, the generational aspect really is relevant. I think probably a lot more nerds in later generations who were interested in aerospace engineering got sucked into software for a variety of reasons. During the boomer specialization period aerospace was more appealing as a career.
nickserv 3y ago
At this point I'll pay a bit more to fly Airbus.
- richjdsmith 3y ago
  I said the same to my fiancée. We have gold status on Westjet (Canada’s second largest carrier and it has a hub airport close by) and I just put in the cancellation on my westjet credit card and will use up the rest of my credit. They use predominantly 737-800s and 787s in their fleet. AirCanada, their direct competitor, has a significantly larger airbus fleet. I’ll start using them from here on out just to decrease my odds of flying on a 737MAX
  - richwater 3y ago
    Rationally, this is an incredible overreaction. The probability of encountering something like this is so astronomically low, you'd be better off buying a newer, safer car because you're more likely to be killed driving to the airport to get on a 737 MAX.
    - Pyramus 3y ago
      > Rationally, this is an incredible overreaction. It's perfectly rational to decrease the probability of getting involved in such a scenario even if the probability is very low. It all depends on the (subjective) cost of this incremental improvement to OP. In addition there is the benefit of being able to send a signal, and the associated utility is likely non-zero to OP as well. > The probability of encountering something like this is so astronomically low, you'd be better off buying a newer, safer car because you're more likely to be killed driving to the airport to get on a 737 MAX. What if OP already has the newest, safest car?
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    You are statistically more likely to survive by sitting in the last row of the plane. That has a much larger effect than plane model. I see people saying they won't fly on Boeing planes, but I see very few people saying that they are rebooking all of their tickets to fly the last row. If you are willing to take such actions around the model of plane you fly, do you take similarly drastic actions around other more statistically dangerous risks? Do you wear a helmet in your car? Do you book the last row whenever you fly? Do you take transit instead of driving a car? Do you avoid traveling to countries with elevated traffic risks? I get the idea of minimizing risks, but picking the model of plane you fly on has such a small marginal effect.
janalsncm 3y ago
The per-trip risk of fatal accidents on commercial planes is approximately the same as for cars. Cars kill more people because we drive more often than we fly. The per-mile metric always seemed disingenuous to me. The most dangerous parts of flying are takeoff and landing, which only happen once per flight.
- thehappypm 3y ago
  Source?
- olliej 3y ago
  Yeah, I've always been a suspicious of how extreme the difference is presented but actually working out the honest comparison seems like too much work. You get similar from the "self driving" car people where they say "we are safer per mile than human drivers", but "self driving" systems have a wide array of rules limiting the use of the system in a wide number of conditions, specifically those conditions where most crashes happen. Then there are things like them reporting accident as being the result of the human driver if the system disconnected moments prior to a crash (my opinion here is that if a crash happens within 30 seconds of the driver being informed the self driving system is going to disengage it's the system's fault).

134 points by mindracer 3y ago

water9 3y ago

For reference there were only 52 of these planes made compared to 171 max-9 varients

cromka 3y ago
„United, which has 136 737-900ER aircraft, expects the inspections "to be completed in the next few days without disruption to our customers."” And that’s United only. They were manufactured for over 10 years.
- water9 3y ago
  The point is Boeing doesn’t even make this aircraft anymore. It’s like doomsday apple because the iPhone X has a battery defect. as sad as it is, the loss of life doesn’t actually change the value of the company because flying is dangerous and will always. I mean for God sakes Beings that can traverse solar systems also crash and nobody really doubts that only their existence
  - ulfw 3y ago
    Why does 'not even make this aircraft' matter even 1%? How is that relevant? People are ACTIVELY flying these aircrafts by the thousands each day. It's these people, these human beings, that are to be saved from a potential crash. Not Boeing, not the manufacturer.
Thervicarl 3y ago
Wikipedia says there were 505 Boeing 737-900ER ordered and 505 delivered between 2007 and 2019. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_Next_Generation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_Next_Generation
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

numpad0 3y ago

Context from own memory: reportedly, -900ER and MAX 9 shares the same plug-type-plug-door / the dummy filler panel that blew off; the part is not a MAX-specific design.

coredog64 3y ago
Correct. However, even were there a difference, these are primarily assembly issues. All 737 fuselages are built by Spirit in Wichita with final assembly in Renton. If 757s were still rolling off the line I’d want the FAA to check those too.
- inferiorhuman 3y ago
  These are not primarily assembly issues. The newest -900ER is ~5 years old which means all -900ERs have been through a heavy check where the bolts would've been inspected.
LatticeAnimal 3y ago
Yup, the article says that.

BorgHunter 3y ago

Here is the SAFO issued by the FAA: https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/SAFO737900ER.pdf https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/SAFO737900ER.pdf Reuters says there are 411 737-900ER planes that have plugs instead of exits: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/details-boeing-737-900er-fleet-2024-01-22/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/details-b...

pajko 3y ago

There might be another loose bolt issue, this time in the rudder control system: https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-closely-monitoring-inspections-boeing-737-max-airplanes https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-closely-monitoring-inspecti...

imglorp 3y ago
A failed door plug might kill several people. A failed rudder will kill all of them.
- jsharf 3y ago
  I think planes can still fly with the rudder loose? If the bolt falls out and it loses control, wind will push it into the neutral position and then flying will still be possible with other control surfaces? But I guess if the pilots don't know and it happens suddenly at a critical moment or if the bolt causes the rudder to get jammed, then that would be really bad. But I assume it falling out would result in the rudder loosely returning to neutral...
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    There have been rudder-caused crashes in the past, on the 737. (That's not that shocking as the 737 is a very high production airframe.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_585 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_427
  - SoftTalker 3y ago
    The rudder is necessary for directional control specifically turns, and for flying straight in a crosswind. I've heard of a few cases where applying more/less power on the right/left engines can sort of crudely achieve the same thing, and you might get lucky and get on the groud without crashing, but loss of the rudder would be a serious emergency indeed.
    - addaon 3y ago

sremani 3y ago

How much of this is related to boomer nerds being booted or retiring. Has our skill and knowledge in Aviation has atrophied? I know Financial Engineers are menace to the society because of their pre-mature optimization of bottom line. Did Boeing lose any skill or knowledge due to moving out large swath of their factory floor to South Carolina from Washington. which book or website has this kind of information?

steve1977 3y ago
I'm just reading Flying Blind by Peter Robison which talks exactly about these things (haven't finished it yet).
- sremani 3y ago
  Thank you, bought the audiobook.
jbm 3y ago
Not sure why you are being downvoted; this is a common concern post Covid with early retirements and companies no longer investing in training. I don't know if it is true, and I hope someone can address the substance of the argument.
- steve1977 3y ago
  Well with Boeing the problems started long before COVID though. Basically with the reverse-takeover of McDonnell Douglas, so more than 25 years ago.
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  I’m guessing it’s because of the phrase “boomer nerds”. But, the generational aspect really is relevant. I think probably a lot more nerds in later generations who were interested in aerospace engineering got sucked into software for a variety of reasons. During the boomer specialization period aerospace was more appealing as a career.

nickserv 3y ago

At this point I'll pay a bit more to fly Airbus.

richjdsmith 3y ago
I said the same to my fiancée. We have gold status on Westjet (Canada’s second largest carrier and it has a hub airport close by) and I just put in the cancellation on my westjet credit card and will use up the rest of my credit. They use predominantly 737-800s and 787s in their fleet. AirCanada, their direct competitor, has a significantly larger airbus fleet. I’ll start using them from here on out just to decrease my odds of flying on a 737MAX
- richwater 3y ago
  Rationally, this is an incredible overreaction. The probability of encountering something like this is so astronomically low, you'd be better off buying a newer, safer car because you're more likely to be killed driving to the airport to get on a 737 MAX.
  - Pyramus 3y ago
    > Rationally, this is an incredible overreaction. It's perfectly rational to decrease the probability of getting involved in such a scenario even if the probability is very low. It all depends on the (subjective) cost of this incremental improvement to OP. In addition there is the benefit of being able to send a signal, and the associated utility is likely non-zero to OP as well. > The probability of encountering something like this is so astronomically low, you'd be better off buying a newer, safer car because you're more likely to be killed driving to the airport to get on a 737 MAX. What if OP already has the newest, safest car?
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  You are statistically more likely to survive by sitting in the last row of the plane. That has a much larger effect than plane model. I see people saying they won't fly on Boeing planes, but I see very few people saying that they are rebooking all of their tickets to fly the last row. If you are willing to take such actions around the model of plane you fly, do you take similarly drastic actions around other more statistically dangerous risks? Do you wear a helmet in your car? Do you book the last row whenever you fly? Do you take transit instead of driving a car? Do you avoid traveling to countries with elevated traffic risks? I get the idea of minimizing risks, but picking the model of plane you fly on has such a small marginal effect.

janalsncm 3y ago

The per-trip risk of fatal accidents on commercial planes is approximately the same as for cars. Cars kill more people because we drive more often than we fly. The per-mile metric always seemed disingenuous to me. The most dangerous parts of flying are takeoff and landing, which only happen once per flight.

thehappypm 3y ago
Source?
olliej 3y ago
Yeah, I've always been a suspicious of how extreme the difference is presented but actually working out the honest comparison seems like too much work. You get similar from the "self driving" car people where they say "we are safer per mile than human drivers", but "self driving" systems have a wide array of rules limiting the use of the system in a wide number of conditions, specifically those conditions where most crashes happen. Then there are things like them reporting accident as being the result of the human driver if the system disconnected moments prior to a crash (my opinion here is that if a crash happens within 30 seconds of the driver being informed the self driving system is going to disengage it's the system's fault).