5 ms·

Boeing is trying to become for the 21st century, the metaphor which the Titanic was for the 20th.

nxm 3y ago
Why are you assuming Boeing’s at fault here?
rootusrootus 3y ago
Is airbus also responsible for maintenance failures on 30 year old airplanes or do you feel like only Boeing deserves this treatment?
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 3y ago
  The Boeing that lost its hull plug was how old? A month? Boeing deserves to be dunked on for the timing of this, even if it’s delta’s inability to complete regular maintenance that causes their planes tire to fall off.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    > Boeing deserves to be dunked on for the timing of this No. Boeing deserves total criticism of production and design problems with the 737MAX, but does not deserve random unrelated things being added to the criticism because they're timely.
    - trklausss 3y ago
      We are talking safety here. Even if it is a 30yo plane, and Delta is in charge of maintenance, Boeing as manufacturer should release a TN to mitigate the issue. If it’s deemed that the airplane is no longer safe to fly after 30 years because you can’t guarantee it’s safe to fly, then as manufacturer you should retire it. This should all come from Boeing _before_ it reaches the FAA. That’s the meaning of self-certification through AMCs. I’m assuming here however that there are no TNs associated with this particular issue with the landing gear.
      - mlyle 3y ago
        > If it’s deemed that the airplane is no longer safe to fly after 30 years because you can’t guarantee it’s safe to fly, then as manufacturer you should retire it. ... or, you know, sometimes mishaps happen that are not the manufacturer's fault and aren't likely to be mitigated by more manufacturer documentations. You presume a lot.
        trklausss 3y ago
        Totally true! That’s why I don’t blame Boeing yet, but their bad press and mishaps in safety tend to make a bias towards thinking there is something here. I will wait for the FAA report on that :)
      - tass 3y ago
        You’re talking about something in a high touch area (thanks to tyre changes) that’s under a lot of stress and is made up of replaceable parts - landing gear is surely not expected to last the life of a plane without having parts replaced.
        trklausss 3y ago
        I agree 100% with you. That’s why you as a manufacturer release proper TNs, maintenance procedures, and inspection intervals, train maintenance crew, etc. I will wait for the FAAs final report, I’m definitely not blaming Boeing here yet, but their bad press is surely a bias point against them and giving a second thought about whether they are doing things right…
      - rootusrootus 3y ago
        > If it’s deemed that the airplane is no longer safe to fly after 30 years because you can’t guarantee it’s safe to fly, then as manufacturer you should retire it. Now -that- is a hot take. LOL
        trklausss 3y ago
        Would you prefer that the manufacturer lets it fly while it is not safe like the Mad Dog? That’s exactly what gliders go through, every 3000 hours they get a complete check of the structure, if it can’t be repaired or are too expensive to repair, they get scrapped… I don’t know why do you think it’s a hot take when that’s standard practice.
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    Tell you what. Let's go on AVHerald and start cross-posting all the maintenance failures here on HN. I see that there was a tire problem with an Airbus A350 when it was landing. And the plane was only 2.9 years old! DAMMIT AIRBUS! And then there was an A321 that had an engine shut down in flight. On a 2.4 year old plane! DAMMIT AIRBUS! It gets better. A young (11.8 years) A321 with pressurization problems. Along the same lines, an A330 (just 18 years old!) failed to pressurize. Then a more scary incident, the brakes failed on a 13 year old A319 in Brazil. Wow! Why didn't Airbus pull the airworthiness certificates for those planes? This is just an awful look for Airbus, and it might be worth more investigation. ... Or, you know, things break, and maintenance is important. A 30 year old plane will require pretty intensive maintenance to keep it in safe flying condition.
- trklausss 3y ago
  Partly yes. Safety should come in first line from design, second from maintenance. If an airframe is not able to safely fly anymore, it’s airworthiness certificate should be removed by the issuer, which in the era of self-certification is the manufacturer.
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    > it’s airworthiness certificate should be removed by the issuer, which in the era of self-certification is the manufacturer. Where did you get that idea? The airworthiness certificate is issued by the FAA and is conditioned on maintenance, among other things.
    - trklausss 3y ago
      It’s issued by the FAA based on the reports from the manufacturer, which can collude, falsify or mislead the authorities. The FAA does 0 testing on the airplanes, it is all done and documented by the manufacturer.
      - rootusrootus 3y ago
        I think you're misunderstanding what an airworthiness certificate is. It is a document issued by the FAA to the registered owner of the plane. The manufacturer is not involved. I'd guess you're thinking of the type certificate.
        trklausss 3y ago
        Type certificates are for the whole type, but you are right in that I got it wrong that airworthiness is done by the manufacturer: it’s actually done by CAMOs. In any case, FAA just gives the paper, but does not go around checking bolts and nuts. Delta has its own CAMO (Delta TechOps), which I assume has done the maintenance of this aircraft, but it is yet to be seen whether they followed everything to the T or is there something missing from Boeing’s part. As I said in another comment, I doubt everyone here (which is not bad, it’s just not assuming by default that everything is well done everywhere) and will wait for the FAA report.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

nxm 3y ago

Why are you assuming Boeing’s at fault here?

Is airbus also responsible for maintenance failures on 30 year old airplanes or do you feel like only Boeing deserves this treatment?

Red_Leaves_Flyy 3y ago
The Boeing that lost its hull plug was how old? A month? Boeing deserves to be dunked on for the timing of this, even if it’s delta’s inability to complete regular maintenance that causes their planes tire to fall off.
- mlyle 3y ago
  > Boeing deserves to be dunked on for the timing of this No. Boeing deserves total criticism of production and design problems with the 737MAX, but does not deserve random unrelated things being added to the criticism because they're timely.
  - trklausss 3y ago
    We are talking safety here. Even if it is a 30yo plane, and Delta is in charge of maintenance, Boeing as manufacturer should release a TN to mitigate the issue. If it’s deemed that the airplane is no longer safe to fly after 30 years because you can’t guarantee it’s safe to fly, then as manufacturer you should retire it. This should all come from Boeing _before_ it reaches the FAA. That’s the meaning of self-certification through AMCs. I’m assuming here however that there are no TNs associated with this particular issue with the landing gear.
    - mlyle 3y ago
      > If it’s deemed that the airplane is no longer safe to fly after 30 years because you can’t guarantee it’s safe to fly, then as manufacturer you should retire it. ... or, you know, sometimes mishaps happen that are not the manufacturer's fault and aren't likely to be mitigated by more manufacturer documentations. You presume a lot.
      - trklausss 3y ago
        Totally true! That’s why I don’t blame Boeing yet, but their bad press and mishaps in safety tend to make a bias towards thinking there is something here. I will wait for the FAA report on that :)
    - tass 3y ago
      You’re talking about something in a high touch area (thanks to tyre changes) that’s under a lot of stress and is made up of replaceable parts - landing gear is surely not expected to last the life of a plane without having parts replaced.
      - trklausss 3y ago
        I agree 100% with you. That’s why you as a manufacturer release proper TNs, maintenance procedures, and inspection intervals, train maintenance crew, etc. I will wait for the FAAs final report, I’m definitely not blaming Boeing here yet, but their bad press is surely a bias point against them and giving a second thought about whether they are doing things right…
    - rootusrootus 3y ago
      > If it’s deemed that the airplane is no longer safe to fly after 30 years because you can’t guarantee it’s safe to fly, then as manufacturer you should retire it. Now -that- is a hot take. LOL
      - trklausss 3y ago
        Would you prefer that the manufacturer lets it fly while it is not safe like the Mad Dog? That’s exactly what gliders go through, every 3000 hours they get a complete check of the structure, if it can’t be repaired or are too expensive to repair, they get scrapped… I don’t know why do you think it’s a hot take when that’s standard practice.
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  Tell you what. Let's go on AVHerald and start cross-posting all the maintenance failures here on HN. I see that there was a tire problem with an Airbus A350 when it was landing. And the plane was only 2.9 years old! DAMMIT AIRBUS! And then there was an A321 that had an engine shut down in flight. On a 2.4 year old plane! DAMMIT AIRBUS! It gets better. A young (11.8 years) A321 with pressurization problems. Along the same lines, an A330 (just 18 years old!) failed to pressurize. Then a more scary incident, the brakes failed on a 13 year old A319 in Brazil. Wow! Why didn't Airbus pull the airworthiness certificates for those planes? This is just an awful look for Airbus, and it might be worth more investigation. ... Or, you know, things break, and maintenance is important. A 30 year old plane will require pretty intensive maintenance to keep it in safe flying condition.
trklausss 3y ago
Partly yes. Safety should come in first line from design, second from maintenance. If an airframe is not able to safely fly anymore, it’s airworthiness certificate should be removed by the issuer, which in the era of self-certification is the manufacturer.
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  > it’s airworthiness certificate should be removed by the issuer, which in the era of self-certification is the manufacturer. Where did you get that idea? The airworthiness certificate is issued by the FAA and is conditioned on maintenance, among other things.
  - trklausss 3y ago
    It’s issued by the FAA based on the reports from the manufacturer, which can collude, falsify or mislead the authorities. The FAA does 0 testing on the airplanes, it is all done and documented by the manufacturer.
    - rootusrootus 3y ago
      I think you're misunderstanding what an airworthiness certificate is. It is a document issued by the FAA to the registered owner of the plane. The manufacturer is not involved. I'd guess you're thinking of the type certificate.
      - trklausss 3y ago
        Type certificates are for the whole type, but you are right in that I got it wrong that airworthiness is done by the manufacturer: it’s actually done by CAMOs. In any case, FAA just gives the paper, but does not go around checking bolts and nuts. Delta has its own CAMO (Delta TechOps), which I assume has done the maintenance of this aircraft, but it is yet to be seen whether they followed everything to the T or is there something missing from Boeing’s part. As I said in another comment, I doubt everyone here (which is not bad, it’s just not assuming by default that everything is well done everywhere) and will wait for the FAA report.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]