4 ms·

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 regu

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.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    No plane is going to remain airworthy for long without proper maintenance. Does that mean all planned should be retired immediately?
    - trklausss 3y ago
      I did not imply that, and what you are asking there is a fallacy. Maintenance is a core part of airworthiness, and the only way you can mitigate design flaws. But at the same time, if you had a running processor with a known side channel vulnerability, and you know the manufacturer doesn’t release a mitigation or doesn’t really care that much about security, would you still use it? Is the manufacturer liable for not releasing mitigations or not caring that much about security? If the airframe is not airworthy after inspections and there is no maintenance remedy that can be applied to it at an economical cost, then that airplane shall be scrapped… Even before it reaches the FAA. So in a way yes, if you can’t apply maintenance the way it is supposed to be, then it is not airworthy, and if the manufacturer does not release proper TNs to mitigate design flaws, then it is also not airworthy. I will wait to the report from the FAA and see what they find out.
      - mlyle 3y ago
        This is again presupposing a design or maintenance instruction flaw. There's a thousand of these aircraft, and they've each been through multiple D checks where all of this is completely disassembled and put back together; then there's other maintenance that causes disassembly and reassembly, too. In tens of thousands of opportunities, it looks like one time a wheel assembly was not fastened adequately. It's possible procedures can be improved to make this even less likely. But maybe not: people make mistakes. Sometimes someone signs the line saying that something was torqued and didn't realize they had torqued something different.
        trklausss 3y ago
        I am not presupposing anything, I am laying out a _possible_ scenario (see all the ifs?). I am just doubting safety procedures where followed as they should, which is the same thing the FAA is doing and that’s why they are investigating. If they were sure everything was fine, they wouldn’t do it. Doubting, and scrutiny in safety-critical environments is not a bad thing, it is what makes things safer. I won’t defend Delta nor Boeing until the FAA sees the t’s crossed and the i’s dotted, and neither should you.
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.

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.
- thfuran 3y ago
  No plane is going to remain airworthy for long without proper maintenance. Does that mean all planned should be retired immediately?
  - trklausss 3y ago
    I did not imply that, and what you are asking there is a fallacy. Maintenance is a core part of airworthiness, and the only way you can mitigate design flaws. But at the same time, if you had a running processor with a known side channel vulnerability, and you know the manufacturer doesn’t release a mitigation or doesn’t really care that much about security, would you still use it? Is the manufacturer liable for not releasing mitigations or not caring that much about security? If the airframe is not airworthy after inspections and there is no maintenance remedy that can be applied to it at an economical cost, then that airplane shall be scrapped… Even before it reaches the FAA. So in a way yes, if you can’t apply maintenance the way it is supposed to be, then it is not airworthy, and if the manufacturer does not release proper TNs to mitigate design flaws, then it is also not airworthy. I will wait to the report from the FAA and see what they find out.
    - mlyle 3y ago
      This is again presupposing a design or maintenance instruction flaw. There's a thousand of these aircraft, and they've each been through multiple D checks where all of this is completely disassembled and put back together; then there's other maintenance that causes disassembly and reassembly, too. In tens of thousands of opportunities, it looks like one time a wheel assembly was not fastened adequately. It's possible procedures can be improved to make this even less likely. But maybe not: people make mistakes. Sometimes someone signs the line saying that something was torqued and didn't realize they had torqued something different.
      - trklausss 3y ago
        I am not presupposing anything, I am laying out a _possible_ scenario (see all the ifs?). I am just doubting safety procedures where followed as they should, which is the same thing the FAA is doing and that’s why they are investigating. If they were sure everything was fine, they wouldn’t do it. Doubting, and scrutiny in safety-critical environments is not a bad thing, it is what makes things safer. I won’t defend Delta nor Boeing until the FAA sees the t’s crossed and the i’s dotted, and neither should you.

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.