3 ms·

> It was an issue with the CFM engine, Not with anything Boeing did. The engine cowling was made by Boeing and was supposed to stay on when the engine lost fan

by kayfox 3y ago

> It was an issue with the CFM engine, Not with anything Boeing did. The engine cowling was made by Boeing and was supposed to stay on when the engine lost fan blades, the cowling was what struck the side of the aircraft and broke the window in question. Boeing is redesigning the 737 cowlings to better respond to blade out failures.

stouset 3y ago
Turns out you’re correct. The engine is a CFM, but the cowling (which is supposed to contain ejected fan blades) is designed by the airframe manufacturer. In this case, Boeing. TIL! Chalk one death up to a Boeing design in the last 21 years.
- sagarm 3y ago
  You've excluded the >300 deaths from the two 737 MAX crashes.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    The poster upthread was specifically talking about deaths on airlines that operate in the US. Whether or not that's a useful distinction to make is up for grabs (I expect the point was to talk about flights that most Americans are likely to take -- and by extension most Europeans, since I believe EU airline safety records are similar), but excluding those deaths is fair based on the specifics cited.
- hedora 3y ago
  If you choose criteria that arbitrarily exclude all fatal accidents after the fact, then anything can be said to be 100% safe.
  - stouset 3y ago
    I chose criteria that reflects the reality of passenger air travel for most of HN. You can note that every carrier in the U.S. who purchased a 737 MAX opted for a more expensive configuration that included a third AOA sensor. This ensured that the MCAS accidents would not have happened for anyone flying on a major carrier in the US. I suspect this is also the case for most western European airlines, but I don't actually know. So I didn't include them. The majority of HN's user base is not spending most of their air travel on carriers operating on shoestring budgets in Africa or Southeast Asia. They are not flying most of their miles on charters run by operators with fleets of ten planes that carry a dozen or two passengers at most. They are not flying on ancient de Havillands or Grummans. They are not passengers on cargo planes. The majority of HN's user base is flying on comparatively well-funded carriers operating within jurisdictions that enforce strict controls around maintenance, pilot training, crew workload, and other wider operational considerations. This doesn't make flying risk-free, and it doesn't absolve Boeing of their responsibility in building reliable aircraft. But it does mean that the average HN commenter encounters significantly more danger crossing the street than they do when flying.

by kayfox 3y ago

stouset 3y ago

Turns out you’re correct. The engine is a CFM, but the cowling (which is supposed to contain ejected fan blades) is designed by the airframe manufacturer. In this case, Boeing. TIL! Chalk one death up to a Boeing design in the last 21 years.

sagarm 3y ago
You've excluded the >300 deaths from the two 737 MAX crashes.
- kelnos 3y ago
  The poster upthread was specifically talking about deaths on airlines that operate in the US. Whether or not that's a useful distinction to make is up for grabs (I expect the point was to talk about flights that most Americans are likely to take -- and by extension most Europeans, since I believe EU airline safety records are similar), but excluding those deaths is fair based on the specifics cited.
hedora 3y ago
If you choose criteria that arbitrarily exclude all fatal accidents after the fact, then anything can be said to be 100% safe.
- stouset 3y ago
  I chose criteria that reflects the reality of passenger air travel for most of HN. You can note that every carrier in the U.S. who purchased a 737 MAX opted for a more expensive configuration that included a third AOA sensor. This ensured that the MCAS accidents would not have happened for anyone flying on a major carrier in the US. I suspect this is also the case for most western European airlines, but I don't actually know. So I didn't include them. The majority of HN's user base is not spending most of their air travel on carriers operating on shoestring budgets in Africa or Southeast Asia. They are not flying most of their miles on charters run by operators with fleets of ten planes that carry a dozen or two passengers at most. They are not flying on ancient de Havillands or Grummans. They are not passengers on cargo planes. The majority of HN's user base is flying on comparatively well-funded carriers operating within jurisdictions that enforce strict controls around maintenance, pilot training, crew workload, and other wider operational considerations. This doesn't make flying risk-free, and it doesn't absolve Boeing of their responsibility in building reliable aircraft. But it does mean that the average HN commenter encounters significantly more danger crossing the street than they do when flying.