3 ms·
At the bottom of the article: "a Boeing 737-38J, an aircraft that was delivered in the 1990s". So almost certainly a maintenance problem, not a manufacturing de
by sp332 2y ago
At the bottom of the article: "a Boeing 737-38J, an aircraft that was delivered in the 1990s". So almost certainly a maintenance problem, not a manufacturing defect.
- Aardwolf 2y agoI'm wondering if the media is picking up any boeing related incident and ignoring minor airbus/others incidents, or the situation of boeing is truly this stark
- cowsup 2y agoIt reminds me of the train derailment stories last year, soon after the disastrous one in Ohio. Trains apparently derail quite often, but it was on everyone’s mind, so any outlet that posted about a more mundane derailment was rewarded with clicks.
- ceejayoz 2y agoPrecisely this. There's a thousand train derailments in the US annually; most incredibly minor. For a few weeks they all made the news.
- muldvarp 2y agoThe media is picking up any Boeing related incident and it is ignoring other incidents. Most of the incidents I read about in the last weeks had nothing at all to do with Boeing as a company.
- zoidb 2y agoyeah the media absolutely is. this is the copycat effect (maybe there is a better name for it?) but essentially this you can see in media all the time whenever there is a big story.
- tmaly 2y agoIf it bleeds it leads. They are most definitely exploiting cognitive biases to get eyeballs on their stories.
- rainsford 2y agoMaybe even more to the point, this particular plane was built during what even modern Boeing detractors consider the glory days of Boeing as an engineering company run by engineers. If this incident really was the fault of Boeing, which seems unlikely, it hardly fits the theory that Boeing was more recently ruined by MBAs.
- bluGill 2y agoNot even a maintenance issue (though it probably wasn't maintained well) - this airplane is 10 years past the safe life span and should have been scrapped long ago. Sure it flies, but metal fatigue builds up over time and eventually something serious will break. Since airplane failures tend to be catastrophic and we cannot know how bad it is on any particular airplane Boeing gives conservative estimates for how long it will last - even in the worst case the 737 is safe to fly longer than the 20 years Boeing gives - but nobody has any idea for how much longer - could be 1 year could be 30 years. Which is why airlines where safety isn't a concern can get by with flying planes well past their end of life date. However this airplane has been living on borrowed time and should not have been on the runway. No amount of maintenance will fix the problem. (only a complete rebuild with all new parts could - cheaper to buy a new airplane from Boeing even at Africa labor rates)
- notahacker 2y agoThe metal fatigue issue is a solved problem with life limited parts and maintenance check intervals, and whilst African airlines might cut some maintenance corners, they won't have missed a D check or major engine overhaul Quite normal for passenger jets to last over 20 years, Northwest was flying 40 year old DC-9s in the US not that long ago, and the reason for retiring them is that their lower efficiency means they're worth less than the cost of the necessary overhauls, not that the maintenance can't be done.
- bluGill 2y agoDC9 was made of different materials from the 737 and so has a different lifespan.
- notahacker 2y agoThey're of similar construction, and it's categorically false that the 737 classic had a maximum 20 year lifespan or they're living on borrowed time after that. They're routinely operated as cargo aircraft in the United States, just like many other older jet aircraft (for reasons of operating economics, not safety)