Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
Sure, but even without working for them I can do math and have a sensible opinion about public safety. Our tax dollars are keeping them afloat right now.
Boeing Names Independent Quality Review Leader (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter MIflyer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Sure, but even without working for them I can do math and have a sensible opinion about public safety. Our tax dollars are keeping them afloat right now.
No the Defense sector is keeping them alive.
Point still remains, culture starts at the top, and the ones driving it before are gone. Its night and day…
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
Which is paid for ... by ... ?
Right, us taxpayers. You're making my point in writing this.
My point is that I will await results. I'm an evidence-based guy. I doubt such a miniscule penalty will impart a serious message. You clearly don't agree. We'll see. I personally think the marketplace will have much more money and therefore sway in how Boeing copes.
Good point…
I'm saying change is thankfully happening with or without the penalty. I'm living it…
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
As I've already written, I hope you're right.Good point…
I'm saying change is thankfully happening with or without the penalty. I'm living it…
Admiral Beez
Major
Yikes. I hope for Boeing's sake that window was re-installed by Ryan Air's people rather than an original factory install. The article below suggests engine parts may have impacted the window. Always wear your seatbelts people.
www.bbc.com
Man nearly sucked out of window mid-air on Ryanair plane, passengers say
The man's wife held onto his legs for around five minutes to stop him from being sucked out, officials say.
www.bbc.com
Boeing has no fault in this incident. Seriously, it's starting to get old…
1. The aircraft was built in 2008. It's flown safely for 18 years.
2. Its maintained by the airlines MRO or third party MRO, not Boeing.
3. The window was damaged by parts from an un-contained engine failure. Pieces of the engine impacted the window.
1. The aircraft was built in 2008. It's flown safely for 18 years.
2. Its maintained by the airlines MRO or third party MRO, not Boeing.
3. The window was damaged by parts from an un-contained engine failure. Pieces of the engine impacted the window.
Oh look, this is why we don't just start pointing fingers because its the popular narrative…
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,306
- Jun 25, 2013
If it was a blade failure, there is a serious problem: those are supposed to be contained within the engine.
Not necessarily, especially if the engine ingested FOD.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,306
- Jun 25, 2013
Having bits flung into the airframe probably violates the "orderly shutdown" criterion.
Having been in the business of airplane vulnerability at MAC/Boeing for many years, I should point out that there's a big difference between a blade failure and a disk failure. The latter is a huge massive chunk of metal, the former by comparison is tiny. FAR 33.19 only covers blade failures, and blade containment measures won't stop a disintegrating disk. I don't know that that's what happened in this particular case, I just wanted to say that there are 2 different failure modes that could be in play in this and other similar incidents.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,306
- Jun 25, 2013
From my (likely outdated) memory of the FARs (the JARs are similar), disc failures aren't expected to be contained. Having seen the results of one (the test cell's thick reinforced concrete walls survived, but had some truly astounding chunks removed), I think it's unlikely anybody would ever try with a flight engine.
We've seen what a disc failure in flight can do with UA232 in July 1989. This also indicates one should keep flight-critical hardware as far from the plane of rotation as practical.
Admiral Beez
Major
That one I get, but what of fuselage cracks? Is that also the fault of Boeing's customers?
FAA orders crack inspections for hundreds of Boeing 737 Max jets
The Federal Aviation Administration orders inspections for hundreds of Boeing planes, following reports of cracks in some older models.
apnews.com
Boeing 737 Max operators told to check fuselages for cracks
Inspections ordered by US regulator will affect about 470 aircraft, after reported problems in earlier models
Structures that are loaded and unloaded will begin to show fatigue issues no matter who made the airplane. That's the whole reason why inspections are mandated, to catch them while they're still small and can be corrected. It's just that Boeing is in a lot of people's crosshairs and it's easier to generate clicks on stories that perpetuate its name in connection with issues. How many people remember that just a couple of months ago A380s were found to have wing cracks? Or that similar cracks had been found in A380 wings all the way back in 2019? Or door cracks affecting nearly 2,000 A320s last year? That wasn't just some isolated problem; the FAA has been going back and forth with Airbus for over 25 years about fatigue cracking around fastener holes, frames, fuselage structure on A319, A320, and A321 aircraft. Here are the directives; why isn't anyone flashing headlines about Airbus?That one I get, but what of fuselage cracks? Is that also the fault of Boeing's customers?
FAA orders crack inspections for hundreds of Boeing 737 Max jets
The Federal Aviation Administration orders inspections for hundreds of Boeing planes, following reports of cracks in some older models.Boeing 737 Max operators told to check fuselages for cracks
Inspections ordered by US regulator will affect about 470 aircraft, after reported problems in earlier modelswww.theguardian.com
2000 — FAA AD 2000‑12‑04
2014 — FAA AD 2014‑15‑16
2022 — FAA AD 2022‑14‑10
2024 — FAA AD 2024‑05‑02
2025–2026 — FAA Proposed AD 2025‑01379 / 2026‑08594
It's just more trendy to focus on Boeing.
Last edited:
That one I get, but what of fuselage cracks? Is that also the fault of Boeing's customers?
FAA orders crack inspections for hundreds of Boeing 737 Max jets
The Federal Aviation Administration orders inspections for hundreds of Boeing planes, following reports of cracks in some older models.Boeing 737 Max operators told to check fuselages for cracks
Inspections ordered by US regulator will affect about 470 aircraft, after reported problems in earlier models
Cracks can happen in any aircraft made by anyone…
Are you naive enough to think that Airbus's don't get cracks?
Its actually common because of the forces subjected on the fuselage during pressurization cycles. You do understand how pressurization works, right? And its normal for the regulatory bodies to require inspections when found.
December 2025 - The FAA ordered inspections on 2000 Airbus A320s because door fastener cracks. Did you call out Airbus for that?
March 2025 - FAA issues AD to inspect A319 and A320 forward bulkheads for cracks. Where is your thread and witch hunt for that?
June 2026 - EASA orders A380 wing spars inspected for cracks. How about that one…
Now knock it off with the witch hunt. It's beyond tiresome…
