8 ms·

>The FAA said the inspections will take between four and eight hours per plane. Seems reasonable. I was wondering if a single event should really be enough to

>The FAA said the inspections will take between four and eight hours per plane. Seems reasonable. I was wondering if a single event should really be enough to "ground" all similar planes, but seems like they just want to do a quick inspection.

0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
It was a catastrophic failure of a two month old plane. I think grounding is warranted until the scope of the problem is understood.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- vlovich123 3y ago
  Yeah especially given the public trust the FAA needs to rebuild after it came out how Boeing got the 737 certified in the first place. It’s an unmitigated shit show top to bottom.
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    > 737 You mean 737MAX. The 737 and 737NG have been around for decades (almost 60 years for the 737, almost 30 for the 737NG). IIRC the 737NG has a reasonable case for being the safest airliner ever built. There are some designs that have no fatalities, but they also have very low production numbers to go with it.
    - panarky 3y ago
      > safest airliner ever built ... very low production numbers If one model has 5 million flight hours and zero crashes, and another model has 500 million flight hours and 50 crashes, is it possible to say which model is safer?
      - dahdum 3y ago
        I’ll take the one with 50 crashes any time. That’s 50 times something went catastrophically wrong and 50 times measures were taken to fix the underlying problems. A brand new plane will undoubtedly have brand new problems.
        Zetobal 3y ago
        Until 1980-1990 I would completely agree but with the more recent history of basically everything I am not so sure anymore.
        lostlogin 3y ago
        What has been done by Boeing that makes you feel that they have fixed everything up and that safety is their top priority? They seem more keen on getting legislative change and regulation bypass or exemption.
        Dah00n 3y ago
        I'm not sure if I agree or not, but my thinking were that it wouldn't reach great safety by upgrades until long after it became too expensive for Boeing and would instead be replaced with a new model.
        panarky 3y ago
        The point is that commercial aviation is so extraordinarily safe, that mechanical failures that result in fatalities are too rare to determine if a model with 5 million flight hours is more or less safe than another model with 500 million flight hours. Zero fatalities does not mean the aircraft is statistically safer unless it has an order of magnitude more flight hours.
        ric2b 3y ago
        I think this is the wrong take, for the following reasons: - There is no reason to assume that the learnings from the 50 crashes weren't also applied to the newer model. In fact you'd expect that they all were. - Faults in a new design are likely to be front-loaded, meaning most of the crashes would have happened earlier than later. Therefore the new model seems to be a much safer design if it flew 10% of the miles without even 10% of the crashes (actually 0%).
- lostlogin 3y ago
  > I think grounding is warranted until the scope of the problem is understood. If the problem is the whole model or ‘Boeing’, both of which seem possible, what then?
  - JonChesterfield 3y ago
    If Boeing is necessary for national defence and no longer knows how to build aircraft, drastic action is needed by the US government on a very short timeframe to get their shit together. War is a thing. In the meantime it's hard to disagree with the sentiment elsewhere in this thread that flying with airbus seems a better idea.
jahewson 3y ago
Of course it should. This is a manufacturing defect that could easily have sucked someone out the plane or dropped debris on someone’s head. Should it happen during cruise over water the consequences could be much worse.
- lokar 3y ago
  It seems to have ripped the shirt off the person in the middle seat.
Rapzid 3y ago
> We can do it in two! Boeing probably.
- dpkirchner 3y ago
  And if we can't, is there some way we can blame the pilots? Maintenance crew? Anyone but business leadership?
alwa 3y ago
A single explosive decompression event, comprising the spontaneous loss of an assembly the size of an entire exit door, two months off the factory floor? I should certainly hope they’d take a gander at the others before I’d sit next to one. Especially with the memory of the last time they chose to keep flying 737 MAXes instead of fixing the defect in the rest of the fleet, at the cost of 157 lives, not even 5 years ago.
- nerdponx 3y ago
  Let's also consider just how much worse this situation could have been. The door panel blew out next to the one seat that happened to be unoccupied, and it happened at 16,000 ft instead of 26,000 ft.
  - alwa 3y ago
    And even so, sucked the shirt right off the boy in the middle seat! I shudder to imagine how things would have gone 20 minutes further in to the flight.
    - siva7 3y ago
      Almost certainly a fatal crash if they were a few minutes later into the flight
      - akpa1 3y ago
        No it's not. Crews are trained for decompression events and they've happened at higher altitudes than 26,000 feet before with no airframe loss at all (for example, the Southwest 737-700 where a fan blade ruptured the window happened at 33,000 feet). It may likely have been a fatal incident but definitely not likely a crash.
  - ponector 3y ago
    Not a big difference if everyone was with fastened seat belt. There is a real story of another 737 of Aloha Airlines flight 243 where part of the fuselage blown away together with unlucky flight attendant at 24000 feet: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/falling-to-pieces-the-near-crash-of-aloha-airlines-flight-243-18f28c03f27b https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/falling-to-pieces-the-ne...
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
It was only dumb luck that no one got killed because the adjacent seats were empty. To give you some idea, a teenager seated across the aisle had his shirt completely torn off.
- stretchwithme 3y ago
  His mother held on to him to keep him from getting suck out too.

0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago

It was a catastrophic failure of a two month old plane. I think grounding is warranted until the scope of the problem is understood.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
vlovich123 3y ago
Yeah especially given the public trust the FAA needs to rebuild after it came out how Boeing got the 737 certified in the first place. It’s an unmitigated shit show top to bottom.
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  > 737 You mean 737MAX. The 737 and 737NG have been around for decades (almost 60 years for the 737, almost 30 for the 737NG). IIRC the 737NG has a reasonable case for being the safest airliner ever built. There are some designs that have no fatalities, but they also have very low production numbers to go with it.
  - panarky 3y ago
    > safest airliner ever built ... very low production numbers If one model has 5 million flight hours and zero crashes, and another model has 500 million flight hours and 50 crashes, is it possible to say which model is safer?
    - dahdum 3y ago
      I’ll take the one with 50 crashes any time. That’s 50 times something went catastrophically wrong and 50 times measures were taken to fix the underlying problems. A brand new plane will undoubtedly have brand new problems.
      - Zetobal 3y ago
        Until 1980-1990 I would completely agree but with the more recent history of basically everything I am not so sure anymore.
      - lostlogin 3y ago
        What has been done by Boeing that makes you feel that they have fixed everything up and that safety is their top priority? They seem more keen on getting legislative change and regulation bypass or exemption.
      - Dah00n 3y ago
        I'm not sure if I agree or not, but my thinking were that it wouldn't reach great safety by upgrades until long after it became too expensive for Boeing and would instead be replaced with a new model.
      - panarky 3y ago
        The point is that commercial aviation is so extraordinarily safe, that mechanical failures that result in fatalities are too rare to determine if a model with 5 million flight hours is more or less safe than another model with 500 million flight hours. Zero fatalities does not mean the aircraft is statistically safer unless it has an order of magnitude more flight hours.
      - ric2b 3y ago
        I think this is the wrong take, for the following reasons: - There is no reason to assume that the learnings from the 50 crashes weren't also applied to the newer model. In fact you'd expect that they all were. - Faults in a new design are likely to be front-loaded, meaning most of the crashes would have happened earlier than later. Therefore the new model seems to be a much safer design if it flew 10% of the miles without even 10% of the crashes (actually 0%).
lostlogin 3y ago
> I think grounding is warranted until the scope of the problem is understood. If the problem is the whole model or ‘Boeing’, both of which seem possible, what then?
- JonChesterfield 3y ago
  If Boeing is necessary for national defence and no longer knows how to build aircraft, drastic action is needed by the US government on a very short timeframe to get their shit together. War is a thing. In the meantime it's hard to disagree with the sentiment elsewhere in this thread that flying with airbus seems a better idea.

jahewson 3y ago

Of course it should. This is a manufacturing defect that could easily have sucked someone out the plane or dropped debris on someone’s head. Should it happen during cruise over water the consequences could be much worse.

lokar 3y ago
It seems to have ripped the shirt off the person in the middle seat.

Rapzid 3y ago

> We can do it in two! Boeing probably.

dpkirchner 3y ago
And if we can't, is there some way we can blame the pilots? Maintenance crew? Anyone but business leadership?

alwa 3y ago

A single explosive decompression event, comprising the spontaneous loss of an assembly the size of an entire exit door, two months off the factory floor? I should certainly hope they’d take a gander at the others before I’d sit next to one. Especially with the memory of the last time they chose to keep flying 737 MAXes instead of fixing the defect in the rest of the fleet, at the cost of 157 lives, not even 5 years ago.

nerdponx 3y ago
Let's also consider just how much worse this situation could have been. The door panel blew out next to the one seat that happened to be unoccupied, and it happened at 16,000 ft instead of 26,000 ft.
- alwa 3y ago
  And even so, sucked the shirt right off the boy in the middle seat! I shudder to imagine how things would have gone 20 minutes further in to the flight.
  - siva7 3y ago
    Almost certainly a fatal crash if they were a few minutes later into the flight
    - akpa1 3y ago
      No it's not. Crews are trained for decompression events and they've happened at higher altitudes than 26,000 feet before with no airframe loss at all (for example, the Southwest 737-700 where a fan blade ruptured the window happened at 33,000 feet). It may likely have been a fatal incident but definitely not likely a crash.
- ponector 3y ago
  Not a big difference if everyone was with fastened seat belt. There is a real story of another 737 of Aloha Airlines flight 243 where part of the fuselage blown away together with unlucky flight attendant at 24000 feet: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/falling-to-pieces-the-near-crash-of-aloha-airlines-flight-243-18f28c03f27b https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/falling-to-pieces-the-ne...

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago

It was only dumb luck that no one got killed because the adjacent seats were empty. To give you some idea, a teenager seated across the aisle had his shirt completely torn off.

stretchwithme 3y ago
His mother held on to him to keep him from getting suck out too.