[HN Gopher] Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to co...
___________________________________________________________________
Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window
crack
Author : 2-718-281-828
Score : 187 points
Date : 2024-01-13 14:25 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.channelnewsasia.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.channelnewsasia.com)
| eterm wrote:
| This is one of those stories that wouldn't be noticed if not for
| the attention on anything Boeing related right now. Instead it's
| near the top of the front-page.
|
| This hyper selective attention is very bad. It leads to all kinds
| of wrong inference about the background frequency of events,
| because suddenly when under the microscope we notice all kinds of
| things that would have previously gone unnoticed.
| adastra22 wrote:
| Well how often do cockpit windows of passenger aircraft crack?
| eropple wrote:
| From a 2022 report, trivially searched-for on Google:
|
| > According to the Federal Aviation Administration, more than
| three dozen instances of cracked windshields have been
| reported by airlines over the past five years.
|
| https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article260551697.html
| jbverschoor wrote:
| https://avherald.com/h?search_term=cracked+windshield&opt=1
| &...
|
| Most of them are Boeing it seems: 14x
| Airbus 35x Boeing 5x Bombardier 3x
| Embraer
| JimBlackwood wrote:
| Does Boeing also have more plans in service and/or more
| flights?
| discordance wrote:
| For a fair comparison, this should be measured against
| flight hours per manufacturer
| krallja wrote:
| Takeoff/landing cycles, actually. Cruising at high
| altitude is much less rough on the airframe (including
| windows) than the strains that happen when changing
| altitude.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| A quick search gave me 12K vs 10K planes. I couldn't find
| the actual hours or number of flights
| kube-system wrote:
| And until last year, most of the planes in the sky were
| also Boeing. And the Boeing planes in the sky, on
| average, are older.
| avereveard wrote:
| Blatantly Overlooked Engineering Inadequacies, Now
| Grounded
| jjulius wrote:
| A cursory Google suggests that it is not an uncommon
| occurrence.
| a12k wrote:
| This article from 2014, predating all of Boeing's recent
| failures, claims it is a regular occurrence and is also not
| always reported because it's a relatively minor thing to
| happen:
|
| https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140507001219-90103575-crack.
| ..
| brunohaid wrote:
| ~ weekly, globally.
| scrlk wrote:
| The most infamous incident with a cockpit window is probably
| British Airways Flight 5390. An incorrectly installed window
| blew out, causing one of the pilots to be partially ejected.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_5390
| sseagull wrote:
| Here's a link to an Aviation Herald search for "windshield
| crack". Looks like a lot of bird and hail, but also a fair
| number of them just cracking.
|
| https://avherald.com/h?search_term=windshield+crack&opt=0&do.
| ..
|
| There are lots of Boeing on there, but unsure what the ratio
| of Boeing to Airbus there are in service. Certainly some
| Airbus on there as well.
| hcs wrote:
| Since this involves a window I can't help but think of the
| windshield pitting epidemic,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seatt
| le_windshield_pitting_epi...
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| On the other hand, the hyper focus on Boeing might result in
| some actual change instead of more of the same as before.
| Perhaps a little of the stick to contrast with the carrot?
| williamcotton wrote:
| I wholeheartedly agree. They need to get an aerospace
| engineer back at CEO and not some MBA optimizing for
| quarterly reports.
|
| People are absolutely dying because of an incoherent
| understanding of the value chain. The decision to outsource
| may please Wall Street for three months but it certainly
| hurts the brand in the long term. Boeing is in the business
| of R&D and production. That's their value add. Fuck the
| investors, they're literally killing people!
| gvedem wrote:
| > Fuck the investors, they're literally killing people
|
| epitaph of the new century. from water that makes your
| teeth black to illegal drug trials in poor countries.
| corporations are amoral by design and we have to assume
| they will do literally anything to make a buck.
| gruez wrote:
| >from water that makes your teeth black
|
| ???
| chmod775 wrote:
| Tried to google it and found something about tap water
| with high iron content.
| NoZebra120vClip wrote:
| Fluoride is known to discolour teeth; also, inactive
| dental caries will turn dark, and most dentists will jump
| at the opportunity to drill that shit out.
| agumonkey wrote:
| It's a toxic relationship. "I fund you so I decide
| whether you matter or not"
| rpeden wrote:
| The previous CEO was an aerospace engineer. As was the CEO
| who moved the company's headquarters from Seattle to
| Chicago. So I'm not sure an engineering background is any
| guarantee they'll do better.
|
| But perhaps the company's recent problems will give an
| engineering-minded CEO a little more leverage to steer the
| company back toward engineering excellence, even in the
| face of pressure from the board and shareholders.
| dontupvoteme wrote:
| Perhaps the government should create a fund which
| guarantees a hefty reward for whistleblowers on aviation
| companies/airlines, enough that they don't need to fear for
| their own livelihood and can effectively retire without
| loss of income if they expose something significant.
|
| Apparently AF261 had a whistleblower who had to sue in
| court for damages. That's not correct, that's not how this
| should be done.
| shagie wrote:
| https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/faa-increase-
| oversight-...
|
| > Jan. 12, 2024, 8:07 AM CST / Updated Jan. 12, 2024, 8:54 PM
| CST
|
| > The Federal Aviation Administration will increase its
| oversight of Boeing production and manufacturing, the agency
| said Friday, one day after announcing it had opened an
| investigation.
|
| > The FAA says it will audit Boeing's 737 Max 9 production
| line and its suppliers "to evaluate Boeing's compliance with
| its approved quality procedures."
|
| > The results of the initial audit will determine whether
| additional audits are needed, the agency said.
|
| > "It is time to re-examine the delegation of authority and
| assess any associated safety risks," FAA Administrator Mike
| Whitaker said in a statement.
|
| > ...
|
| The linked statement: https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-
| increasing-oversight-boeing...
| rainsford wrote:
| Maybe, but if the perception is that they're going to get the
| stick no matter what they do, I'm not sure that creates much
| pressure or incentive to do the actually do the right thing.
|
| Either way, I don't think it's a net positive for us to
| choose to be less correctly informed about an issue or
| encourage the same in others, even if it's in pursuit of an
| otherwise worthwhile goal.
| Solvency wrote:
| It's a weird point to make. Does Boeing need your defense? In
| real life this is what happens. Bad students. Repeat offenders.
| Criminals. Neverdowellers. Their actions get spot lit and
| they're put under a microscope
|
| I don't see how making a stink over Boeing's constant little
| problems isn't a tiny cosmic balancing act against their
| decades of negligence.
| tekla wrote:
| Hysteria is hysteria.
| eterm wrote:
| I'm not defending Boeing. I've said elsewhere I wouldn't fly
| on a max.
|
| I'm attacking the way in which the media (and audience, the
| media is mostly just chasing ratings) gets obsessed about a
| topic to the exclusion of other stories, only to dramatically
| flip-flop around and completely dump a topic once it's bored
| of it.
| whynotmaybe wrote:
| Are you new here? (Jokingly...)
|
| I don't know what percentage of HN is about AI & LLM in the
| past few months but it's like nothing else important is
| happening in the ICT world.
| EGG_CREAM wrote:
| It's not just HN, you all seem to be upset with basic
| human nature here. Something happens, and then you notice
| related events more often because they feel more salient.
| You might as well be upset that people recognize
| patterns, it's just part of how people are wired.
| tiahura wrote:
| Some of us choose HN to receive our preciously minuscule
| free time on because we expect it to be of a higher
| signal to noise ratio than average.
| jsiepkes wrote:
| > This hyper selective attention is very bad.
|
| > because suddenly when under the microscope we notice all
| kinds of things that would have previously gone unnoticed.
|
| They knew that was a risk when they started cutting corners.
| Now they are paying the price. Can't say I feel for them. It's
| a nice deterrent.
| oneplane wrote:
| In the context of just Boeing, that makes sense.
|
| In the broader 'news' context, it's bad, because there are a
| crapton of things that really aren't as significant as they
| are made out to be to the layman. It's not a firehose we
| should be drinking from, instead, the most significant things
| are supposed to be selected by specialists so we have enough
| space in our heads to focus on things we choose to instead of
| just whatever happens to be getting firehosed at us.
|
| (you can probably elaborate the 'selected by specialists'
| with complete departments or even organisations that
| specialise in various things - the world is much too big and
| made of too many pieces for just some person or small team to
| do all the 'is this thing important' work for everything, and
| definitely not in a single outlet)
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| We don't in fact drink from the firehose. There are
| actually specialists who select what stories we are exposed
| to. The simple fact is that their incentives of politics
| and profits don't align with yours of general knowledge and
| a peaceful learned population, and what we see today is the
| end result of these incentives.
| sdenton4 wrote:
| Specialists who carefully wield their HN up votes to make
| sure you see stories like this one...
| tiahura wrote:
| Yep.
|
| Another example is the stranger kidnapping scare of the
| '80s.
|
| There's an unhealthy paradox at work: The rarer a highly
| emotional event occurs, the more media attention attention
| it gets. The more media attention something gets, the more
| people think it's actually common.
|
| Another example is police killing unarmed black men.
|
| Trying explaining to someone that something is in the news
| because it's rare is futile.
| cbhl wrote:
| AS1218 is probably not the cause of extra attention to
| airplanes _in Japan_.
|
| They had arguably much worse events on Jan 2 (landing JAL516
| A350 crashed into a earthquake relief Coast Guard DC-8 on
| landing; killed 5, and both aircraft caught fire).
| adastra22 wrote:
| Sure but that had nothing to do with the intrinsic safety
| engineering of either plane.
| eterm wrote:
| It's the cause of extra attention of "Hacker news" to this
| story, which otherwise wouldn't be paid much attention
| outside of regional news.
|
| Instead right now it's the #1 story on HN.
| mmaunder wrote:
| Agreed this is a nothingburger but the side effect of having a
| spotlight on Boeing is helpful. There are fundamental changes
| needed at Boeing to move the finance guys off the helm and move
| engineering back into leadership roles.
| sph wrote:
| This is how journalism and social media have been working in
| the Internet Age: keep bombarding people with the topic du jour
| because it sells (or it is easy HN karma), and then move onto
| the new thing.
|
| For many, like OP, Hacker News is the place to post random news
| that have nothing to do with computers or hacking. (I blame
| HN's vague and simplistic guidelines that allow "anything that
| our users might find interesting")
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| > Hacker News is the place to post random news that have
| nothing to do with computers or hacking.
|
| Thankfully. If HN was just posts about Docker or Web stacks I
| would have left a long time ago.
| nswest23 wrote:
| Covid?
| EGG_CREAM wrote:
| You're fighting human nature if you think people aren't going
| to be hyper attentive to things like this after the (latest)
| Max 9 incident. Also, it is not in any way "very bad." In fact,
| it's very good. Plane makers should believe one faulty decision
| could completely ruin them, that's how they should be attacking
| any engineering problems related to putting people in the air.
| Clearly Boeing's leadership is ok with putting profits before
| safety, they need to be shown there is no profit without
| extremely tight safety margins.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| >Plane makers should believe one faulty decision could
| completely ruin them
|
| In that case nothing will ever be done, improved or
| innovated. The optimal is close, but greater than zero on
| faulty decisions.
| lxgr wrote:
| Inaction/no decision is a decision too, although that idea
| is often a surprisingly hard sell in the media.
| PedroBatista wrote:
| Funny, because the broad non-attention is what lead us to the
| situation we are in now.
| Cacti wrote:
| Every single Boeing story here is filled with comments from
| Seattle tech people thinking they know something special about
| Seattle aerospace, but they don't, and they're completely
| unaware of this.
|
| Mostly it's people repeating their parents stories and they've
| never bothered to fact check them, or it's people who have
| never like Boeing doing military aircraft and simply shit on
| them for that.
|
| It has zero impact though outside of extending the ignorance of
| HN readers and promoting fear, uncertainty, and doubt. No one
| doing aerospace cares what HN thinks or even knows about HN for
| that matter.
| mihaaly wrote:
| They wanted to trade on the hyper selective attention and
| binding new and old very tightly together, but this thing has
| double edge, everyone knows it, they must eat what they cooked!
| They wanted the good ignoring the bad in their deliberate half
| blindness.
| dontupvoteme wrote:
| Even if it normally wouldn't be news, given the shitshow that
| the MAX is and how they're now trying to get MAX-10 certified,
| this might be a case of the media being a functionally broken
| clock.
|
| The FAA should have hell to pay if they certify it and this
| will put pressure on them, as at the end of the day they answer
| to the American public, even if boeing only answers to
| shareholders.
| bdcravens wrote:
| True, but we see the same cycle frequently. Apple keyboards,
| Teslas and FSD, Apple antennas, Samsung phones catching fire,
| etc, all created an environment where tangential stories
| received elevated attention.
| hindsightbias wrote:
| I measure societies by what they're hysterical about. It's the
| best measurement of character there is imo.
| callalex wrote:
| Kinda like how every train derailment was evidence of a failed
| society a few months ago and now nobody cares again.
| feverzsj wrote:
| Recent 737 accidents remind me of the famous Aloha Airlines
| Flight 243.
| Mainan_Tagonist wrote:
| As long as it doesn't remind us all of the ill fated JL123
| flight...
| ginko wrote:
| Reading the wikipedia page on that one is horrific.
| booleandilemma wrote:
| For the curious:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_Flight_123
| Mainan_Tagonist wrote:
| Indeed, i used to work for ANA, and my colleagues used to
| bring this up fromt time to time, with assorted creepy
| anecdotes. This disaster somehow struck a nerve in the
| Japanese psyche.
|
| There were even novels written on this topic with a
| boarding pass for flight 123 included as a bookmark.
| supernova87a wrote:
| "... _Flight 1182 was en route to Toyama airport but headed back
| to the Sapporo-New Chitose airport after the crack was found on
| the outermost of four layers of windows surrounding the cockpit,
| the spokesperson said_... "
|
| Hopefully people can tell routine maintenance issues from
| newsworthy improper design and implementation / manufacturing
| problems.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > Hopefully people can tell routine maintenance issues from
| newsworthy improper design and implementation / manufacturing
| problems.
|
| 100 upvotes and counting. There's your answer.
| tekla wrote:
| On HN? Never. This entire thread is proof of it.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| No reason to pretend like HN is some special noteworthy kind
| of echo chamber. You won't find any large online community
| where the majority reads more than the headline.
| drumhead wrote:
| Right now any bad news related to a 737 is fatal to the brand,
| regardless of how common or uncommon the incident may be.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Or the opposite. Now people will become desensitized and assume
| it's just more clickbait.
| dontupvoteme wrote:
| I think you underestimate how many people hold a dim view of
| (nu)boeing
| irrelative wrote:
| Or perhaps you overestimate how many people hold any view
| of Boeing at all.
| dontupvoteme wrote:
| They're fairly well known in europe after the MAX
| debacle, I don't know how it is stateside though.
| lolinder wrote:
| The plane in question was JA56AN [0], which according to
| PlaneSpotters.net was delivered in June 2009 [1]. Forbes [2]
| indicates that the service life of a fight deck window is ten
| years (it's not clear if that applies to the windshield as well
| as passenger windows)--if that's accurate, it's likely that this
| is completely unrelated to Boeing's significant manufacturing
| problems lately. Unfortunately for Boeing it doesn't matter,
| anything involving a 737 will get news coverage right now.
|
| [0] https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/nh1182
|
| [1]
| https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/boeing-737-800-ja56an...
|
| [2]
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2018/05/19/airplan...
| ta1243 wrote:
| Boeing made a business decision to brand a new model as a
| "737". They wanted to trade of the reputation of the 737.
| Instead they tarnished it.
| djha-skin wrote:
| Further, they allowed the old planes to tarnish the
| reputation of the new ones. If they had made of completely
| different brand name, then a 10-year-old 737 wouldn't get
| mixed up with a new plane.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| But its more like the opposite: the new MAX planes are
| tarnishing the reputation of the older ones. This one
| incident being a more standard problem that hasn't gotten
| much attention in the past.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Branding didn't really matter. The MAX had to be a 737 for
| certification and crew training.
|
| Boeing cut corners during development, MCAS. And it seems
| that they are cutting corners as well in manufacturing,
| supplier management and quality insurance.
|
| There is nothing to funny about any of that.
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| > The MAX had to be a 737 for certification and crew
| training.
|
| I don't believe that this is correct. They could have
| called it anything, it's the type rating that matters.
| onetimeuse92304 wrote:
| That's absolutely not true. 737 MAX IS 737, lengthened.
| It is not a completely new plane, it is not a plane that
| just accidentally or by design looks like 737. It IS 737,
| with slightly different behaviour because of the fact it
| is lengthened and it has engines moved.
|
| And the story of the MCAS is that Boeing needed this
| system to make 737 MAX to behave in entire envelope. But
| introducing new major system would require re-certifying
| pilots so the hid the fact, downplayed importance of it.
| Retric wrote:
| The point is they could have called it "Blueberry"
| instead of "737 MAX" and have it still share the same
| type rating as the 737.
|
| Which is perfectly reasonable as changing the branding
| alone isn't particularly meaningful from a safety,
| airworthiness, or training perspective.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > 737 MAX IS 737, lengthened.
|
| That wasn't under dispute. The question you responded to
| is whether they _had_ to use the 737 _brand_.
|
| And personally, I think that once you lengthen it and
| move the engine, it would not be weird at all to give it
| a different number. Even just 738 would give it better
| distinction than "MAX".
| zirgs wrote:
| > But introducing new major system would require re-
| certifying pilots so the hid the fact, downplayed
| importance of it.
|
| Is it typical to hide critical systems from pilots in the
| aviation industry? Or is only Boeing doing that?
| nearlyepic wrote:
| You're right on. For example, the 757 and 767 share a
| common type rating.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Boeing was trying to piggy back on existing 737
| certification. If they certified it as a new plane, the
| certification would be more extensive and the pilot
| training would be different (which could have been a
| better route given the size of the engines they installed
| on it).
| beowulfey wrote:
| they kept the 737 branding to indicate backwards
| compatibility with existing jetways so airlines wouldn't
| need to upgrade other equipment.
| mihaaly wrote:
| True. I augmented the 737-800 with MAX in my head incorrectly
| reading the title first, corrected later on reading the
| article, will need to work on erasing this story from the MAX
| list in my head.
|
| They wanted to trade on the wake of the 737 so badly they
| ruined it big for the generic audience (those paying for it
| by buying tickets).
|
| I almost said they wish they did not use 737 and make a new
| aircraft instead but of course they give no f, not at all,
| top managers care about the coming year or two only, the top
| salary and bonuses, thats it, the rest could sink or die for
| them. They will go on elsewhere ruining something completely
| else for the rest of us. Prosper and thrive regardless of the
| wreck caused and others will let it without comparable
| consequences.
| steve1977 wrote:
| I think the problem was rather that they did _not_ actually
| develop a new model, but instead pimped their existing one to
| compete with Airbus neo variants.
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| I don't understand why the service life is relevant here,
| unless ANA wasn't maintaining their planes properly which I
| doubt is the case given the reputation of this airline.
| lolinder wrote:
| I included it because in theory it shows that the windshield
| was either overdue for replacement or it wasn't an original
| windshield, so it's not evidence of failure on Boeing's part
| in the initial manufacture of the plane.
|
| Admittedly, I don't know much about how maintenance works for
| these planes, so there could be something I'm missing.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I'd wait with any judgment until the inevitable
| investigation has run its course because there are just as
| many ways in which it could be a Boeing issue as there are
| ways in which it can't. Anything specific about this
| failure is right now mostly speculation. Also, and maybe
| surprisingly to some, cracked cockpit windows are not a big
| deal as long as they stay in place until the landing
| because they are multi-layered and ridiculously strong to
| begin with.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _or it wasn 't an original windshield_
|
| Put another way, it's a recently-fabricated windshield.
| Which could be read as it being less resilient than the
| original.
|
| That's not how I'm reading it, absent further information.
| L
| Morte42 wrote:
| I would imagine the windshield is a recently manufactured
| replacement rather than the original article. There was a more
| recent 787 that suffered from a cracked windshield last
| December in London too.
|
| The thing that really surprises me is that the regulatory
| bodies arent catching this stuff either, safety standards are
| not mutable.
| lolinder wrote:
| It also happened in April 2022 on a Bombardier CRJ-700 [0]
| and in October 2020 on an Airbus A319 [1]. After the 2022
| incident the local newspaper reported that it had happened
| more than three dozen times in the previous five years. If
| Boeing is disproportionately represented in those stats
| that's one thing, but so far I don't see any reason to
| believe they are.
|
| [0]
| https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article260551697.html
|
| [1] https://thepointsguy.com/news/smashed-windshield-how-
| pilots-...
| diggan wrote:
| > if that's accurate, it's likely that this is completely
| unrelated to Boeing's significant manufacturing problems
| lately.
|
| I'm not sure how "recent" lately is referring to here, but it
| seems Boeing have had engineering/manufacturing issues for
| quite some time.
|
| About the 787 Dreamliner:
|
| > Early 787 operations encountered several problems caused
| mainly by its lithium-ion batteries, which culminated in fires
| onboard some aircraft. In January 2013, the U.S. FAA grounded
| all 787s until it approved the revised battery design in April
| 2013. Significant quality control issues from 2019 onwards
| caused a production slowdown and, from January 2021 until
| August 2022, an almost total cessation of deliveries.
|
| Maybe it's just finally catching up with them?
| hx8 wrote:
| > Boeing moved its corporate headquarters [there] in 2001
| when they opted to leave Seattle for Chicago.
|
| It's been going downhill since management physical separated
| itself from engineering/production.
| notahacker wrote:
| Cockpit windows are also manufactured by a third party
| specialist glass company (i.e. PPG Aerospace, not Boeing), cost
| about the same as a new car precisely because they get subject
| to the sort of stress that is inclined to break a layer, and
| subject to regular inspection. Plus in this case it appears the
| other layers of the window did their job and avoided anything
| more than an annoyingly expensive but routine return to base.
| eastbound wrote:
| So in summary, Boeings break down like MacDonnells[1], but
| it's not Boeing's fault, it's the fault of the entire
| ecosystem, but not Boeing, just everyone involved with
| Boeing, we get it. Entire denial of ownership of problems
| should be patented as a business model. So that no other
| manufacturer can copy it for 20 years.
|
| [1] McDonnell planes were known for falling apart, doors
| flying in the air, lengthened planes which didn't adapt the
| airframe for the new length, or just pieces falling off.
| Remember the Concorde getting pierced in the fuel tanks by a
| metal frame dropped on the airstrip by the previous plane and
| crashing into a hotel? Yup, it was a piece that fell off a
| McDonnell.
| lolinder wrote:
| Their point is that cracked windshields are neither
| uncommon nor (typically) dangerous. They happen regularly
| across all manufacturers and have redundancy in place to
| make sure they don't hurt anyone.
|
| Boeing has a lot of problems, more so than other
| manufacturers, but this isn't a good example.
| notahacker wrote:
| no, in summary, airframers all contract out their
| windshields to the same few specialists, whose replacements
| are routinely retrofitted without OEM involvement, and
| cracks developing in a windshield designed to be resilient
| to a crack developing in one of the layers is not an
| unexpected phenomenon.
|
| (And fwiw the bit that fell off the DC-10 that the
| unlawfully overloaded Concorde ran over was an engine part
| on a GE engine incorrectly retrofitted [twice] by Bedek and
| Continental respectively shortly before it detached, so
| it'd be difficult to imagine anything that had less to do
| with the half of the airframe OEM that didn't design the
| the non-engine parts that didn't fall off over quarter of a
| century earlier. Might as well get angry at Bill Gates for
| air traffic control failures)
| smdyc1 wrote:
| Window cracking isn't uncommon. Cockpit windows are typically
| made of layers of acrylic glass sandwiched together, with
| heating elements in the middle. They are exposed to incredible
| forces, the forward airflow on the outside, positive pressure
| from the inside, cold on the outside and warmer on the inside,
| then there's the internal temp when the anti icing elements are
| on. And despite all of this, they're so strong that a crack can
| be discovered on one side and the aircraft can still be safely
| landed.
| 35mm wrote:
| It sometimes feels dishonest whenever an event is published in
| the news without having the typical frequency of occurrence.
| pcurve wrote:
| This happened a few times to 737.
|
| With picture
| https://twitter.com/HawaiiNewsNow/status/1658175996925734912
|
| Another one. https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Avelo-
| flight-from-Tw...
|
| It's not specific to 737. 787 also had a bunch of cracked pilot
| window issues not related to external impact.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eemw9RNkU_k
| rootusrootus wrote:
| It's also not specific to Boeing. All airplanes get cracked
| windows sometimes.
| cqqxo4zV46cp wrote:
| Here we go. The inevitable mainstream media freak-outs over the
| usual background noise of airplane issues. This is how I know my
| YouTube recommendations are going to be extra awful for a while.
| bmitc wrote:
| Big deal. It's Boeing's fault. Maybe they and the airlines
| shouldn't have defrauded the public and regulators. If they
| hadn't, this would indeed be in the background noise.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| We've now reached the stage where every non-story is interesting
| because it has "Boeing" in the headline. While you think this
| hurts Boeing's reputation, I'm not at all sure that's how it
| plays out. It desensitizes people and reminds them that the news
| is just about clicks and outrage. Then they'll not be paying much
| attention if there is _real_ newsworthy revelations.
|
| The fact that it's getting so many upvotes on HN is kind of sad,
| but not unexpected.
| 1letterunixname wrote:
| Are you a Boeing stock owner? The buzz is deserved because 20
| documented, serious deficiencies in the 737 MAX have escaped
| widespread press. Furthermore, few people are aware of the 737
| NG Ducommun scandal. The rot at Boeing stretches back to the
| 90's.
| 1letterunixname wrote:
| FYI: 737 NGs were also manufactured shoddily says whistleblowers
| from 20 years ago. Bear straps and other falsely approved,
| deficient structural components were beaten into place with
| hammers on the assembly line ("preloaded"). There have been 3 737
| NG accidents where people died because the fuselage broke up when
| 737 Classic fuselages would've survived similar scenarios.
| inejge wrote:
| This made the news only because of Boeing's current troubles with
| the MAX9. They richly deserve the scrutiny for _that_ blunder,
| but cracked windshields on aircraft are not all that uncommon. A
| step above anecdotal, but if you go to the Aviation Herald and
| search for "cracked windshield"[1], the first page of results
| covers about a year and has sixty-something entries. About half
| are Boeing aircraft, but again, this is not rigorous, because
| Avherald doesn't cover everything (but please, support them if
| you can; they are a great resource.)
|
| [1]
| https://avherald.com/h?search_term=cracked+windshield&opt=0&...
| roamerz wrote:
| When I see that the plane has been in service for 30 years and
| has a cracked windshield I think less about the age of the glass
| and more about the rigidity of the airframe. Seems that as a
| plane ages out it would tend to stress those types of parts more.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| How many buildings collapse in the world daily? How many catch
| fire and burn to the ground?
|
| How many trucks and cars self combust or lose a wheel?
|
| How many trains derail out of the tracks?
|
| Aviation people and regulators are so paranoid, they hold a
| chokehold on global economic growth, maybe only nuclear
| regulators causes more GDP and quality of life losses.
|
| Instead of grounding them or demolishing them send these plane to
| Africa, they will take them
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-13 23:01 UTC)