this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
278 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

58061 readers
31 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
278
Boeing 737 Max planes are grounded after a hole blew in one mid-flight (www.theverge.com)
submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Boeing 737 Max planes are grounded after a hole blew in one mid-flight::The FAA ordered that 171 Boeing 737 Max 9 planes be inspected before they can return to service following the explosive decompression of an Alaska Airlines flight.

all 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 106 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Their fixes don't seem to have altered the fundamental problems with the Boeing 737 Max:

  • the new engines are too big for the frame, so they've had to move them up and forward, which makes the plane pitch up at high thrust (which is what the now infamous MCAS attempted to mask with software)
  • Boeing self-certified it as safe, claiming that it was a small, incremental change and so didn't need testing or additional pilot training
  • Boeing rushed out an unsafe design because they were scared of losing money to Airbus's A320neo

I have to fly several times a year and try to choose Airbus over Boeing whenever possible, and I flat out refuse to fly on the 737 Max. This news certainly doesn't make me feel like I was overreacting.

[–] [email protected] 72 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Boeing killed ~~over 600~~ 346 people after continuously lying to regulators and airlines around the world for like 2+ years. Most of the senior leadership and upper management — everyone who knew about the fraud and deception — should be serving life sentences. Instead they suffered minor financial damages and the CEO got a golden handshake.

Just another reminder that we all live in capitalist kleptocracies masquerading as democracies.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 8 months ago (3 children)

I find it difficult to know if my flight will avoid 737 Max, so I've been avoiding airlines that have them in their fleet. Unfortunately, British Airways recently rebooked me onto an Alaska Airlines, and sure enough, it was a Max 8. Sometimes you just can't win.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Well, lucky for you, Alaska grounded their 737 MAX fleet a few days ago, so you won’t be flying on them if your trip is anytime soon.

Edit: I didn’t realize they were getting them back into service so quickly… oops 😬

Edit 2: bon chance mon ami

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

It was reported earlier today that 18 were already back in service after completing inspections, and the remaining inspections would be completed in the coming days.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago

Most of Canada's airlines' domestic commuter fleet use 737 Max 8s. The best option would be to pick Porter Airlines if you were deadset on not getting 737s.

[–] [email protected] 58 points 8 months ago (2 children)

They really screwed the pooch with the 737 max9.. it's like the gift that keeps on giving.

I think internal documents and communication should be seized and a federal criminal investigation is in order.. someone must have actively fucked with this.

Embrear and Airbus are uncorking the champagne now probably.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago (2 children)

someone must have actively fucked with this.

Hanlon's Razor says otherwise. I'm going to guess this was because of cut corners. Not someone trying to sabotage an entire line of aircraft.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think he means an executive was actively cutting corners.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 8 months ago (2 children)

This is indeed what I meant. I don't think that someone was actively trying to make the plane unsafe, but in the eternal quest for more profit engineers, best practices and safety reports where ignored to make the plane as cheap as possible, resulting in the current ~~flying~~ grounded deathtrap.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

Okay yeah. In that case I agree. I think that still falls more on the side of stupidity than malice, but the line between the two gets blurry when greed is involved

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If being stupid means killing almost 400 people and endangering thousands, I think it is fair to say that it is not any better than being malicious, also it would be stupid if they didn’t realize the potential flaws, but the fact is they overlooked it, which is not malice, fair enough, but it is definitely a terrible thing to do, far worse than being ‘stupid’

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Absolutely. Hence my original call for a criminal investigation to see if they indeed accepted the risks knowingly as then they should be held accountable.

Like I think all upper management of big oil that knew what they where doing to the planet should be tried in the Hague for Crimes against humanity. I don't care if they are old and long retired, concentration camp guards are also still tried after all these years.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Hot take: if cutting corners to an entire line of aircraft and sabotaging an entire line of aircraft produce the same results then they deserve the same punishment.

The world would be a lot better place if we let the penny pinchers be at fault for the dangerous situations they keep causing.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Man, imagine how much better the world would be if accountants would face consequences when their decision was to blame?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

Or execs.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I’m not sure the queue for the 319, 320 and 321 can get any longer. Airbus simply can’t ramp production and it’s not like the C919 is ready for prime time (yet).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Maybe they can rent some production space in seattle :P

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

It would be Alabama actually, since you know, labor protections are weak there...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Airbus is ramping up. They have had issues with the supply chain, but they should massively increase their production this year. They are opening assembly lines everywhere.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The incident seems much more serious than an isolated case of a doorplug falling off, I wonder if they are hiding something, another design flaw maybe?

[–] [email protected] 31 points 8 months ago (1 children)

My assumption is that the 737 Max is simply a fundamentally unsafe and unsound design.

I'm sure within 15 years they'll complete the final retrofit to make it safe and sound, and in the end, it will end up costing 300% of what a new design would have.

But, it'll actually work out for Boeing executives and shareholders, so it will be taught to future MBA student as a success story about the heroic and stoic leadership that generated record profits for the low cost of a few hundred lives.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Most of the fuselage should be insanely similar to other 737 models. I can't imagine how someone fucked up badly enough to lose a door plug,

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

That's the problem... Reusing a 50+-year-old design, with new engines and other technology that should have been used with a new fuselage design...

I don't think they'd ground the entire fleet if this was just a mechanic who made some one-off error. There's probably some human error involved, but those errors are only catastrophic because of the design choices Boeing made.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

I mean I'd argue it's only 30 years since NG, but that's a different argument. It's not like it isn't a proven airframe that still goes through continual process improvements. They certainly could have done things differently, but way more time and cost.

I don't think they know the exact cause and they grounded them out of an excess of caution. I'm going to guess a process got bought off that wasn't complete. That's the kind of thing that's engineered to not fall off if it's properly installed.

We'll see how things pan out in the next few days.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (3 children)

I don't even think it was a door. I watched a video of it on TikTok and it looked like a regular row of seats. I think it was just a piece of the hull.

Have they stated what fell off yet? I can't imagine how scary that was.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Door plug means that it's a spot in the frame where a future door can be installed by removing the "plug". In the meantime, it just looks like a piece of the fuselage. The plug is what got ripped out midair.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Oh my bad

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago

I heard it was one of those emergency exit panels (not a full door, nor just a passenger window) but that could be inaccurate. Either way, not a good look for Boeing.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

What fell off was a plug filling in an optional emergency exit location. It was a regular row of seats because the plane didn't have the optional emergency exit installed (it is only required for high density passenger cabin configurations).

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago

Time to buy some Boeing stock, cause the US govt won't let their defense dept darling fail

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Can someone explain to me why they just give up on this frankenjet and build off the safer (at the moment) 777?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

Talk out my ass here, but I thought it was due to the economics. Companies only want to buy the 737s because it's a fairly known factor. Pilots don't need to be retrained and, at this point, can be produced cheaper and/or faster.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has ordered the “temporary grounding” of 171 Boeing 737 Max 9 airplanes this morning after a section of fuselage separated from the side of an Alaska Airlines flight on Friday, leaving a gaping hole in the plane.

The agency said in its announcement that it will send an Emergency Airworthiness Directive out soon to require an inspection of all of the grounded planes that “will take around four to eight hours per aircraft.”

Prior to the FAA’s decision, Alaska Airlines grounded its own fleet of 65 Boeing 737 Max 9 planes for inspection.

In a 2020 Senate report, the FAA was accused of helping Boeing manipulate recertification tests to get the planes back in service.

Yesterday, The Seattle Times reported that Boeing had petitioned the FAA for a safety exemption for the 737 Max 7, a smaller plane the agency hasn’t certified yet.

Update January 6th, 2024, 3:10PM ET: Added detail from a Seattle Times article about Boeing’s recent petition for a safety exemption.

The original article contains 398 words, the summary contains 169 words. Saved 58%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

I'm interested to learn what changes were made to the 737 max fuselage compared to earlier versions of the 737.