Hacker News Reader

Comment by lolinder | Hacker News Reader

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...

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

> 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".

> 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?

No, what parent said is true: they could have changed the model number if they so chose to, and kept the same type rating. The 757 and 767 have the same type rating for example.

Whether they call it 737, 737 Max, 73Seven, 838 or whatever else is just marketing and has no bearing on keeping training compatibility. Only the type rating matters for that.

You're right on. For example, the 757 and 767 share a common type rating.

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).

No, it is a variant of the 737 so using the certification is correct. They weren’t trying to avoid additional certification, it just wasn’t required as it’s a variation of an existing type

It is definitely a variant of the 737, but tacking on those extra large radius engines that the original airframe wasn't designed for and 737 pilots weren’t trained for virtually made it into a new plane.

they kept the 737 branding to indicate backwards compatibility with existing jetways so airlines wouldn't need to upgrade other equipment.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

Hadn't heard of that incident before, so looked it up:

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/flaming-concorde...

Everyone on board died. Damn. :(

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.

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.

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.

> 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

It sometimes feels dishonest whenever an event is published in the news without having the typical frequency of occurrence.

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.

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-...

> 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?

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com