Southwest Boeing 737-800 flight from Denver loses engine cover | Hacker News Reader

Southwest Boeing 737-800 flight from Denver loses engine cover

cnn.com

59 pointsjanpot59 comments

(2019) "On October 14, Southwest Airlines (SWA) flew an empty aircraft to San Salvador at El Salvador International Airport in order to accomplish a heavy maintenance check on that aircraft. A heavy maintenance check is the most labor-intensive check performed on an aircraft during its flying life."

https://amfanational.medium.com/southwest-airlines-begins-fo...

"Today, Southwest Airlines outsources 80 percent of all aircraft maintenance. You read that correctly [...] He said United Airlines outsources 51 percent of maintenance, Alaska Airlines farms out 49 percent, Delta hires vendors for 43 percent, and American Airlines contracts out 33 percent."

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/local-companies/2019/02/...

As much as I would like to dogpile on Boeing right now, that particular airplane has been in operation since 2015. This would likely be Southwest maintenance issues rather than Boeing.

I think that by now most of the people have started putting the blame on the US aviation and air-transportation industry as a whole, it's not just Boeing anymore. That includes the FTC, the carriers, yes, Boeing, and a ton of other sub-contractors.

It's systemic by this point, and I feel that it's not only the fault of those "pesky MBAs running Boeing" anymore.

They set the culture from the top.

It's the pesky MBAs running Washington?

Things breaking on planes somewhere in the world happen multiple times a day (you can see a sort of log on https://avherald.com/).

On top of not necessarily being the manufacturer’s fault, I don’t know that these events happen more often than usual.

"Something else hasn't had a problem before so it must be okay" isn't proof of anything and a fallacy.

There are known unknown structural issues with 737 NG's (-6xx to -9xx non-MAX) beginning around 1995 that have never been resolved because they were assembled poorly and built with substandard "approved" components by subcontractor DuCommun but aren't so serious that they would necessarily cause an immediate, catastrophic failure. Instead, there have been an increase in fuselage damage and failures under heavy load circumstances such as hard landings, runway overruns, and potentially during extreme turbulence. Al Jazerra made a feature-length documentary about it and the tales of the whisleblowers, but because of the predominant anti-muslim bias in America, it has been largely ignored and dismissed by the mainstream. Even Wikipedia includes biased conclusions that Obama's DOJ rammed down the throats of media and countermanded the NTSB's investigations and statements. [0]

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducommun#Faulty_parts_dispute_...

This issue is the failure to latch the three latches on the bottom of the engine nacelle, each of which is capable of holding the cowling closed for an entire flight. These latches are supposed to be inspected each time they are used and if they are not latched they will not be flush with the nacelle and should be caught by whichever pilot does the walk-around.

So no, the most plausible conclusion is not a structural failure but that maintenance opened the cowling and then failed to properly latch it and that was not caught by the pilot who did the walk-around.

ATC recording from VasAviation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBQkk4RcidA

Another Boeing incidence. There should be a statistics page somewhere where incidences are marked on some graph or chart showing engine manufacturers airplane manufacturers airlines etc. if any exist would like to see such a page.

Do you know if the parts the flew away, are build by the engine manufacturer, are build by the engine manufacturer and attached/assembled by Boeing or are those coverings build and attached by Boeing (because every attachment for every plane is different, even for the same engine?)

It isn’t relevant - the final assembler is responsible for QC.

If I build something, and I buy something from a third party to be part of it, I make sure that

A) it isn’t defective B) it integrates robustly

You can wave your hand at the supply chain all you want, but if you’re sticking your name on it, it’s yours.

The plane was built in 2015.

This is not about building the engine doors, it's about who did not close them properly during last maintenance.

My laptop breaks down after 5 years.

Is it about the manufacturer because they made a bad design that broke after some years, or me doing properly maintenance?

I’m afraid you’ll need to contact shenzen resistor corporation #6552 as that’s the component that’s failed and they’re the responsible party.

Is this a brand new airplane or caused by some design flaw? Because if not everyone should probably be blaming the airline/maintenance company.

Certainly not downplaying Boeing’s massive screwups but it just seems that every single incident that everyone just used ignore in past is now an international news story (but only if a Boeing plane is involved)

Neither. It’s an error by whoever last did maintenance on the engine and didn’t latch the door properly, and the pilot doing the walk around missing that error. Not a Boeing issue whatsoever.

Except e.g. a bolt broke. And the bolt was either build by the engine manufacturer, by Boeing or installed during maintenance by the airline (or outsourcer).

>You can wave your hand at the supply chain all you want, but if you’re sticking your name on it, it’s yours.

Definitely not true for airplane engines.

Ah yes if a Toyota crashes the first thing we do is look at Toyota.

There's one specifically for Boeing: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/list-of-2024-boeing-pla...

This is not related to Boeing at all. Engine covers not being closed properly is a relatively common (still rare in the grand scheme of things) incident and happens a lot more frequently on Airbus models to the point that Airbus modified the door latch.

This incident isn't related to Boeing .. at all ... but when Airbus do it (which you assure it happens more frequently) it's related to whom exactly, and why did Airbus fix it if it wasn't related to them (modified the door latch)?

Whoever did not latch the door properly after doing maintenance checks. Which is either a mechanic at the airline itself or someone at a maintenance hub that is contracted by the airline. Not the job of the manufacturer whatsoever.

So why did Airbus modify the door latch?

They were required to by an airworthiness directive. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/06/29/2017-13...

To make the plane more user friendly?

The point s_dev is trying to make is that the designer can (and should) design things so that the mechanic "doesn't have to think". Seems like Airbus has evolved their design accordingly.

The solution is actually quite elegant: a long tagged key required to open the door which remains in the lock until it's closed again. https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/preventing-fan-cowl-door-loss...

Worth noting that only a few weeks ago an Airbus A330 had a very similar engine-panel-coming-off issue, which I'm 99.9% sure you hadn't heard about at all until I pointed it out to you - unlike this incident, which will have hundreds of articles and blog posts written about it.

I'd like everyone here to consider just how much they are letting [social] media do their thinking for them.

(The incident I'm referring to: https://avherald.com/h?article=5169614a&opt=0)

The user I'm replying to is making contradictory statements -- I'm asking questions to try and illustrate the contradiction.

If this issue is unrelated to Boeing it's also unrelated to Airbus.

It's clearly not a manufacturer issue at all. This is just part of the normal incidents that happen in air travel that the public is normally not aware of.

That's fine then just don't blame Airbus for doing it even worse since you've already established the manufacturer isn't responsible. That's the original context.

> and happens a lot more frequently on Airbus models to the point that Airbus modified the door latch.

So you’re saying Airbus resolved this issue? Why hasn’t Boeing?

Because Boeing didn’t have the same issue Airbus did. The latches on A320 family cowlings were kinda hidden from view, which made them less likely to be seen during the pilot’s walk around before departure. The EASA (and then subsequently the FAA) issued an airworthiness directive [1] that required the visibility to be resolved. For this case, it’s simply both the mechanic forgetting to latch it properly _and_ the pilot missing that fact during the walk around. Either way, it’s not really a safety critical incident, just rather embarrassing. [1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/06/29/2017-13...

It's interesting in the sense that it demonstrates a shift in the Zeitgeist. It's probably true that this isn't Boeing's fault, but the media have taken to reporting every problem encountered with a Boeing plane which reinforces the narrative that Boeing make poor aircraft, which ultimately is a bigger problem for Boeing than them actually making poor aircraft.

I'm on record as not being a fan of the modern Boeing but in this case we're not seeing a structural failure in Boeing but rather a maintenance issue that can primarily be blamed on the carrier. I don't have a tail number so I can't tell you exactly when this airframe was delivered but seeing as it's a 737-800 that we're talking about it's been part of Southwest's fleet for some time now. Boeing absolutely has its issues but so does the airline industry, let's apportion blame correctly.

Incident, incidents.

This is most certainly a maintenance issue, not a production issue since this a part that is often temporarily removed.

Not trying to defend boeing but please be aware that these incidents are somewhat common and are currently being disproportionally reported due their relevance of past events.

For all we know, it could also have been a bird strike.

Previously discussed and flagged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39963776

Comment which I Favorited: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39964702

> We all know the Baader–Meinhof / frequency illusion, which is where something becomes interesting to an observer so suddenly they notice things that were always there, but because they suddenly notice it seems there has been some massive increase in frequency.

> What is it when something gets into the zeitgeist narrative so every possible instance is widely reported on in a way that it wasn't before? Parts have always been flying off planes, and there have always been maintenance issues, but suddenly every single one is reported making it feel like it's some sudden outbreak. In the same way we're hearing about every boat hitting something when boats have always been hitting things, it just didn't have a context under which it was newsworthy.

Internalize this, I am trying to as well. This is one of the points of HN-worthy discussion.

It's kind of amazing that, in reality, everything is always almost-failing (love the efficiency BAYBYYY).

If we gold-plated every solution we would run out of gold; or have fewer solutions.

Of course, in reality, there are a LOT of things happening, and we hear about the few notable failures, not the many many many almost-failures.

Maybe they should do some more stock buybacks and then ask the fed for a bailout.

Boeing are a welfare company - they would not exist without their close relationship with the government and the taxpayer dollars that are funnelled to them.

Competent competition would eat them alive, if competition were permissible in the land of the free (for some, not for you) markets.

There are plenty of Airbus planes in the US. Nobody is directly prohibiting competition it’s just that no private company could ever catch up without massive a amount of government funding.

Boeing has absolutely been prohibiting competition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSeries_dumping_petition_by_Bo...

Yeah, but it was one company subsidized by the government using its influence to bring down another company which was even more heavily subsidized by their respective government (not that it would have been possible to break into this market any other way).

Free competition wasn’t really an option either way.

Poor Boeing. They just can't catch a break...

Alas, if only there was a way to reduce the risk of these happening...

It’s almost like they had systemic issues with their quality control.

It’s really not at all obvious that Boeing is more at fault in this specific case than the airline/maintenance company.

I hope this is sarcasm cause in no way Boeing is ‘poor’. There is a duopoly of aircraft and doesn’t matter what reputation Boeing gets, the orders will keep coming in. If your airline cancels an order 5 others are waiting to take your spot.

I would be surprised if Boeing isn't seeing or going to see reduced orders because of this endless barrage of bad news.

Airbus has a 5-10 year backlog for many of its models so it’s not like airlines have a choice.

Exactly. if I was an airline whos entire business depends on aircrafts then in order to satisfy my demands I cant just wait 10 years before something is available. Maybe instead of 50/50 it's become 65/35 now but that 35 is still years of jets delivery for Boeing.

https://simpleflying.com/ryanair-wants-boeing-737-max-orders...

Youll be surprised to know then someone else is willing to take the order if it's cancelled.

Seem to be able to break a catch though

Experienced employees will continue to be laid off until quality improves.

They could. They are however not interested in working for the catch.

2̶7̶ 0 days since last boeing-falling-apart incident.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com