Hacker News Reader

Comment by bustling-noose | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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

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.

Incident, incidents.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com