Boeing 737 catches fire and skids off the runway in Senegal | Hacker News Reader

Boeing 737 catches fire and skids off the runway in Senegal

apnews.com

25 pointsisaacfrond30 comments

At the bottom of the article: "a Boeing 737-38J, an aircraft that was delivered in the 1990s". So almost certainly a maintenance problem, not a manufacturing defect.

Not even a maintenance issue (though it probably wasn't maintained well) - this airplane is 10 years past the safe life span and should have been scrapped long ago. Sure it flies, but metal fatigue builds up over time and eventually something serious will break. Since airplane failures tend to be catastrophic and we cannot know how bad it is on any particular airplane Boeing gives conservative estimates for how long it will last - even in the worst case the 737 is safe to fly longer than the 20 years Boeing gives - but nobody has any idea for how much longer - could be 1 year could be 30 years. Which is why airlines where safety isn't a concern can get by with flying planes well past their end of life date. However this airplane has been living on borrowed time and should not have been on the runway. No amount of maintenance will fix the problem. (only a complete rebuild with all new parts could - cheaper to buy a new airplane from Boeing even at Africa labor rates)

The metal fatigue issue is a solved problem with life limited parts and maintenance check intervals, and whilst African airlines might cut some maintenance corners, they won't have missed a D check or major engine overhaul

Quite normal for passenger jets to last over 20 years, Northwest was flying 40 year old DC-9s in the US not that long ago, and the reason for retiring them is that their lower efficiency means they're worth less than the cost of the necessary overhauls, not that the maintenance can't be done.

DC9 was made of different materials from the 737 and so has a different lifespan.

They're of similar construction, and it's categorically false that the 737 classic had a maximum 20 year lifespan or they're living on borrowed time after that.

They're routinely operated as cargo aircraft in the United States, just like many other older jet aircraft (for reasons of operating economics, not safety)

I'm wondering if the media is picking up any boeing related incident and ignoring minor airbus/others incidents, or the situation of boeing is truly this stark

It reminds me of the train derailment stories last year, soon after the disastrous one in Ohio. Trains apparently derail quite often, but it was on everyone’s mind, so any outlet that posted about a more mundane derailment was rewarded with clicks.

Precisely this. There's a thousand train derailments in the US annually; most incredibly minor. For a few weeks they all made the news.

The media is picking up any Boeing related incident and it is ignoring other incidents. Most of the incidents I read about in the last weeks had nothing at all to do with Boeing as a company.

If it bleeds it leads. They are most definitely exploiting cognitive biases to get eyeballs on their stories.

yeah the media absolutely is. this is the copycat effect (maybe there is a better name for it?) but essentially this you can see in media all the time whenever there is a big story.

Maybe even more to the point, this particular plane was built during what even modern Boeing detractors consider the glory days of Boeing as an engineering company run by engineers. If this incident really was the fault of Boeing, which seems unlikely, it hardly fits the theory that Boeing was more recently ruined by MBAs.

There was also a flap issue on another Boeing bird today:

There was an issue with the aircraft’s flaps, with the airport temporarily closing its runway ... The MLIT’s FUK office confirmed the incident, adding that the United Airlines Boeing 737-800 made an emergency landing at FUK.

https://simpleflying.com/united-airlines-b737-8-flight-166-t...

The jokes are writing themselves now.

Some more info on AV Herald [0]

[0] https://avherald.com/h?article=51867a11

AVHerald is always the best source. The only problem is they publish the complete accident reports months or years later when they're actually ready. And by then the "engagement" crowd has stopped caring.

It's hard to tell if this is statistically normal or part of Boeing's recent troubles. Does there exist, say, a graph of e.g. serious incidents per plane type per year, where we can see that Boeing is going up and the others not?

It's easy to tell, it's a 30 year old aircraft of a different type to the Max which will have been fully overhauled many times by organizations which are not Boeing, in a region where aircraft incidents are common.

737-300s were last manufactured in 2000, and this particular airframe is from the early 90s. This has little to do with Boeing's current issues.

Michael Crichton's book Airframe provides a fictional but well-researched look at many of the more hidden issues involving aircraft safety and maintenance, as well as the relationship between carriers, manufacturers, and the FAA.

Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40307084

If the article is correct and it's a 737-300, then it's a very old plane built long before the recent Boeing issues.

[dupe]

Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40307084

Silly press going after "engagement".

This is a 20 year old plane and the maintenance isn't Boeing's fault until proof to the contrary.

Nice conspiracy theory though: maybe Boeing is sponsoring the coverage for all these old airframes having accidents so people like me will point out it's probably not their fault and thus inadvertently cover up the incidents that are Boeing's fault...

It is a 30 year old plane. 20 years is the expected safe lifespan.

There are plenty of 30 year old 737s flying around. Number of flight hours and decompression cycles (notably: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243) are more important, and "safe" varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; it's why places like Senegal have a lot of hand-me-down planes.

Some US folks here suggest that its some sort of PR smear campaign against boeing... how far from reality one must be to view all those recent news in such way.

Maybe they won't own it up again and blame it in some vaguely racist way on those incompetent african crews? Maybe they've learned. I am not holding my breath though

It’s not racist to point out that most of Africa is much less rich/developed than the West and therefore has worse safety standards in many areas including aviation.

Actually you should investigate first and then be racist, because the MAX deaths weren't the fault of any local safety standard...

>Actually you should investigate first and then be racist, because the MAX deaths weren't the fault of any local safety standard...

I am not clear what you mean, there was 1 crash that was ignored and blamed on pilots because they were from a poor country. A second crash and many other incidents had to happen before other countries then USA took action. Later USA had no choice then follow up and ground the plane.

If the first crash would ahve happen in USA may be it would have saved more lives. It makes you wonder if Boeing intentionally sabotage the investigations.

Unless a Boeing whistleblower was actually traveling on this flight...It does not sound unusual.

The AV Herald is considered the best source for what is going on: https://avherald.com/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com