Boeing grounding up to 50 aircraft due to cracks

a reply to: moebius

No, it's the fact that the exact same things are going on with Airbus, but you only hear about them on aviation news sites, or if you go looking for other sources. Everything Boeing is practically front page news.

And these cracks really aren't that big a deal. The system worked exactly as expected, and 5% of a fleet the size of the 737 is nothing.

originally posted by: MerkabaTribeEntity
a reply to: and14263

...said on Thursday that airlines had inspected 810 of the company’s 737 NG jets...

I don't think of myself as an aircraft newbie (or any kind of expert), but I'd be lying if I said I didn't have to read that twice lol

I had to read it about five times to realise what you meant - but of course, it is obvious now I see it!

a reply to: Zaphod58

The system worked exactly as expected, 

A part critical to flight safety which is designed to never be replaced or inspected actually fails 5% of the time after ~30% of the airframe's lifetime -- which happened to be found incidentally during an unrelated maintenance procedure? That's how the system is supposed to work? News to me.

a reply to: RadioRobert

The problem was found and reported, an AD was issued, inspections were carried out, and the affected aircraft grounded. That's exactly how the system is supposed to work and exactly how it did work.

a reply to: RadioRobert
That's why the reporting system is in place. If you find something like that you report it. Then other groups with the same type aircraft are given a heads up about the problem. I was taught the three foot rule for inspections. While doing an inspection closely look at everything with in a three foot radius of where you are inspecting. I haven't done much work on commercial aircraft, but, I have found things on military aircraft while doing that.

I once had a squawk on an Air India 747 during my 3month stint at Mascott International as a Snork Tinbasher...Saying "Loose rivet on cowling"...
My report back to my foreman..
"Which one? They are all loose"
Planes break every day.As long as they on the ground when they find the faults its fine..
Its when they break in the air its an issue...

a reply to: moebius
Clearly you missed the point that Zaphod, myself and others experienced in aircraft maintenance were making. This stuff has literally occurred on every aircraft type ever built. Just because someone designs a part or an entire aircraft to last X number of hours doesn't guarantee that it will go that distance in every single example. Given the massive ramp up over the last 10-15 years in production, its not surprising at all. More importantly its not a big deal. Cracks were found, a pattern was detected, an AD was issued for inspection and corrective courses of action were taken. Why is this any different to any other AD for precautionary inspections? Hell, I was doing one today on a primary flight control on an A-380 and it failed the test, so what? I simply dont get all the carry on over this particular issue.

a reply to: RadioRobert
Well exactly how does the system work then? How did Sect 41 frame cracks in 747's ever get found? Because I'm pretty damn sure it wasn't from some routine inspection. Or horizontal stab cracks in the same 737 NG fleet, pylon cracking (again in 747's). A-380 rib boom feet, A-330 fwd cargo door rib fasteners becoming loose, and the list goes on and on. None of these initially came about because of mandated inspections on something that shouldn't have needed it. They happen because the entire system is supposed to be built on trained people looking for the unusual even when they weren't expected to do. What sucks about so many airlines today is the asshole bean counters who dont get this and dont want engineers looking because that might cost money. Is that the culture you would prefer? I dont think so. No machine is perfect, no system is flawless. Saying or expecting otherwise is stupid, naive or unrealistic, exactly like the bean counters promoting this flawed idea.

a reply to: thebozeian
I for one had it drilled into me you had a few hundred peoples lives at stake when you did your job.So you looked at every detail of the job you were doing.You were trained to look at dark rings around rivets and telltale lumpsand bumps on extrusions and castings.It wasnt hard to do a quick dye penetrant check on assemblies.
Plus you had guys above like Foremen and Quality control guys who double and triple checked your work.
Even now years after being out of the trade I still deburr holes and polish edges when I make stuff.

a reply to: Blackfinger
Exactly, we dont want mindless drones performing maintenance and inspections and ignoring something that isn't directly in the text of an AD,SB or inspection card based on manufacturer type certificate testing. That what happens in cut price MRO's in parts of Asia and is exactly what is wrong with them. Design engineers cannot foresee every problem or nuance of complicated systems during development and its stupid to think so. They are getting way better and will continue to do so, but they will not get every single detail right all the time across a 20-30 year production run of potentially thousands of aircraft operating in a myriad of different scenarios. Slamming them for failures in some areas is warranted, but howling at them for something like this that takes years to even manifest itself in a handful of cases is not.

It would appear that South Korea took the biggest hit so far, with 13 aircraft grounded. They found nine in the over 30,000 cycle range, and 4 more in a second round of inspections that were between 20,000 and 30,000 cycles. Boeing dispatched engineers on October 31st, and each aircraft will take approximately two weeks to fix. Repairs are expected to be complete by January.

www.flightglobal.com...