I guess I missed the joke? You said “Everything that plane is certified to do its certified to do on three engines not four…….” A 777 only has two and can technically fly on one.
I’m sure I missed the punchline somewhere.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Boeing 737 Max at it again
- Thread starter Mr.BR
- Start date
I’m sure I missed the punchline somewhere.
im still likely going back...
I had an engine a few weeks ago gulp oil down to like 4%... that'll get your attention.
Couple operators in Canada still have a few. Company I worked for had 3, one had enough cycles left to still be worth something. It went to Canada, the other 2 are now beer cans. Hopefully not bud light….
Nope your right I’m wrong I was at work and scanned it didn’t notice it was a 777
Well, it's a CFM engine....
And the first thing on their Web page is... "Sustainability."
Not "We make awesome engines." Not "Reliability." Not "We won multiple World Wars."
It's... "Sustainability."
So... Engines and shit!
Sirhr
There are times that an old thread pops up, I look at my contributions, and cringe.
This is not one of those times (not yet, at least).
This is not one of those times (not yet, at least).
Exactly. Was my first thought as well. There's "A", and then there's "P".
(And if there was an actual bird strike, neither one is really at fault).
Anytime someone starts talking safety, I simply look up the mishap and fatality record of the airframe type and compare with its number of flight hours. What you typically see is that aircraft have gotten safer and safer to fly, especially airlines.
Original series airlines from Boeing were lost at a rate of 1.75 airframes per 1 million departures, Classic series was 0.54 airframes per 1 million departures, and 0.27 airframes/million departures for Next Generation series.
If you look at fighters......
With the General Dynamics F-16, we saw 143 airframe losses with 71 fatalities in its first 10 years of service, which was the safest single engine jet fighter in USAF history. From 2013-2023, the F-16 global fleet suffered 68 write-offs and 37 fatalities. For Class A mishaps per flight hour, it’s still really low. Lots of early-days GLOC and mechanical/electrical systems failures with wire-chafing, CFIT, hydraulics, early F100-PW-200 engine failures, EPUs that petered out after flame-out, some control surface issues, lots of runway overshoots because it doesn’t like to land.
F-35A has been flying for almost 18 years now, 3 crashes, 1 early LRIP bird lost to fire on the ground, 1 fatality in the Japanese Air Defense Forces from what they think was a physiological episode. It’s crazy how safe they are, and yet the retarded imbeciles in the media can’t stop panting whenever one of the F-35 variants crashes. There has been only 1 fatality in the entire F-35 program, which is bonkers. 980 airframes have been delivered and are in flight status all around the world among over a dozen services.
F-35B has seen maybe 6 airframe write-offs, 0 fatalities. Been flying since 2008.
F-35C has 1 airframe write-off, 0 fatalities.
F-14 was 73 write-offs, 19 fatalities in its first 10 years, which was pretty safe actually if you look at the F-4, F-8 Crusader, and A-6.
F/A-18 saw 97 write-offs and 27 fatalities its first 10 years. Landing gear alignment bars would de-couple and send the birds cartwheeling down the runway. Most was pilot error, CFIT, mid-airs.
AV-8 Harrier had 100 write-offs and 20 fatalities its first 10 years of service, very low production numbers and flight hours compared to the other teen series in those days. It’s the most mishap-prone fighter currently in service, on its way out.
Original series airlines from Boeing were lost at a rate of 1.75 airframes per 1 million departures, Classic series was 0.54 airframes per 1 million departures, and 0.27 airframes/million departures for Next Generation series.
If you look at fighters......
With the General Dynamics F-16, we saw 143 airframe losses with 71 fatalities in its first 10 years of service, which was the safest single engine jet fighter in USAF history. From 2013-2023, the F-16 global fleet suffered 68 write-offs and 37 fatalities. For Class A mishaps per flight hour, it’s still really low. Lots of early-days GLOC and mechanical/electrical systems failures with wire-chafing, CFIT, hydraulics, early F100-PW-200 engine failures, EPUs that petered out after flame-out, some control surface issues, lots of runway overshoots because it doesn’t like to land.
F-35A has been flying for almost 18 years now, 3 crashes, 1 early LRIP bird lost to fire on the ground, 1 fatality in the Japanese Air Defense Forces from what they think was a physiological episode. It’s crazy how safe they are, and yet the retarded imbeciles in the media can’t stop panting whenever one of the F-35 variants crashes. There has been only 1 fatality in the entire F-35 program, which is bonkers. 980 airframes have been delivered and are in flight status all around the world among over a dozen services.
F-35B has seen maybe 6 airframe write-offs, 0 fatalities. Been flying since 2008.
F-35C has 1 airframe write-off, 0 fatalities.
F-14 was 73 write-offs, 19 fatalities in its first 10 years, which was pretty safe actually if you look at the F-4, F-8 Crusader, and A-6.
F/A-18 saw 97 write-offs and 27 fatalities its first 10 years. Landing gear alignment bars would de-couple and send the birds cartwheeling down the runway. Most was pilot error, CFIT, mid-airs.
AV-8 Harrier had 100 write-offs and 20 fatalities its first 10 years of service, very low production numbers and flight hours compared to the other teen series in those days. It’s the most mishap-prone fighter currently in service, on its way out.
If you look at the V-22 mishap rates compared to the CH-46 and CH/HH/MH-53s, it’s a relatively-safe VTOL platform.
Just from 2000-2023, there were 19 CH-46 write-offs with 45 fatalities. Only 524 built since 1958.
Its first 10 years (1961-1971) saw 24 write-offs with 130 fatalities, most of which were combat losses in Vietnam from enemy fire and subsequent crashes/fires.
From 1974-1984 it still had 24 write-offs with 45 fatalities.
From 1985-1995 it had 30 write-offs with 87 fatalities.
Then we can look at the HH-53/CH-53/MH-53 as well, since MV-22 is superseding those in many squadrons as well.
Over the past 20 years of -53 mishaps, we have lost 30 airframes with 78 fatalities.
For the V-22, of which 400 have been built since 1989, we have lost 20 airframes with 64 fatalities in its entire 35 year history so far.
It appears to be one of, if not the safest rotary wing medium lift platform in US history so far.
So with that information in mind, how did Boeing behave in the process of this ~7x reduction in loss rate, and how does that compare to the behavior that they are currently exhibiting?
This is why knowledgeable people are sounding the alarm - not because air travel has suddenly reverted to the safety levels of the 50s and 60s, but rather because all the hard work that took decades to get us to this point is being undone by complacency by those who don't understand the value of their predecessor's efforts. Calhoun and men like him have taken out load-bearing walls during their corporate remodeling and now don't understand why the roof is sagging and the windows won't open.
My question is, does the assertion that things are getting worse with safety have any merits with the numbers? That’s where the biggest problem lies with information on anything aviation-related. The corporate presstitute idiots are the last people I consider when looking for reliable data. Their only motives are advertising for their owners/corporate sponsors, and disinformation as part of co-opted information warfare.
The legacy corporate media absolutely sucks for trying to get an actual story on these topics, so as a general rule, I dismiss what they have to say as more likely to be inaccurate or opposite of reality, only because that’s how it turns out most of the time.
I’m not a big airline data tracker, as I have only focused on military aviation since the 1970s.
There have been some serious issues brought to attention though, especially the test pilot text messages bragging about concealing the variations in flight procedures with the new DFLCS for the 737 Max, as well as the whistle-blowers exposing Boeing’s departures from established protocols, assembly specifications, and materials certifications.
I’m looking for the 737 fleet data on ASN and not seeing the normal format like I find for other types of aircraft.
All I’m able to see right now are:
11,762 airframes built since 1967
234 hull losses
215 hull loss accidents with conflicting info between 4928 and 5779 fatalities since 1967
8 criminal occurrences with 525 fatalities
115 hijackings with 326 fatalities
35.8% of all occupants survived fatal accidents
The legacy corporate media absolutely sucks for trying to get an actual story on these topics, so as a general rule, I dismiss what they have to say as more likely to be inaccurate or opposite of reality, only because that’s how it turns out most of the time.
I’m not a big airline data tracker, as I have only focused on military aviation since the 1970s.
There have been some serious issues brought to attention though, especially the test pilot text messages bragging about concealing the variations in flight procedures with the new DFLCS for the 737 Max, as well as the whistle-blowers exposing Boeing’s departures from established protocols, assembly specifications, and materials certifications.
I’m looking for the 737 fleet data on ASN and not seeing the normal format like I find for other types of aircraft.
All I’m able to see right now are:
11,762 airframes built since 1967
234 hull losses
215 hull loss accidents with conflicting info between 4928 and 5779 fatalities since 1967
8 criminal occurrences with 525 fatalities
115 hijackings with 326 fatalities
35.8% of all occupants survived fatal accidents
If we're waiting for crash numbers to increase before we decide that there is a problem, then we are waiting too long.
Air travel is almost unbelievably safe. It won't stay that way if we cannot figure out how to drill holes in the right spot and tighten bolts to the correct torque.
Stop trying to impose your white, northern Eurocentric cultural values on everybody else.
Yeah that’s exactly what they did because they were blind to the value those load bearing walls brought to the equation; they only saw them as a cost and were blind to the benefits they provided that outweighed the cost. Big mistake. It’s much more costly to have to rebuild them and it’s a cost that can’t be hidden.
How is the Osprey faring?
Not being facetious. Actually would be interested in the stats.
Sirhr
PS. Never mind. You guys answered it. I was surprised by the answer. But thank you!
I worked at Boeing for almost 10 years. I only worked in the space division and never worked commercial. My experience was that. Boeing has many of the best engineers and processes in the world. The benefits they're able to offer gives them their pick of engineers in industry. At least that was true. I can tell you for a fact that by 2019 they had made diversity a merit by which management was being measured. I don't have any inside knowledge of what the whistleblowers were saying, but the accusation that they had made diversity more or at least as important as quality is in line with how things were trending when I left.
In fairness, I don't believe this is unique of Boeing. I strongly suspect the same thing is happening at virtually every corporation ran from chicago /new york (blackrock). For the record we should never tolerate sex, race, or sexual preference being made a merit for good or bad in engineering or the trades.
In fairness, I don't believe this is unique of Boeing. I strongly suspect the same thing is happening at virtually every corporation ran from chicago /new york (blackrock). For the record we should never tolerate sex, race, or sexual preference being made a merit for good or bad in engineering or the trades.
We shouldn't tolerate it anywhere for any reason. Two wrongs do not make a right. Only right makes right.
Without these diversity pushes, we'd all know that the black engineer deserves to be there because he is competent at engineering.
Boeing CEO got a 45% raise , one could ask what for?
Given these are mostly in form of stocks , this will turn out to be much more than 33$mio once some one else starts fixing problems he left same goes for his 45$mio golden parachute
Boeing CEO Calhoun received $32.8 million in total compensation in 2023, a 45 percent increase as compared to $22.6 million in the previous year.
Upon his retirement, Calhoun is set to take home another going-away present: a $45 million mix of stock awards and options that vest over time.
Last edited:
Late stage capitalism in full effect here.
MBAs and suits are running companies in a manner in which they can extract the most amount of wealth in short order in order to appease the shareholders in the quest of never ending profits, and to enrich themselves.
Its an incredibly short sighted way to run a company, but I guess that's the incentive when you have to show a profit quarter after quarter.
Boeing is a great example of this, a once great engineering company destroyed by suits/MBAs, but it's far from the only one.
You mean when you don’t have to show a profit. Public companies do not have to be profitable. They just have to meet or exceed EPS expectations
More Boeing magic!!
nypost.com
Boeing cargo plane makes emergency ‘belly landing’ after landing gear fails
A Boeing 763 cargo plane was forced to make a ‘belly landing’ at Istanbul Airport after its front landing gear malfunctioned. The FedEx freight plane was on the final leg of its Paris t…
nypost.com
So what. Happens all the time. This is not a design flaw or anything of the sort. Just a mechanical failure that happens. The 767 is a proven airframe. No story here.More Boeing magic!!
Boeing cargo plane makes emergency ‘belly landing’ after landing gear fails
A Boeing 763 cargo plane was forced to make a ‘belly landing’ at Istanbul Airport after its front landing gear malfunctioned. The FedEx freight plane was on the final leg of its Paris t…
Man I don't like flying to begin with and I have a flight from BWI to MIA in September on a 737 Max. Seriosuly thinking I might just take another day off and drive the 15-20 hours. lol.
Flying on One tomorrow returning to BWI, it'll be the 3rd this week.
Last week I think it was just a 737-800, not a max & flt #1911. Sent my wife the number SW1911 & she said why am I just getting pictures of guns with this one LOL.
Don’t be a pussy. There is nothing wrong with the max or any other boeing
F-15 “only" had 54 airframe losses with 26 fatalities during its first 10 years of service, which included combat in the Israeli Air Force (no losses). We were on the F-15 CTF at Edwards AFB from the late 1980s-early 1990s after working on the F-16C/D program. In the 1980s, I never saw any fleet data for mishaps and fatalities. I was a huge aviation geek growing up in that community and absorbing everything I could, but we were primarily focused on weapons systems, combat avionics, and Navigation systems. While we lost 54 F-15s during training accidents in its first 10 years, we lost 98 F-4s with 53 fatalities from 12 MAY 1972 to 09 DEC 1972 alone, not even a full year. Most of those were combat losses over Vietnam/SEA.
Israelis lost 42 F-4Es from 13SEP-09NOV 1973 in combat.
F/A-18A/B/C/D had 97 write-offs with 27 fatalities during its first 10 years of service, including one pilot from the Gulf of Sidra F-14A VF-41 Sukhoi-killers from 1981 who had transitioned to the F/A-18 program. He cartwheeled down the runway from one of those wheel alignment bar disconnects (that wasn’t worked out before production) and was killed.
YF-22/F-22A program has a total of 6 write-offs and 2 fatalities, nowhere near the flight hours or production numbers of the F-35 program, but still one of the safest fighters ever produced in history.
Super Hornet has experienced 28 write-offs with 13 fatalities for the entire program since 1999. 15 of those airframe losses are in the past 10 years. They have built around 640 of them.
Rafale and Typhoon have been exceptionally-safe fighters as well.
I’m looking at the 737 accident and fatality database and something is weird with it. Can’t see any write-offs or fatalities, but it shows every date, tail number, and incident details for 737-700 that didn’t have any write-offs or fatalities. Can’t pull up 737-300, -400, -500, -600, -800, -900ER, or Max 7/8/9/10 variants. I still remember flying in a lot of 737-200s when they had turbojets still. The big change was when they went from -200 to -300 with turbofans.
Something is weird with the safety record database though.
Last edited:
When I fly, I point out to my wife on the wing where the likely structural failures would happen if something were to go wrong, and how a catastrophic failure would result in instantaneous loss of consciousness due to wind speed and -50˚F or lower air temperature blasting you in the face. Not a bad way to go out really. Partial failure of the airframe/fuselage is much more traumatic for the passengers and crew.
Airlines are amazingly-safe and have been for many decades, even with Boeing having workers jumping up and down on the fuselage sections trying to mate incorrectly-machined parts filled with reject components.
Factor of Safety built into structural systems and fasteners is usually FoS of 3, so things have to withstand 3x the dynamic load. That’s why planes don’t rip apart in bad weather. I’ve flown through weather systems that made you feel like you were in a blender and weren’t going to survive, with the wings bending up and down erratically due to extreme air currents trying to tear the plane apart.
Not a 787... the winglet gives it away...
MAYBE an A350...
That shit with the tape, no not real... I dont believe speed tape is EVER EVER EVER allowed on the top of the wing of any airplane.
That’s an older 320 family it looks like. The “winglets” look like what is referred to as gates. Def not a 787.
I dont think 320 sharklets... Look much more blended to me and the trailing edge is not sharp like the sharklets...
But most likely its an AI fake video...
No not sharklets. The gates as pointed out above. Tough to tell though could be blended type. But whatever it is I guarantee it’s not happening in the US. I agree with you, that is not allowed on top of wing…..especially in that quantity. Probably a video from Russia trying to keep a western aircraft in the air
At my old airline we were sending airplanes to paint and they were coming back with shoe prints on top of the wings in the paint... out of service and a full fleet inspection.
They also didnt clean the underside where the blue juice would stream out of the dump port and flow back and all that paint peeled off down to bare metal within a week or two... out of service...
They also didnt clean the underside where the blue juice would stream out of the dump port and flow back and all that paint peeled off down to bare metal within a week or two... out of service...
doesnt exist anymore... was a continental/united feeder. And this was back in like 2009-2010-2011 time frame... cant remember exactly when. As soon as it was discovered they did a full inspection of aircraft that had come out of the paint shop recently and I think a bunch had to go back to get the wings stripped and re-painted. Paint wasnt fully cured when the guy went out to put the "do not walk" decals and what not on I believe was the explanation.
It is real.
Both Airbus and Boeing have had issues with paint bonding to the carbon structure.
The 787 had a lot of cases where the paint was coming off the top of the wing due to flexing, the tape is to cover up the exposed carbon as it can't be let exposed to UV.
Boeing seems to have come up with a new paint that has fixed the issue, all our 787s went for a wing paint recently an it's no long an issue.
We had two previous aircraft that ended up with severe corrosion issues due to a new environmentally friendly primer being tried out, turns out it wasn't very good.
Similar threads
