A Boeing 737 lost a fairing in flight today between San Francisco and Medford, Oregon. Joe Weisenthal has questions:
So like… is there really just a scad of unusual Boeing malfunctions this year or is this like when the media goes through a phase where it starts reporting on every shark attack? Genuine q https://t.co/hXNx1MyYPV
— Joe Weisenthal (@TheStalwart) March 15, 2024
I'm curious about this too. So I went to Wikipedia's "List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft," which doesn't include every single in-flight incident but does include every "notable" incident for large commercial airliners. Then I went through each one involving either a Boeing or an Airbus commercial jet. For the past ten years, here are the number of incidents that were caused by a mechanical failure of some kind (i.e., not weather, maintenance, or pilot error):
The two Boeing incidents this year are the door plug that blew out on an Alaska Airlines flight in January and then today's incident. The two incidents involving the MCAS system on the Boeing 737 MAX 8 are in 2018 and 2019.
There are two main takeaways from this:
- There hasn't been any kind of increase in Boeing failures. In fact, the past three years have been pretty quiet.
- However, over the past decade there have been 22 Boeing failures compared to 7 Airbus failures. Both companies have roughly the same number of airplanes in service.
So Boeing planes are pretty safe, but Airbus planes are even safer. OTOH, while I was going through the list I did notice a surprisingly large number of Airbus incidents involving bombs, hijackings, and missiles. Take your pick.
You've got to be kidding. The bombings, hijackings, etc. stat has nothing to do with the plane, but rather which airlines and locations the planes are deployed to.
all the 911 planes were Boeings, so clearly it is all about the type of plane, definitely not the market they are deployed in...
/s
And inflation. Gotta adjust for inflation.
As people who work at Boeing if they would fly on the 737 or 787
e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utgar8x5mx0&ab_channel=SimpleFlying
Yeah - there's widespread, well-known evidence of the rot within Boeing.
You know it's bad when John Oliver does an entire episode on something. As he did with Boeing just last week. I haven't watched it yet because I just had to fly on 2 737's last week...
Isn't that really more a function of where they fly rather than what they fly to get there?
I was wondering the same thing - is there an actual recent increase in incidents, or is the media suddenly taking an interest in the normal baseline number of snafus.
I’m guessing it’s the latter. When in doubt, assume attention or selection bias.
But I do think a less arbitrary threshold for “what constitutes an incident” could possibly be arrived at (rather than “does it have its own Wikipedia entry”)… but I wouldn’t know what that should be. Perhaps the FAA takes these kind of things seriously enough to have system.
There was also a wheel falling off a Boeing (737-Max?) at SFO, a hydraulic leak in the landing gear in another Boeing (777) causing it to fail, a Boeing engine caught fire in flight, this wing panel, the door plug issue, a pilot reclining his chair into the yoke, pushing it down hard, sending 30-40 passengers and flight staff into the ceiling…
777.
There is also the distinction between manufacturing defects, and maintenance blunders.
Would that be the recent incident with a 787? How exactly can a pilot recline his chair (which implies it going backwards) into the yoke (which is in front of the chair)?
I heard that the instrument panel went blank and then turned back on. Almost like the plane rebooted.
My understanding is the flight attendant serving the pilot dinner inadvertently pressed on the switch cover, which presumably activated a loose switch to move the pilots seat forward. As the seat moved forward the pilot pressed on the control yoke, the autopilot initially resisted his pressure till he pressed hard enough for the autopilot to disengage, resulting in a sudden nose down pitch. Always keep your seat belt fastened during cruise!
That's a story Boeing put out--reminding airlines of a bulletin about a loose cover put out a while ago. We still don't know what exactly happened in the current case.
I would like to see data going back to before 1997, when Boeing merged with McDonell Douglas. That seems to be when Boeing's engineer and quality driven culture was replaced by a finance-driven culture.
Ding, ding, ding. You won.
While I have no fondness for Boeing's current corporate culture, nor in MBAs running "technology" companies in general (I'm a former employee of what used to be Bill and Dave's Excellent Electronics company, aka "Hewlett-Packard Company") but I must also ask - how many incidents were there each year "back in the day" when that reputation for aircraft quality was formed? The 1960s and 1970s I would assume, perhaps earlier.
That’s what I’ve read. Particularly with regard to the MCAS debacle. But it’s not as if there were no problems before that. Flight 800 was a 747. That one really sticks in my memory because my sister and her two children had tickets to be on that flight. She would have flown from LA to New York and changed planes to go on to Europe on the plane that crashed. She decided she wanted a direct flight even though it was more expensive so she changed her plans.
Private equity kills EVERYTHING.
I have a friend who's worked at McDonell Douglas since the early 80's and oh yeah, you got it in one. The stories he tells (that he really, technically, shouldn't)!
I consider Boeing to be a cautionary tale about the pursuit of "shareholder value".
I would have thought Kevin, you would have normalized to something like flight miles or flight segments.
And for the ever-changing expectations files, what did this look like in the 90's, 80's, etc....
You're right as long as the aim is to get a comparison between the two major manufacturers. But keep the original question in mind: Are there more Boeing incidents or is it just that we're sensitized to them? In that case, a simple count is sufficient to answer the question.
Yet, Kevin did not stick to the original question. He went beyond it to make a comparison between manufacturers.
But this only shows incidents enough to get a wiki article, which is tilted towards awareness by the public.
Kevin wasn't being entirely serious with the last bit. Unless maybe Boeing planes have better built in missile defenses?
A more comprehensive source is the Aviation Safety Reporting System, maintained by NASA: https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/
It contains searchable, voluntary, confidential reports of safety-involved incidents. Filter by Part 121 for domestic scheduled carriers, Part 129 for foreign carriers in U.S. service; that will pick up the Boeings and Airbuses (and Bombardiers, Embraers, etc.). I don’t think there is a way to specifically filter for QA-related issues of the manufacturer.
This is what the Wikipedia page shows for 2014:
I'm guessing that for the chart, Kevin selected:
for Boeing and:
For Airbus.
The conclusions for the July 24 incident reads as a mix of airplane and crew errors.
The conclusions for the December 28 incident also read as a mix of airplane and serious crew errors.
I don't see how either of those can be attributed solely to the manufacturer except in the most simplistic of terms. I haven't vetted the others.
Crew error is something that should be worked to be designed out.
Like the incident with the yoke being pushed out of autopilot; having the chair flipped around could lock out the control, or there could be an audible message when the lock status changes, or the yolk is being pressed on just after or before the lockout is set.
Lots of design considerations can make user error more difficult.
What about the tire that fell just after takeoff? The malfunctioning fan? The switch that was accidentally triggered, leading Boeing to issue a directive to check for loose covers? FAA issuing an order regarding wiring issues?
God, given how pissed I am at Boeing management I hate to defend the incompetent bastards, but tires (wheels?) falling off is probably not a design or manufacturing issue, but rather a maintenance issue. Likewise Boeing doesn’t make fans or engines, but uses the same engine suppliers Airbus does. The seat retraction switch the flight attendant accidentally activated by pushing on the cover designed to prevent the switch from being activated? The nightmare of any design engineer, but you can bet the updated version will have so many interlocks that the flight crews will bitch about it.
Did they find the tire to be a maintenance issue? I thought it was likely, but the possibility is out there that stressed metal caused it to snap off instead of pop off from improper torque/lack of bolts during maintenance. I included it because it was an "incident involving commercial aircraft" with things falling off an aircraft.
The fan issue might be a supplier QA/QC issue, but it could also be a Boeing QT issue -- do you not check the work of your suppliers? -- or a Boeing design issue -- no redundancy?
The button is a rocker and the cover is fold-down.
Stressed metal? Tires are made of rubber and steel fiber. Neither the wheels and tires are designed or made by Boeing, but by the same vendors that supply Airbus and everyone else. Failed tires are usually due to underinflation or foreign objects on the runway, wheels coming off usually due to inadequate wheel bearing maintenance.
Boeing doesn't design or build engines. any engine failure or lack of redundancy in engine design is primarily on the engine manufacturer. Pratt and Whitney, General Electric, Rolls-Royce, SNECMA and other engine manufacturers know more about their engines than Boeing and are the ones who should primarily be held responsible for engine failures.
The cover was fold down, but the speculation is the rocker switch came loose from its mounting and was standing proud, so that when the flight attendant inadvertently pressed on the "safety cover", it activated the switch.
Stressed metal inline of the axle. C'mon, you know that's what I was referring to -- the tire looked intact and this wasn't a catastrophic blowout. What's the redundancy safety limit of unattached wheel bolts?
So you're saying that Boeing does not have an entire team dedicated to engine/fan testing? Or are you just assigning blame for failures on the component manufacturers?
If the rocker switch was proud, doesn't it seem odd that Boeing issued an alert for loose covers and not loose switches?
Given your record vs J. Frank, I'm gonna go with J, who seems to be a careful sort.
J Frank screwed up here.
He, did? That's odd, given his line of work, but I'll take your word for it.
Early new reports stated (as did D_Ohrk_E1) that the tire came off. I was well aware that it was probably the whole wheel/tire assy that came off but discussed both tire failures and wheel failures in an effort to be complete. The wheels are made in two halves (inner and outer) which are joined by numerous bolts, all safety wired so they cannot come undone. The wheel is held onto the airplane by a large central nut which threads onto the axle and is also safety wired. A wheel coming off is usually caused by a wheel bearing failing and overheating to the point that the high strength steel (titanium on newer aircraft) axle fails.
Similarly news reports state Boeing ordered an inspection of the pilot’s chair for “loose switch covers”, but it appears it was actually about inspecting the switch to ensure it was not loose and capable of being activated by pressing on the spring loaded cover. This site has a good discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRF1YTVJ1Q4
In general the media does a poor job of getting the details right, especially in the early reports. The notable exception is Dominic Gates of the Seattle Times, who has made reporting on Boeing a specialty. A number of the internet aviation sites (including Mentour Pilot and Blancoliro) are good.
Sorry, but I'm still not sure if you are talking about the tire, the wheel, or the axle. The wheel is held on to the axle by a single large ring nut, which also sets the clearance on the wheel bearings, and is safety wired in place.
The entire wheel came off, not just 'a tire'.
I was well aware it was probably the wheel that came off, but early news reports stated it was "a tire" that come off.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Tire+comes+of+737&sca_esv=90831218f7071c15&sxsrf=ACQVn08c67UaDTQ-gp1G1sMi2GSwSePyhg%3A1710636078358&ei=Ljz2ZbOuFdKq0PEPzZm0-AE&ved=0ahUKEwiz_aj-h_qEAxVSFTQIHc0MDR8Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Tire+comes+of+737&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiEVRpcmUgY29tZXMgb2YgNzM3MgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAFI9jdQnBZY_TJwAngAkAEAmAFYoAGNCaoBAjE3uAEDyAEA-AEBmAIToAKyCcICCBAuGIAEGLADwgIOEAAYgAQYigUYhgMYsAPCAgQQIxgnwgIKECMYgAQYigUYJ8ICCxAAGIAEGIoFGJECwgILEC4YgAQYigUYkQLCAhEQLhiABBixAxiDARjHARjRA8ICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgILEC4YgAQYsQMYgwHCAggQABiABBixA8ICEBAuGIAEGIoFGEMYxwEYrwHCAgoQABiABBiKBRhDwgIOEAAYgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAg4QLhiABBixAxjHARjRA8ICDhAAGIAEGIoFGJECGLEDwgIFEAAYgATCAggQLhiABBixA8ICCBAAGIAEGMkDwgILEAAYgAQYigUYkgPCAggQABiABBiSA8ICBhAAGBYYHsICBxAhGAoYoAGYAwCIBgGQBgOSBwIxOaAHzIgB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp
Boeing sets the maintenance schedules and what to check for.
Former engineer for an aerospace vendor whose biggest customers were Boeing and Airbus. The plane the fairing blew off of was a 737 NG, not the current 737 Max, so it’s on United Airlines maintenance, not Boeing. Boeing has serious issues, but this is a case of herd mentality by the MSM.
The Airbus A-320 Neo, which competes with the 737 MAX, has had a number of incidents where misfastened engine covers blew off in flight (check YouTube). Embarrassing but didn’t cause any crashes, and doesn’t fit the media’s “Biden is old, everything Boeing is shit” current theme.
👍👍👍👍👍
This really is in Clive Irving's wheelhouse. His latest:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/boeing-executives-cannot-keep-getting-away-with-this?ref=author
This post and thread are how people see things when they're on the ground looking up. When I'm in a plane, though, I suddenly realize the wings cannot possibly hold all that weight up, so it must be the faith of all the passengers. Except at that moment I don't have that faith, so if someone Up Even Higher reads my mind we'll crash.
The media better start being more positive about Boeing, because if people lose faith it'll be terrible. At least that's what I'll think next time I'm in the air.
One would really have to look at the age of the respective fleets in order to make any real sense about the number of issues going on, since most of what is reported (but for the Alaska 737 Max) are maintenance related issues. Aircraft are getting older given the demand for new deliveries and the years delay most airlines are seeing. You also have to look at the seriousness of the incidents, since there are multiple redundancies in critical aircraft systems. Both Airbus and Boeing use the same 4 engine manufacturers on most aircraft.
I go to Blancoliro (Juan Browne) for my information on airplane accidents and incidents. There other sites but Juan is just up the road in Grass Valley.
Other aircraft sites are:
Ward Carroll
Scott Perdue
Dan Gryder
and Mentor Pilot
Petter on Mentor Pilot is great resource. I also go here for detailed analysis of air crashes:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AdmiralCloudberg/comments/e6n80m/plane_crash_series_archive_patreon_contact_info/
The number of reported incidents is indeed very small. So small that it has little statistic value. The only way to get a better picture would be to read up on the details of every one of those incidents to make sure one compares oranges to oranges.
For example incidents with fatal consequences need to be taken a whole lot more seriously than the rest. Incidents that cause the grounding of a whole fleet are also different from minor mishaps. The number alone says nothing whatsoever. How voluntary is voluntary? Can we rely on the numbers or is the tilt to Boeing just a consequence of incomplete data?
Wait, seriously? There have been only two incidents...in just 2.5 months of 2024. If we continue at that pace, there will 9 incidents this year!