Edit:
- article title update, bump not bomb jolt’
- added comma
DENVER — An engine cover on a Boeing 737 operated by Southwest Airlines ripped open just after taking off from Denver International Airport Sunday morning.
The Houston-bound Southwest flight took off from DIA around 7:45 a.m., and returned to the airport 30 minutes later, landing safely. No injuries were reported.
Looks at post title and wonders if Boeing
Opens article
Is Boeing
You do know that this has nothing to do with it being a Boeing aircraft, right? The flight was a 737-800 which is from the NG series of 737s. The NG series has one of the lowest accidents per departure of any aircraft ever made and they probably have the most departure of any aircraft series.
This was 100% on Southwest. This aircraft was built in 2015 and has been flying for a decade. All that happened was a Southwest mechanic didn’t latch the engine cowling properly after an at gate service. This is a problem and should not happen, but has nothing to do with Boeing.
It’s the Ohio train derailment all over again. Accident happens, people pay more attention to similar accidents, they are shared more on social media (especially if they confirm what people now this is true), people not smart enough to understand that hearing about it more does not mean it’s happening more, and so every accident confirms their belief no matter what.
It’s a vicious feedback loop.
Yeah a couple of these recently return to gate/derversions with non max Boeing’s would have barely made the local news but the word Boeing makes headlines and it doesn’t matter that in the article
Even if you discount the airlines responsibility in this, Boeing don’t make the engines., CFM International do.
Boeing do make the choice in who does their engines. And they do make the choice on the specs. Just as any vehicle manufacturer may use different parts from other manufacturers, they do make a choice with doing business and whether or not they are thorough on their specs.they do put their name on the assembled package as a collection of all their choices.
So no, while they didn’t make the engine themselves, they employed someone to do it to a spec they themselves determined was enough.
Well first of not sure how that is relevant but just so you know the CFM 56 that is used in the 737NGs is also the engine used in the A320 CEO which is the airbus narrow body and is the direct competitor 737NG family
Wrong argument.
I’m not arguing class. They do cater to specs for aircraft.
If they do not require a spec, that’s on them. If they do, that’s also on them. It’s on the company who make the ultimate choice to strap it on and paint their name on the final decision.
It’s like that with all products. You will be held responsible regardless of you outsource any assembly and it’s still on your line.
That’s business 101.
For example : that is precisely the engine being fuel efficient and angling how it sits or he wing to operate the MCAS system. The infamous system that put Boeing on their back leg. that system to compensate for an engine, the courts didn’t blame the engine in the end. The families of the lost ones do not blame the engine. It’s still the fault of Boeing. This was tried and done already. didn’t work.
And even humouring this argument: families of the lost will not come after RR, PW or GM. That’s not a fight they can do and you know that. Only the airplane manufacturer can. So They will go after Boeing for strapping it on. And You know that. So go stick that red herring in your pipe and smoke it yourself if you’re that thirsty. Meanwhile I’m stepping aside on your misnomer argument.
It’s on Boeing. They made the comment about cost of human life. You’re not going to change my mind in this vein.
Sorry what??? The 737NG and A320 CEO use the same CFM 56 engine. If it was an issue with CFM and the engines it made then Airbus would be as likely to have an issue as Boeing.
But it isn’t at all. If this was a problem with Boeing then we would have been seeing issues with this for 20 years. This is 100% Southwest’s fault and has nothing to do with Boeing or CFM. Would you blame Ford if the mechanic didn’t tighten your wheel lug nuts?
You want to say the MAX planes are shit I am right with you, but this plane was made before the MAX planes even came out and the engineering was done in 1990.
Again: wrong argument on class. I already explained why. Not having this with you.
I am not arguing about the “class” plane. I am saying it was Southwest’s fault because they didn’t properly latch the cowling so it blew open. As I said before would you blame the manufacturer of your car if the local tire shop didn’t tighten your tire lug nuts?
Don’t get snippy with me if you can’t actually respond to the points I bring up.
I mean half are boeing and half are airbus. We aren’t exactly swimming in large airplane manufacturers.
It’s a Boeing that has been flying for years. Maintenance staff forgot to latch the engine cowling. That is all.
Airbus used to have a way larger problem with this, so bad they had to redesign it to make it more obvious it wasn’t latched.
https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/preventing-fan-cowl-door-loss/
Southwest Airlines uses Boeing aircraft exclusively. Lucky me gets to try my luck in two weeks. 🙄
Thousands of Boeing flights happen every day. Statistically, you’ll be fine.
Everybody who has ever died in a plane crash was also, statistically, going to be fine.
I don’t think you understand statistics
… So they got on a plane knowing they were definitely going to die? They didn’t get on a plane with the very same remote chance of dying in a plane crash as every one else has, only to then die in a plane crash?
I guess they should have checked the Lemmy statistics before they boarded, where “it’s unlikely to happen to me” can be extrapolated to “it will never happen to anyone”.
Fuck, why does Boeing even bother pretending to do all that maintenance? Apparently planes don’t burst into flames because they’re protected by magical statistics. Just throw a screwdriver in the engine, it doesn’t make any difference.
That’s not how statistics works.
Just because you win the lottery, that doesn’t mean it was bound to happen. It’s the same with bad luck. Your tile floor in the bathroom is literally more dangerous than an airplane. Do you steel yourself to confront death when you step out of the shower?
You’re statistically unlikely to be killed by a shark. Do you want to share a swimming pool with one?
Statistics aren’t a suit of armor and they can be deeply misleading without context. If every plane in the air crashed today, how would the statistics change? Would 0.00001 become 0.00002? Would you tell people there was nothing to fear because it’s still statistically unlikely?
I would guess that every single passenger jet that has ever crashed had at least one person who reassured themselves “it won’t happen to me”.
If more than a million Americans safely swam in that pool yesterday, I would feel comfortable swimming there today.
Depends on the kind of shark. Most sharks ignore people. You can pet reef sharks. People pay thousands of dollars to swim with them. That’s the context.
The context here is that planes are almost excessively safe. The door was sucked off of one and no one even died. Can you tell me the last time a fatal accident happened to a commercial airplane in the US?
So you’re when it comes to my shark analogy you demand nuance down to the specific type of shark but for planes you’re happy with “It was safe last year so it must still be safe now”?
Is this some bizarre shill campaign or is everyone trying to be crowned “King of science and rationalism”?
And do you know what the FAA said about it? “This incident should have never happened and it cannot happen again”. But don’t worry about the whistleblowers saying management has been covering up defects and cutting corners, “the statistics” say it’s safe.
I could load you on to a burning plane with a drunk and the answer to “Can you tell me the last time a fatal accident happened to a commercial airplane in the US?” wouldn’t change until you hit the ground.
But don’t worry, because “statistics”.
Everyday there are thousands of Boeing flights that go off without a hitch. It’s still statically completely unlikely that anything bad will happen to you on a Boeing flight. So much so that it’s probably not even worth worrying about at all.
But this isn’t to say that we should just let their bs slide. This is exactly why flying is so safe: we are sticklers for making sure they do everything right. If that’s going in the opposite direction, we should nip it in the bud long before it gets anywhere close to the point where you should question the safety of it.
But, again, we aren’t even remotely close to that now. It makes no logical sense to be afraid of flying right now, even on a Boeing jet. And I would like to keep it that way which is why I think their issues need to be addressed.
If you swim in a swimming pool with a shark, you are not statistically unlikely to be killed by one.
This is a really terrible analogy, for a really terrible way of thinking about risk.
Assuming you have a point here, then based on the logic you seem to be trying to to use, you should also never drive a car, go outside, eat a sandwich, etc. You know, since there was a point when people doing those things died, and those people thought they’d be ok too.
I think it’s clear that you’re never going to get my point. Maybe you could apply for a management job at Boeing?
Pretty sure I got your point, it’s just terrible.
The downvotes genuinely scare me.
It’s a bad point, that’s why.
Like with poker, you can do everything right and still end up losing. This is what happens when you deal with anything that has any type of chance involved.
And just like the lottery. Even if you win, you just got ridiculously lucky. You still really made a bad move with the money.
No, it’s not. If I asked you to get on a plane that had a 1 in 3 chance of crashing, would you?
Statistically, you’d be fine. The absolute risk of a plane crash may be minimal. But if you are on a plane that is crashing, that is little consolation. That is what the commenter was pointing out. It is a valid presumption.
If you were on a crashing plane, would you be statistically fine?
No of course not. Noone is arguing that the statistics will protect the you, only (effectively) that it’s such a rare occurrence that you might as well just assume youll be fine.
Saying “well some people weren’t fine!” Is a silly point. Noone is denying plane crashes occur.
The comment you are disputing
It relays that way. The other commenters said they don’t understand statistics, and statistics don’t work that way.
Then why are you disputing the comment. There isn’t anything untrue or illogical in that comment. I’m genuinely scared that there are people in here that don’t understand that if you are in a crashing plane, you’re not worried about statistics. Frightening, actually.
Until you aren’t.
Dibs on your nick.