backtop


Print 28 comment(s) - last by Captain Orgazm.. on Mar 17 at 6:56 PM

Boeing could face another redesign

The Federal Aviation Administration has ordered airlines within its jurisdiction to perform emergency inspections of approximately 600 Boeing 737 aircraft. There are specific concerns regarding loose elevator tabs on 600, 700, 800, and 900 series aircraft of the 737 model.

The FAA's Emergency Airworthiness Directive was issued following recommendations from Boeing after a Ryanair 737-800 traveling from the Netherlands to Spain experienced "severe vibration" in flight. The flight landed safely, but an inspection found extensive damage to the left elevator, which is the movable flap on the horizontal tail that controls the pitch of the airplane. Fractured mounting lugs are suspected to be the root cause.

"Severe vibration in this attach point is suspected of allowing rapid wear of the joint and resulted in failure of the attach lugs," states the FAA's preliminary incident report. "This condition, if not corrected, could result in a loss of aircraft control and structural integrity."

The 600 through 900 series was the result of the 737 Next Generation redesign at the end of the 1990's, updating the original design going back to 1964. A previous FAA directive that was issued in 2003 resulted in an elevator redesign, but this has not been linked to the current issues.

The FAA is focusing its attention on aircraft that were assembled around the same time as the Ryanair 737. Those aircraft must be inspected within 12 days, while the rest of the 600 which are less likely to be affected must be inspected within 30 days.

Over 3,168 aircraft of the affected models have been delivered.

 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Why I only fly Jetblue or Virgin or Midwest
By Lord 666 on 3/15/10, Rating: 0
By Desslok on 3/15/2010 11:39:14 AM , Rating: 1
The A320 better than the 737? You must be smoking some REALLY good stuff.


By Chaser on 3/15/2010 11:42:20 AM , Rating: 2
No thanks. Delta for me. I have to be able to fly quickly and conveniently often at short notice almost anywhere there's an airport in the U.S.A.


RE: Why I only fly Jetblue or Virgin or Midwest
By porkpie on 3/15/2010 11:58:40 AM , Rating: 4
"Airbus 320 > 737"

If you're basing that off total crashes, it demonstrates a lack of statistical understanding. There are twice as many 737s in the air, and on average, they've been flying twice as long. That alone would roughly equate to a quadrupling of incidents, all else being equal. The 737 also tends to fly shorter routes, and (since most of a flight's risk is on takeoff or landing), also adds an imbalancing factor.


RE: Why I only fly Jetblue or Virgin or Midwest
By Keeir on 3/15/2010 12:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
I think its also good to remember that there are 3 generations of 737 aircraft. The first and second are significantly older than the A320 design.

As time progresses, typically Airplane models become safer and more reliable, and clean sheet designs make a larger jump than derivatives.

Hopefully A350>787>.....777>A330>767>A300>7 47


By porkpie on 3/15/2010 12:44:48 PM , Rating: 3
"Hopefully A350>787>.....777>A330>767>A300>7 47"

True. However these aircraft are (when properly maintained and flown, of course) already so safe that choosing one over the other because of safety is silly.

It's like driving cross country, but being afraid to stop at any restroom, for fear the extra quarter-mile you drive will result in an accident.


RE: Why I only fly Jetblue or Virgin or Midwest
By Keeir on 3/15/2010 12:20:08 PM , Rating: 2
::rolls eyes::

You know, Flight Crew Quality and Training + Maintainence Quality and Training make much more difference to Airplane safety than model...

For example, the last fatal crash involving a US carrier and a 737 was apparently in 1994. It was a 737-300, a basic model of classic, that was designed in the late 70s, and potentially 13+ years old at time of crash.

Your reference to the 717 is especially... wrong. That plane was not even in flight until 1999, and there are only ~150 in service. We wouldn't really know how the 717 stacks up in terms of air safety until around the ~20 (or longer due to low numbers) mark from introduction.


By Solandri on 3/15/2010 7:25:22 PM , Rating: 3
The 717 is just Boeing's rename of the MD-95 after it acquired McDonnell Douglas. The MD-95 itself was just an update on the DC-9, which has been in service sine 1965.


RE: Why I only fly Jetblue or Virgin or Midwest
By Hieyeck on 3/15/2010 12:23:12 PM , Rating: 3
Does this mean you'll be one less fool on the road too? Safer to fly than to drive you know.


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 3/16/2010 11:41:22 AM , Rating: 2
Unless you are a male driving 350 miles or less. Then it is safer to drive than to fly.


RE: Why I only fly Jetblue or Virgin or Midwest
By 85 on 3/15/2010 12:30:59 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Airbus 320 > 737 Even the 717 is still crash free.


I fly for a living and the joke at work is "its only a mater of time!" True, its an older plane but seriously, even mentioning that you would rather fly on something else is ridiculous! Do you also wear a helmet when you leave your house? you could get hit by a falling coconut.

the jets you mentioned are as followed,
737 - first built 1967 total built 6,285
320 - first built 1987 total built 4,181
717 - first built 1998 total built 156

Are you seeing the trend here?


By inperfectdarkness on 3/15/2010 2:46:28 PM , Rating: 2
you must be talking about the new 717's. the military's been flying the other kind of 717 for decades--and we've lost several of them. no airframe is invincible.


By MrPoletski on 3/16/2010 11:11:42 AM , Rating: 2
Except Batfinks, his wings are like shields of steel.


RE: Why I only fly Jetblue or Virgin or Midwest
By Solandri on 3/15/2010 7:29:16 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Do you also wear a helmet when you leave your house? you could get hit by a falling coconut.

I hear the ones dropped by African swallows are more dangerous than the ones dropped by European swallows.


By FaaR on 3/16/2010 1:17:25 AM , Rating: 2
That's a bit of a misleading statement, as European swallows aren't capable of sufficient airspeed to carry a coconut...


By BernardP on 3/15/2010 2:30:46 PM , Rating: 1
The 717 is a tarted-up, er... updated... DC-9 aka MD-80 aka MD-90 aka MD-95

Only 156 units of the 717's have been produced

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_717


RE: Why I only fly Jetblue or Virgin or Midwest
By vcolon on 3/16/2010 12:05:34 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm. I actually agree with lord666 on this one. Work for a major Canadian airline who has a fleet of a320's and a319's. No one could tell them of their wrong decision, but this American will. If you doubt that claim, ask any veteran pilot or flight attendant.


By Captain Orgazmo on 3/16/2010 8:00:07 AM , Rating: 2
Then you must know of the infamous, ancient rattletrap airbus that flies the YYC-YVR route. I will be surprised if the wings don't fall off on one of its crash/landings very soon.


RE: Why I only fly Jetblue or Virgin or Midwest
By Lord 666 on 3/16/2010 2:56:59 PM , Rating: 2
By Captain Orgazmo on 3/17/2010 6:56:09 PM , Rating: 2
Too funny, there's a video of everything on the net. Thanks for that :)


No big deal.
By Amiga500 on 3/15/2010 11:43:10 AM , Rating: 1
If needs be, Boeing will have a mod on the aircraft without any fuss. We've all been in this boat before.

More worrying for them, is figuring out how to cram a PW geared turbofan under a wing to combat Airbus re-engining the A320 with the Pratt geared fan (which is turning out to be quite the performer - possibly saving P&W as a company).




RE: No big deal.
By blowfish on 3/15/2010 2:37:09 PM , Rating: 2
sure, no big deal, like the defective rudder controls! 737's were flying for years with the potential for catastrophic rudder reversal, which resulted in at least two known crashes, and I suspect several more that were swept under the carpet, like the Red Sea crash a few years back. The rudder control replacement program was allowed to take place over a very extended period. any other plane maker's fleet would have been grounded in similar circumstances.


RE: No big deal.
By TerranMagistrate on 3/15/2010 5:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
Pratt & Whitney doesn't need any sort of saving seeing as how they are at the forefront of jet engine technology for military applications.

It's Airbus that needs to be saved with all those massive subsidies several European governments have poured into it over the years, which the WTO is finalizing a report on.


By GTVic on 3/15/2010 6:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
If the bolts are worn to the point of being visibly unsafe (fractured lugs), this should have been caught in a routine inspection during regularly scheduled maintenance.




By Keeir on 3/15/2010 7:10:21 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, they would be...

Lugs and Vibration though are both funny animals.

Its entirely possible that the lug could be going from safe to unsafe between the regular maintainence interval. And that the type of inspection at the regular maintainence interval may not be sufficient to catch early wear which leads to lug failure.

In fact, that seems to be the very concern here.


More $$$ for Boeing
By jbwhite99 on 3/15/2010 12:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
I had a professor in college who taught part time, and worked as a quality engineer at a large engine company. He said that they lost money selling the engines (to get share), but made up for it on repair and maintenance parts. Somehow, I bet Boeing will end up making back their development costs for any fix.




This doesn't sound good
By kellehair on 3/15/2010 1:21:20 PM , Rating: 2
I have 2 flights on affected models in the next 2 weeks. I'm not usually a worrier but "emergency inspections" doesn't sound good.




winglets
By strikeback03 on 3/16/2010 9:00:20 AM , Rating: 2
I thought RyanAir had winglets on all their aircraft? Part of trying to drive expenses as low as possible.




"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki