Boeing has many problems, but this seems to be a case of everything working as intended. Boeing discovered an issue and reported it to the airlines, the FAA followed up with a directive mandating the inspection that Boeing already recommended. The issue in question hasn't caused any of the units inspected so far to actually fail to operate, but since it theoretically could they need to be fixed.
If this happened on an Airbus plane it wouldn't have ended up on the front page.
> If this happened on an Airbus plane it wouldn't have ended up on the front page.
Because Airbus weren't shown, publicly, on multiple occasions, to be a bunch of incompetent fools failing to do basic manufacturing things well. Do you need a reminder that Boeing and their supplier Spirit failed at basics such as tracking who did what work, drilling holes, remembering to put back bolts they took out, tracking their work in the required systems, etc.
There is zero trust in Boeing doing the right thing, and every little detail of their operation needs to be under intense scrutiny to insure their incompetence and cost cutting do not kill any more people. Why did they change the adhesive on the oxygen masks? Did they test it enough?
I'm not opposed to scrutiny, I'm opposed to uninformed speculation and sensationalizing of totally normal safety operations.
If we were talking about patterns and stats that would be one thing, but this kind of pile-on after every Boeing anecdote isn't data-driven and isn't meaningful. It's just confirmation bias, and I prefer to see better on HN.
> this seems to be a case of everything working as intended
Not in the context of everything else that's happened.
> If this happened on an Airbus plane it wouldn't have ended up on the front page.
Has Airbus been discovered to have decades long cost cutting, cutting corners, negligence, bribes, passenger deaths, incompetence, and criminal activity?
By all means, let's talk about patterns and data. Let's share articles that analyze Boeing failures over time, that do proper statistical analysis. But let's not make a big deal out of totally normal safety procedures or get fixated on every random anecdote.
I'm not defending Boeing re: everything, I'd just like to see us rise above uninformed internet brigading and have a useful conversation that isn't primarily driven by cognitive biases.
I'm less concerned that a procesure was technically followed, this time, and more concerned that Boeing has seemingly endless problems with their planes from the simple to leading to passenger death.
Did Boeing discover the problem? It reads more like the problem occurred in the field (on operational aircraft), was reported to Boeing, then Boeing reported the issue to the FAA.
> If this happened on an Airbus plane it wouldn't have ended up on the front page.
Perhaps, but I think its a good thing that boeing is under more scrutiny and is getting more shit than their competition would for the same. Not much more general public can do.
Whether or not it's a good thing in the abstract, these HN threads are always disaster zones. People who are actually informed don't bother to show up, so it's just a bunch of low-effort complaints about Boeing that bear no relation to the article.
Maybe because we didn't have 2 Airbus planes crash and doors blowing out of planes while they are flying because of criminal negligence on the part of Airbus.
Right, but that doesn't mean that now we need to go all sensational about every single instance of regular airplane safety procedure.
Ever since the MAX crashes we periodically get these threads where a bunch of people who don't understand normal procedure speculate that a totally normal incident is actually more sinister. These are some of HN's least valuable threads, so I'd prefer to preempt it.
And in all previous threads there were other HN people saying "trust Boeing, it's not a systemic thing, they are a honest company and will fix things, it's just how aviation got safe, one crash at a time"
Again, in fairness, the user you’re responding to did say in another comment that these threads were a bunch of low effort comments by people with no understanding.
I agree normal correct unsurprising process etc., but I suppose the reason it's more interesting/newsworthy than if it were Airbus is just because it comes after all the other issues, so 'oh, another issue' becomes part of the story even if it's being handled correctly and could as well have happened to another company.
It happens for example with car recalls too, there's a high profile issue that affects a lot of them or sounds particularly bad; then if there's a smaller more mundane issue they also have to recall a few for it gets attention it wouldn't have otherwise.
Yeah. HN is really insufferable about this stuff. Just as prone as everyone else to being pandered to with politically driven clickbait, but acts like it’s God’s gift to Earth because…computers?
Anyone that remotely cares about aviation can tell you that completely routine Boeing-related “news” now routinely makes its way to the HN front page, not because it’s notable, but because everyone wants to post their recycled rants about “MBAs” because they had a bad day at work or whatever.
What do you mean HN is insufferable? As i write this there isn’t a single comment speaking unreasonably against Boeing in this thread. The story making the front page is a result of a few people clicking a vote button, not preaching a mission statement.
new adhesive introduced on the straps in August 2019 had been seen under certain circumstances
Does it take 5 YEARS to find issues like this? Is it some kind of rare issue? IF this was some other company, I'd give benefit of the doubt to them. But this is Boeing, given the shenanigans they have pulled past few years, did they "issue a bulletin" because they are genuinely concerned or because they realized someone is gonna find out anyways?
This doesn't follow directly from the article but possibly it takes 5 years for the shift to occur. Such things happen with adhesives in my home sometimes.
I presume FAA is an US-only entity. How does this affect planes operated in Europe? Ryanair's fleet mainly consists of 737's like 8200, Max 10 and Next Gen. Are these going to be inspected too?
Air regulators usually coordinate, and trust each other with regards to their respective planes (e.g. if EASA says something needs to happen because they oversee Airbus, FAA will just repeat that; if EASA certify a new Airbus jet, FAA trusts that).
That trust was severely damaged when the FAA showed themselves to be incompetently incapable of controlling Boeing, and incapable of realising that by refusing to ground the planes after the crashes. This resulted in 300+ hundred deaths. Since then EASA and the Civil Aviation Administration of China have stopped blindly trusting the FAA, and have their own extra checks and processes applied. As an example, the EASA was involved in 737 Max recertification (unprecedented), and is involved in the 777X certification. CAAC also didn't recertify the 737 Maxes until months after the FAA did.
It will take the FAA and American aerospace decades to build back any semblance of trust.
Europe’s counterpart to the FAA, EASA, may or may not respond by mandating these checks as well (they likely will). Beyond that, airlines may voluntarily carry out these checks.
Consider, how many rubber-stampers have been removed from the critical path within the FAA since 2020? Probably a decided drop in the number of golf outings with Boeing and Airbus guys as well.
Nothing may have changed with Boeing. But you’d see changes in enforcement if the critical workers at FAA were to change.
Why were they able to change the adhesive being used during the rollout (i.e. different to the original one used, that works). This screams of the flammable tape issue they had in Starliner too. Shoddy QA and procurement process.
To the downvoters, please explain to me why it's fine to change an adhesive from the original, given the original is fine and the replacement is what lead to this issue.
If there’s a silver lining in all events that is happening with Boeing, definitely will be the adjacent fixes and data collected around potential problems and of course the time given to solve those issues.
I do not have and insight on how that industry work, but I imagine several stealth patching, design philosophies receiving on field data, and a lot of learning due to those incidents.
This is totally normal procedure and has been for years. The only difference is now it makes the news because "Boeing" gets clicks.
> I do not have and insight on how that industry work, but
This is why I think these articles shouldn't be submitted. People who know how these things work don't click because they know it's just the media sensationalizing the routine, but they're a magnet for uninformed speculation.
That’s why I carefully placed my lack of inside knowledge and the word “imagine” before I made my statement.
From the outside seems that the aviation industry has a lot of care for security and opportunistic continuous enhancement as a high stakes/high consequence industry in comparison with SWE that most of the time does not have the same philosophy.
> This is why I think these articles shouldn't be submitted. People who know how these things work don't click because they know it's just the media sensationalizing the routine
That’s why here in HN those stories should be posted; not only for the wide range of people in terms of skills that we have here but it contributes with an informed debate and/or ideas exchange.
>contributes with an informed debate and/or ideas exchange.
Past the initial couple submissions when this all came to light, everything since has been classic internet brigading and social hysteria wrought by the media looking for particularly easy clickbait.
Sincerely, these articles are just spam and it is a disservice to society to enable the media spewing them out.
That’s the idea in the industry. But that’s not how Boeing’s been running for a long time.
Not really sure they will ever get it back. What we’re seeing right now from the FAA, is calibrated safety theatre in an attempt to ameliorate Boeing’s reputation. Likely because a decision has already been made to save Boeing from its engineering and business practices regardless of our ability as a nation to affect internal change in that corporation.
I think we can try to force management changes, but even when we do, there’s a tendency to promote from rising stars within. With all the obvious consequences.
If this happened on an Airbus plane it wouldn't have ended up on the front page.