Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

After Flight to Oregon, Boeing 737-800 Lands with a Missing External Panel (cnn.com) 64

Posted by EditorDavid from the spared-parts dept.
A Boeing 737-800 "was discovered to be missing an external panel" on the bottom of its fuselage, reports CNN, "after it landed in Medford, Oregon, Friday afternoon after taking off from San Francisco."

They stress that it's not a 737 Max, but the previous generation of Boeing aircraft. The plane carrying 145 passengers and crew landed safely and was parked at the gate at Rogue Valley International Medford Airport when a person on the ground first noticed the panel was missing, United Airlines said in a statement. The crew of Flight 433 did not declare an emergency and there was no indication of the damage during the flight, the airline said...

United said the missing panel did not affect the flying characteristics of the airplane...

Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport Director Amber Judd indicated to the Rogue Valley Times the aircraft is not in condition to fly and "will be here for a while." Judd added it is unclear where the missing panel is.

"They don't know where they lost it," Judd told the RV Times.
"The Federal Aviation Administration said it will investigate the incident."

Yahoo Finance notes that shares of Boeing "have declined over 30% in 2024."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

After Flight to Oregon, Boeing 737-800 Lands with a Missing External Panel More

After Flight to Oregon, Boeing 737-800 Lands with a Missing External Panel

Comments Filter:

  • What headline (convieniently) doesn't say (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Is this is a ~23 year old plane. Just saying.

    • Well yeah, but still, those things aren't supposed to just fall off due to old age. Those 'still-flying things' might fall off and hurt someone.

      Six Sigma and all that [youtube.com].

      • Re: What headline (convieniently) doesn't say (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Saturday March 16, 2024 @12:06PM (#64320213)

        As much shit Boeing is in for lax quality control lately, at that age it's long past the point of quality control at the factory. At that age you're looking more at the quality of preventative maintenance on the part of the airline.

        • Unless Boeing was responsible for the last major overhaul.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mjwx ( 966435 )

            Unless Boeing was responsible for the last major overhaul.

            Given the number of incidents that have been occurring with United, I suspect the issue lies there... And as far as airlines go, I kind of like United.. Certainly worse airlines out there (looking at you Luftwaffe).

            The best thing United can do is look at where the issue is, what's causing it and rectify it. Hopefully they won't do a Boeing and try to MBA their way out of an engineering problem.

        • It is cute that you think facts mean anything to this subject.

      • Re: What headline (convieniently) doesn't say (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ThumpBzztZoom ( 6976422 ) on Saturday March 16, 2024 @12:54PM (#64320329)

        They only said a 'panel". Most likely, the full name of the part is "inspection panel" which is a panel that maintenance personnel unscrew to inspect and work on certain internal components. It's a bit of a stretch to state that a panel which has been unscrewed and screwed back on dozens to hundreds of times (depending on where it is) bt maintenance personnel on a 22 year old plane fell off because of a design or manufacturing problem.

        I don't know what kind of "panel" fell off, but an inspection panel is by far the most likely possibility. Pretty much everything else that would be described as a panel would involve fairly heavy damage to the plane either in the removal process or aftermath.

    • It shouldnt matter. Just sayin. Either the plane is fit to fly or it's not.

      • It shouldnt matter. Just sayin. Either the plane is fit to fly or it's not.

        Absolutely, but at 23 years what is relevant here is that it is a United plane, not a Boeing plane. Right now it's cool to shit on Boeing because ... well frankly they deserve to be shat on, but let's not forget there are other companies equally deserving of being shat on, and United is quite up there.

        • Exactly. This is like reporting "A 23-year old Ford truck had the gas-filling door break off after putting gas in the vehicle."

          The owner reported "I don't know what happened. It worked perfectly for the last 223,000 miles I have driven the truck."

          A Ford representative looked at the reporter like he was an idiot when asked if this was endemic with all Ford trucks.

          What's next? Someone reporting the seat-back trays on some Boeing models don't stay latched after 20 years of service? How about the overhead r

    • The problems with Boeing started in the early '90s. They're just coming to an extreme head right now.
  • Is Oregon Plane becoming the new Florida Man?

  • > Yahoo Finance notes that shares of Boeing "have declined over 30% in 2024."

    time for another round of stock buybacks

  • Incidents (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Saturday March 16, 2024 @11:59AM (#64320185)

    People post air traffic control recordings on Youtube. Listening to them is an education. These things happen a lot. Tires explode. Engines catch on fire. Electrical systems fail. Planes, and the entire air travel system, are designed to handle these failures.

    If this was a 2 year old plane, it would likely be a manufacturing problem. This is a 20 year old plane. It's either a maintenance or inspection issue, or it's just a 20 year old piece of hardware that's been used tens of thousands of hours, and it's simply failing.

    • Re:Incidents (Score:4, Informative)

      by Aviation Pete ( 252403 ) on Saturday March 16, 2024 @12:04PM (#64320201)
      Mod parent up!

      Better yet, read The Aviation Herald [avherald.com] regularly. You can filter for the kind of incidents and the reporting is excellent.

    • Yeah, that was my reaction as well. "So what?"

      Just take a look at channels like VASAvation and this stuff happens all the time. I've watched these for hours, it's very interesting.

      https://www.youtube.com/@VASAv... [youtube.com]

    • They could bring a panel together to discuss the safety issues, but they also would probably go missing.

    • This is a 20 year old plane. It's either a maintenance or inspection issue, or it's just a 20 year old piece of hardware that's been used tens of thousands of hours, and it's simply failing.

      Yes yes, things fall from the sky so often that it makes the news. You cite several odd issues as if they are the same as an exterior panel falling off. The issue is that it's failing while flying, and you seem to be suggesting this wasn't important enough to maintain or inspect. If I can't count on ground crews to inspect the visible stuff, what _can_ I count on? How many funerals need planning before we decide that 20 year old airplanes should be inspected and maintained correctly?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by JBMcB ( 73720 )

        The issue is that it's failing while flying, and you seem to be suggesting this wasn't important enough to maintain or inspect.

        I'm implying that, if this was an Airbus, it wouldn't have made the news at all. But this stuff happens to Airbus planes as well. And, absolutely, the airlines need to do a much better job of maintaining and inspecting their airplanes. They have been slacking, and the FAA has been slacking in their oversight.

        • The issue is that it's failing while flying, and you seem to be suggesting this wasn't important enough to maintain or inspect.

          I'm implying that, if this was an Airbus, it wouldn't have made the news at all. But this stuff happens to Airbus planes as well. And, absolutely, the airlines need to do a much better job of maintaining and inspecting their airplanes. They have been slacking, and the FAA has been slacking in their oversight.

          I gather from your post that Airbus is slacking too, given things fall off their planes as well?

    • The other thing to keep in mind is that Boeing is a public company. The stock price has actually been pretty stable since the whole 737 MAX stuff went down, all things considered. I think it's just hard to price right now - on the one hand it seems to have some pretty serious management issues, but on the other hand it only has one competitor and it's a certainty that the US govt will do anything required to bail it out.

      It would not surprise me if there are loads of short sellers trying to drive the price d

    • People post air traffic control recordings on Youtube. Listening to them is an education. These things happen a lot. Tires explode. Engines catch on fire. Electrical systems fail. Planes, and the entire air travel system, are designed to handle these failures.

      If this was a 2 year old plane, it would likely be a manufacturing problem. This is a 20 year old plane. It's either a maintenance or inspection issue, or it's just a 20 year old piece of hardware that's been used tens of thousands of hours, and it's simply failing.

      As much as I despite Boeing this is a very good point.

      The question isn't how many Boeings drop panels, have tires explode, etc.

      The question is how many Boeings have those issues as opposed to aircraft from other manufacturers, such as Airbus?

      Of course, I feel like an Airbus losing a panel/tire/door/wing would also be newsworthy right now given all the attention spent on Airplane issues, so I suspect there's still a more general Boeing specific quality issue.

    • These things happen a lot.

      Yeah people don't seem to understand this. I have a friend who recently changed careers and became an air traffic controller. I joked with him over a beer "so have you had a panicked emergency landing yet", and his reply was yes, about 3 this year. That was last month... so about an incident requiring prioritising a plane with a problem every 2-3 weeks. Usually it's minor things.

      Slightly related, I was also on a flight recently where I a guy was looking out the window, and then called the stewardess over, a

  • Boeing smoeing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by groobly ( 6155920 ) on Saturday March 16, 2024 @12:14PM (#64320239)

    About 40% of all US airliners are Boeing, about double that of Airbus. If an incident occurs, all else being equal, it is 2x as likely to be a Boeing plane as an Airbus plane. The remaining 40% is split among a lot of others, mainly smaller planes that usually don't get media attention.

    One of the recent incidents was an Airbus plane.

    Most of the incidents are maintenance issues, and that's on the airline. The seat thing is a design error and maintenance issue. The door plug is a quality control issue definitely on Boeing. The wheel falling off is probably a maintenance issue. The hydraulic leak is most likely a maintenance issue. The runway excursion is a pilot-ATC issue (pilots were told to hurry up and clear the runway, so apparently tried to make the turn at too high a speed). These seem to be happening mainly to United planes. Sounds like no one is blameless, but United seems to have some maintenance issues.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fgouget ( 925644 )

      Most of the incidents are maintenance issues, and that's on the airline.

      It does not matter who is responsible. In the coming years Boeing will systematically get blamed in the press and public opinion. That's what skimping on quality earned them and it's probably well deserved.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      About 40% of all US airliners are Boeing, about double that of Airbus. If an incident occurs, all else being equal, it is 2x as likely to be a Boeing plane as an Airbus plane. The remaining 40% is split among a lot of others, mainly smaller planes that usually don't get media attention.

      Just to clarify what that other "40%" is, the most produced passenger plane in the world is a Cessna 172 with over 44,000 examples built. Even ignoring GA and private it gets a lot bigger than Boeing and Airbus, you've also got Embraer (E-Jets), De Havilland Canada (DHC), Bombardier (CRJ), ATR (42 and 72), Cessna, even a few old Fokkers and Saabs flying about.

      Most of those will be regional or smaller airliners with your Embraer E-195 being the largest, which is smaller than a B737/A320 family. However th

  • United said the missing panel did not affect the flying characteristics of the airplane...

    Using non-flush rivets affects flight characteristics significantly. (top speed, fuel economy, well known since ww2) Saying an entire panel missing "doesn't affect flying characteristics" is just a bald-faced lie.

    If they simply said "the change in flight characterists caused by the loss of the panel is still well within safe flying parameters" I might be more convinced they weren't justt trying to hand-waive all of my

  • Ages ago, there was an NCIS episode where they had a form TFOA1. That would have been a US Navy form. Is there one for civilians?

  • Primary Buffer Panel (Score:3)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Saturday March 16, 2024 @02:24PM (#64320465)

    Did the primary buffer panel just fall off my gorram ship for no apparent reason?!

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • >> the missing panel did not affect the flying characteristics of the airplane
    Hence was not a necessary hardware to begin? All good, then! ;-)

  • Boeing share price (Score:3)

    by ishmaelflood ( 643277 ) on Saturday March 16, 2024 @03:54PM (#64320573)

    "Yahoo Finance notes that shares of Boeing "have declined over 30% in 2024." Well actually 28%

    Oh well, that's a lot better than TSLA (34%). Maybe Cathy Wood should have bought Boeing. How many billion has Ark lost under her watch?

  • Something something BOEING something something.

    A panel fell off on a two-decade old jet and the manufacturer and not the airline is getting the headline?

    I call shenanigans.

  • To show how reliable it is, like an A-10.
  • If the plane doesn't need the panel, why are they flying it around?

  • As long as that person was not comitted or institutionalized, we are all safe

  • Are we truly seeing more incidences or is it just it has everyone's attention so the media I is digging up everything they can. I mean I've been on planes which were visibly missing fasteners for panels. Doesn't seem a stretch to lose one every now an then. Probably not newsworthy but here we are.

Slashdot Top Deals

To communicate is the beginning of understanding. -- AT&T

Close