Boeing Engine Cover Rips Apart During Takeoff This Morning (qz.com) 182
"Scary moments for passengers on a Southwest flight from Denver to Houston," tweets an ABC News transportation reporter, "when the engine cover ripped off during flight, forcing the plane to return to Denver Sunday morning."
"Think that big circular metal panel surrounding the engine," writes QZ — adding that after it ripped off, the engine cowling "struck the 737-800's wing flap."
It happened during takeoff, so the plane was towed back to the gate after returning to the airport. All passengers and crew were safe, and passengers boarded a replacement plane for their flight to Houston: Southwest was already having a rough few weeks before this event occurred. Last Thursday, an engine on one of its Boeing 737-800 planes caught fire before taking off from an airport in Texas, and before that, two FAA-scrutinized Southwest flights were disrupted by turbulence [One last month in New York City and the other in Florida on Wednesday. "Two hours later, an All Nippon Airways Boeing 787 reported an oil leak on arrival at Naha Airport, Japan," adds Newsweek.].
"We apologize for the inconvenience of their delay," Boeing said in a statement, adding that they "place our highest priority on ultimate Safety for our Customers and Employees.
"Our Maintenance teams are reviewing the aircraft."
"Think that big circular metal panel surrounding the engine," writes QZ — adding that after it ripped off, the engine cowling "struck the 737-800's wing flap."
It happened during takeoff, so the plane was towed back to the gate after returning to the airport. All passengers and crew were safe, and passengers boarded a replacement plane for their flight to Houston: Southwest was already having a rough few weeks before this event occurred. Last Thursday, an engine on one of its Boeing 737-800 planes caught fire before taking off from an airport in Texas, and before that, two FAA-scrutinized Southwest flights were disrupted by turbulence [One last month in New York City and the other in Florida on Wednesday. "Two hours later, an All Nippon Airways Boeing 787 reported an oil leak on arrival at Naha Airport, Japan," adds Newsweek.].
"We apologize for the inconvenience of their delay," Boeing said in a statement, adding that they "place our highest priority on ultimate Safety for our Customers and Employees.
"Our Maintenance teams are reviewing the aircraft."
Another Day Another Boeing Disaster (Score:2)
It seems we have gotten to the point that even Airbus execs [reuters.com] are becoming alarmed.
I have heard that "once is chance, twice is a coincidence, and three times is enemy action." We are far beyond three times now.
So where does this end?
Re:Another Day Another Boeing Disaster (Score:4, Insightful)
It is not a "disaster". No one was hurt and passengers were able to get to their destination in the end.
I wonder how often incidents like these happen? Boeing is in the spotlight now, so these are likely to be reported more than usual.
Also, Airbus is not totally clean either. There is a reason the Airbus CEO is unhappy, as incidents that happen at Boeing may very well happen with Airbus, even if Airbus has objectively better safety overall, which is not a given, it is not perfect either. Which mean Airbus will be on a higher scrutiny too, and may also get more bad press for minor incidents. Overall, it may end up being good for air travel safety (maybe less for air travel costs), so that's not all bad, but I understand that it is going to hurt the bottom lines of the whole industry.
And in fact, this particular incident may not even have to do with Boeing, in could have been improper maintenance, or most likely, as it is often the case, shared responsibility. But of course, since Boeing is in the spotlight, the fingers points at them.
What French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said is also very telling: "I prefer Airbus' situation to that of Boeing,". Which could be interpreted as "Boeing had a stroke of bad luck, good for Airbus that it didn't happen to them instead". A very cautious phrasing.
Re: (Score:3)
Parts of the plane are literally being ripped off more and more often (or so it would appear). If a real trend, that's not a disaster in the same way that the iceberg on the horizon isn't a disaster for your full-steam early-20th century cruise ship.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily, the plane was out of the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
If a real trend, that's not a disaster in the same way that the iceberg on the horizon isn't a disaster for your full-steam early-20th century cruise ship.
An iceberg on the horizon isn't a disaster for a full-steam early 20th century cruise ship either. If you were trying to make a lame reference to the titanic you would do well to know that the iceberg was no where near the horizon, it was "immediately ahead". So immediately that there was only 1 minute between the iceberg being seen at 23:39 and the titanic hitting it at 23:40. In fact multiple other ships had no problem navigating icebergs "on the horizon" on the same day as the Titanic.
So yeah, not a "dis
Re: (Score:2)
The iceberg was necessarily on the horizon prior to it being closer to the ship.
Your point is dumb
Re: (Score:2)
The iceberg was necessarily on the horizon prior to it being closer to the ship.
Exactly, and ships didn't have a problem navigating around things they see on the horizon. Many ships navigated that same space of water. When you see something on the horizon it's not a disaster, just a minor risk to be managed.
Your point is dumb
No the point is solid. You just clearly don't understand it. Get some caffeine in you (or whatever it is you use to kick a few braincells awake) and try again.
Re: Another Day Another Boeing Disaster (Score:2)
Disaster in the sense that at night you can't actually see an iceberg in the distance with the technology that existed at the time. What you're actually looking for is an absence of stars on the horizon. By the time you see that, it's already too late if you're at full speed.
Re: Another Day Another Boeing Disaster (Score:3)
Nope, Carpathia's captain expressed being lucky avoiding so many icebergs on the way to rescue Titanic. At night when the crash happened, not many icebergs were visible but in the morning light, the Titanic turned out to be surrounded by icebergs.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah exactly my point. They weren't "on the horizon". If you see something "on the horizon" it's not a risk. The problem is they couldn't see shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally, all the ships simply stopped and waited for morning, with the exception of the Carpathia which was on a rescue mission, and lucked out.
Re: (Score:2)
And that is based on how often a story about it is posted on Slashdot? The air carrier accident rate has been pretty consistent over the last ten years, and is quite a bit lower than it was previously.
Re: Another Day Another Boeing Disaster (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how often incidents like these happen? Boeing is in the spotlight now, so these are likely to be reported more than usual.
This.
The very scary incident (plug falling out) gets lots of attention and suddenly other incidents, which would not have been newsworthy before, are now newsworthy.
Re: Another Day Another Boeing Disaster (Score:5, Informative)
https://avherald.com/ keeps track of things, 3-5 incidents a day is pretty normal
Re: (Score:2)
About one in every 500k to a million flight hours, if "like these" you mean anything that significantly damages the plane or injures a person.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There already is an opening in the market - Boeing has manufacturing problems and Airbus cannot build their planes fast enough to satisfy the demand. Neither China nor anyone else are able to use that opening because China finds it too difficult to ramp up production of their C919, Russia is under sanctions and they were never able to mass manufacture airliners in the first place and as for the rest of the world, developing an airliner is difficult and expensive - even if a country is sufficiently developed
Re: (Score:3)
It is not a "disaster"
It is a PR disaster.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like when someone gets in a car accident while driving a Tesla. If it doesn't make national news, it will definitely make local news, even if it was a fender bender. Meanwhile, can you imagine what news would be like if they reported on all car accidents? Then again, maybe that's preferable to what we have now :)
Re: Another Day Another Boeing Disaster (Score:4, Interesting)
We know itâ(TM)s enemy action. The problem is that Boeingâ(TM)s enemy is their own execs.
Re: (Score:2)
So where does this end?
When it becomes so common that we stop paying attention.
Did you know there were two mass shootings yesterday? One. [wjbf.com] Two. [wpbf.com]
Re: Another Day Another Boeing Disaster (Score:2)
Your definition of "mass shooting" is a stretch. And since both were reported, it kinda of makes your point moot, doesnâ(TM)t it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Florida Man.
Re: Another Day Another Boeing Disaster (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Listen up, fat, this is, this is, the problem is that, the fact of the matter is this WAS CAUSED BY SOMEONE ELSE, JACK."
Re:Another Day Another Boeing Disaster (Score:5, Informative)
Biden, the greatest of all time, tell us what we need to do.
"Fuck off politicizing things that aren't political in nature, troll." - Joe
Re:Another Day Another Boeing Disaster (Score:4, Informative)
https://nypost.com/2024/03/29/... [nypost.com]
"Biden pokes fun at Boeing, quips, 'I don't sit by the door' on Air Force One. President Biden joked on Thursday that he steers clear of the doors on the presidential plane manufactured by Boeing, the aircraft maker beset by a series of recent mid-flight mishaps."
Mar 29, 2024
A joke for sure, as he noted, but he also literally doesn't sit by the door. The President has an office within the plane, that has its own door -- which he probably also doesn't sit next to either but, rather, behind a desk in that room ... :-)
Re: (Score:3)
We poke fun at you for posting a nypost tabloid on Slashdot while trying to have a serious discussion.
Boeing, but not Boeing (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case as much as Boeing is having issues, the engines are mixed responsibility of the engine manufacturer and the airplaneâ(TM)s maintenance crew.
At the same time, this suggests maybe a bigger culture issue when it comes to aircraft construction and maintenance? Is this a quality issue first or a cost cutting issue first?
Re:Boeing, but not Boeing (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. As fun as it is to rag on Boeing, a more accurate headline would be:
"Engine Cover, of a Plane Owned, Operated, and Maintained by Southwest, Rips Apart During Takeoff This Monring".
(but it's not nearly as catchy)
Re:Boeing, but not Boeing (Score:4, Informative)
"Engine Cover, of a Boeing Plane Owned, Operated, and Maintained by Southwest, Rips Apart During Takeoff This Monring"
Would also be accurate and indict those involved. It also happens to be the second Boeing plane, operated by Southwest, in as many days that has had engine issues. [go.com]
Re:Boeing, but not Boeing (Score:5, Informative)
Southwest Airlines operates nearly 820 Boeing aircraft and has more than 3000 flights per day. And they *only* operate Boeing aircraft.
I don't at all find it surprising that if you actually looked you could find incidents for Southwest pretty much any day of the year, at that operational tempo - and of course all of them are going to be involving Boeing aircraft....
Re: (Score:2)
It's crazy not to recognise it as such
The only thing anyone is not recognising is you, failing to recognise how to follow a conversation. Literally *no one* here has said this wasn't a serious incident.
Re:Boeing, but not Boeing (Score:5, Informative)
Engines are the responsibility of the engine manufacturer, but often cowlings (which is what failed here) are not. These are highly optimised coverings for the engine which have a big effect on airflow efficiencies, and are often designed by the aircraft manufacturer rather than the engine manufacturer (the engine manufacturer often designs the intake, as that has a lot of effect on the engine efficiency itself).
But this is a 737NG, been in service for years, so its probably a maintenance issue or failed part rather than a design defect.
People need to stop highlighting every failure of a Boeing aircraft now, the vast majority of the ones we have seen talked about this year have nothing to do with Boeing or its culture, and instead are pretty normal failures that wouldnt have been talked about prior to the MAX issues. There are thousands of flights a day, sometimes shit does happen a few times a year - the last time this type of failure was featured on a prime time news segment it had nothing to do with Boeings culture, and it doesnt this time either
Just because a part failed does not mean there is an inherent culture or cost cutting issue, in either the construction or maintenance.
Re: (Score:3)
But why shouldn't we throw Boeing under the bus, just because we feel like it? Who cares if this corporation is treated unfairly, when I get treated unfairly too every day?
Re: (Score:2)
Tell the FBI - they are investigating the door that fell off as a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell what to the FBI? The fact that I said that not everything needs to be treated the same?
Sure, the failure of a door plug a few mere weeks after the aircraft was delivered is *entirely* the same as the failure of a cowling latch on a part which is opened several times a week by airline maintenance personnel on an aircraft which was delivered many years ago...
One falls within Boeings remit, the other likely does not, and even if it did it would result in a minor AWD.
People need to stop over dramatising e
Re: (Score:2)
Tell the FBI - they are investigating the door that fell off as a crime.
I just checked, no door fell off this plane. I also checked, and it would seem there is a difference between a brand new plane and one that has been in service for years. What's your point? That you don't understand that two incidents can have very different causes and that you turned your brain off before it even read to the end of the name "Boeing"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this a quality issue first or a cost cutting issue first?
Even plausibly answerable questions are subsumed by endless gaslighting today. How can you expect answers to subtle questions such as these?
Soon, a couple hundred people are going to get killed in one of these cost optimized aircraft. At that point I'm thinking we should just stop this nonsense: the US is no longer competent to build or operate airliners. Mr. and Mrs. hoi polloi can just zoom or drive, and leave flying to people that can afford to do it properly. Then maybe stop the driving part too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Boeing, but not Boeing (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you forget the amount of publicity that Airbus received for the AF066 uncontained engine failure - it was significant, especially given the fact that this was the second uncontained engine failure of an A380 during the A380s operational life.
But why didnt it reach the epic proportions of scrutiny that Boeing received after the MAX issues and the subsequent Alaska Airlines door blowout?
Because both A380 uncontained engine failures were fully investigated and no evidence of either poor culture, cover ups or a manufacturing decision based on cost alone was uncovered. Each engine failure was from a different engine manufacturer, and in both cases the root cause was identified and rectified, with an appropriate course of action implemented for airlines.
It wasn't because it was an Airbus that it was largely ignored by the public, it was because there was no scandal around it.
The issue with Boeing wasn't that an incident happened, it was the subsequent investigation which lead to the uncovering of systemic issues within the manufacturer that was newsworthy.
Re: (Score:2)
If you say "responsibility is mixed", I'll agree, but if you imply that it's not Boeing's fault I'll disagree. If I have a cracked tail light, and it costs a thousand dollars to fix, yeah, it's my fault for not fixing it, but it's also the fault of the guy who designed it to be impossible to maintain.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, most likely a line technician forgot to lock the cowling after replenishing engine oil.
Boeing engine cover? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing chose to accept that engine and cowl design. It's not ONLY Southwest maintenance.
Re: (Score:2)
If your car's hood flies off at speed is it the manufacture's fault, or did you just not closed it properly?
Now do Boeing and Southwest Airline. Yes Boeing has been kissing the pouch a lot lately but that doesn't mean it's always Boeing.
Re: (Score:2)
>> If your car's hood flies off at speed is it the manufacture's fault, or did you just not closed it properly?
For having worked in car design, it is both.
If you are able to half-close it without the warning sound blaring at you, it actually IS a bad design, and the manufacturer is as responsible as the guy who did not close it properly (user or mechanic)
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing chose to accept that engine and cowl design. It's not ONLY Southwest maintenance.
You'd need to show that there was a design/engineering flaw with it that Boeing was aware of and chose to ignore for it to become their issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that they *were* aware of, but that they *should* have been aware of. (OTOH, I'm no expert in the field. Possibly it's actually the best design feasible.)
how much of this is business culture (Score:5, Informative)
I flew United airlines yesterday and experienced a maintenance issue that could have compromised the entire plane. I told the flight attendant and they passed the message on to the pilot. At the end of the flight I provided way more specific information to this flight attendant. Not once was I asked to describe the incident to the pilots. As I left the plane, the flight attendant did not return to the pilots but continued to see people off the plane. I figured I should go to a United service desk and explain the incident. The lady I met told me all she could do is file a complaint and she had no way to inform anyone at United of the incident. Let me repeat: a customer service rep could not provide information of a potential fault on a plane to anyone. She directed me to the United airlines website to report the incident. People will die and it is because capitalism does not reward people who go above the call of duty to prevent loss of life. The plane had another flight today, nothing else I can do but watch the tail number and shout "told you so!" if something ever happens
I understand this post may put me on a list, but I do not know how else to raise this concern except by talking loudly to the internet in hopes someone hears.
Re: (Score:2)
You could always write directly to the company, then file a comlaint with the FAA. Or is that too difficult? If what you say is true the FAA will definitely take note even if the airine doesn't.
Re: how much of this is business culture (Score:3)
My next steps are exactly that :)
Re: (Score:2)
What did you see/experience?
Re: (Score:2)
The registered letter [usps.com] is often forgotten in the age of email. If you send it attention the CEO it has the advantage that you know that if it gets ignored you will be able to prove it. If they have another person (head of maintenance) closer to the problem that you can choose to address it to that will also work.
No company can afford to completely ignore registered mail.
Re:how much of this is business culture (Score:4, Funny)
Nah, just complain vaguely to slashdot instead.
Re: (Score:2)
"The FAA Hotline accepts reports related to the safety of the National Airspace System, violation of a Federal Aviation Regulation (Title 14 CFR), aviation safety issues, and reports related to FAA employees or FAA facilities."
https://www.faa.gov/about/offi... [faa.gov]
Re: how much of this is business culture (Score:2)
Wow, what a harrowing tale of the severe problems with "maintenance issue". I'm sure the flight attendant was truly convinced by your evaluation of "maintenance issue" and the pilots were also terrified about "maintenance issue". It's amazing they didn't award you a medal for almost saving everyone in the plane from the danger of "maintenance issue".
Either you are making this whole incident up and couldn't think of a plausible danger a passenger could actually notice, or what you thought was dangerous clea
Re: how much of this is business culture (Score:4, Interesting)
First, no, I will not explain the detail incident that I experienced, as I provided everything in detail to the necessary parties. I do have video of the event and the attendant agreeing that the situation is a concern. I will report the details to the public through the appropriate means.
Now I am a pilot, so I typically take notice when an unusual sound takes place. Now just a sound is not enough to warrant concern in some cases, especially so as a passenger. Now couple that with a new incident makes you stand on guard. Again, I am not in the flight deck so I must defer to the captain to make the best decisions. Later in the flight, the same unusual sound happens again and the second incident is no longer an incident. Now you have a pretty good understanding of a root cause and you can pinpoint a set of tests to verify the problem. If I am the only person with this knowledge (the attendant was not with me for the sounds) wouldn't it behoove the airline to take note of this additional information?
Anyway the plane is flying again so, will just watch from afar
Re: how much of this is business culture (Score:2)
I eagerly await the upcoming "appropriate means" of releasing this information to the public of the "maintenance issue" that somehow incliudes mentioning the existance of "maintenance issue" on a public website while keeping the details with "video" of "noises" secret for "reasons".
I'm totally convinced.. I'll keep watching the news stations for your upcoming press conference on this riveting tale of danger and intrigue.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you get paid to astro-turf for United or do you do it out of love of neoliberalism?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you sound totally non-ideological, non-paranoid, and totally like you're not just making shit up for attention. Could you be more vague?
And how does someone so knowledgeable about airline maintenance issues not know you could contact the FAA directly for such issues?
Re:how much of this is business culture (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:how much of this is business culture (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Pilot never came over in my case. Probably did some diagnostic checks, called maintenance to find what specific systems were affected around the area of my seat and made a calculated decision with corporate to continue the flight. It is very very very very likely that this problem could have persisted if I had not said anything until a tragedy did occur. At the very least a flight attendant was aware of the problem and as such the issue could be confirmed by another attendant on a future flight.
It's out o
Re: (Score:2)
Every aircraft has whats called a "Minimum Equipment List" that an aircraft can operate with - which means that things can and do break and so long as it doesn't violate the MEL then operations can continue.
Its perfectly possible that you pointed out something that the pilot was either already aware of or that they could diagnose from the cockpit and a brief visual inspection when next on the ground.
If the issue didn't violate the MEL, then the next flight can go ahead without concern.
Re: (Score:2)
My armchair opinion is that the no 5 slat electric motor clutch did not disengage and led to an overvoltage scenario. When electrical is involved, your MEL goes out the window and you make a judgement if this will lead to an electrical fire or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you see a gremlin on the wing or something?
Re:how much of this is business culture (Score:5, Funny)
Was it a gremlin on the wing? I bet it was a gremlin on the wing.
Re: (Score:2)
No, just William Shatner trying to hitch another ride to space.
Re: (Score:2)
People will die and it is because capitalism does not reward people who go above the call of duty to prevent loss of life.
And neither does socialism. Whilst under Soviet control, Aeroflot had five times more fatal crashes per mile flown than any other airline in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Do not fly again. (Score:2)
>> People will die and it is because capitalism
Survival of the fittest.
Do not fly again.
Re: (Score:2)
People will die and it is because capitalism does not reward people who go above the call of duty to prevent loss of life.
It's the industrialisation of everything. Streamlining and defining processes for everything and then running the processes like a computer program not like a guideline for ordinary days.
I see a lot of that. It's bureaucracy, not capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
What you fail to understand is that if they know of the issue and ignore it, it's criminal negligence. If they don't know about it, it's an unfortunate maintenance shortcoming that needs to be addressed by refining maintenance processes.
Sure, in both cases people die. But only in the first case, the airline is in legal hot waters. And that's what matters, after all.
Need a not-Boeing option on Orbitz (Score:2)
I'd pay an extra few bucks to know I was flying on an Airbus.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'd pay an extra few bucks to know I was flying on an Airbus."
Airbus would be a good choice:
"Incident: Delta A339 at Salt Lake City on Mar 24th 2024, dropped engine panel on departure"
Or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, maybe I should just take grey hound and a cruise ship.
Re: (Score:2)
Airbus planes don't nosedive on their own, at least not yet. That's a definitive plus.
Statistics? (Score:2)
This an older type of airplane, in operations from the mid 90s. Is there an increase of reports about Boeing planes? Is it longevity and maintenance in addition to new plains design and build quality?
Breaking: Terrorists decide against hijacking (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would be a waste of a perfectly good bomb.
So sorry (Score:2)
Ignore the screams. Nothing to see here. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And wings and engines are totally, absolutely, perfectly redundant. Only 1 is ever needed for safe flight!
In all seriousness, my mom's neighbor still has a very worn "If it’s not Boeing, I’m not going!" license plate frame on the front of their Toyota Tacoma. LOL!
Re: (Score:2)
>> suddenly pitches absurdly to the surprise of the pilots.
The pilots of Boeing planes should have a MSBT "Murphy Situational Boeing Training", and should expect that the plane may misbehave badly at any moment.
>> a very worn "If it’s not Boeing, I’m not going!" license plate frame
I think the worn part is the first "not"
"If it’s Boeing, I’m not going!"
Guess the CEO (Score:2)
Way to go, Boeing (Score:2)
Firmly in the age of apathy and post competency (Score:2)
Alternatives to FAA ? (Score:2)
Can we open alternatives to FAA ?
As usual, nobody to be held to account. (Score:2)
The old joke becomes more and more true (Score:2)
A plane is being boarded by Boeing managers and engineers, and only when they're on, they find out that yes, this isn't an Airbus, that's a Boeing. The managers scream and bang at the door to be let out, while the engineers stay calm and relaxed in their seats.
Do they trust the plane to not come down in a fiery crash?
No, they trust the plane to not even taxi to the runway for the take off.
Re: (Score:2)
Suddenly? They've been having more and more problems over the last decade.
Re: Gotta be Putin (Score:3)
Has to be. It could be nothing else in the perfect land of the free and democracy.
No maintenance, no forgetting to close the hood. (Score:2)
Nope. Putin steals the planes from other countries, and does not maintain them.
No maintenance, no problems forgetting to close the engine cover latches.
Re: (Score:2)
Engine cover need no latching. Engine cover now used as armor in tank.
Also, tank plant Natshalnik now has new Datcha.