Clickbait. The FAA lists the plane number as N672DL and a quick flight registry check says that plane was made in 1992. This is a maintenance issue with Delta.
The title is “Nose wheel falls off Boeing 757 airliner waiting for takeoff” and that’s exactly what happened. That’s not clickbait, since it’s not deceptive, sensationalized, or otherwise misleading. It’s just news.
You say and yet we both know if the headline was “nose wheel falls off Delta jet waiting to take off” it’d be identically accurate but would mean something else entirely
The only reason it’s being reported is because of the other Boeing incident. And if they were trying to be accurate, the headline would’ve read “Nose wheel falls off Delta airplane waiting for takeoff”. It’s clickbait.
I think you overestimate how much the average traveler who may die when parts fall off cares or is parsing whether it’s Boeing’s mistake or Delta’s. What I’m taking from the headline (we need to get our shit together before a bunch of people die) is different than what you seem to be worried about people taking from the headline.
I’m pretty sure nearly every such incident is reported on in the news.
Now, is it being spread far more due to everything else going on? Sure. But I don’t see why this headline would be weird if nothing else happened with Boeing recently.
It has been this way for decades. Literally decades. It’s not anything to do with making Boeing look bad or good. It’s everything to do with the model of plane. Airbus planes back in the day had catastrophic hull failures.
i don’t work directly with these guidelines, but i’m told that whoever does maintenance has to follow the maintenance intervals dictated by boeing alone.
if a plane doesn’t experience much wear, the intervals can be elongated. in addition, the maintenance company can change certain parts of the maintenance if they have the right qualifications.
but no one really checks every single nut and bolt, so delta could’ve also been sloppy.
may be, it could also mean that boeing didn’t adequately specify the kind and amount of maintenance that has to be done. it could also mean that delta changed the maintenance procedure so much that this failure could occur.
there have been many cases where either has led to catastrophic failure
He does and he is pretty much talking out of his arse. Every thing that is written down In aviation usually has a really solid foundation, on why it is written down in that way.
I don’t say that a plainly wrong maintenance guide is not to blame here. I’m saying that the much more likely reason, lies in less definable areas. Like bad maintenance crew training or undiscovered faults in the maintance processes, like storing badly labeled bolts with similar threading but different tolerances near each other.
Because otherwise airlines buy different planes. All airplane models have extremely detailed maintenance schemas with alternative procedures described where possible. And minimum equipment lists that describes exactly what must work and what is “okay” to be broken to still fly. And it’s on FAA to make sure Delta is following these manuals. So in the end the blame is on Boeing for either bad parts, lasting shorter than required or prescribing insufficient maintenance procedures. Or it’s on FAA for not doing ther duty in making sure the procedures are followed.
Of course if Delta hasn’t followed the procedures, blame is on them too, but only ever in combination with either Boeing or FAA.
I thought that there were specific “critical” operations that would require them (Delta, Boeing, or both) to record an entry in Boeing’s Collaborative Manufacturing Execution Systems (CMES) database. But I’m discovering this field, so I don’t know if they make a difference in this context between before and after delivery, and if the normal plane maintenance is covered by the same processes or not, and that’s why I’m asking, and not stating.
However, if one doesn’t know more than me, stating isn’t more correct.
Well, they probably register repairs in databases, but they definitely don’t send people to check every single thing. Airlines also might contract Boeing to do some bigger repairs.
I don’t see how a repair that causes the nose of a plane to “fall off” would not be considered a “bigger repair”…
I’m not saying that Boeing would be involved in the replacement of a tire from the landing gear. But something major enough to make the actual nose of the plane to literally fall off? That sounds important enough to me.
Because of regulations, because of contracts, because of a myriad reasons I won’t waste my time listing here.
The point is that they have been in business for over a century, that the aerospace industry is heavily regulated, and so I somewhat expect them to have processes in place and responsibilities to make sure the planes are delivered and remain according to their design specification.
And you don’t strike me as someone who knows more than me (a total newbie) on the matter, so maybe we stop wasting each other’s time on a pointless argument about shit that is absolutely beyond us both. Yeah?
Clickbait. The FAA lists the plane number as N672DL and a quick flight registry check says that plane was made in 1992. This is a maintenance issue with Delta.
The title is “Nose wheel falls off Boeing 757 airliner waiting for takeoff” and that’s exactly what happened. That’s not clickbait, since it’s not deceptive, sensationalized, or otherwise misleading. It’s just news.
You say and yet we both know if the headline was “nose wheel falls off Delta jet waiting to take off” it’d be identically accurate but would mean something else entirely
The only reason it’s being reported is because of the other Boeing incident. And if they were trying to be accurate, the headline would’ve read “Nose wheel falls off Delta airplane waiting for takeoff”. It’s clickbait.
I think you overestimate how much the average traveler who may die when parts fall off cares or is parsing whether it’s Boeing’s mistake or Delta’s. What I’m taking from the headline (we need to get our shit together before a bunch of people die) is different than what you seem to be worried about people taking from the headline.
I’m pretty sure nearly every such incident is reported on in the news.
Now, is it being spread far more due to everything else going on? Sure. But I don’t see why this headline would be weird if nothing else happened with Boeing recently.
There were passengers on the flight. I would feel highly uncomfortable after this incident to be on another plane of Delta.
It has been this way for decades. Literally decades. It’s not anything to do with making Boeing look bad or good. It’s everything to do with the model of plane. Airbus planes back in the day had catastrophic hull failures.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357502/San-Francisco-plane-crash-Two-dead-tail-snaps-Boeing-777.html
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/safety-ops-regulation/first-airbus-a350-hull-loss-after-haneda-runway-incursion
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/jl516-tokyo-accident/
i work in aerospace, and that’s not delta’s fault. delta is trying to save money according to boeings maintenance guidelines.
(although i’m not 100% sure about that either)
Could you elaborate? Why would maintenance guidelines havee clauses for money-making?
i don’t work directly with these guidelines, but i’m told that whoever does maintenance has to follow the maintenance intervals dictated by boeing alone.
if a plane doesn’t experience much wear, the intervals can be elongated. in addition, the maintenance company can change certain parts of the maintenance if they have the right qualifications.
but no one really checks every single nut and bolt, so delta could’ve also been sloppy.
So, you’re saying that the intervals set by Boeing are too long?
may be, it could also mean that boeing didn’t adequately specify the kind and amount of maintenance that has to be done. it could also mean that delta changed the maintenance procedure so much that this failure could occur.
there have been many cases where either has led to catastrophic failure
He does and he is pretty much talking out of his arse. Every thing that is written down In aviation usually has a really solid foundation, on why it is written down in that way.
I don’t say that a plainly wrong maintenance guide is not to blame here. I’m saying that the much more likely reason, lies in less definable areas. Like bad maintenance crew training or undiscovered faults in the maintance processes, like storing badly labeled bolts with similar threading but different tolerances near each other.
Because otherwise airlines buy different planes. All airplane models have extremely detailed maintenance schemas with alternative procedures described where possible. And minimum equipment lists that describes exactly what must work and what is “okay” to be broken to still fly. And it’s on FAA to make sure Delta is following these manuals. So in the end the blame is on Boeing for either bad parts, lasting shorter than required or prescribing insufficient maintenance procedures. Or it’s on FAA for not doing ther duty in making sure the procedures are followed. Of course if Delta hasn’t followed the procedures, blame is on them too, but only ever in combination with either Boeing or FAA.
Isn’t Boeing QA supposed to inspect the plane and sign it off after maintenance?
No, they make the guides but don’t monitor them, which would be too costly (so much employees needed) and bureaucratic
I thought that there were specific “critical” operations that would require them (Delta, Boeing, or both) to record an entry in Boeing’s Collaborative Manufacturing Execution Systems (CMES) database. But I’m discovering this field, so I don’t know if they make a difference in this context between before and after delivery, and if the normal plane maintenance is covered by the same processes or not, and that’s why I’m asking, and not stating.
However, if one doesn’t know more than me, stating isn’t more correct.
Well, they probably register repairs in databases, but they definitely don’t send people to check every single thing. Airlines also might contract Boeing to do some bigger repairs.
I don’t see how a repair that causes the nose of a plane to “fall off” would not be considered a “bigger repair”…
I’m not saying that Boeing would be involved in the replacement of a tire from the landing gear. But something major enough to make the actual nose of the plane to literally fall off? That sounds important enough to me.
The wheel near the nose fell off, not the nose itself smh
OK I’m officially too tired to actually contribute to Lemmy. I’ll be on my way… 😭
Why would they?
Required by law? I dunno, im guessing here.
How many Boeing planes are out there vs number of employees?
Because of regulations, because of contracts, because of a myriad reasons I won’t waste my time listing here.
The point is that they have been in business for over a century, that the aerospace industry is heavily regulated, and so I somewhat expect them to have processes in place and responsibilities to make sure the planes are delivered and remain according to their design specification.
And you don’t strike me as someone who knows more than me (a total newbie) on the matter, so maybe we stop wasting each other’s time on a pointless argument about shit that is absolutely beyond us both. Yeah?