Edit:
- article title update, bump not bomb jolt’
- added comma
DENVER — An engine cover on a Boeing 737 operated by Southwest Airlines ripped open just after taking off from Denver International Airport Sunday morning.
The Houston-bound Southwest flight took off from DIA around 7:45 a.m., and returned to the airport 30 minutes later, landing safely. No injuries were reported.
Looks at post title and wonders if Boeing
Opens article
Is Boeing
You do know that this has nothing to do with it being a Boeing aircraft, right? The flight was a 737-800 which is from the NG series of 737s. The NG series has one of the lowest accidents per departure of any aircraft ever made and they probably have the most departure of any aircraft series.
This was 100% on Southwest. This aircraft was built in 2015 and has been flying for a decade. All that happened was a Southwest mechanic didn’t latch the engine cowling properly after an at gate service. This is a problem and should not happen, but has nothing to do with Boeing.
It’s the Ohio train derailment all over again. Accident happens, people pay more attention to similar accidents, they are shared more on social media (especially if they confirm what people now this is true), people not smart enough to understand that hearing about it more does not mean it’s happening more, and so every accident confirms their belief no matter what.
It’s a vicious feedback loop.
Yeah a couple of these recently return to gate/derversions with non max Boeing’s would have barely made the local news but the word Boeing makes headlines and it doesn’t matter that in the article
I mean half are boeing and half are airbus. We aren’t exactly swimming in large airplane manufacturers.
It’s a Boeing that has been flying for years. Maintenance staff forgot to latch the engine cowling. That is all.
Airbus used to have a way larger problem with this, so bad they had to redesign it to make it more obvious it wasn’t latched.
https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/preventing-fan-cowl-door-loss/
Southwest Airlines uses Boeing aircraft exclusively. Lucky me gets to try my luck in two weeks. 🙄
Thousands of Boeing flights happen every day. Statistically, you’ll be fine.
Everybody who has ever died in a plane crash was also, statistically, going to be fine.
The downvotes genuinely scare me.
It’s a bad point, that’s why.
Like with poker, you can do everything right and still end up losing. This is what happens when you deal with anything that has any type of chance involved.
And just like the lottery. Even if you win, you just got ridiculously lucky. You still really made a bad move with the money.
No, it’s not. If I asked you to get on a plane that had a 1 in 3 chance of crashing, would you?
Statistically, you’d be fine. The absolute risk of a plane crash may be minimal. But if you are on a plane that is crashing, that is little consolation. That is what the commenter was pointing out. It is a valid presumption.
If you were on a crashing plane, would you be statistically fine?
No of course not. Noone is arguing that the statistics will protect the you, only (effectively) that it’s such a rare occurrence that you might as well just assume youll be fine.
Saying “well some people weren’t fine!” Is a silly point. Noone is denying plane crashes occur.
That’s not how statistics works.
Just because you win the lottery, that doesn’t mean it was bound to happen. It’s the same with bad luck. Your tile floor in the bathroom is literally more dangerous than an airplane. Do you steel yourself to confront death when you step out of the shower?
You’re statistically unlikely to be killed by a shark. Do you want to share a swimming pool with one?
Statistics aren’t a suit of armor and they can be deeply misleading without context. If every plane in the air crashed today, how would the statistics change? Would 0.00001 become 0.00002? Would you tell people there was nothing to fear because it’s still statistically unlikely?
I would guess that every single passenger jet that has ever crashed had at least one person who reassured themselves “it won’t happen to me”.
You’re statistically unlikely to be killed by a shark. Do you want to share a swimming pool with one?
If more than a million Americans safely swam in that pool yesterday, I would feel comfortable swimming there today.
Depends on the kind of shark. Most sharks ignore people. You can pet reef sharks. People pay thousands of dollars to swim with them. That’s the context.
The context here is that planes are almost excessively safe. The door was sucked off of one and no one even died. Can you tell me the last time a fatal accident happened to a commercial airplane in the US?
So you’re when it comes to my shark analogy you demand nuance down to the specific type of shark but for planes you’re happy with “It was safe last year so it must still be safe now”?
Is this some bizarre shill campaign or is everyone trying to be crowned “King of science and rationalism”?
The door was sucked off of one and no one even died.
And do you know what the FAA said about it? “This incident should have never happened and it cannot happen again”. But don’t worry about the whistleblowers saying management has been covering up defects and cutting corners, “the statistics” say it’s safe.
I could load you on to a burning plane with a drunk and the answer to “Can you tell me the last time a fatal accident happened to a commercial airplane in the US?” wouldn’t change until you hit the ground.
But don’t worry, because “statistics”.
If you swim in a swimming pool with a shark, you are not statistically unlikely to be killed by one.
This is a really terrible analogy, for a really terrible way of thinking about risk.
Assuming you have a point here, then based on the logic you seem to be trying to to use, you should also never drive a car, go outside, eat a sandwich, etc. You know, since there was a point when people doing those things died, and those people thought they’d be ok too.
I think it’s clear that you’re never going to get my point. Maybe you could apply for a management job at Boeing?
Dibs on your nick.
The article doesn’t say “bomb jolt” it says “bump, jolt.” In case no one actually reads the article.
Thank you, luckily Lemmy let’s you edit titles @[email protected]
lets* you edit
dammit
Lemmy lets you edit comments, too!
(I hate autocorrect sometimes…I don’t know why mine keeps changing lets to let’s and other similar things…)
Mine is bad because I rely on my generally good swipe typing more than I should. But if others notice and comment before I do I just let it be.
I read this as “lets* you idiot” and thought gee, the grammar police is getting increasingly hostile
Updated post title!
Thanks!
Oh hey look it’s a Boeing plane again.
goddamn planes are falling apart no matter who the fuck makes or services 'em. I am slowly but surely losing trust in air travel at the moment.
I mean, all recent coverage seems to have been about Boeing planes…
…but stuff like this is likely more due to shoddy maintenance than production faults, right?
It’s just that everyone is hyper-vigilant currently for anything that goes wrong on a Boeing flight currently.
but stuff like this is likely more due to shoddy maintenance than production faults, right?
yes exactly. you nailed it of course, it’s the same thing like when you buy a car and then you see it everywhere. Human brain likes to connect patterns when possible so anything Boeing is like, ‘there they go again!’ when in reality it’s poor maintenance. Part of why Alaska Airlines has looked real bad with all this stuff, bad maintenance like you said.
USA road fatalities in last 10 years: ~400,000 Aviation fatalities in major USA carriers in last 10 years: 3 as far as I can find
But sure…
BOEING DON’T MAKE ENGINES.
But sure. Pile on.
They might not make the engines, but they are responsible with certification and checkups.
yes, but they bolt them on, certify them and maintain them.
And if this really is the fault of the engine-producer, then Boeing took a inferior supplier for its aircraft, not really any better.
I’m sorry but this OSS wrong on so many levels.
This aircraft is 9 years old. It is a B737-800. Boeing’s responsibility ended when it was delivered. Southwest are responsible for all maintenance and inspection since then.
There is only one manufacturer of engines for the 737NG type, CFM. The engine itself may go back to them for maintenance as they do run overhaul shops. But they are extremely reliable engines. And this engine didn’t fail, the panels came off.
This is not an engine failure. This is more likely some poor young fella forgot to clip the cowlings shut after preflight checks.
Yep. The plane was fully operational still and didn’t need the cowling other than it giving it much better fuel mileage. It really didn’t need to turn around but … people get scared.
Good point, but it’s not that either. I guess most of the people here don’t watch the ground crews at the airport before boarding - it seems these clamshell panels are opened between every flight (or at least very frequent intervals) for engine inspections and probably oil sampling. The far and away most likely cause is the ground crew forgot to latch the panel back up after performing their inspection.
Noob question: In this age of connected things, why can’t the plane have a sensor to detect if the engine cover is closed, and show an error if it is not before flying?
They absolutely have sensors that say “hey, the engine cover is reporting open” but it comes down to where they are when they get that report. I highly doubt the cover was open when they took off, and there’s not going to be a “the engine cover is going to open soon” sensor for this kind of situation.
I remember this episode of “The Twilight Zone”
deleted by creator
Here comes a series of DFEAs related to the scotch tape that holds that part of the engine. I hope they figure out what the problem is with the scotch tape.
