Just to clarify the role of the NTSB, as Maximus was slightly misleading in the video: The NTSB cannot mandate anything. They just investigate incidents and accidents. The NTSB can recommend changed. It is the FAA that can mandate changes - but as we all know - they used to be married to Boeing until recently.
@Dan P well Dan the thing is I just don't trust Boeing or the FAA so that thing about the 737 Being this safes aircraft has gone out through the door back in 2019 the safest aircraft today is the one that is still flying and has not had a crash or grounded so you have to do that over as for right now no built aircraft from Boeing in the past 13 years is safe or safest all of them had some big major problem but Airbus has ho grounded no big crashes kill 346 people and grounded for two years a 777x that has a cargo door problem and has a guy from emirets mad that he has bought 20 aircraft to fly sense 2020 and has not to go them yet he have to wait acordong to the FAA 2024-25 to get them the 787 has a fuselage problem still trying to five it and that old out dated 373 man si still getting advice from there FAA so after all this Boeing is not my best place to buy an aircraft to fly safely it is like buying a pig in a bag so stop to nonsense stick with us and fly only Airbus my family and friends will be safe and arrive alive
@Dan P The FAA applying rigor is a very good thing for Boeing, the 737 MAX and all aircraft - sadly little too late for the people onboard JT610 and ET302. Airbus is primarily certified by EASA and the FAA can elect to do additional certification for the US if they wish. But don't get me wrong - people here don't want to see a manufacturer being trashed by the regulators for fun. We want to see the authorities examine every system, every component and every screw on all airplanes. And I wish that EASA is even more rigorous than the FAA, as this will ensure that Airbus and other European manufactured aircraft are even safer. What people were complaining was the trend few years ago, the race to the bottom, where safety was sidelined for speed to market and for profit.
@@RLTtizME All I care is the safety of me, my family and other passengers. The marrige between Boeing and the FAA has already cost a lot of innocent lives.
Biggest thing to remember is that Boeing has gone from an aviation-first focus to a business-first focus. They want to push the costs out over time in order to not see a huge hit in any given quarter, as well as sort out any supply chain issues.
Nothing should interfere with management compensation! No one has ever been able to prove high compensation result in better results. It’s just a fairytale they use to motivate outrageous competition packages.
To reiterate a point made earlier, the NTSB has no regulatory authority. The NTSB investigate and recommends -only. It is the FAA that has regulatory authority.
If the risk of death has to be 0 to certify an aircraft or engine, there wouldn’t be any aircraft flying at all. The CFM56 series of engines is the most prolific jet engine ever built with more than 30,000 in service now or in the past. As far as I know there is one death that can be directly associated with fan blade separation after a CFM56 failure (in another accident there were several deaths after the pilots shut down the wrong engine after a fan blade separation event but those deaths did not occur as a direct result of the failure so much as from pilot error dealing with the failure) and that’s the Southwest customer several years ago. All in all, this engine is probably the safest engine ever fitted to a modern day jet airliner, even in its current form. One death in nearly 50 years isn’t really an emergency fix in my opinion. I currently fly these engines nearly every day for work, so I literally bet my life on them, and I’m happy to do so. Perhaps the changes will make them even better.
I forget the exact quote, but goes something like, “Anyone can build something that stands, but only an engineer can build something that barely stands.” Same is true for planes; they’re all trying to build a plane that JUST meets requirements, so safety is only paramount after shareholders get their cut. The safest and most comfortable plane possible is too expensive to operate commercially, unfortunately.
Are you willing to pay the full price to fly? I’d say no since most people only want to pay for the cheapest airfare! Also, nothing is 100% safe! Not even staying at home!
@@nuniabiz7982 the cheapest seats and the most expensive are on the same plane. You're not seeing passengers choosing between safety and price, you're seeing them offered a 300 dollar premium to get free booze worth about 20 bucks.
Oh come on...your third grade teacher didn't give up on you..... did she. With little hope...she nudged you through your homework and watched you wallow in mediocrity. She never gave up on you Billie Barrett. Are you the product of the socialist Euro-Brit educational system? Look at you now...snarking on You Tube. What a wonderful success story.
Most likely never as they are addicted to the gamble and the potential boost in shareholder value. Not to mention the cesspool circus is run by 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡.
Boeing is in the process of failing. It takes about 10 years for a big company to go bankrupt from the precipitating event. Boeing is about 5 years into that process.
@@leeoldershaw956 yeah but i mean the 777s and 787s are doing wel even the 737max series is making a come back i dont think boeing is going to be bankrupt soon maybe it becomes smaller but probably it will live on
None of these fixes will do much to prevent deaths, although reinforcing the nacelle itself is going in the right direction. The only way to solve fan blade failure deaths would necessitate adding weight to the aircraft with reinforcements. Boeing has obviously taken the same line as motor manufacturers, that a few deaths occasionally are acceptable where prevention would reduce profits by too much for their greed to accommodate.
You are totally right! And after that you will not have the same engine. And after that you need to reengineering and of course new engine new performances new problems new testing!
The nacelle design is the only thing that Boeing is responsible for fixing. I'm confident that the revised nacelle will be up to present-day standards as the original nacelle was 90s standards. After that, it's completely up to CFM to redesign the fan blades since CFM designed the fan blades, Boeing didn't design the fan blades.
@@HeaanLasai depending how they disteacted. It is different when you have long structural stress and forced stress on materials. Probably didnt think about long structural stress.
Seems to me that the FAA should look into the blade-off test performed during certification. This test clearly did not detect the CFM inability to contain a blade failure. Perhaps this test needs to be redesigned too.
The probability is (Rare)^2 that the engine fan will fail and that the failure will escape the cowling causing further destruction....Therefore the correction is urgent not emergency......Any time you are faster than 30 mph and/or higher than 30 feet above ground, your life is in danger....
Just a little surprised Boeing Execs did not recommend a trip to the dollar store for some gorilla glue to help their customers; yes, this is a logical response to the way they want to play the game.
Seen this so many times ! Once a company becomes money driven compared to a Quality Product manufacturer. The stock holders they cater to for that last dime take everything they can shrug their shoulders and move on because they are driven by greed not quality of product or safety of life. As long as the company management continues down this line of thinking , this is a company that can no longer be trusted to do what’s right. It’s Historical past has become a mute issue. They need held to the standards of a start up. A keen eye on everything they do. Because it’s proof positive they are no longer trustworthy.
We all know that the fix has to be tested and approved. Parts need to be manufactured and delivered. Would make sense to implement the parts of the fix that can be done now while the suppliers are working on the parts for the rest.
Just remember, to implement the fixes, it will take time to MANUFACTURE all of the repair pieces (there are a LOT of these engines). It will take time to gather the needed hardware, which needs to be manufactured. Instructions will need to be written and printed. Mechanics will need to be trained on implementation of the fixes. You can't just wave a Magic Wand or pull all of the parts out of a Trick Bag. Also, smaller fixes - one at a time- can be installed during scheduled maintenance intervals without the need to remove the aircraft or engine from inventories for an extended period of time to implement ALL fixes at the same time.
The fact it took the NTSB five years to figure out, and finally to make public, that they would start demanding improvement in the matter may seem curious, but it may have been held back part of that time out of leniency. Not only would all parties have known that Boeing would have to design new parts from scratch, also it would have been impossible for Boeing to make improvements to parts of a worldwide fleet during the last nearly-two years of those five, with Covid-19 and borders closed, and anybody grounded anyway. The striking part of the story is that hardly any time passed between the directive coming out, and Boeing announcing that it had worked out the solution, cause THAT is the part one would think WOULD be time-consuming indeed: they had to figure out, design, prototype and test one or more completely new parts, and it had to be done to meet specs they previously had not managed yet. The fact there lays so little time between the NTSB's announcement and Boeing's can only mean at Boeing they have been working on this during the passed five years ANYWAY. Even with no directive out they of course knew already the situation as it stood was (or is) not satisfactory since the time those two accidents happened. Also I imagine there is enough informal communications in the industry for them to have known all along the NTSB was working on a directive. That one year and then some Boeing says it will take them to implement their improvements is easily explained: they have to start making these new parts from scratch, probably have to source new materials from God knows where on this planet, in times when transport and all kinds of industrial things are slow, probably have to train personnel, have to take this up with airlines across the world and start planning it with them, it's all kinds of things that they have got to figure out. I am very impressed they really have found a way to improve those cowlings so, that no fan blades can reach the cabin (or wing, I imagine!) next time any of them is gonna break off, at all.
I feel it needs to be said - If GE's fan blades weren't failing in the first place there wouldn't be any issue to discuss. Boeing can't be blamed for everything. The "GE factor" needs to be reviewed - they have similar corporate issues to Boeing that have been swept under the carpet for a long time. In both the fan blade incidents you have pointed out here there was serious concern regarding the metallurgy of the fan blades not being manufactured to spec. The issues with the LEAP engines have yet to surface - standby for that one.
These CFM56 engines are of an old GE design. Newer GE engines like the GE90, GENX, LEAP, and GE9X are more reliable than the PW and RR engines of the same era because carbon fiber blades found on those new GE engines don't wear out as much as PW and RR fan blades. The A320NEO and A220 fmily aircraft experienced groundings and airworthiness directives because of PW1000G engines and some of the 787s were grounded because of Trent 1000 issues. Also, fhe component that failed on AF66 was a Pratt and Whitney component. And not to mention UA328 where United and Boeing got blame for PW's wrongdoings. There used to be a time when GE was less reliable than PW and RR, but RR and PW reliability tanked.
@@Blank00 Well "Blank" - Have you operated those engines? There are issues with the LEAP engines - catastrophic failures - at least 2-3 that I'm aware of - the engines in question had less than 500-1000 TT at failure. Hmmm... Makes you wonder now doesn't it.
To polite, your beyond wrong. Southwest airkine lousy MX is what caused this! That was actually their second fan blade departure. That one just didn't kill anyone and was quieted up. 🤨NO OTHER airline had issues.🤔 From both a mechanic and QC perspective this is OBVOUS.
Anyone who travels assumes certain risks. Seeing that the risk of death by flying fan blades is very low, the fact that Boeing is doing anything that has a reasonable timetable for completion seems almost creditable.
Well a metal opject with suffcient speed can't really be stopped its like buying a lottery ticket yes it might work but only in a 1 in a million chance and with the amounts of 737ngs flying each day the engine explosion isnt even that big of a problem
NTSB cannot mandate anything. They just investigate incidents and accidents. NTSB can recommend changed. It is the FAA that can mandate changes - but as we all know - they used to be married to Boeing until recently.
They need to be replaced with real pilots and engineers not weakened 172 Pilots and the head of the NTSB only has a certification operating a moped ,another thing I don't believe our counterparts takes five years to publish a report...
Its a very imperfect system where both the NTSB and FAA dont posess between them, everything you need to know about aviation and spacecraft but have to make recommendations and decisions regardless. Im a keen rc flyer and very unhappy with them both.
Boeing seem to always want more time for everything, and never get ahead of the game. They also are still announcing things before they have completed final design, regulatory testing and approvals, will they ever learn their lies and omissions have changed everything.
Muilenberg Boeing CEO at the time told the Congress committee investigating the 737 Max crashes, “We don’t ‘sell’ safety; that’s not our business model.” He was eventually removed but got to keep his remuneration because the board did what to admit to the world that Muilenberg had done anything wrong. This says it all doesn’t it. No one from Boeing has gone to jail for at the very least manslaughter.
The bottom line is a life ( or 2) is expendable because it’s all about the $$$$ & 5 years!!!!???? Proves the authorities don’t give a toss unless it was their mother father brother son or sister!!
I did not read all comments. Hecklers provide no information at all. The complaint in the piece mirrors common sentiment, mainly and understandably, of tardiness, but did not incorporate all of the facts or recognition that after the fatality in Southwest Incident in 2018, where blade fatigue was indicated, the more frequent fan-blade inspections put in place two years earlier had not been applied to this engine, the procedure as the upstream preventative measure of greatest importance. Such should be understood as a measure to eliminate the primary problem. The Nacelle Design should, secondarily, be improved, because it was not blade debris that killed the woman in 2018, but nacelle debris that broke her window. These Nacelle Improvements focus upon keeping it in place, The FAA did not ask for a tougher cowl, but one that should not come off so easily. I also think the "exemption" Boeing asked for is not really of great interest to the manufacturer itself, but represents airline interests and their variation in capability to carry out the programs less disruptively, who will prefer to get the separate front and back issues solved as parts become available, not while waiting for pairs to show up, not foot dragging from the manufacturer as implied. The logistical scheduling for unrelated parts is very difficult. We would all prefer done yesterday, agreed. Blade Out events are very rare, often very ugly., fatalities even more rare, Most of the time, nacelles suffer great damage, chunky stuff sometimes falling to the ground., but in this case, the nacelle came off with enough lateral force to damage a window in Row 14. Blade Damage from uncontained blade separation would normally be along a line perpendicular to the fan itself with a one in seven chance of striking the fuselage. Trajectories above or below, upward, downward, or outward are more likely around the circle of possible trajectories, none good, but also not a threat to the aircraft. The center engine failure on a DC-10 in 1989 killed all aboard. The exacerbating problem there was incorrect positioning of all three hydraulic lines, simultaneously cut and without line stops to maintain hydraulic pressure from the other two engines. The redundant but vulnerable hydraulics bled out.
Did you mean flight 232? On that flight were 111 survivors but that was to thank to the pilots skill and 1 training pilot And that was a lot of info to take
Ya know, while it may be well outside the FAA's purview, maybe somebody should look at the last 15 years in terms of management, corporate culture, and the like, to figure out the systemic problems within Boeing that created these messes in the first place.
All I'm pointing out is that the long list of **certain & specific types** of Boeing's failures seems to be shouting "cultural and structural problems" within. To the FAA's credit, they're using all their tools to do something akin to fixing a leaky firehose at the output end in the interest of safety. All the while seeing the issues from the input side that would've kept it from leaking in the first place...
I've never been happier to not fly the past two years due to COVID-19. I hope to see corporations and regulations realign with the highest interest, human beings.
Yeah but the chance of it happening is so small i understand and kind of agree that it should get some punishment on etops but not completely lower it back to 60min maybe 75
@@apotato5563 The United 777 in 2018 barely made it into Hawaii with full power on the remaining engine. Neither Southwest failures would have made it to an airport if in the middle of an ETOPS flight. Many 737s are being used on ETOPS. Southwest is flying to Hawaii. These big fan engines are a hazard. They're like the engine hanging out of the nacelle in "The High and the Mighty". This is a real threat and the industry knows it. I'm a retired airline captain and I would bid off any ETOPS trips if I were flying today.
The cowling design and clips to hold it together (which failed when the fan blade fragment hit them) are Boeing designed (for the 737 being lower to the ground).
Hi Maximus I just might found an address for that package in the USA my aunt has a friend that will take it and get it to send when she is going back to Barbados so I sent you the info in the email
The FAA aren't going to push these mods, afterall it's Boeing, most of the upper eschelon of the FAA are probably being compensated in some way or some form by Boeing not to rock the apple cart.
This is a start... But they should focus on the root cause, the engine blowing up... Then you can focus on reinforcing the nacelle. This seems like Boeing saying "yea we expect the engine to possibly blow up so we'll make sure the nacelle will contain it".
They would've if they made their own engines. But they don't make their own engines because since 1934, no airplane manufacturer is allowed to make their own engines, rendering Boeing (and Airbus FTM) legally bound to havibg to outsource engines. Even Comac has to outsource when they selected a Chinese engine, because Comac and ACAE are different companies.
These nacelles were designed in the 1990s, and got certified in the 1990s. Standards change, and that's why the nacelles are deficient in today's standards. It's similar to how a 1999 Toyota Camry will not pass today's safety standards. Does it mean Toyota deserve to be prosecuted because the 1999 Toyota Camry doesn't pass today's safety standards? No. The nacelles are not flawed, they're simply outdated and they have to be revised because unlike other nacelles in the 1990s, these nacelles have to deal with blades that are likelier to fail. This is a result of how far technology has chamge, not a result of a design flaw
I’m astounded that the word “nacelle” hasn’t become a common given name for girls. “Alexia” already has, but I think that Nacelle is prettier and almost as absurd.
To polite, your beyond wrong. Southwest airline lousy MX is what caused this! That was actually their second fan blade departure. That one just didn't kill anyone and was quieted up. 🤨NO OTHER airline had issues.🤔 From both a mechanic and QC perspective this is OBVOUS.
I am not a Boeing fan, but I fail to see how this is a Boeing issue.. The CFM engines are failing that is a different manufacturer.. RR makes engines GE makes engines, others make engines. When the Rolls Royce engines blew up almost bringing down a quantas A380 all the blame was put on RR. Same here.
Part of the problem was that the fan blade fragment hit the Boeing retaining clips on the engine cowl which then failed and failed to contain the fan blade failure; IIRC it was a fragments of the cowling that punctured the fuselage and damaged the window. Another problem was maintenance had failed to spot the metal fatigue in the fan blades at the recent engine overhaul - a newer better procedure for checking for micro cracks has since superseded the previous maintenance method which had missed the fault in the blade.
Honestly I don’t hit Boeing but I’m tired. In the aviation world what’s a real aviator does is to seek for knowledge opportunities and continues safety of any airliner regardless of manufactures what ✈️
I have many thousands of hours flying these fabulous aircraft (and engines, …. obviously). Seriously- the drive to the airport is FAR more dangerous- how are they going to fix that? 😂 Some of the comments here are … pathetic.
Why are they not going to start the repairs until 2022? Because after their self inflicted Max fiasco and the pandemic, they are probably one more bad loss away from bankruptcy.
@@RLTtizME Jesus RLTRLT… bit if an assumption there mate.. I suspect you could be in the aviation… I am specking you the BS Boeing & FAA practices that put people in the ground… what you speaking to stats? Being held to account didn’t destroy the industry…. It built it🤔
@@tigertiger1699 I am flattered that you think my name is Jesus RLTRLT.....that is so sweet. Secondly.....are your lectures always free? I must assume that you are a Euro-Brit Jerk Troll...and as far as I know...they have always been free. I appreciate that Tiger Tiger. You are a little dramatic sweetie.....we could say that Airbus A330's have put over 1,000 innocent passengers in the ground...but we won't go that route. Aviation will always have catastrophes...mechanical design errors, mechanical failures, pilot errors, all kinds of things lovey....that can result in tragedy. There will be instances where there was negligence and instances where there was not. There is plenty to go around and Airbus has and will have their fair share. That is a fact of life. I hope this has been properly responsive to your emotional outburst. Rather childlike I must say....not an attribute.
@@RLTtizME Lol talk big for keyboard warrior.., 👍 nice… you even started with that standard assumption n insult straight off to someone that clearly knows f all for aviation.. & who you didn’t know machined the nozzles for the Air New Zealand test bed in the 1990s🤗 🤔 you sound… upset, what’s up setting ya ??
Yet another reason try to to avoid Boeing aircraft wherever an alternative exists. A failure is very unlikely but the company knows its existing design makes fatal failures possible.
Yeah avoiding a plane mecause you have 2x the chance of danger even then 2x is nothing its still 5x deadlier to fly private jets and still waaay deadlier to drive cars yet somehow people see that as normal and do it every day while sharing the roads with cars that are questionable of design
@@apotato5563 It wouldn't make sense to drive out of fear of flying on a Boeing aircraft. But if I knew that another brand of aircraft was safer than the Boeing I'd choose the other brand. If the only planes on the route were Boeings and the only consideration was safety, flying would still be safer.
@@apotato5563 When in Indonesia I only fly Garuda and have never bothered to check the aircraft brand. They're acceptable by EU standards. Lion is cheaper and the network is big but their safety record isn't very good. With the pandemic there's not much flying going on in our part of the world anyway. Australia has almost zero international travel at the moment.
This is just another issue underlining the fact that the 737 has overstayed its technical design life. The design originating from 1969 and modified way too many times has created a Frankenstein aircraft! Scrap it Boeing and start over from a clean sheet (screen)!
@@togafly. thats because then pilots can be familliar with the plane they are flying this makes it cheaper for boeing to design the plane and the airline to train their pilots and might make it saver because the pilots know where every thing is Also airbus does almost the same thing a320neo-a320ceo A330neo-a330ceo-a300 basic examples of most aircraft manufactuers rebuilding their old version of planes
I think Boo-ing is Ass-Hoe. But surely this is the engine manufacturer's design responsibility?? Just asking. Boing is till Ass-Hoe though. Long live Airbus. We kneel before your greatness. May your sacred name be Praised Oh Blessed Air Bus, We know you will keep us safe from harm.
Just to clarify the role of the NTSB, as Maximus was slightly misleading in the video: The NTSB cannot mandate anything. They just investigate incidents and accidents. The NTSB can recommend changed. It is the FAA that can mandate changes - but as we all know - they used to be married to Boeing until recently.
like is said above we can't trust any USA organize=ation they all are in bed together man so it is CASA and Airbus for me
@Dan P well Dan the thing is I just don't trust Boeing or the FAA so that thing about the 737 Being this safes aircraft has gone out through the door back in 2019 the safest aircraft today is the one that is still flying and has not had a crash or grounded so you have to do that over as for right now no built aircraft from Boeing in the past 13 years is safe or safest all of them had some big major problem but Airbus has ho grounded no big crashes kill 346 people and grounded for two years a 777x that has a cargo door problem and has a guy from emirets mad that he has bought 20 aircraft to fly sense 2020 and has not to go them yet he have to wait acordong to the FAA 2024-25 to get them the 787 has a fuselage problem still trying to five it and that old out dated 373 man si still getting advice from there FAA so after all this Boeing is not my best place to buy an aircraft to fly safely it is like buying a pig in a bag so stop to nonsense stick with us and fly only Airbus my family and friends will be safe and arrive alive
@Dan P The FAA applying rigor is a very good thing for Boeing, the 737 MAX and all aircraft - sadly little too late for the people onboard JT610 and ET302. Airbus is primarily certified by EASA and the FAA can elect to do additional certification for the US if they wish. But don't get me wrong - people here don't want to see a manufacturer being trashed by the regulators for fun. We want to see the authorities examine every system, every component and every screw on all airplanes. And I wish that EASA is even more rigorous than the FAA, as this will ensure that Airbus and other European manufactured aircraft are even safer. What people were complaining was the trend few years ago, the race to the bottom, where safety was sidelined for speed to market and for profit.
Who is married to Airbus? The bribe recipients?
@@RLTtizME All I care is the safety of me, my family and other passengers. The marrige between Boeing and the FAA has already cost a lot of innocent lives.
Biggest thing to remember is that Boeing has gone from an aviation-first focus to a business-first focus. They want to push the costs out over time in order to not see a huge hit in any given quarter, as well as sort out any supply chain issues.
Nothing should interfere with management compensation! No one has ever been able to prove high compensation result in better results. It’s just a fairytale they use to motivate outrageous competition packages.
To reiterate a point made earlier, the NTSB has no regulatory authority. The NTSB investigate and recommends -only. It is the FAA that has regulatory authority.
...and the FAA is not known for setting speed records
Makes you wonder how long Boeing has been sitting on these modifications.
It would not be surprising to find that some engineer had recommended at least some of these changes back in the day
@@twolery1514 Indeed!
If the risk of death has to be 0 to certify an aircraft or engine, there wouldn’t be any aircraft flying at all. The CFM56 series of engines is the most prolific jet engine ever built with more than 30,000 in service now or in the past. As far as I know there is one death that can be directly associated with fan blade separation after a CFM56 failure (in another accident there were several deaths after the pilots shut down the wrong engine after a fan blade separation event but those deaths did not occur as a direct result of the failure so much as from pilot error dealing with the failure) and that’s the Southwest customer several years ago. All in all, this engine is probably the safest engine ever fitted to a modern day jet airliner, even in its current form. One death in nearly 50 years isn’t really an emergency fix in my opinion.
I currently fly these engines nearly every day for work, so I literally bet my life on them, and I’m happy to do so. Perhaps the changes will make them even better.
👌👌
Good point
Nailed it!
I have many thousands of hours flying them too. The drive to the airport is FAR more dangerous.
I forget the exact quote, but goes something like, “Anyone can build something that stands, but only an engineer can build something that barely stands.” Same is true for planes; they’re all trying to build a plane that JUST meets requirements, so safety is only paramount after shareholders get their cut. The safest and most comfortable plane possible is too expensive to operate commercially, unfortunately.
Are you willing to pay the full price to fly? I’d say no since most people only want to pay for the cheapest airfare! Also, nothing is 100% safe! Not even staying at home!
@@nuniabiz7982 No, I’m not, and that’s the point.
@@nuniabiz7982 the cheapest seats and the most expensive are on the same plane. You're not seeing passengers choosing between safety and price, you're seeing them offered a 300 dollar premium to get free booze worth about 20 bucks.
@@gasdive southwest $220; alaska $240…most people will fly southwest
@@nuniabiz7982 and they mostly fly the same aircraft type. Mostly 737.
Just another example of how the once incredibly great Boeing Company no longer exists.
Oh come on...your third grade teacher didn't give up on you..... did she. With little hope...she nudged you through your homework and watched you wallow in mediocrity. She never gave up on you Billie Barrett. Are you the product of the socialist Euro-Brit educational system? Look at you now...snarking on You Tube. What a wonderful success story.
Wonder when Boeing management will realise it costs less to get things right first time! Rework and lost confidence costs money.
Probably never as long as they continue to start out at six figures. And rarely face job loss during downturns.
Most likely never as they are addicted to the gamble and the potential boost in shareholder value. Not to mention the cesspool circus is run by 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡.
Unfortunately that module has been dropped at bean-counter college.
Boeing is in the process of failing. It takes about 10 years for a big company to go bankrupt from the precipitating event. Boeing is about 5 years into that process.
@@leeoldershaw956 yeah but i mean the 777s and 787s are doing wel even the 737max series is making a come back i dont think boeing is going to be bankrupt soon maybe it becomes smaller but probably it will live on
None of these fixes will do much to prevent deaths, although reinforcing the nacelle itself is going in the right direction. The only way to solve fan blade failure deaths would necessitate adding weight to the aircraft with reinforcements. Boeing has obviously taken the same line as motor manufacturers, that a few deaths occasionally are acceptable where prevention would reduce profits by too much for their greed to accommodate.
You are totally right! And after that you will not have the same engine. And after that you need to reengineering and of course new engine new performances new problems new testing!
Tombstone Engineering.
The nacelle design is the only thing that Boeing is responsible for fixing. I'm confident that the revised nacelle will be up to present-day standards as the original nacelle was 90s standards. After that, it's completely up to CFM to redesign the fan blades since CFM designed the fan blades, Boeing didn't design the fan blades.
@@HeaanLasai I'm cobfident that the new nacelle will contain fan blades. That's why Boeing decided to study a redesign for 5 years in the first place.
@@HeaanLasai depending how they disteacted. It is different when you have long structural stress and forced stress on materials. Probably didnt think about long structural stress.
Maximus, you need to change the name of these reports about Boeing to "As the Stomach Turns!"
Well said as the widespread systemic corruption within the Boeing Company certainly makes one sick.
Seems to me that the FAA should look into the blade-off test performed during certification. This test clearly did not detect the CFM inability to contain a blade failure. Perhaps this test needs to be redesigned too.
The probability is (Rare)^2 that the engine fan will fail and that the failure will escape the cowling
causing further destruction....Therefore the correction is urgent not emergency......Any time you
are faster than 30 mph and/or higher than 30 feet above ground, your life is in danger....
Just a little surprised Boeing Execs did not recommend a trip to the dollar store for some gorilla glue to help their customers; yes, this is a logical response to the way they want to play the game.
Seen this so many times ! Once a company becomes money driven compared to a Quality Product manufacturer. The stock holders they cater to for that last dime take everything they can shrug their shoulders and move on because they are driven by greed not quality of product or safety of life. As long as the company management continues down this line of thinking , this is a company that can no longer be trusted to do what’s right. It’s Historical past has become a mute issue. They need held to the standards of a start up. A keen eye on everything they do. Because it’s proof positive they are no longer trustworthy.
Wow…a reminder that aircraft design is stunningly complex
Your final comment was "Why has the NTSB taken five year.....". The NTSB is not the regulator, the FAA is the regulator. The FAA approves the changes.
Should a boing engine nacelle directive also include the 777 series?
Expect that redesign to come in 2 years. The first 777 nacelle failure happened 2 years after the first 737NG nacelle failure.
Sounds like a lot of work for airlines and or vendors.
Enjoy your vids Maximus greetings from Ireland
Nice short
We all know that the fix has to be tested and approved. Parts need to be manufactured and delivered. Would make sense to implement the parts of the fix that can be done now while the suppliers are working on the parts for the rest.
Just remember, to implement the fixes, it will take time to MANUFACTURE all of the repair pieces (there are a LOT of these engines). It will take time to gather the needed hardware, which needs to be manufactured. Instructions will need to be written and printed. Mechanics will need to be trained on implementation of the fixes. You can't just wave a Magic Wand or pull all of the parts out of a Trick Bag.
Also, smaller fixes - one at a time- can be installed during scheduled maintenance intervals without the need to remove the aircraft or engine from inventories for an extended period of time to implement ALL fixes at the same time.
The fact it took the NTSB five years to figure out, and finally to make public, that they would start demanding improvement in the matter may seem curious, but it may have been held back part of that time out of leniency. Not only would all parties have known that Boeing would have to design new parts from scratch, also it would have been impossible for Boeing to make improvements to parts of a worldwide fleet during the last nearly-two years of those five, with Covid-19 and borders closed, and anybody grounded anyway. The striking part of the story is that hardly any time passed between the directive coming out, and Boeing announcing that it had worked out the solution, cause THAT is the part one would think WOULD be time-consuming indeed: they had to figure out, design, prototype and test one or more completely new parts, and it had to be done to meet specs they previously had not managed yet. The fact there lays so little time between the NTSB's announcement and Boeing's can only mean at Boeing they have been working on this during the passed five years ANYWAY. Even with no directive out they of course knew already the situation as it stood was (or is) not satisfactory since the time those two accidents happened. Also I imagine there is enough informal communications in the industry for them to have known all along the NTSB was working on a directive. That one year and then some Boeing says it will take them to implement their improvements is easily explained: they have to start making these new parts from scratch, probably have to source new materials from God knows where on this planet, in times when transport and all kinds of industrial things are slow, probably have to train personnel, have to take this up with airlines across the world and start planning it with them, it's all kinds of things that they have got to figure out. I am very impressed they really have found a way to improve those cowlings so, that no fan blades can reach the cabin (or wing, I imagine!) next time any of them is gonna break off, at all.
Wow...thanks
I feel it needs to be said - If GE's fan blades weren't failing in the first place there wouldn't be any issue to discuss. Boeing can't be blamed for everything.
The "GE factor" needs to be reviewed - they have similar corporate issues to Boeing that have been swept under the carpet for a long time. In both the fan
blade incidents you have pointed out here there was serious concern regarding the metallurgy of the fan blades not being manufactured to spec.
The issues with the LEAP engines have yet to surface - standby for that one.
These CFM56 engines are of an old GE design. Newer GE engines like the GE90, GENX, LEAP, and GE9X are more reliable than the PW and RR engines of the same era because carbon fiber blades found on those new GE engines don't wear out as much as PW and RR fan blades. The A320NEO and A220 fmily aircraft experienced groundings and airworthiness directives because of PW1000G engines and some of the 787s were grounded because of Trent 1000 issues. Also, fhe component that failed on AF66 was a Pratt and Whitney component. And not to mention UA328 where United and Boeing got blame for PW's wrongdoings. There used to be a time when GE was less reliable than PW and RR, but RR and PW reliability tanked.
@@Blank00 Well "Blank" - Have you operated those engines? There are issues with the LEAP engines - catastrophic failures - at least 2-3 that I'm aware of - the engines
in question had less than 500-1000 TT at failure. Hmmm... Makes you wonder now doesn't it.
@@daveholekamp1069 The PW1000G are worse. They are the engines that caused a some A320NEOs to get grounded
@@Blank00 true many neos in my country had to undergo engine modifications as the stock engine had problems during its initial days
To polite, your beyond wrong. Southwest airkine lousy MX is what caused this! That was actually their second fan blade departure. That one just didn't kill anyone and was quieted up. 🤨NO OTHER airline had issues.🤔 From both a mechanic and QC perspective this is OBVOUS.
Interesting, i didn't know the nacelle was a BA component. I would have expected this to be a GE issue...
When you want to save money for wall street, but being the bad guy is also not very desirerable.
At the end you question why it took NTSB five years to require a fix.
Does NTSB have that authority? I thought only FAA has such authority.
You're right. The NTSB does NOT have that authority. Only the FAA does.
It’s high time the US Government monitors them very closely
The NTSB can’t require a thing. I assume you meant the FAA there.
Anyone who travels assumes certain risks. Seeing that the risk of death by flying fan blades is very low, the fact that Boeing is doing anything that has a reasonable timetable for completion seems almost creditable.
Sup guys
How about stronger windows in positions most vulnerable?
Well a metal opject with suffcient speed can't really be stopped its like buying a lottery ticket yes it might work but only in a 1 in a million chance and with the amounts of 737ngs flying each day the engine explosion isnt even that big of a problem
The NTSB needs to be disbanded immediately they are not up to the task five years to come up with this fix is unacceptable
Yeah, that will make it better... Shooting yourself in the foot doesn't alleviate a chafe...
NTSB cannot mandate anything. They just investigate incidents and accidents. NTSB can recommend changed. It is the FAA that can mandate changes - but as we all know - they used to be married to Boeing until recently.
@@benghazi4216 waiting five years for a report is shooting yourself in the foot.
They need to be replaced with real pilots and engineers not weakened 172 Pilots and the head of the NTSB only has a certification operating a moped ,another thing I don't believe our counterparts takes five years to publish a report...
Correct me if I’m wrong but are not engines meant to be tested for such failures before being allowed into service?
Seems like the engine manufacturer would have a seat at this table?
It's a purchased component, is it not?
Its a very imperfect system where both the NTSB and FAA dont posess between them, everything you need to know about aviation and spacecraft but have to make recommendations and decisions regardless. Im a keen rc flyer and very unhappy with them both.
Boeing seem to always want more time for everything, and never get ahead of the game. They also are still announcing things before they have completed final design, regulatory testing and approvals, will they ever learn their lies and omissions have changed everything.
It is all shareholder politics.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 or in other words, share price manipulation?
@@camf7522 if you want to call it that. Yes.
Standard practice though.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 nether its standard practice or not, it’s still un-ethical.
Corperations aren't ethical..
From engineering POV, it may have taken some time to develop the solutions mentioned in the video.
I think because seeing the amount of incidents per 1000 or million flights its unlikely to happen again in a certain time frame.
Muilenberg Boeing CEO at the time told the Congress committee investigating the 737 Max crashes, “We don’t ‘sell’ safety; that’s not our business model.”
He was eventually removed but got to keep his remuneration because the board did what to admit to the world that Muilenberg had done anything wrong.
This says it all doesn’t it. No one from Boeing has gone to jail for at the very least manslaughter.
The bottom line is a life ( or 2) is expendable because it’s all about the $$$$ & 5 years!!!!???? Proves the authorities don’t give a toss unless it was their mother father brother son or sister!!
Completely agree . Little people count for less . Bean counters don’t care about people , just profits
With duct tape?
One freak accident in millions of 737 operations. I think the Feds are asking a lot.
I did not read all comments. Hecklers provide no information at all. The complaint in the piece mirrors common sentiment, mainly and understandably, of tardiness, but did not incorporate all of the facts or recognition that after the fatality in Southwest Incident in 2018, where blade fatigue was indicated, the more frequent fan-blade inspections put in place two years earlier had not been applied to this engine, the procedure as the upstream preventative measure of greatest importance. Such should be understood as a measure to eliminate the primary problem. The Nacelle Design should, secondarily, be improved, because it was not blade debris that killed the woman in 2018, but nacelle debris that broke her window. These Nacelle Improvements focus upon keeping it in place, The FAA did not ask for a tougher cowl, but one that should not come off so easily. I also think the "exemption" Boeing asked for is not really of great interest to the manufacturer itself, but represents airline interests and their variation in capability to carry out the programs less disruptively, who will prefer to get the separate front and back issues solved as parts become available, not while waiting for pairs to show up, not foot dragging from the manufacturer as implied. The logistical scheduling for unrelated parts is very difficult. We would all prefer done yesterday, agreed. Blade Out events are very rare, often very ugly., fatalities even more rare, Most of the time, nacelles suffer great damage, chunky stuff sometimes falling to the ground., but in this case, the nacelle came off with enough lateral force to damage a window in Row 14. Blade Damage from uncontained blade separation would normally be along a line perpendicular to the fan itself with a one in seven chance of striking the fuselage. Trajectories above or below, upward, downward, or outward are more likely around the circle of possible trajectories, none good, but also not a threat to the aircraft. The center engine failure on a DC-10 in 1989 killed all aboard. The exacerbating problem there was incorrect positioning of all three hydraulic lines, simultaneously cut and without line stops to maintain hydraulic pressure from the other two engines. The redundant but vulnerable hydraulics bled out.
Did you mean flight 232? On that flight were 111 survivors but that was to thank to the pilots skill and 1 training pilot
And that was a lot of info to take
Well all this will be over soon enough.
The proposed restrictions for travel will seriously damage airlines.
Ya know, while it may be well outside the FAA's purview, maybe somebody should look at the last 15 years in terms of management, corporate culture, and the like, to figure out the systemic problems within Boeing that created these messes in the first place.
All I'm pointing out is that the long list of **certain & specific types** of Boeing's failures seems to be shouting "cultural and structural problems" within. To the FAA's credit, they're using all their tools to do something akin to fixing a leaky firehose at the output end in the interest of safety. All the while seeing the issues from the input side that would've kept it from leaking in the first place...
I know Boeing built the plane but wouldn’t this be an engine manufacturer issue? New to aviation so please understand my question from that aspect.
The odds of the engine blowing out is so small smaller than the brains of people who listend to cardi b
Shareholders need time to make more money before they bail
You are such a sack.
I've never been happier to not fly the past two years due to COVID-19. I hope to see corporations and regulations realign with the highest interest, human beings.
I flew with the 737ng and im fine
boeing credibility takes yet another hit. Their corporate ethical compass seems to be broken.
Any aircraft not modified should have it's ETOPS approval suspended. Ditching in an ocean is the real threat due to drag.
Yeah but the chance of it happening is so small i understand and kind of agree that it should get some punishment on etops but not completely lower it back to 60min maybe 75
@@apotato5563 The United 777 in 2018 barely made it into Hawaii with full power on the remaining engine. Neither Southwest failures would have made it to an airport if in the middle of an ETOPS flight. Many 737s are being used on ETOPS. Southwest is flying to Hawaii. These big fan engines are a hazard. They're like the engine hanging out of the nacelle in "The High and the Mighty". This is a real threat and the industry knows it. I'm a retired airline captain and I would bid off any ETOPS trips if I were flying today.
Airbus uses the same Engine but built in France ? do they make their own cowlings ? have they had any problems ?
Maybe they do but its greatly unknown with the great use of the 737ng that airbus couls swipe it under the rug
@@apotato5563 Unlikely with modern press and social media hard to hide half an engine missing.
All the CFM 56s are made the same way, partly in the US and assembly in France.
@@michaelshore2300 yeah good point but the press keeps forgetting how many 737ngs there are flying
The cowling design and clips to hold it together (which failed when the fan blade fragment hit them) are Boeing designed (for the 737 being lower to the ground).
Hi Maximus I just might found an address for that package in the USA my aunt has a friend that will take it and get it to send when she is going back to Barbados so I sent you the info in the email
The FAA aren't going to push these mods, afterall it's Boeing, most of the upper eschelon of the FAA are probably being compensated in some way or some form by Boeing not to rock the apple cart.
This is a start... But they should focus on the root cause, the engine blowing up... Then you can focus on reinforcing the nacelle. This seems like Boeing saying "yea we expect the engine to possibly blow up so we'll make sure the nacelle will contain it".
That isn't a boeing problem to fix, that's CFM's
They would've if they made their own engines. But they don't make their own engines because since 1934, no airplane manufacturer is allowed to make their own engines, rendering Boeing (and Airbus FTM) legally bound to havibg to outsource engines. Even Comac has to outsource when they selected a Chinese engine, because Comac and ACAE are different companies.
These nacelles were designed in the 1990s, and got certified in the 1990s. Standards change, and that's why the nacelles are deficient in today's standards. It's similar to how a 1999 Toyota Camry will not pass today's safety standards. Does it mean Toyota deserve to be prosecuted because the 1999 Toyota Camry doesn't pass today's safety standards? No. The nacelles are not flawed, they're simply outdated and they have to be revised because unlike other nacelles in the 1990s, these nacelles have to deal with blades that are likelier to fail. This is a result of how far technology has chamge, not a result of a design flaw
I’m astounded that the word “nacelle” hasn’t become a common given name for girls. “Alexia” already has, but I think that Nacelle is prettier and almost as absurd.
Pitot is pretty sexy. Yeah man....
LUCKY no other deaths.
Superglue?
To polite, your beyond wrong. Southwest airline lousy MX is what caused this! That was actually their second fan blade departure. That one just didn't kill anyone and was quieted up. 🤨NO OTHER airline had issues.🤔 From both a mechanic and QC perspective this is OBVOUS.
I am not a Boeing fan, but I fail to see how this is a Boeing issue.. The CFM engines are failing that is a different manufacturer.. RR makes engines GE makes engines, others make engines. When the Rolls Royce engines blew up almost bringing down a quantas A380 all the blame was put on RR. Same here.
Part of the problem was that the fan blade fragment hit the Boeing retaining clips on the engine cowl which then failed and failed to contain the fan blade failure; IIRC it was a fragments of the cowling that punctured the fuselage and damaged the window.
Another problem was maintenance had failed to spot the metal fatigue in the fan blades at the recent engine overhaul - a newer better procedure for checking for micro cracks has since superseded the previous maintenance method which had missed the fault in the blade.
maybe Boeing is planning to do a runner and won't be around after 2022
Honestly I don’t hit Boeing but I’m tired.
In the aviation world what’s a real aviator does is to seek for knowledge opportunities and continues safety of any airliner regardless of manufactures what ✈️
What about the engine manufacture? Shouldn’t they be part of this?
They will fix the dangerous nacelles by blaming foreign pilots incompetence when they cause a deadly accident.
Yet again, it seems the FAA are being too lenient with Boeing. The government has a lot to answer for with this too.
Why so long Boeing?
Its called money
Papier mache?🤣🤣🤣
Boeing is not as safe as Airbus money seems to be Boeing’s bottom and only line.
Not good news to hear if you're traveling on a 737...
Boeing is like the demorats untouchables
Flying aisle seat on all 737…
I can asure you its like buying a lottery ticket if you had the luck of a upside down hoof collector
I have many thousands of hours flying these fabulous aircraft (and engines, …. obviously).
Seriously- the drive to the airport is FAR more dangerous- how are they going to fix that? 😂
Some of the comments here are … pathetic.
Why are they not going to start the repairs until 2022? Because after their self inflicted Max fiasco and the pandemic, they are probably one more bad loss away from bankruptcy.
Fn glad we ain’t flying next few years…..😬
Yeah...but you'll pile into that crappy car of yours...endangering the fam.
@@RLTtizME
Jesus RLTRLT… bit if an assumption there mate.. I suspect you could be in the aviation…
I am specking you the BS Boeing & FAA practices that put people in the ground… what you speaking to stats?
Being held to account didn’t destroy the industry…. It built it🤔
@@tigertiger1699 I am flattered that you think my name is Jesus RLTRLT.....that is so sweet. Secondly.....are your lectures always free? I must assume that you are a Euro-Brit Jerk Troll...and as far as I know...they have always been free. I appreciate that Tiger Tiger. You are a little dramatic sweetie.....we could say that Airbus A330's have put over 1,000 innocent passengers in the ground...but we won't go that route. Aviation will always have catastrophes...mechanical design errors, mechanical failures, pilot errors, all kinds of things lovey....that can result in tragedy. There will be instances where there was negligence and instances where there was not. There is plenty to go around and Airbus has and will have their fair share. That is a fact of life. I hope this has been properly responsive to your emotional outburst. Rather childlike I must say....not an attribute.
@@RLTtizME
Lol talk big for keyboard warrior.., 👍 nice… you even started with that standard assumption n insult straight off to someone that clearly knows f all for aviation.. & who you didn’t know machined the nozzles for the Air New Zealand test bed in the 1990s🤗
🤔 you sound… upset, what’s up setting ya ??
@@tigertiger1699 You prove the point. What the hell are you even talking about? 🤣🤣🤣👈 Nobody cares. Scram.
Yet another reason try to to avoid Boeing aircraft wherever an alternative exists. A failure is very unlikely but the company knows its existing design makes fatal failures possible.
Yeah avoiding a plane mecause you have 2x the chance of danger even then 2x is nothing its still 5x deadlier to fly private jets and still waaay deadlier to drive cars yet somehow people see that as normal and do it every day while sharing the roads with cars that are questionable of design
@@apotato5563 It wouldn't make sense to drive out of fear of flying on a Boeing aircraft. But if I knew that another brand of aircraft was safer than the Boeing I'd choose the other brand. If the only planes on the route were Boeings and the only consideration was safety, flying would still be safer.
@@rais1953 i understand i just wanna let you know that boeing is still save for aviation standards aslong as you dont fly lion air
@@apotato5563 When in Indonesia I only fly Garuda and have never bothered to check the aircraft brand. They're acceptable by EU standards. Lion is cheaper and the network is big but their safety record isn't very good. With the pandemic there's not much flying going on in our part of the world anyway. Australia has almost zero international travel at the moment.
@@rais1953 yeah my grandmother flew as stewardes on garuda
A ha haha one again
This is just another issue underlining the fact that the 737 has overstayed its technical design life. The design originating from 1969 and modified way too many times has created a Frankenstein aircraft! Scrap it Boeing and start over from a clean sheet (screen)!
True you should see its cockpit, they kept adding stuff in each generation yet you still have stuff straight from the 70s
@@togafly. thats because then pilots can be familliar with the plane they are flying this makes it cheaper for boeing to design the plane and the airline to train their pilots and might make it saver because the pilots know where every thing is
Also airbus does almost the same thing a320neo-a320ceo
A330neo-a330ceo-a300 basic examples of most aircraft manufactuers rebuilding their old version of planes
Old trope and load of crap. There are many old aircraft designs still in production because they simply work. Get some new material.
@@RLTtizME
You placed your words visely. Let’s get som new material and retire the 737 in the Boeing field museum. Cheers
Boeing.... we suck at air travel live with it
Boeing the aircraft manufacturer who now resembles the Yugo auto industry joke. Sad, really sad
I think Boo-ing is Ass-Hoe. But surely this is the engine manufacturer's design responsibility?? Just asking.
Boing is till Ass-Hoe though.
Long live Airbus. We kneel before your greatness. May your sacred name be Praised
Oh Blessed Air Bus, We know you will keep us safe from harm.