There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

'We all felt a kind of a [bump,] jolt': Engine cover rips open as Southwest flight takes off from DIA [Robert Garrison | Apr 07, 2024 | Denver7 ABC]

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.

Fades ,

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.

thatKamGuy ,

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.

Fades ,

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.

kerrigan778 ,

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…

TripleTed ,

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?

KairuByte ,

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.

ColonelMustard ,

BOEING DON’T MAKE ENGINES.

But sure. Pile on.

febra ,

They might not make the engines, but they are responsible with certification and checkups.

Neon ,

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.

GombeenSysadmin ,

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.

QuarterSwede ,
@QuarterSwede@lemmy.world avatar

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.

24_at_the_withers ,

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.

eardon ,

So? They still put them in their planes.

“We’re not responsible for putting shoddy parts on our aircraft because we don’t make the parts!”

Like, seriously, how stupid are you?

EvilTwin ,

I remember this episode of “The Twilight Zone”

werefreeatlast ,

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.

HurlingDurling ,
@HurlingDurling@lemmy.world avatar

Looks at post title and wonders if Boeing

Opens article

Is Boeing

HeyThisIsntTheYMCA ,
@HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world avatar

I mean half are boeing and half are airbus. We aren’t exactly swimming in large airplane manufacturers.

SillyPuppy ,

Southwest Airlines uses Boeing aircraft exclusively. Lucky me gets to try my luck in two weeks. 🙄

catloaf ,

Thousands of Boeing flights happen every day. Statistically, you’ll be fine.

Default_Defect ,
@Default_Defect@midwest.social avatar

Until you aren’t.

PoliticalAgitator ,

Everybody who has ever died in a plane crash was also, statistically, going to be fine.

KevonLooney ,

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?

PoliticalAgitator ,

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”.

KevonLooney ,

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?

PoliticalAgitator ,

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”.

EatATaco ,

Everyday there are thousands of Boeing flights that go off without a hitch. It’s still statically completely unlikely that anything bad will happen to you on a Boeing flight. So much so that it’s probably not even worth worrying about at all.

But this isn’t to say that we should just let their bs slide. This is exactly why flying is so safe: we are sticklers for making sure they do everything right. If that’s going in the opposite direction, we should nip it in the bud long before it gets anywhere close to the point where you should question the safety of it.

But, again, we aren’t even remotely close to that now. It makes no logical sense to be afraid of flying right now, even on a Boeing jet. And I would like to keep it that way which is why I think their issues need to be addressed.

ripcord , (edited )
@ripcord@lemmy.world avatar

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.

PoliticalAgitator ,

I think it’s clear that you’re never going to get my point. Maybe you could apply for a management job at Boeing?

ripcord ,
@ripcord@lemmy.world avatar

Pretty sure I got your point, it’s just terrible.

PoliticalAgitator ,

If it helps to tell yourself that, you go right ahead.

FlowVoid ,

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.

echodot ,

I don’t think you understand statistics

PoliticalAgitator , (edited )

… So they got on a plane knowing they were definitely going to die? They didn’t get on a plane with the very same remote chance of dying in a plane crash as every one else has, only to then die in a plane crash?

I guess they should have checked the Lemmy statistics before they boarded, where “it’s unlikely to happen to me” can be extrapolated to “it will never happen to anyone”.

Fuck, why does Boeing even bother pretending to do all that maintenance? Apparently planes don’t burst into flames because they’re protected by magical statistics. Just throw a screwdriver in the engine, it doesn’t make any difference.

TokenBoomer ,

The downvotes genuinely scare me.

EatATaco ,

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.

TokenBoomer , (edited )

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?

EatATaco ,

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.

TokenBoomer , (edited )

Everybody who has ever died in a plane crash was also, statistically, going to be fine.

The comment you are disputing

Noone is arguing that the statistics will protect you.

It relays that way. The other commenters said they don’t understand statistics, and statistics don’t work that way.

Saying “well some people weren’t fine!” Is a silly point.

Then why are you disputing the comment. There isn’t anything untrue or illogical in that comment. I’m genuinely scared that there are people in here that don’t understand that if you are in a crashing plane, you’re not worried about statistics. Frightening, actually.

EatATaco ,

The comment you are disputing

Incorrect. The comment I was responding to was about the down votes being “scary.” I’m not disputing their claim, I said it was a dumb point. It’s like challenging someone who says it’s a waste of money to play the lotto by pointing to the fact that some people have won.

It’s true that some people have won. But its still a bad point. We are talking about the ridiculously rare exception as if it’s really worth considering.

TokenBoomer ,

Everyday there are thousands of Boeing flights that go off without a hitch. It’s still statically completely unlikely that anything bad will happen to you on a Boeing flight. So much so that it’s probably not even worth worrying about at all.

But this isn’t to say that we should just let their bs slide. This is exactly why flying is so safe: we are sticklers for making sure they do everything right. If that’s going in the opposite direction, we should nip it in the bud long before it gets anywhere close to the point where you should question the safety of it.

But, again, we aren’t even remotely close to that now. It makes no logical sense to be afraid of flying right now, even on a Boeing jet. And I would like to keep it that way which is why I think their issues need to be addressed.

Like I said, frightening.

EatATaco ,

I don’t follow. Even with Boeings current struggles, it’s still ridiculously safe to fly. Saying “some people have died!” in response to someone pointing out this fact - in response to someone expressing concern about the safety of flying - doesn’t make any sense, regardless of the fact that we agree it should be addressed.

AnUnusualRelic ,
@AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world avatar

Dibs on your nick.

Everythingispenguins ,

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.

blackn1ght ,

Even if you discount the airlines responsibility in this, Boeing don’t make the engines., CFM International do.

Smoogs ,

Boeing do make the choice in who does their engines. And they do make the choice on the specs. Just as any vehicle manufacturer may use different parts from other manufacturers, they do make a choice with doing business and whether or not they are thorough on their specs.they do put their name on the assembled package as a collection of all their choices.

So no, while they didn’t make the engine themselves, they employed someone to do it to a spec they themselves determined was enough.

Everythingispenguins ,

Well first of not sure how that is relevant but just so you know the CFM 56 that is used in the 737NGs is also the engine used in the A320 CEO which is the airbus narrow body and is the direct competitor 737NG family

Smoogs , (edited )

Wrong argument.

I’m not arguing class. They do cater to specs for aircraft.

Irrespective of the engine applications, both aircraft and engine manufacturers work closely during the early design and concept phase to align their requirements.

If they do not require a spec, that’s on them. If they do, that’s also on them. It’s on the company who make the ultimate choice to strap it on and paint their name on the final decision.

It’s like that with all products. You will be held responsible regardless of you outsource any assembly and it’s still on your line.

That’s business 101.

For example : that is precisely the engine being fuel efficient and angling how it sits or he wing to operate the MCAS system. The infamous system that put Boeing on their back leg. that system to compensate for an engine, the courts didn’t blame the engine in the end. The families of the lost ones do not blame the engine. It’s still the fault of Boeing. This was tried and done already. didn’t work.

And even humouring this argument: families of the lost will not come after RR, PW or GM. That’s not a fight they can do and you know that. Only the airplane manufacturer can. So They will go after Boeing for strapping it on. And You know that. So go stick that red herring in your pipe and smoke it yourself if you’re that thirsty. Meanwhile I’m stepping aside on your misnomer argument.

It’s on Boeing. They made the comment about cost of human life. You’re not going to change my mind in this vein.

Everythingispenguins ,

Sorry what??? The 737NG and A320 CEO use the same CFM 56 engine. If it was an issue with CFM and the engines it made then Airbus would be as likely to have an issue as Boeing.

But it isn’t at all. If this was a problem with Boeing then we would have been seeing issues with this for 20 years. This is 100% Southwest’s fault and has nothing to do with Boeing or CFM. Would you blame Ford if the mechanic didn’t tighten your wheel lug nuts?

You want to say the MAX planes are shit I am right with you, but this plane was made before the MAX planes even came out and the engineering was done in 1990.

Smoogs ,

Again: wrong argument on class. I already explained why. Not having this with you.

Everythingispenguins ,

I am not arguing about the “class” plane. I am saying it was Southwest’s fault because they didn’t properly latch the cowling so it blew open. As I said before would you blame the manufacturer of your car if the local tire shop didn’t tighten your tire lug nuts?

Don’t get snippy with me if you can’t actually respond to the points I bring up.

EatATaco ,

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.

Everythingispenguins ,

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

derf82 ,

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.

…airbus.com/preventing-fan-cowl-door-loss/

TheFlopster ,
@TheFlopster@lemmy.world avatar

The article doesn’t say “bomb jolt” it says “bump, jolt.” In case no one actually reads the article.

can ,

Thank you, luckily Lemmy let’s you edit titles

elbarto777 ,

lets* you edit

Bezier ,
@Bezier@suppo.fi avatar

Let’s edit some titles

can ,

dammit

otp ,

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…)

can ,

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.

theblackbox ,

I read this as “lets* you idiot” and thought gee, the grammar police is getting increasingly hostile

jimmydoreisalefty OP ,
@jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world avatar

Updated post title!

Thanks!

Sequentialsilence ,

Oh hey look it’s a Boeing plane again.

stoy ,

It has been said a lot these last few months, but it is worth repeating untill Boeing stops dicking around…

“It is Boeing, I ain’t going”

tsonfeir ,
@tsonfeir@lemm.ee avatar

Boeing killed John Barnett!

Adderbox76 ,

For some reason I read that as “Boeing killed Jon Benet” and was thinking well that’s a conspiracy theory I hadn’t heard before…

tsonfeir ,
@tsonfeir@lemm.ee avatar

Thats funny. Also, wow. Haven’t heard that name in a while.

Rhaedas ,

It's also important to try to avoid jumping to conclusions without the facts. If this is a new 737 and there's a manufacturing issue, then rake Boeing over the coals. They do have problems. But if this is an older plane that had either maintenance issues, then go after Southwest first unless it's a Boeing responsibility. And of course, things do happen beyond anyone's control too, and engines that fail for any reason but don't take out the rest of the aircraft is a bit of a win for design.

stoy ,

Eh, I am still not going if it is Boeing.

Emerald ,

I will. If something bad happens that doesn’t cause any injury or death, then I just get a fun experience

Zipitydew ,

It’s not new. Is also not a Max. Airframe is from 2015.

aviation-safety.net/wikibase/386398

corsicanguppy ,

Neat. Now compare vs Airbus and see all those different compartments become meaningless.

reddithalation ,

and the engines aren’t even really boeing responsibility, its the engine manufacturers.

Smoogs ,

Boeing : “iTs tHe fAuLt Of ThE PiLoTs!”

eardon ,

“The buck stops anywhere but here.”

eardon ,

I agree with your rationality, but I will never pass up an opportunity to rake Boeing over the coals after the 737 max debacle.

mercano ,
@mercano@lemmy.world avatar

The story doesn’t mention the age or variant of the plane, but there’s a good chance this is an issue with Southwest maintenance, not Boeing (or their subcontractors) construction.

stoy ,

Some quick googling got me the details.

  1. The article mentions the flight number.
  2. Since I didn’t know the airline code of Southweast, I googled Southwest and the flight number.
  3. Google flights showed me the full flight number.
  4. Putting that into Flightradar got me a list of the last flights of this flight, one showing a deviation.
  5. Going in there gave me the registration number of the plane that flew that flight and data about the type of plane.
  6. Searching FAA registry gave me all details of the plane.

It is a Boeing 737-8H4, delivered in 2015, so an alomst decade old plane, meaning it was probably an issue with maintenance this time.

Doesn’t mean I would fly a Boeing plane untill the stop dicking around.

Zipitydew ,

How would they stop dicking around with a plane sold to Southwest 9 years ago?

stoy ,

You are aware of the other recent high profile accidents with Boeing planes and the issues with Boeing mgmt?

This incident may not be related, but based on the other issues I remain steady in my resolve that if it is Boeing I ain’t going.

Untill the focus of Boeing shifts from it’s share value and back to engineering, I will be very careful about getting on a Boeing flight.

Zipitydew ,

I’m aware of a number of airlines experiencing random mechanical issues on Boeing aircraft they’ve owned for years. And 1 issue that was a new plane which is still under investigation and likely was Boeing’s fault

I and my team of about 25 engineers travel for work constantly. Weird mechanical issues happen way more than the public realizes. Saying all of it has been Boeing’s fault is factually incorrect.

stoy ,

You are absolutely right that claiming it is all Boeing’s fault is incorrect, I never claimed that it was.

However, since the MD/Boeing merger, Boeing mgmt has acted reckless with safety.

They have pushed the margins of safety too far and we are starting to see the issues now.

I realize that you and your team may not have a lot of choice about what plane you can fly on, but I have, and I will pick flights based on the plane.

Zipitydew ,

I get it. And I’m probably an oddball with being fascinated about flying even before I started traveling for work. Now it’s something I do for fun to track planes I’ll be on.

So to me the only thing that’s changed recently is the news getting clicks running any story they can about Boeing. They could have been for years if they wanted to. But it’s one of the current hot topics now.

And even now the news should be shitting on the airlines directly much moreso than Boeing. All issues I’ve heard of since the door blowout would have been a maintenance problem. Especially United. It seems like those fuckers in particular have cut corners. I avoid them in general when booking regardless of plane type.

catloaf ,

What kind of random mechanical stuff like this happens to Airbus or other manufacturers?

Zipitydew ,

Before the pandemic I remember there being software/electrical issues on the 320. More recently it’s been engine issues on the 320neo.

homesweethomeMrL ,

They wouldn’t but then people ragging on Boeing are also correct. So.

Shall we all wait for the next disaster? Keep scrolling to find out!

Hey what was that union that Reagan destroyed to avoid paying them? I forget.

fidodo ,

What other options are there for domestic US flights?

pearsaltchocolatebar ,

Airbus

stoy ,

simpleflying.com/ten-busiest-domestic-us-airbus-a…

Plenty.

Then you guys also have sleeper trains in some regions, not at the same level as here in Europe, but they exist and are a decent alternative to flying on the routes.

catloaf ,

They’re not decent alternatives. They’re much slower, more expensive, and go far fewer places. I would love to take a train instead of flying.

snooggums ,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

It’s almost like overworking people in the name of profits gets in the way of safety snd reliability.

Diplomjodler3 ,

What are you, some kind of socialist?

homesweethomeMrL ,

Hey Karl Marx, preventing needless death isn’t profitable! Enough.

Thank god the wealthy control the courts and government, at least. They’ll keep the lid on this rabble-rousing.

can ,

Keep in mind they literally do not care until it gets in the way of profit

GBU_28 ,

Are there examples of economic theories that better value the worker? The only I’ve ever seen is high unionized social democracies, which are themselves still capitalist in nature

PoliticalAgitator ,

Looking for “economic theories” is already buying into their bullshit. The economic theory championed by major political parties and media networks the world over is neoliberalism. You know, trickle down, self-regulation, free market will fix it, that kind of shit.

None of it works and none of it ever did. Maybe, for a brief moment around Thatcher and Reagan, they genuinely thought it might. These days though, they try neoliberalism over and over again because it doesn’t work and they grow richer with every failure. Money didn’t trickle down, they just got a tax break. They didn’t self regulate, they increased their profits by exploiting foreign workers and literal slaves. The free market didn’t fix it, because people were desperately trying to keep their head above water, forcing them to be complicit in the horrors or drown.

You don’t need economic theories. You just need regulations to stop businesses doing unethical, exploitative things. Politicians could solve most of the issues facing us today with the stroke of a pen. It’s not even complicated policy. “Foreign workers pay and working conditions must meet domestic standards. Failure to do so will result in criminal charges”.

You’d see industry return to wealthy countries overnight. Consumers wouldn’t be blamed for multi-billion dollar companies using child slaves. Sure, everything would also become more expensive, but that’s your bosses problem now. They’ve been pocketing your wealth for decades, distracting you with cheap junk, subsidised by the misery of foreign workers.

That’s why the world over, every election has become “red neoliberal” vs “blue neoliberal”. They might pantomime fight over social issues but when it comes to economics, the only disagreement is about whose buddies from school get to be first snout in the trough. Their children are bred for it. The moment a progressive get anywhere near power, watch as these mortal enemies suddenly unite in solidarity to attack them.

Whatever economic theory you find, there will always be greedy sociopaths trying to murder and manipulate their way to the top.

GBU_28 ,

Regulations are part of the economic system we want. An economic theory that has strong regulation as a first class tenet is the one we want

PoliticalAgitator ,

Then it’s just what we already have only people don’t vote for neoliberals.

JohnDClay ,

They tied bonuses directly to how many planes were delivered. Definitely a good way to promote cutting corners.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •