Now it is the 737 NG in general:
I honestly haven't heard of the pickle fork before so I did a little research:
While this suspension system seems like a great idea to reduce load stress off the most critical joint in aircraft design, you certainly don't want cracks in it.
They are supposed to last 90,000 flights, so cracks after only 22,600 must come like a shock to the engineers.
38 planes with these cracks worldwide have now been discovered. Qantas has just started counting.
Thanks, MTV
Last edited by Uncle Fester; 31-10-19 at 02:59 PM.
Update: A deletion of features that work well and ain't broke but are deemed outdated in order to add things that are up to date and broken.
Compatibility: A word soon to be deleted from our dictionaries as it is outdated.
Humans: Entities that are not only outdated but broken... AI-self-learning-update-error...terminate...terminate...
Look Here -> |
eaglem (01-11-19),Uncle Fester (31-10-19)
And with airlines around the world cancelling 737 orders in favour of the euro airbus (literally hundreds of planes) I can see a possible bankruptcy coming once all the legal claims are presented for the recent 737 crash's
the main thing is that the issue has been identified and its being looked in to.
Here's Spin doctoring and Corporate bullshit ( with a slight chance of Naive Incompetence) at it's Finest. Then again, it's from a Qantas mouthpiece so not surprising when it's one of Alan pillowbiters PC minions.
"Qantas fleet safety captain Debbie Slade said calls for the entire fleet to be grounded were "completely unnecessary".
"It's quite a scary word 'crack'. But it's in a structural component, it's a very small part of that component and the structural integrity of an aircraft is made up of many components."
A crack in a structural Component does not matter to her then? And this is from a 'Safety Captain? Does she have ANY idea of metallurgy or Metal fatigue and how failures start?
Sure, a crack might be fine for a while... until you hit turbulence or have a heavy landing and it lets go on takeoff.
Shes effectively saying " It's only in the wing so while that may fold up mid Flight, Don't worry, The tail section will still be fine and we'll still be serving coffee as they are separate components. The aircraft engineers said the inspection only takes an hour but they are trying to justify putting it off for 7 Months?
I hope to hell this " Captain" doesn't Fly Planes because I wouldn't want to fly with someone either that ignorant or such a Liar.
Cracks are just something that you have to deal with, with all aircraft. Sometimes the cracks are very small and have taken a long time to develope, and unless they indicate a trend in component failure, that can cause catastrophic results within a short time, they are usually dealt with at the next major servicing. The problem is when the media get hold of such news, it becomes a super serious thing that is going to cause all aircraft to immediately fall out of the sky. It doesn't work like that. If you're worried about aeroplanes flying around with cracks in them, don't live near, or go near any military aircraft base.
What I don't understand is that I saw "pickle forks" for sale at $3.00 for six in Homemakers the other day. Why don't they just replace them all on spec anyway?
lsemmens (01-11-19)
If a plane hadn't beed stripped down for a cargo conversion it may not have.
It is only a coincidence that this was discovered as the pickle fork has been designed for 90,000 flights so nobody looks at them.
I don't like aircraft safety based on coincidences.
Qantas and Boeing is playing this down to cover their asses. Boeing says 30,000 flights are still safe but Qantas found cracks after 22600, yet still say it is OK and harmless to wait until the 30k recommendation, no need to ground.
Boeing originally said it takes a week to fix but now the whole process takes a month.
...and this is the biggest BS on the matter I have read:
"Even where these hairline cracks are present they're not an immediate risk, which is clear from the fact the checks were not required for at least seven months."
Lets look at what we know:
Boeing designed a structure to last 90,000 and no routine checks were required until then.
However cracks can develop around the bolts after only 22,600 flights.
Despite my modest engineering skills I am not aware of any cracks around bolts in a structural environment that would be considered safe.
Any structural weakness in a vehicle in Australia would never pass Rego or get a Roadworthy certificate.
Yet we are told by Qantas that it is totally fine for now.
And if they find after 30,000 flights that there are still no cracks, how can we know that they don't develop after 31,000 flights?
Until they decide to routinely replace pickle forks on all 737 NG after 22,600 flights I can not consider it 100% safe to fly in them.
As said if it weren't for a coincidence these cracks may have not been discovered until a catastrophic failure of the system.
Update: A deletion of features that work well and ain't broke but are deemed outdated in order to add things that are up to date and broken.
Compatibility: A word soon to be deleted from our dictionaries as it is outdated.
Humans: Entities that are not only outdated but broken... AI-self-learning-update-error...terminate...terminate...
Exactly!
A component that shows fatigue and stress less than 1/3rd into it's design life is failing. The whole thing with engines and props Landing gear, magnetos, control actuators and every other replaceable component on aircraft is not that you replace it when it's stuffed, When it's time is up and you pull it out at overhaul, it's still as good as new so there is no chance of it failing. No pulling over at 10,000M.
Try getting a Cessna through it's airworthy with a crack in the main wing spar and telling the inspector it's good for another 7 months and see how fast your airworthy is revoked! They only carry 4 people not 300+.
My father in law was an aircraft engineer all his life and was a top level manager when he retired. He worked for Hawkers and ANY defect before the hours were up was a BIG issue. I remember he instituted a massive recall of Elevators they were Building and had sent to the US because one day while going for his daily walk around the factory, he spotted some flaking paint. Being known as
The professor" he knew that meant the heat treatment wasn't right. They did tests and found had those parts gone into service, they WOULD have failed.
Good mate works for the Navy on Choppers. Same thing. They pull the things down to every nut and bolt and x ray them looking for cracks and defects. If they find any, there are notices issued for checks on all the other aircraft of the same type.
Structural cracks are not taken lightly and never have been. Look at what happened to the original comet jets. Got a crack around the edges of the square windows and the next thing they blew out and planes went down.
Might be one thing to have a crack or a tear in a skin or a non critical part but a STRUCTURAL fault shows something is operating outside it's design limits and undergoing stresses it was not designed for.
I was also going to mention Cracks in Chassis rails of cars and trucks and in sub frames. I have personally seen vehicles defected for that and we are talking small cracks not the thing ripped in half.
allover (02-11-19),VroomVroom (04-11-19)
I wasn't saying they aren't taken seriously. When cracks are found there is a whole swag of engineering procedure that has to be done, and sometimes the cracks are deemed to pose no immediate risk and are deferred till next major servicing. Unless you are very familiar with the airframe and the component affected, it is pointless kicking up a blind panic because a crack has been found. I have worked on aircraft for nearly 30 years, including Canberra Bombers, F-111s, Mirages and FA-18s, and they have all been flown with known cracks in certain areas, including in airframes.
Usually, they use eddy current detection, or dye penetrant for routine inspections of accessible areas, but will use x-rays if there is something of risk of developing cracking that can't be tested by the other two methods.
Incidentally, NDI (Non Destructive Inspection) is a whole trade on it's own, and they get pretty good pay for it too. More than I got, working for a civvy company as an Avionics Tech.
I don't disagree about repairing defects, or re-engineering to overcome those problems, I didn't say or imply otherwise. I'm talking about all the uproar after the media get hold of a story, and all the armchair experts start demanding all aircraft with cracks be grounded.
If they knew about half the defects found in military aircraft in service, there would be mass hysteria and cries to ground the entire fleet.
lsemmens (03-11-19)
bob_m_54 (03-11-19)
The masses don't sit in military aircraft and as long as the military does not fly directly over my house, which they don't(I think that might to do with some regulations), I don't give a rat's.
There are cracks and more serious structural cracks, which after informing myself beyond what the media wrote in this case needs urgent attention, as it seems systematic with planes over 22,000 flights and all planes of this type will eventually need attention. This was NOT known or expected by the designers.
This is very different to cracks/faults that can be left unattended for a while because they are known.
A crack on the loo or when a stewardess bends over does not cause concern.
Update: A deletion of features that work well and ain't broke but are deemed outdated in order to add things that are up to date and broken.
Compatibility: A word soon to be deleted from our dictionaries as it is outdated.
Humans: Entities that are not only outdated but broken... AI-self-learning-update-error...terminate...terminate...
Why are we so concerned about the potential problems with aircraft who fly millions of Km per year when the road fatalities per million km far outweigh those of aircraft.
Last edited by lsemmens; 03-11-19 at 07:56 PM.
I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...
Bookmarks