232
submitted 3 months ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world

Boeing faces fresh questions about the safety of its aircraft after an engine fire on a transatlantic flight from Edinburgh caused an emergency landing soon after takeoff.

Flames were seen by passengers briefly shooting from the engine of a Delta Air Lines 767 soon after it took off for New York in February last year, after a turbine blade broke off during takeoff.

The flames subsided while the plane was airborne but it made an emergency landing at Prestwick airport south of Glasgow, where ground crew noticed fuel leaking from the plane’s right wing.

The Air Accidents Investigation Branch, the UK government agency that investigates aviation safety, has written to the Federal Aviation Administration in the US asking it to take action with Boeing, which has its headquarters in Virginia.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TacticsConsort@yiffit.net 15 points 3 months ago

Yup, most engine manufacture is undertaken by specialists. As a good example, Rolls-Royce is an airplane engine company that sometimes makes cars as publicity stunts.

HOWEVER.

It's not just about who makes engines. Aircraft are meant to last a good 30 years in service and you can't just ask some schmuck to clean it for $7.50 an hour and call that maintenance. Maintenance is extremely skilled work that tends to be operating under horrible time crunches, especially if a part is suspect and needs to have a plane partially taken apart so it can be changed for a fresh one- a plane that might be due to fly again tomorrow. Maintenance that needs that sort of knowledge tends to have some involvement with the parent company who built the planes, or is even contract work for them.

Boeing is rather notorious for being willing to put the schedule before safety- we've seen that in a lot of other accidents. I would absolutely believe that a Boeing manager skimped on engine maintenance because someone in the chain of command said "Get that plane out of the maintenance hangar today or you're fired, and damn the safety regulations."

But, that's just my industry knowledge. The actual circumstances could be way different, so let's go read the article.

[-] TacticsConsort@yiffit.net 14 points 3 months ago

OK, checking out the article, actually it seems totally innocent on the maintenance side of things- there was a turbine blade fracture during flight. Turbines are generally very reliable but it's a gargantuan pain in the ass to test those blades because they're crystalline structures, so a fracture goes from nanoscopic to taking out the whole blade all at once. I wouldn't expect maintainers to catch that.

The criminal part is actually way more interesting and concerning.

Civilian aircraft are built to be safe. I mean REALLY safe. Every system has a redundant (backup) system you can switch to if that system goes down and a way to isolate a damaged system. Planes can fly on only one working engine, or even safely glide down to the ground if they have no engines. We literally blow some engines up in their final stages of testing to make sure they can't blow up hard enough to take the wing out. Regulations demand it.

So that's why this is a criminal case. Because after that engine blade came loose and hit the wing, it ruptured a fuel line...

In an aircraft that was designed in compliance with regulations, while this would still be be cause to turn around and land the plane, it shouldn't actually be a safety problem at all. Just isolate the damaged system and switch to the redundant one. And they didn't have the ability to do that. Meaning that their aircraft design itself is likely out of compliance with regulations and doesn't meet the minimum safety requirements to have civilians on it. Which is... honesty way weirder, because who the hell signed off on this thing if it had a design issue like this?

[-] Emerald@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Every system has a redundant (backup) system you can switch to if that system goes down

Well, except for the wings. And the cockpit. And the fuselage. And its accompanying door plugs

[-] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Are you daft? Why do you think it has TWO wings and TWO doors? And clearly you've never been invited to the under cock pit, where they keep plugs fit for any hole.

(is joke don't bite)

[-] Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 months ago

Not sure about the commercial planes, but some planes have a redundant wing.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/time-israeli-air-force-f-15-baz-landed-one-wing-missing/

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago

Boeing.

The FAA has been allowing them to self-certify some safety analyses. I don't know if it was this model, or this kind of certification, but the FAA has definitely not been doing a thorough job.

[-] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 3 months ago

Turbines are […] crystalline structures

Are you implying they are not metal? Or that their heat treatment makes them brittle? If it’s the latter, that’s clearly a defect. Metals can achieve high rigidity and still retain great resistance through heat treatment.

[-] erusuoyera@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Of the top of my head, IIRC the blades in a turbine are grown into a single crystal of titanium so there's no weak points between the crystalline structure.

Edit. https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/in-depth/jewel-in-the-crown-rolls-royce-s-single-crystal-turbine-blade-casting-foundry

Not titanium, nickel alloy.

[-] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 4 points 3 months ago

Christ on a cracker!

[-] HK65@sopuli.xyz 4 points 3 months ago

Metals are crystalline, and high stress loads associated with being rotated like crazy make things brittle. IDK how brittle though, steel normally is super stretchy if I remember my studies right.

[-] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 1 points 3 months ago

That’s why I asked for clarification. The line about them being crystalline makes no sense. Copper is crystalline, and can be super malleable or quite brittle depending on the grain structure. And you just don’t use brittle materials for high speed rotating equipment. And there are non destructive tests to check for embrittlement/fatigue.

[-] Highstronaught@feddit.uk 3 points 3 months ago

Metals are made of crystals, they usually defourm along the grain boundaries and fatigue cracks also grow along them. By eliminating those boundaries you reduce the chance for fatigue cracks and make the overall blade stronger.

[-] Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

What page did you see those details on in the report? I skimmed it between meetings and will look again later.

this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
232 points (97.9% liked)

World News

38979 readers
2473 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS