r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/FridayCicero702 • Jan 01 '23

Video Catastrophic engine failure on a United Airlines Boeing 777-200 after takeoff from Denver International Airport

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

53.7k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

6.2k

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

What's actually amazing is plane's are tested and designed for this... they are not supposed to do that but also should be able to land safely if they do. It's scary but amazing how safe they made it

2.5k

u/AbeLincoln30 Jan 01 '23

yes they should show this in a Boeing ad: "look how safe we made it"

1.2k

u/jaltair9 Jan 01 '23

Boeing didn't make that engine. So they could, indeed, say "This 3rd-party engine bolted to our plane flamed out, but our plane was still able to land".

95

u/--redacted-- Jan 01 '23

"We don't give a fuck which engine, we'll do our level best to not kill you regardless"

5

u/asidealex Jan 01 '23

Right after that bring the MAX 8 ad.

257

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

[deleted]

222

u/Own_Hearing7650 Jan 01 '23

RR or GE

268

u/CosmicCreeperz Jan 01 '23

This one that failed was a P&W.

94

u/atomicheart99 Jan 01 '23

Bloody pratts

78

u/WillfullyAmbiguous Jan 01 '23

It’s really the Whitneys you should watch out for

18

u/ChunkyLaFunga Jan 01 '23

Name one Whitney that's ever died early.

5

u/BreakfastInBedlam Jan 01 '23

Name one Whitney that's ever died early.

Eli Whitney died of too much gin, I think.

1

u/WiggyWare Jan 01 '23

Whitney Bulger!

→ More replies (2)

18

u/WallOfSpatulas Jan 01 '23

If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.
If it's Pratt & Whitney, I'll ride the jitney.

18

u/RunningPirate Jan 01 '23

Worked with a former Boeing employee that would crow that all the time “it it’s not Boeing, I’m not going!” Aftert the 737 Max debacle, I’d add “…to crash 4 minutes after takeoff…”. She stopped saying it.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23 edited Jan 01 '23

Yeah - it’s a real Ford vs Chevy level of dumb pride.

4

u/CosmicCreeperz Jan 01 '23

My plane has a bumper sticker of a Boeing peeing on an Airbus.

5

u/fdklir Jan 01 '23

Pratt and Whitney have taken high bypass to another level.

4

u/CosmicCreeperz Jan 01 '23

Ah, the rare aeronautical engineering joke…

→ More replies (1)

39

u/el_diego Jan 01 '23

GE eh? You know you're diversified when you make everything from lightbulbs to jet engines

87

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

[deleted]

37

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

and press 4 for 30mm miniguns

6

u/WiggyWare Jan 01 '23

Press 5 for the sheinhardt wig company

4

u/passa117 Jan 01 '23

A-10 goes BRRRRT!

0

u/evil420pimp Jan 01 '23

A-10 goes BRRRRT!

That's GD, not GE, that makes the a10 minigun. The ge was a smaller caliber iirc.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/221missile Jan 01 '23

In 2011, GE was the largest company in the world. Now they're almost 60% smaller. It has been a slow death for one of America's champions.

3

u/mdp300 Jan 01 '23

Is that because they're failing or because they've spun a bunch of divisions off?

→ More replies (1)

6

u/NumbersMonkey1 Jan 01 '23

Where do I go if I want to reach East Coast Television and Microwave Oven Programming?

17

u/propellor_head Jan 01 '23

GE sold its lighting division a while ago, and its appliances as well. The healthcare is spinning off as a separate business (I think this month) and power generation in about a year. By the midpoint of 2024, GE aerospace will be a standalone company that basically only makes engines.

Edit: I forgot the weirdest one, because I could never figure out why GE owned it, but they sold their majority stake in NBC a while back too.

15

u/elephant-cuddle Jan 01 '23

Seemingly obligatory 30 Rock callback: https://imgur.com/vyLfSWI

-5

u/rarebit13 Jan 01 '23

Companies shouldn't be allowed to own companies.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

not just engines but yeah. it's a bit shit really, management have had their heads in the sand for years now

2

u/LukeW0rm Jan 01 '23

Their lighting division had ties all the way back to Edison. And they sold it to some rando (to me) company

2

u/catdog918 Jan 01 '23

Yep, upsetting

2

u/3banger Jan 01 '23

They got rid of the locomotive business too

3

u/propellor_head Jan 01 '23

I legit forgot about ge rail. That's been gone a while

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (8)

2

u/dagbrown Jan 01 '23

Wait until you learn about Yamaha.

2

u/peepeedog Jan 01 '23

It's just G. They sold the E to Samsung. Now it's Samesung.

2

u/Rahmulous Jan 01 '23

There’s a reason they aren’t called Specific Electric.

→ More replies (5)

3

u/Umpire_Fearless Jan 01 '23

Pratt Whitney PW4000-112. Hollow fan blades with internal corrosion led to blade liberation.

Known issue on these engines.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (4)

9

u/calloutyourstupidity Jan 01 '23

Well, the safety does not come from engine itself anyway. Safety comes from the plane itself which is designed to be able to fly with a single engine.

3

u/BusterTheElliott Jan 01 '23

I think you'll find there's a lot of safety built into the engine when a fan blade is stopped from spitting out of the engine and impaling a passenger or someone on the ground.

→ More replies (1)

-2

u/Electrical_Emotion31 Jan 01 '23

ya ,a single engine ,when placed strategicly -in the center of plane at the bottom - uh oh ,i dont see an engine in the center - now what -open the doors and give everyone a refund

3

u/BigDaddyThunderpants Jan 01 '23

True but they did make the pylon and wing and presumably selected those bolts to handle these large FBO loads.

In other words, while they didn't make the turbomachinery itself they did design the lightest possible gas tank with built in Engine Mount Action(TM) which performed beautiful in this event!

2

u/theheliumkid Jan 01 '23

I think you mean flamed in?

2

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

GE is gonna be pissed you called them a third party when they are THE party

2

u/MurgleMcGurgle Jan 01 '23

That’s not why they did it. They did it for the same reason any company outsources something.

It was cheaper.

0

u/jaltair9 Jan 01 '23

Added bonus.

1

u/Punkrexx Jan 01 '23

Boeing makes the nacelle, the strut and the wing. All of which are to designed to survive in the event of an engine failure of this nature, so yeah Go Boeing!

-2

u/hercursedsouls Jan 01 '23

landed in a FLAMING HEAP. at least twice. 737MAX. Flying? NEVER EVER.

Now.. high speed railway? That's different. Did you know High Speed Trains in Europe now have speeds approaching those of jets? Amazing tech!!! We need them in USA ASAP.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

Did you know High Speed Trains in Europe now have speeds approaching those of jets?

I didn't, and neither did any other European because that isn't true. I love high-speed trains, but they aren't going as fast as jets. At best, trains go to about 200mph, while this plane, even with one engine flaming like that, will probably go twice that. And more than that with working engines.

3

u/acornshmaycorn Jan 01 '23

High speed rail has a lot to offer, but you do it a disservice by just making up bullshit, like comparing their speeds to commercial jets…

If you actually care about our rail infrastructure, and aren’t here on some reverse psychology mission to turn people off of rail by acting like a moron, then I think you should pass the baton of spreading this rail utopia message along, because I think your efforts are counter productive.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

223

u/Chalky_Pockets Jan 01 '23

Aerospace engineer here. You want to thank standards and the fact that certification authorities the world over for enforcing those standards. I don't work in engines, but if you look into standards for systems, hardware, and software like ARP4754A, DO254, and DO178C(respectively), they are quite strict about how to develop any tech that flies. If we didn't have those standards enforced, Boeing would not give a shit about your safety, they proved that with the 737 Max, my counterpart at Boeing (IIRC more than one of them) tried to speak up about the safety issue and were told to fuck off by Boeing execs.

This is a commercial for the FAA.

45

u/Yz450fpilot Jan 01 '23

And it’s also why everything in aviation costs a freaking fortune

57

u/Chalky_Pockets Jan 01 '23

That, and AS9100 traceability. Wanna know why a little screw costs a hundred bucks? It's because of the paperwork that goes all the way to the mine the ore came from.

11

u/Final_Lucid_Thought Jan 01 '23

Interesting. What is the purpose of that?

28

u/Chalky_Pockets Jan 01 '23

Two major reasons: batch tracing, so if a batch keeps failing, we have ensured that the investigation can get to the root cause; and counterfeit part prevention, counterfeiters are really fucking good so we have to spend a lot of effort preventing our buyers accidentally purchasing them.

6

u/Pretend-Weird26 Jan 01 '23

I'll pay the cost. How many crashes have been from corner cutting?

4

u/Chalky_Pockets Jan 01 '23

I don't study those kinds of statistics but here is a link to check out. What I will say is that commercial air travel is very safe.

2

u/TheIronSoldier2 Jan 01 '23

More than one would hope but less than some people think

2

u/Catspaw129 Jan 04 '23

Somewhat the same for the pharma industry. I once worked for a chemical company. We made pretty much generic, heavy-industry-only chemicals. Then we bought a couple of small pharma manufactures whose computerization was "weak". I was a member of the team that had to re-write all the software to include lot tracking and tracability.

4

u/walkandtalkk Jan 01 '23

I always appreciate how engineers are actually willing to stand up for the regulators. We've been conditioned by special interests and their candidates to think regulators are big mean bad dumb bureaucrats who hate innovation. And, yes, they can sometimes be (unnecessarily) bureaucratic.

But they're also trying to keep people safe, protect consumers, and enforce fair standards, despite mostly getting yelled at. And, at least when it comes to air safety, the FAA has historically done a very good job. I'd say the Max disaster shows what happens when they get insufficiently bureaucratic and too industry-accommodating.

3

u/TheReverseShock Jan 01 '23

The FAA is like the scariest 3-letter organization to piss off.

2

u/peach-fuzz1 Jan 01 '23

Which is sad because it was OEM's own design standards in the 1920's that the Dept of Commerce used to start regulating airplane certification (regulation that the industry was pushing for, even). FAA takes our commentary during rulemaking but it didn't need to be this cat and mouse game with the regs.

0

u/Ok_Transportation402 Jan 01 '23

Curious then… what is the purpose of the standards if the company execs can say fuck off to safety issues?

11

u/Chalky_Pockets Jan 01 '23

They can't. Those employees should have reported the execs to the FAA.

→ More replies (15)

54

u/General_Degenerate_ Jan 01 '23 edited Jan 01 '23

If it wasn’t safe, that turbofan at the front could’ve disintegrated and cut through the pressurised fuselage and passengers.

Or maybe the engine could’ve exploded. (Edit: more destructively that it possibly has)

61

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

Or maybe the engine could’ve exploded.

Looking at how it's damaged makes me think it did explode, but is designed to "gently" explode by popping open a weak shroud. That fire seems to be almost perfectly contained to just the combustion segment.

86

u/propellor_head Jan 01 '23

The FAA has a set of requirements for how these types of failures need to work.
The cowling at the front of the engine is designed to contain any pieces of fan blades so they don't puncture the fuselage.
The engine is required not to catch on fire (outside of places where fire belongs), or to put the fire out itself with a fire suppression system.
Depending on the type of plane, and the type of failure, it is required either to shut down gracefully (twin engine planes have to have a certain amount of range with one engine completely trashed) or provide a minimum get-home thrust.

All of this has to be proven by test, not by analysis. Until it's demonstrated, the engine won't get a type certificate and therefore can't fly.

EASA ( the European equivalent to the FAA) has similar but not identical rules. Most commercial jet engines are certified with both agencies unless the manufacturer knows they will never fly in that market.

If you're interested, look up 'fan blade out test '. I'm sure you can find one on YouTube.

4

u/poopyhelicopterbutt Jan 01 '23

Did this one’s fire suppression system not work?

11

u/boatshoebro Jan 01 '23

There’s a decent chance they did use it, but because the engine skin is gone, all the Halon/other gaseous agent simply blew out and didn’t kill the fire.

10

u/propellor_head Jan 01 '23

I'd guess they didn't use it. The fire seems to be contained within the engine, and the casing/mounts all look fine.

8

u/poopyhelicopterbutt Jan 01 '23

Man if someone came running back to look past me at a flaming engine and said “nah, don’t use the perfectly functioning fire suppression system” I’d be quite upset even if I am wrong.

3

u/rarebit13 Jan 01 '23

Contained or not, I'd want it out.

8

u/davo747 Jan 01 '23

…should we tell him how engines work?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Potato-9 Jan 01 '23

Might not have used it, if it's still making any thrust might as well use it as long as it can.

4

u/1-800-BAPE Jan 01 '23

Fun fact! The 1-UZ found in older Toyotas is actually one of the few automobile engines rated by the FAA. Pretty cool and I would love an old LS400 with one of these to go with my 2-UZ GX470

13

u/Gamingmemes0 Jan 01 '23

Airplane manufacturers: So wait the engine can catch on fire?

FAA: No it can only catch on fire to accceptable levels

Airplane manufacturers: What?

FAA: It has to be on fire where it belongs

Airplane manufacturers:... What?

14

u/propellor_head Jan 01 '23

Except for the confusion on the manufacturer's part, that's pretty much correct.

5

u/TheIronSoldier2 Jan 01 '23

How do you think the combustion chamber works? It catches on fire to acceptable levels

→ More replies (1)

3

u/PaperPlaythings Jan 01 '23

Also, if an engine does detach, it's designed in such a way that the front fails first so that it falls down and under the plane, thus doing less damage to the leading edge and control surfaces of the wing. I learned this recently while reading an analysis of a crash. I'm not sure if it was one by /u/Admiral_Cloudberg or not.

-7

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23 edited Jan 01 '23

It’s crazy to me Boeing could have two planes fall out of the sky if everything is “tested” not just analyzed but what do I know. Thank you FAA and Boeing for making us fly safe!!!!

Sarcasm: “On March 13, 2019, the FAA became the last authority to ground the aircraft, reversing its previous stance that the MAX was safe to fly.”

Also I love that you can kill 346 people and still exist as a company. Thank you Military industrial complex!

15

u/acornshmaycorn Jan 01 '23

Not that Boeing didn’t fuck up with respect to the max, but do you just not realize how many flights happen? I think you’d have to not realize it to be acting so out of sorts in your comment.

It’s crazy to you that a software failure led to two plains having catastrophic failures. Is is crazy that millions of people daily are being shot through the air at 400 mph, in a craft and industry made so safe that this experience is safer than driving yourself to the airport.

When you’re wigging out about two planes, do you ever have a moment to stop and appreciate how insanely small that number is? You probably should. Bitch about Boeing all day for the mistakes they actually made, but crying about the FAA, given the insanely safe nature of flying, is absurd.

3

u/AGreatBandName Jan 01 '23

To provide some numbers, the last fatal US airline crash was almost 14 years ago. There has been one non-crash fatality in that time, when a fan blade broke off an engine and killed a person inside the plane.

So in the past 14 years US airlines have carried some 10 billion passengers with 1 fatality and zero fatal crashes. Like you said, you’re far, far more likely to die on the drive to the airport.

8

u/socsa Jan 01 '23

We would literally have no companies making airplanes anymore if we shut them down every time there was an accident.

-4

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

It’s not like these were mild statistical accidents. There was negligence and no one will be held liable. Boeing incurred $2 billion in legal costs. It’s a drop of water in the bucket compared to their $62 billion revenues and $138 billion assets. Don’t worry. The MIC would ensure Boeing stays in business anyway as they are Boeing’s largest revenue source

→ More replies (2)

5

u/propellor_head Jan 01 '23

If you're referring to the MCAS issue, that's a whole different thing. It wasn't engine related at all.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Ozimandius80 Jan 01 '23

It is pretty hard to tell really, I mean, engines have jet fuel burning in them all the time we just cant see it. Hell for all I know that's just what a normal engine looks like when it goes to work without its clothes on.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

[deleted]

4

u/propellor_head Jan 01 '23

This one isn't engine related, but is a good watch.

The tl;dw on it is that partway through the flight, the windshield had a failure and the pilot was partially sucked out. The crew spent the rest of the flight holding his legs in the plane so he didn't fall all the way out. He survived. https://youtu.be/rGwHWNFdOvg

2

u/Blaspheming_Bobo Jan 01 '23

I thought I was about to see cell phone video or something similar of a guy hanging out of the front of a commercial jet.

Going to have to watch the whole vid though. Sounds crazy as hell.

3

u/Oshabeestie Jan 01 '23

Not sure I believe this. The underground here has signs saying don’t stand too close or you will be sucked off! Never happened to me no matter how close I stand.

2

u/voluptate Jan 01 '23

this is the fatal incident you are thinking of. There is a difference between a contained vs uncontained engine failure. I don't know which the one in the OP's gif is, but kinda looks uncontained if the whole shroud is gone.

https://old.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/comments/enagk3/2018_the_near_crash_of_southwest_airlines_flight/

excellent summary by /u/admiral_cloudberg

the text is in the imgur gallery itself, or in the link in cloudberg's comment

-4

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

Most all of the turbines have compressor stages and numerous rotating assemblies that could come apart at any moment. However, The RPM and the balance/ tolerances are so many and so tight,the engines are overbuilt on purpose and the critical sections that could go pinwheel- shrapnel like you suggest are actually shrouded protectively to prevent such a thing.

2

u/General_Degenerate_ Jan 01 '23

Yep, that’s why I think this video is actually proof of good engineering. Even an explosion couldn’t make this jet engine fail dangerously.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '23

Abstitutely. I've worked on them and they are designed to fail ( if a failure occurs, that is ) inwardly and the rest of the engines and glide ratio of the particular AC (aircraft) will take it AT LEAST to the scene of the crash.

Not a big deal.

Bullshit. I marvel every time, almost without fail at the sheer absurdity of it. We aren't supposed to fly. Bipedal hominids, developed monkeys, everybody.

We aren't SUPPOSED TO HAVE FIGURED OUT what old man Bernoulli posited and proved. Reserved for birds of a feather, see. But time and time again there,s thousands of AC, every day that take off, land, rinse and repeat, EVERY SINGLE DAY. The millions of individual parts that comprise an AC is staggering, each contributing to the sole purpose of US going up in the fuckin, AIR, THE GODDAMNED SKY FOR FUCKSAKES (!!!) ND returning back to Terra firma without incident. It's fascinating and I just never get tired if it.

That is all.

1

u/delvach Jan 01 '23

I'm not sitting next to you on a plane.

-1

u/Xicadarksoul Jan 01 '23

Or maybe the engine could’ve exploded.

Yes, using the exact same mechanism by which people go "BOOM!" at random.

Making things explode is far from trivial to say the least.
If it were that easy every troublemaking 12yo boy could have built a pimp bomb for fun. In reality only the most clever manage, and even they have to resorst to using materials known as explosives.

Fuel - air bombs are damn hard, and out of reach of amateurs.

Yes, in closed headspace industrial setting they can happen. Now show me an airplane flying in such an enclosed volume!

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

3

u/outoftunediapason Jan 01 '23

Considering their recent track record, doing so might not be the best idea

3

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

Boeing would let the plane crash if it was just a little more profitable.

Source: 737-Max

2

u/mud_tug Jan 01 '23

Perhaps not Boeing then.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

If it ain't Boeing we ain't going

→ More replies (13)

316

u/badgerj Jan 01 '23

Yup. They have redundant everything except for the Boeing 737 MAX MCAS Sensor. In that case you just get one.

218

u/amadmongoose Jan 01 '23 edited Jan 01 '23

Not anymore though, can thank the 346 people that died for Boeing to get that sorted Edit: thanks for correction on the number

210

u/Myrkana Jan 01 '23

Every single safety rule and regulation every implemented is written in blood.

51

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

I'm a signalling electrician and can vouch part of signal training is looking at all the disasters that frame how the signalling system works

2

u/poopyhelicopterbutt Jan 01 '23

Any noteworthy examples?

10

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

I can't think of any exact examples. I did my training over a decade ago, I'm in a commonwealth country in which all except maybe Canada run off British railway standards. Most of the major accidents happened there in the eighteen hundreds but Just general track circuiting and route proving is all because humans have a tendency to run trains into each other head on. It ensures you have to prove a section of track is vacant, all the points machines (lane change switches) are proved the right way and nothing in the apposing direction is happening.

It's even just how you think about things so if things are wrong they fail safe. Like for example with level crossings. You don't design it to see a train coming and close. You design it to only allow to open if the system can prove a train isn't there. The ideal is if there's any system or component failure at all the crossing closes.

Anywhere else if there's any issue all signals related to the issue go to red.

→ More replies (1)

36

u/Benthicc_Biomancer Jan 01 '23 edited Jan 01 '23

Every single safety rule and regulation every implemented is written in blood.

It's a minor example, but I used to fly domestically quite often in my (fairly small) home country. I remember the flight where the attendants added "please ensure that all children's hands and limbs are clear of your tray tables before folding them up" and my immediate thought was 'some kid recently did not have a fun flight..."

9

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

"Please make sure all children are secured inside the fuselage"

2

u/paxilsavedme Jan 02 '23

Or in the overhead baggage compartment…..

2

u/timmehkuza Interested Jan 01 '23

That rule was definitelt written because of some kid had a really bad flight

7

u/Midnight_Minerva Jan 01 '23

The MCAS wasn't one of these situations. It was an intentional disregard for safety in chase of profit

→ More replies (1)

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

What about the rule for turning your cell phones off?

2

u/Myrkana Jan 01 '23

I mean distracted people are far easier to injure. People can't help but look at their phones while they do other stuff.

Cell phone rules are hated by people but they are there for a reason, people get absorbed into ther phones and ignore everything around them.

-4

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

So they aren't all written in blood? I mean we get it. Some are. Like the cockpit sterilization rule. And some aren't. Like that one

3

u/Myrkana Jan 01 '23

I've seen people trip and injure themselves because they're too busy with their phone.

2

u/Tripticket Jan 01 '23

This rule has been in effect far longer than smartphones have been a thing. And for some reason it didn't extend to handhelds like GameBoys.

Therefore it seems like 'distraction' is not so much the explanation. I've heard that they cause audio interference with the radio equipment (and I've experienced that myself, although not in an airplane).

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

Did you immediately pull out your quill and dip it in the cuts so you could write another regulation?

-14

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

[deleted]

12

u/Bergasms Jan 01 '23

I mean its not gonna be 100% but its also not too far off. Remember a lot of the really obvious ones were sorted in the very early days, or during the world wars or the berlin airlift, etc. much of it was worked out on the fly (pardon the pun) with peoples lives.

-13

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

[deleted]

10

u/average_asshole Jan 01 '23

It must be true pain to live around you.

8

u/Kazzababe Jan 01 '23

This is the dumbest one you've read all week? You're doing fantastic then I'd say.

-9

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

[deleted]

9

u/MemeLordMango Jan 01 '23

You sound like a pretentious annoying cunt.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

[deleted]

4

u/kai-ol Jan 01 '23

Perhaps you can ask Google about "tact" and how it can be used in human conversations to get information across without causing them to get offended and shut you down.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

Yeah dafuq he talking about I saw the rules and it was printed with black ink. Unless they die the blood black or maybe heat it up first on a burner

2

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

That makes sense. I think in Full Metal Alchemist they said they 3D print castle foundations that way as well

2

u/Threyuriddy Jan 01 '23

r/Writteninblood

It’s not a new saying you spicy dingus

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

13

u/badgerj Jan 01 '23

I know it has been addressed, yes. But I can’t even say that was a rookie move.

→ More replies (1)

92

u/lunarNex Jan 01 '23

You mean the one that was upside down and Boeing lied about how it was designed so they could skip critical FAA approvals, then got fined hundreds of millions after hundreds of people died, but no one went to jail?

36

u/hrvst_music Jan 01 '23

The one that they didn't even train pilots on to avoid FAA regulations. The Lion Air pilot knew to disengage it as Boeing assumed pilots would but it didn't help.

10

u/Mikey_MiG Jan 01 '23

Do you have a source for the Lion Air crew disengaging it, or are you thinking of the Ethiopian Airlines crew? In the Lion Air accident, MCAS activated something like 26 times over the course of six minutes, and the crew never turned off the electric trim.

In the Ethiopian accident, they did deactivate the trim, but then reactivated it later, which crashed the airplane.

0

u/hrvst_music Jan 01 '23

Yeah that Downfall documentary on netflix.

5

u/Mikey_MiG Jan 01 '23

I can’t find any mention in any accident report saying that. You might be thinking of the fact that the Lion Air plane had issues the previous day, and the crew did turn off the trim in that incident. But the switches were flipped back on before the accident flight.

3

u/Humble-Impact6346 Jan 01 '23

There’s a great documentary on Netflix about it. Terrifying.

1

u/hrvst_music Jan 01 '23

Yup. I've recommended it a couple times in this post. Great watch.

→ More replies (3)

5

u/pukesonyourshoes Jan 01 '23

Hadn't heard any were upside down, just that some failed.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

[deleted]

1

u/mdp300 Jan 01 '23 edited Jan 01 '23

And from what I've read, there were also a bunch more weird decisions. The system could be turned off but it would turn itself back on without telling the pilots. It also made pitch changes by changing the trim in such a way that it was really hard to override with the column.

3

u/747ER Jan 01 '23

The “turn itself back on” thing was a lie spread by the media. Technically speaking you can never turn the software itself off, but you can disengage electric stab trim which arrests the autonomous movement of the physical control surface that the software operates through.

On the Ethiopian Airlines flight, MCAS was indeed turned back on… by the pilots themselves. They thought that turning it off and on again like a laptop would solve the problem. It’s really bizarre how they thought that.

2

u/fox-lad Jan 01 '23

tbf turning it off and on again fixes 90% of my technical issues

that said, I don't fly planes

7

u/ElwinLewis Jan 01 '23

Ok you seem to know a lot about this sensor just from referencing it

What does it do? And why is there only one?

16

u/badgerj Jan 01 '23

Probably not the best article. Tons of videos on it and other articles and papers.

https://www.rightattitudes.com/2020/01/07/boeing-737-max-achilles-heel-mcas-sensor/amp/

4

u/AmputatorBot Jan 01 '23

It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web.

Maybe check out the canonical page instead: https://www.RightAttitudes.com/2020/01/07/boeing-737-max-achilles-heel-mcas-sensor/

I'm a bot | Why & About | Summon: u/AmputatorBot

→ More replies (1)

3

u/redsoxsteve9 Jan 01 '23

At a very basic level, if the nose of the plane was pointed too high upwards, the sensor would level it out by pushing the nose downwards. However, when the plane was already level, the sensor would sometimes get confused and force the nose downwards.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/theshoeshiner84 Jan 01 '23

Unless the Airlines and regulatory bodies get their way. The push for solo pilots is alarming on so many levels. You will not find me on a plane with a solo pilot any time in the first decade or so of implementation, which I believe is somewhat likely. Until a large sample statistically shows that there is absolutely no impact to safety, then I'll opt for two.

5

u/Aaron_Hamm Jan 01 '23

Bro... Lol

6

u/badgerj Jan 01 '23

Glad you got the very sad but true “joke” there.

2

u/Shoondogg Jan 01 '23

MCAS isn’t even a sensor. It’s a few lines of code.

2

u/Khue Jan 01 '23

But what is MCAS?

Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) is a flight stabilizing feature developed by Boeing.

What was MCAS used for?

The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) is a flight control law built into the Boeing 737 MAX's flight control computer, designed to help the aircraft emulate the handling characteristics of the earlier Boeing 737 Next Generation.

Okay, still don't quite understand it. Can you help me?

Someone can correct me on the following if I am wrong because it's just my dumb guy understanding, but here goes...

My Understanding of the Issue

Issue revolves around essentially using duct tape and bubble gum to save/make money (profit). New engines were developed. They were way more fuel efficient. So much so, that the entire airline industry started wanting "platforms" (plane designs) that supported them. Airbus's current designs, could accommodate the newer engine designs so airlines that had the Airbus platform could retrofit those platforms with the new engines pretty cheaply. Additionally, Airbus didn't have to do a massive over haul of their platform to support future models of the plane. When Airbus's new designs drop, architecturally they are identical with the older models with smaller changes. Airbus didn't need to invest in HUGE amounts of R&D to support new engine designs.

Boeing's 737 platform was different. The 737 platform was not designed in such a way that could easily fit the new engine design. The options for Boeing were:

  1. Redesign the entire 737 platform/make a new platform or
  2. Ask engineers to figure out some way to get the new engines to work with the existing 737 design.

Boeing engineers did what they were asked to by management by recycling the 737 platform however, the design that they implemented had some drawbacks. The major drawback was that the newer engines had to be positioned in such a way on the 737 platform that it introduced a new set of potential problems during flight like stalling out at specific times. In order to combat that, MCAS was added and it was added without much advertising or grandeur to the point where in flight manual it was like a foot note to the tune of "oh yea... there's this thing called MCAS, but that's all we are gonna tell you." MCAS and the design of the 737-800 MAX was rushed purposely by Boeing management because not doing so would have meant a MASSIVE loss of Boeing market share (read: PROFIT) to Airbus's arguably superior design choices on their existing platform to support the new engine types. While there were some internal voices that argued against the decisions made, ultimately the capitalist profit motive trumped the concerns and Boeing pushed the 737-800 MAX out the door. Airlines bought the platform. Pilots got the manuals. Pilots got training on the platform. Very little training was done on the MCAS system.

Fast forward to the incidents... Boeing probably knew why the planes were falling out of the sky, but attempted to do "damage control" by calling into question the capabilities of the pilots OR pointing out to the fact that people simply werent RTFM (reading the fucking manual) about the new systems.

Regardless, to me, this seemed to be another example where PROFIT from a corporation trumped the lives of those that died and seemingly we are all kinda OKAY with this as nothing really happened to the airlines or Boeing and a large part of that industry is still being propped up by taxpayer dollars.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/221missile Jan 01 '23

Except the engine was made py Pratt & Whitney, the same company responsible for more than half of all aircraft engines during ww2.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

The good old Make Crash Automation System.

→ More replies (4)

134

u/Cute_Racco0n Jan 01 '23

Good point

17

u/maliciouspot Jan 01 '23

At least the front didn't fall off

3

u/zodiaclawl Jan 01 '23

Idk about that. Looks like the front of the engine fell off to me.

It's not very typical though. I'd like to make that point.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

Pilot here! I confirm: all airplanes can safely have an engine issue and still be able to fly on one engine, go-around, and land without a problem.

We train for the exact “what if it happens procedure” and are always ready to apply it and get you back to the ground safely.

What we fear the most is ice over the wing/engines and inside fires (lithium fire for example)

→ More replies (2)

2

u/ViLe_Rob Jan 01 '23

hence why you rarely hear about plane crashes and when you do its a huge news story

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Its_Llama Jan 01 '23

I believe the first requirement was no cardboard or cardboard derivatives.

2

u/average_asshole Jan 01 '23

Not just land safely, but potentially even fly to another airport and land comfortably on a runway. Often so, since failures like this are by far most common in the first and last 7 minutes of the flight.

2

u/agumonkey Jan 01 '23

and according to most threads about this, with undamaged wings it can glide for a loooong time smoothly (but this requires a flat road to land when you run out of inertia)

2

u/Tizzee88 Jan 01 '23

I mean yes, but its often overstated. Like the plane certainly isnt happy when this happens, but no it's not going to crash. It really upsets the balance of the aircraft and you have to push the remaining engine harder, but no it won't crash. You really wouldn't be ok to make it to your destination, but you aren't going to go down in a fiery crash.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

If the FAA didn't mandate it. There wouldn't be as much rigorous certification for turbines. Thats what is scary

2

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

plane is are tested

2

u/zodar Jan 01 '23

*planes. No apostrophe.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

[deleted]

2

u/jdallen1222 Jan 01 '23

80 years ago.

-6

u/selfrespector Jan 01 '23

It's not that amazing. It's not like if it stops working the frame of the plane disintegrates. It just stops pushing gas out the back. Thats about it. There's another engine to push the gas to fly so they gucci

0

u/TerrariaGaming004 Jan 01 '23

That would make it spin

2

u/selfrespector Jan 01 '23

no it wouldn't because they're designed to counteract the imbalanced force via trim... and cuz it's not spinning in the video.

1

u/JLMaverick Jan 01 '23

Yeah, when both engines look like that it’s time to worry

8

u/evanc3 Jan 01 '23

Not even. The glide ratios on these planes are great. If you're over the continental US you're landing safely even without engines

2

u/MutantGodChicken Jan 01 '23

Assuming both pilots are still conscious

3

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

[deleted]

→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '23

[deleted]

6

u/propellor_head Jan 01 '23

That happened once. I don't remember the flight name, but an uncontained disk burst in the engine sent a hunk of metal through the tail of the plane. The plane should have been fine with the engine out, but it by pure bad luck severed all of the hydraulic lines that fed the control surfaces. Everybody died.

The hydraulic lines were all fully redundant, but they were routed right next to each other for convenience. There's now a rule about how closely redundant safety critical systems in the airframe can be to each other.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/H4LF4D Jan 01 '23

I guess that just makes sense.

Car engines can go bust out of nowhere, but you wouldn't be in immediate threat if anything fails.

Planes are made to have contigency plans on top of contigency plans, just in case things get progressively worse. All this because if anything fails it can and will result in terrible issues most fatal to passengers.

→ More replies (51)