We have been discussing this, and I just noticed a New York Times article:
The episode is another potential setback for Boeing, which has been thrust into the spotlight in recent weeks over quality control concerns.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/19/us/miami-boeing-plane-engine-fire.html
Although I think the readers here would be more likely to blame the engine manufacturer or the airline (inadequate maintenance…) than they would Boeing.
Actually, yes, I was going to blame the engine manufacturer. Or at least point out that Boeing didn’t make the engines on that 747 (or the engines on any of their planes). But hey, they were installed on a Boeing plane, so as far as the general public is concerned Boeing is to blame.
ETA: Having just watched the video, I am guessing the flames are being caused be compressor stalls. It looks really dramatic, but as I understand it’s kinda sorta analogous to a car backfiring. Which is to say it obviously isn’t good, but it’s not as bad as it might look. And it doesn’t mean the engine itself is “on fire”.
They must have severed a fuel line because they couldn’t contain the fire. Also sucks to have to land heavy with fuel.
Meanwhile, Indonesia has allowed some of their 737-Max-9 planes back in the air after inspection. (different configurations)
Aircraft manufacturers haven’t made their own engines since the Wrights, I think. Aviation engines are always built by another company and bought by the aircraft manufacturer for their airplanes.
Interestingly, it’s now unusual for either the aircraft manufacturer or the airline operating it to own an engine outright. Instead, the engine manufacturer (Rolls-Royce, GE, Pratt & Whitney) own their engines, and airlines pay by the hour for their use.
IIRC Boeing actually owned Pratt & Whitney for a while in the 1930s, until anti-trust legislation of the period made it illegal for them to own an engine company.
They also owned the airline that would become United Airlines; they were required to be spun off at the same time. Not that that has anything to do with this discussion; just an interesting tidbit.
They were going from Miami to San Juan Puerto Rico. At takeoff the tanks would have been filled with about 85% air and 15% fuel. Landing weight was almost certainly not an issue.
True and MIA fuel is expensive so minimum fuel would be the order of the day.
Wasn’t the Dreamliner touted for having larger windows (allowing better views)? Just a wee bit ironic then when the controls for all of those nice big viewports are overridden by FAs so as to be too dark for flightseeing.
If only they were mistakes. I’m sure it was a quite deliberate attempt to get clicks. It’s like a pernicious varient of MadLibs. You start off with:
________ [AIRLINE] plane slides off ________ [AIRPORT SURFACE] in _______ [LOCATION] landing.
Then you try to insert the words that will get the most attention while still having enough connection to reality that you can feebly explain it away (but… but… the flight had American Airlines coding!) and not get fired.
An additional minor point that may not have been mentioned. Although the manufacture of the door plug on the Alaska Airlines 737 was said to have been outsourced to Spirit Aerospace, which is headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, according to the NTSB this door plug was made in Malaysia. It’s not clear whether it was made by one of Spirit’s own facilities over there or whether this was yet a second level of outsourcing, but either way, it potentially makes quality control more difficult.
Yeah.
And the header pic in the cited article is a couple of real AA airplanes at what’s very probably Phoenix to illustrate an article involving an Envoy RJ stuck in the snowy mud. Not even close. Admittedly the caption is “Generic images of American Airlines Planes sitting on a tarmac”. So they’re not lying in words. Just in pix.
mind you - those were those fance “dynamic” LCD windows … so they can go from pretty much 0 to pretty much 90% darkness - most likely at the crew’s discression (done centrally).
it was a LatAm to Eu overnight flight - and IMHO they used this feature to enlong the night quite a bit (probably crowd control ;-))
here is a good video showing the effect
[https://youtu.be/Q6Kvbfw9P_4#3]
(best watched at double speed)
edit: turns out its not LCD but some gel that does the darkening and not LCD elements (as I thought/claimed)
There’s some ferment in the industry and amongst passengers about the centrally controlled window dimming with no individual override. Many passengers resent not controlling their own window, while many others are very glad that individual control has been taken away. For certain on most non-787 flights day or night almost all window shades are closed almost all of the time. As a general rule, the customers want to see their screen, not the outside.
Many FAs agree that darker is easier for them, again regardless of time of day. Napping passengers are low-demand passengers. Lotta folks who’d be willing to disturb their seatmate to get up while that person is reading will not do so when that person is napping, or seems to be napping.
Whether FA’s ought to be encouraging that napping instead of providing more attention is a different question. Although there’s only so much attention to give per hour of flight; there’s just not that much they could do, and it’s not welcomed by everyone.
Unrelated to the above …
The early 787s’ windows did not dim all that thoroughly while the later ones get a lot darker. In the early planes, it’s more like sunglasses than window shades.
If its light out and I can see the ground, I’m always looking out the window. I’d be pissed of someone interrupted that. But then I’m 66 years old and not screen-addicted. One of the best things about flying gliders is the amazing visibility. I’ll never get tired of floating around up there and enjoying the view.
factor in that on international flights with a 3 + 5 + 3 config. of seats per row … you have 11 people x row with only 2 having access to the window … so more sense to screens (let alone the atlantic gets old pretty fast)
The one time I flew on a 787 I found the fancy, hi-tech windows a PITA.
Beyond the annoyance, it just screams over-engineering to me. I don’t know enough about it to figure out if it’s cost effective vs. plain old window shades that people move up and down. I realize those have to be replaced with some frequency and require maintenance. Plus, the airline may value the FAs controlling the environment over other factors.
But still… I fail to see the overall utility of replacing a window shade with fancy tech. I hate that trend in airplanes and just about every other piece of technology these days. Strikes me as the same thinking that brings us internet enabled refrigerators.
In general, I agree with you. But many of my flights lately have been intercontinental. The only view, for hours on end, is clouds and water.
I know this is more a thread about GA but I thought many here would enjoy the video below. It is 45 minutes long which I get is a lot but it is fascinating. As great as our modern passenger jets are this is one where all the fail-safes and backups and everything failed. More, at one critical point, the inputs that took place in a fraction of a second (literally) screwed things up.
This is not to say modern automation on planes is dangerous (far from it). Rather, it shows that sometimes, no matter how hard we try, things can go wrong. Despite all sorts of backups/failsafes everything goes wrong on this training flight.
It was, but it quickly went from General Aviation to general aviation.