Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2024/01/30/boeing-withdraws-application-for-safety-exemption-for-737-max-7.html
…
7 Likes
steganographic poem
10 Likes
“… an anti-ice system that can overheat and cause the engine nacelle to break apart and fall off. This could generate fuselage-penetrating debris, which could endanger passengers in window seats.”
I’m no aero engineer, but I feel that if the engine nacelle breaks apart and falls off, it could endanger more than just the passengers in the window seats.
Or does the de-icing system only promise to shred the external covering of the nacelle and, not, say, cause the entire thing to part company with the wing and head merrily groundward?
10 Likes
As I understand it, this is an issue with the composite cowl of the engines, which if deicing is run too long, could weaken, break off and impact the fuselage.
If I’m right, doesn’t the same issue affect all models of the MAX?
1 Like
I think the biggest concern here is that there appears to be a process for being granted “safety exemptions”. Some exemptions should never apply, if you ask me.
10 Likes
‘by skimping on mcas hardware and not having to retrain pilots, we saved billions and only lost two airliners. No one has actually died from our faulty fuselages or de-icing systems - it seems unfair that we have to fix those things since they haven’t caused any crashes yet’
4 Likes
New marketing tagline just dropped:
“Boeing: We’ll get you most of the way, most of the time.”
2 Likes
Surely you can’t be serious.
4 Likes
There is no 737 MAX 7.
The 737 NG had model designations of 737-700, 737-800, and 737-900.
the newer 737 MAX uses model designations of 737-8, 737-9, and 737-10.
Yeah that’s kind of like saying “the car’s gas tank is prone to explosion, which could negatively impact the climate control settings for passengers sitting in the back seat.”
5 Likes
There is no 737 MAX7 currently, true. Boeing is trying to field the 737 MAX7 and needs this waiver to do so without engineering a proper solution.
Welcome to BoingBoing
6 Likes
You know, we wouldn’t be here now if Boeing had started with a clean-sheet design for a new 757/767 replacement, instead of forcing the 737 to do things it wasn’t originally designed for.
But they were feeling the heat from Airbus, so they had to come up with something and this mess is the result. Boeing is spending $1 to save 10¢.
h/t to Capt. Patrick Smith of askthepilot.com, from whom I derived the opinion expressed above.
3 Likes
“Just make sure nobody ever rear-ends you, duh.”
– Ford Motor Company, 1970
4 Likes
I agree, “Safety Exemptions”? It’s like pardoning yourself. 
4 Likes
Boeing had a clean sheet 737 replacement design in 2009 called the Yellowstone Y1. It would have cost $20 billion to develop. Modifying the 737 NG was projected to cost $2 billion. The arrival of the A320neo and American Airline’s order for 130 of them panicked Boeing into choosing the MAX design.
Boeing not having a ready replacement for the 757 and 767 is almost criminal. The MAX 10 is a bad fit for these roles; meanwhile Airbus have the A321 and A330neo which work admirably.
Boeing really is incredibly lucky that, despite a rough start, the 787 Dreamliner has turned out to be one of their best ever aircraft; although choose the ones assembled in Washington over those in South Carolina.
4 Likes
Well most of you anyway.
2 Likes
3 Likes
Can we create a New topic thread just for airline safety issues called BoeingBoeing?
4 Likes
In 2015, I took a big step (for me) and boarded a Southwest flight to Las Vegas (social anxiety, etc.). The point being, as I was boarding I noticed the aircraft manufacturing plate riveted into the door frame: “Made in Seattle” (that’s paraphrased, of course).
It made me feel better. Not so much anymore.
2 Likes
