Boeing Halts 777X Flight Tests over Damage Found in Engine Mount

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-19/boeing-halts-777x-flight-tests-over-damage-found-in-engine-mount

by toomuchtodo • 2 years ago

56 76 2 years ago

bloomberg.com

mjevans• 2 years ago

https://archive.is/o8Za8

Since I can't read the article otherwise.

justinclift3• 2 years ago

That seems like a pretty broken capture. :(

richwater• 2 years ago

Engine mounts are critical single points of failure. Not good.

AdamJacobMuller5• 2 years ago

Not exactly a single point of failure.

It's obviously not good if one fails and the engine falls off the plane, but, a 777X should still be able to fly with a single engine.

Of course, that capability is more geared to "we saw a high temperature on the engine so let's proactively shut it down and land as soon as we can" and not "the engine fell off the plane and landed on someone".

SoftTalker2• 2 years ago

And if one falls off due to a structural weakness, the other might well soon follow.

giosalinas2• 2 years ago

obviously not good if one falls off the plane????!! you are talking about major structural damage to the airplane, the center of mass will be completely off and the airplane will fall as hard as a rock.

epc• 2 years ago

You wouldn't think a single engine could be a single point of failure but the crash of AA 191 in 1979 was due to a cracked engine mount.

pixl97• 2 years ago

There was a 747 crash in (poland or the netherlands) where the bolts broke off the engine and the failed engine managed to hit the other engine on the wing. The plane fell straight out of the sky and cut an apartment building in two killing at least 40 on the ground. Engines falling off a plane are very very bad and cause a lot of secondary damage.

FabHK• 2 years ago

A DC-10 can't fly when one engine comes off unplanned (and it has two engines left in that case...):

as the aircraft was beginning its takeoff rotation, engine number one (the left engine) separated from the left wing, flipping over the top of the wing and landing on the runway. As the engine separated from the aircraft, it severed hydraulic lines that lock the wing's leading-edge slats in place and damaged a 3-foot (1 m) section of the left wing's leading edge. Aerodynamic forces acting on the wing resulted in an uncommanded retraction of the outboard slats. As the aircraft began to climb, the damaged left wing produced far less lift than the right wing, which had its slats still deployed and its engine providing full takeoff thrust. The disrupted and unbalanced aerodynamics of the aircraft caused it to roll abruptly to the left until it was partially inverted, reaching a bank angle of 112°, before crashing in an open field by a trailer park near the end of the runway. The engine separation was attributed to damage to the pylon structure holding the engine to the wing, caused by improper maintenance procedures at American Airlines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191

fransje2610• 2 years ago

Not exactly a single point of failure.

It is a safe-life part, so yes, it is a single point of failure part for that engine. And, if something fails unexpectedly, it could significantly damage the wing too, as has happened in the past with deadly consequences.

The problem being encountered on two other test planes, makes it a lot more problematic, as the probability of the second engine shearing off then becomes a lot, lot higher.

yongjik• 2 years ago

From what I heard, they are obviously critical but not a single point of failure. In fact they're made of several points that are expected to fail in a pre-determined order to cover the "engine falling off the plane" scenario.

I learned this from this superb article describing what happened when they failed in the wrong order: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/concrete-and-fire-the-cr...

fransje2610• 2 years ago

That still makes it a single point of failure. It's a safe-life part, not a fail-safe part.

Once one mounting point fails, the other ones will fail as well. The mounting points are engineered to try to minimise wing damage when that happens.

AdamJacobMuller5• 2 years ago

The amount of Boeing failures is so problematic, it points to the kind of cultural failure within the company where in almost every other circumstance it should just be shut down and sold for parts.

The problem is that that is such an unacceptable situation that it can't ever be allowed to happen.

Boeing is a huge employer in the US, not even counting all the direct subsidiaries who would shut down if it was shut down.

Boeing is developing critical space hardware for NASA. As great as SpaceX is, the US should not rely on a single company for this. I don't think even SpaceX wants this.

If Boeing did fail, that leaves Airbus as the only commercial jet manufacturer? I don't think anyone, including Airbus and definitely not any airline which has used the airbus-boeing dance during price negotiations wants this to happen.

Not to even mention the supply chain issues with keeping our massive fleets of Boeing airplanes flying if Boeing goes defunct.

We also have to consider the defense implications of loosing what is now our only serious domestic manufacturer of many military aircraft and other ordinance.

Boeing literally can not be allowed to fail, the implications would be too great. I also literally see no other path for Boeing but failure.

I also think out of the ashes of that failure something much more focused and better would emerge and that, without that failure, it probably never will but still the failure cannot be allowed to happen.

alanfranz• 2 years ago

Disclosure: definitely not an airplane expert.

This is a problem discovered during testing. It could mean testing is being done properly; probably it’s a bit late in the dev cycle, but it’s not necessarily a bad thing; now it’s making news because of what happened with Boeing in the past.

But not finding failures during testing maybe means you’re not testing hard enough.

Dylan16807• 2 years ago

Halting testing is a lot more drastic than "found a failure", though.

smaudet• 2 years ago

But not finding failures during testing maybe means you’re not testing hard enough.

Also not an airplane expert...

Agreed that finding issues is (often) good (it means you are human and you also found your errors).

But of course such testing, certification, is costly and uneconomical, and if you aren't allowed to fail, then you can't do the correct testing either...

I suspect the issue is two-fold: Firstly, Boeing can't afford to fail, and hence can't test. Secondly, it is driven primarily by profit, not safety, which is part of why it can't afford to fail. Profit drives/motivates new features, efficiencies, and ultimately complex systems, which require exponentially more time to thoroughly test than simple, inefficient, easily verifiable systems.

Falling apart because they are no longer profitable may not be a good thing either - sure, something could "rise from the ashes", but that thing will be in all likelihood, immature, poorly tested, and mostly incompatible with existing systems.

The best bet would be to simplify, as much as possible, all systems, suppliers, etc, and to double, quadruple, perhaps even expand by an order of magnitude the testing effort(s). Perhaps even some sort of new New Deal could come about...

angry_moose• 2 years ago

I've done a couple rounds through aerospace or aerospace-adjacent over the years.

This seems to be a certification test (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein...), aka the "make-or-break, 0-failures allowed test before we get final approval to sell this aircraft, and we are 99.999% sure this test is going to go flawlessly".

Failing is a pretty big deal. This should have been found far sooner in the process.

fransje2610• 2 years ago

But not finding failures during testing maybe means you’re not testing hard enough.

This is not quite the same. This is finding a failed part that should not have failed, as it should have been designed to -at least- pass the flight test requirements it was designed to fulfil.

And what this article failed to mention was that similar structural issues were found on 2 other test aircrafts.

AdamJacobMuller5• 2 years ago

The component “didn’t perform as designed,”

What they are saying here is that the component was designed to X, but, not manufactured to those specifications.

Depending on who made that actual component, this is either a failure of Boeing directly or a failure of Boeing to ensure that their suppliers have adequate processes in place to capture these kinds of problems.

This is actually a much more serious failure than a design failure because the problem can't easily be systemically addressed, there is no single component they need to address now. Boeing can not simply say "we checked the other engine mounts in production and they are fine". Even saying that they addressed the issue with the production of that component is insufficient. The real root cause here is why any component which did not meet design specifications was accepted and allowed to be installed on the aircraft. Boeing will need to do a huge review to understand this and may need to inspect and replace huge numbers of other, seemingly unrelated, components.

lnxg33k1• 2 years ago

Not an airplane expert either, maybe Boeing hired a bunch of people from microsoft and started testing in production?

fsckboy• 2 years ago

your comment is bascally copypasta for a different topic, it's normal during flight tests to find and fix problems.

SoftTalker2• 2 years ago

I agree, on the one had this is normal, there are issues discovered and corrected during testing of all new aircraft types.

But I also wonder if we aren't pushing the limits of what's reasonable for a 2-engine passenger airliner. I get that the more people you can put on a flight the more money the airlines make from that flight, but there's a practical limit somewhere.

kcb• 2 years ago

It's on the backdrop of the 777X being delayed like 4 times so far.

fransje2610• 2 years ago

Uh, no. It's not "normal" to find structural failures on your engine mounts on 3 different aircrafts during testing stages.

That points to major structural issues. Or better said, yet an other structural issue on an aircraft type that is already 5 years late.

sho• 2 years ago

I also literally see no other path for Boeing but failure.

This is, to put it mildly, premature. No-one expects Boeing to actually go under.

This discovery is a setback, and Emirates won't be happy (also to put it mildly), but it's hardly a company-killing event.

fransje2610• 2 years ago

Emirates won't be happy

Well, they had the opportunity to sign for an other aircraft, and "unexpectedly" jumped ship at the last moment, so that's on them.

justinclift3• 2 years ago

Boeing is developing critical space hardware for NASA.

For how much longer though? They're clearly not up to the task of being the second supplier, so NASA is going to need to find a new second supplier.

wkat42425• 2 years ago

They're also heavily involved in SLS (though it's questionable how much of a loss that would be, agreed).

And of course all the apaches, globemasters, ospreys, super hornets..

They are definitely too big to fail.

halestock• 2 years ago

It’s funny that in this country it’s almost unthinkable, but I would imagine that in other countries the solution would be to nationalize the company.

bamboozled3• 2 years ago

It just needs external regulation. The self regulation was a disaster.

skirge• 2 years ago

and censorship the test results?

K0balt• 2 years ago

I can only imagine the damage to air travel if Boeing was managed like NASA.

hi-v-rocknroll2• 2 years ago

The inverse happened: the nation was corporatized with regulatory capture and lobbyists purchasing influence outright, so that is prevented from happening.

AdamJacobMuller5• 2 years ago

Our government is not competent enough to do that.

Much of the issues Boeing has are as a result of government involvement.

Just look at the entire starliner debacle, in any truly free market Boeing would have been fired as a vendor years ago. They were (and are) way behind schedule, their unmanned demo flight was a failure, they still went forward with a manned flight which has been an abject failure -- the crew is on month three of what was supposed to be a 3 hour^W^W9 day tour. They might not be coming home till February. I hope they have someone watering their plants.

pdpi• 2 years ago

If Boeing did fail, that leaves Airbus as the only commercial jet manufacturer?

There's several smaller players in the regional market, like Embraer, Comac, Tupolev, but none of them have long range or widebody craft.

wkat42425• 2 years ago

I have to say the Embraer E195-E2 is a lot more comfortable than a 737 or A320 as a passenger, and that's for a plane that's significantly smaller.

It really shows that it was designed in this century. The focus on type certificates/training is really holding the industry back (as well as causing the terrible MCAS crashes).

steve1977• 2 years ago

Boeing could certainly be broken up, think AT&T.

Also I don’t think Airbus would have a problem with Boeing going out of business.

antiterra• 2 years ago

AT&T was broken up based on location, hence the term Regional Bell Operating Companies.

I’m not sure how the relative straightforwardness of that approach maps to a company that basically has two main supply chains (737 in Renton and everything else in Everett with North Charleston as a satellite.)

fransje2610• 2 years ago

Also I don’t think Airbus would have a problem with Boeing going out of business.

I'm not quite certain. Airbus is possibly quite happy to have a stumbling giant occupying that space and tripping over its own feet. It's a lot more comfortable than having to compete against a heavily subsided Chinese company, like what is happening in the EV market. (Not that they are a threat at the moment)

shiroiushi2• 2 years ago

If Boeing did fail, that leaves Airbus as the only commercial jet manufacturer? I don't think anyone, including Airbus and definitely not any airline which has used the airbus-boeing dance during price negotiations wants this to happen.
Boeing literally can not be allowed to fail

They're too broken for America to repair. They should be shut down, and the pieces sold off to Airbus for pennies on the dollar. Then Airbus can take over the designs and start building better-designed aircraft at the ex-Boeing facilities. There should simply be a stipulation that none of the management is allowed to be American, because obviously they can't do it any more.

bankcust083852• 2 years ago

Boeing has experienced hundreds of major technical incidents but scant few were covered before the MAX crashes. Dozens and dozens more happened after the crashes.

DidYaWipe2• 2 years ago

Unreadable. The article text just fades out and there's no way to proceed.

shiroiushi2• 2 years ago

Looks ok to me, though at the very end it has this odd paragraph:

`(Adds analyst comment in fourth paragraph.)`

Are you using an ad-blocker? If so, the problem might be a paywall. I suggest adding this line to your uBO custom filters:

https://gitflic.ru/project/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-clea...

DidYaWipe2• 2 years ago

Thanks! I'm indeed using uBO, but only to block one element on Reddit. Otherwise I haven't even explored (or changed) its default settings.

I plopped that filter text in, and... BOOM. Problem eliminated! Thanks man.

h_tbob• 2 years ago

I want to share something important with everybody.

I read a long time ago that the Boeing CEO was cutting costs by outsourcing as much as possible.

He said that this was the way forward and was financially wisest. This was before the MAX problems.

I think we can compare this to the massively vertical integration of companies like Tesla, or even US steel back in the day.

Does anybody think there is a link between vertical integration and quality? That maybe all this outsourcing messed things up?

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

lmz2• 2 years ago

The other big aircraft company, Airbus is quite a distributed operation: https://simpleflying.com/airbus-commerical-jet-manufacture/

wkat42425• 2 years ago

Yes though it's not really because of a drive to outsource but more because it was a European multi-state project, that want to see returns on their investment.

TheAmazingRace• 2 years ago

I'm not sure if Tesla is a great example here, considering they also suffer quality control issues, at least in their US manufacturing. The amount of panel gap issues and fitment problems I've witnessed with Teslas have been more than I care to admit.

Being truly vertically integrated is no guarantee for quality in my experience.

bamboozled3• 2 years ago

Agreed, Tesla now has a reputation for low quality. Even taking to randoms who do t know much about EVs or Teslas just say this now. It’s become common wisdom Toyota make good cars, Tesla make crap.

fransje2610• 2 years ago

Does anybody think there is a link between vertical integration and quality? That maybe all this outsourcing messed things up?

Yes. For an American example, have a look at Apple. For international examples, have a look at the Japanese keiretsus like Toyota or Mitsubishi, or the Korean cheabols.

alphabettsy2• 2 years ago

Apple seems like a great example of outsource manufacturing with tight control done right.

metadat• 2 years ago

https://archive.today/ihAH5

hindsightbias• 2 years ago

Aircraft with largest composite wing and engines ever conceived has problems with engine mounts after 1000s of test hours and longer certification requirements by FAA.

News at 11.

fransje2610• 2 years ago

has problems

[..] has significant structural problems on three test aircrafts [..]

hi-v-rocknroll2• 2 years ago

Separately, Rolls-Royce wants to create the largest fan ever made as a geared engine (Ultrafan).

bankcust083852• 2 years ago

And I wonder which subcontractor made those. DuCommun by hand perhaps like with the 737 NG bear straps?

alistairSH5• 2 years ago

This was shared in a comment and has more details.

- Issue found on 3 test aircraft

- During certification tests (ie very late in the game)

- Boeing-designed thrust link is cracking (this links engine to wing). Made of titanium. There are two on each engine for redundancy.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein...

Boeing Halts 777X Flight Tests over Damage Found in Engine Mount

Related Stories