Boeing jet loses parts of the wing in flight!

[MT]

[watchmaker]

Juliette Foxtrot Charlie!

[coromonadalix]

just funny how news from elsewhere ends up here  ...

[tom66]

Boeing's death by 1000 quality cuts is becoming more and more clear...

[gabiz_ro]

If no frost forming it may be OK I may be wrong but that part is for some kind of ice removing, don't know term in english
edit
deicing boots

[MT]

Looks like "leading edge slats" made out of plywood!

[tggzzz]

F15 loses entire wing - and lands safely, albeit a little "hot".

[Neilm]

I am looking forward to the full incident report. It looks as if there is damage behind the slat which might have been caused when it failed but could imply it collided with something.  Has anyone lost a drone?

[MT]

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-787-klm-returned-amsterdam-eight-bathrooms-stopped-working-2024-2?r=US&IR=T

then last April, 300 Austrian Airlines(Boeing 787) passengers had to rebook their flights after five of the eight toilets wouldn't flush properly.

And in 2018, a Norwegian flight (Boeing 737), which ironically had 85 plumbers on board, had to return to the airport due to malfunctioning toilets.

[SiliconWizard]

I'm surprised Boeing haven't tried buying Airbus yet.

[SeanB]

I'm surprised Boeing haven't tried buying Airbus yet.

Pesky laws about monopolies.........

[MT]

[SiliconWizard]

Right, that's not the way it would happen.
They would not buy the whole Airbus group. Maybe just a key company from the group that would get them some technology/patents they don't have, to bring them some edge back and leave Airbus in a more difficult position.
Maybe they could manage to pull some strings to trigger the acquisition.
Any resemblance to actual events would be purely coincidental.

[Alex Eisenhut]

F15 loses entire wing - and lands safely, albeit a little "hot".

Sure but there you have a 2:1 engine:human ratio...

[hans]

If no frost forming it may be OK I may be wrong but that part is for some kind of ice removing, don't know term in english
edit
deicing boots

This is the slat of the wing, which is part of the flap system to allow the plane to fly slower. Slats are the first flap setting to extend, as they generate significant lift with minor drag increase. For (many) Boeing airplanes this is usually the first flap settings (often denoted as 1 or 5). The back of the wing contains the extendable airfoils we typically call flaps, which in (many) Boeing airplanes will extend at e.g. flaps 10, 15, up to 40. Its obviously not nice to see such a defect on a piece of airfoil.. then again if a plane has a hydraulic problem, they may have to fly and land without any flaps at all. Its possible to do that safely but it restricts runway allocations and has more wear&tear on brakes, tyres, etc.

So this problem on its own is not that dangerous, certainly not as dangerous as a door flying off.. then again if a pilot decides to push the plane towards the edge of its flight envelope then maybe you could get in some unexpectedly early nasty stalls (which in a Boeing usually means a rollover plunge to the ground). But I doubt any airline pilot would ever knowingly do that.

I don't see an airliner is going to fly with only 1 wing. Jet fighters use delta wings which can handle much extremer AOA before stalling. The wings on a typical plane/airliner simply don't allow for such extreme air aerobatics to handle such imbalance, as a 10-20degree pitch up would already drastically offset its stall speed.

[tggzzz]

F15 loses entire wing - and lands safely, albeit a little "hot".

Sure but there you have a 2:1 engine:human ratio...

More a case of "with enough thrust you can get a brick to fly".

Helps that the fuselage also gives lift

[jpanhalt]

Fuselage or not, what that pilot did was pretty amazing.  Another contributing factor was the near centerline thrust.  Had the engines been on the wings, I doubt it would have been controllable.

Now back to Boeing, does that mean the 727 with centerline thrust is safer than the 737/757 in the event a wing comes off?

[hans]

Even with centerline thrust.. if you lose 1 wing, the engine is still outbound on either side of your plane. The center of gravity and lift will shift, but the center of thrust won't. So it will require some big corrections to keep it flying at all.

However, having engines on the rudder and wing does allow more options for balancing this offset. So I agree losing a wing on a 727 is probably safer than on e.g. a 737, but it still sounds unsafe In particular, if the complete wing falls off... so does the main landing gear on that side. But I guess nothing is left to set fire to (e.g. the fuel in the tanks) during the inevitable crash-type landing, so thats a plus in all cases.

[schmitt trigger]

Reminds me of The Twilight’s Zone episode “Nightmare at 20,000 feet”.
BTW, one of the best episodes of an excellent show.

Besides being a B&W film, the episode shows it’s age with 20,000 feet. Nowadays it would be renamed Nightmare at 35,000 feet.

https://youtu.be/fXHKDb0CNjA?si=JAJGhHaPLuFQfq9x

[Alex Eisenhut]

More a case of "with enough thrust you can get a brick to fly".

Helps that the fuselage also gives lift

My late Dad, who almost made it to 100, was alive just after the dawn of aviation and saw a lot of changes in aircraft. One day he told me he thinks fighter planes aren't planes, they're rockets... (He was much more of a glider guy really) He was only half joking, the F-15, and some others, can have >1:1 thrust to weight ratio.

Ever watch the videos about the Streak Eagle breaking various records in the '70s?

And a required meme

[SeanB]

Can attest to the fighter thing. He almost made the runway, only deciding that it was time to eject when he looked up, and, despite being at the best glide angle of 35 degrees nose up, the scrub trees were visible above the front of the aircraft. Then put his trust in messrs Martin and Baker, and pulled his legs in, and kissed his ass goodbye. He felt, due to the way the ejection system has a half second delay to allow the canopy clearing charges to operate, the aircraft impact the dry river bed he was in, before he left. 200m from the runway threshold, but there was a small rise, and a rather impressive wall, before he would have landed. Nobody believed he could have gotten 12km from the point that the vulture got ingested, especially as at that time he was doing an air show.

[tom66]

Even with centerline thrust.. if you lose 1 wing, the engine is still outbound on either side of your plane. The center of gravity and lift will shift, but the center of thrust won't. So it will require some big corrections to keep it flying at all.

However, having engines on the rudder and wing does allow more options for balancing this offset. So I agree losing a wing on a 727 is probably safer than on e.g. a 737, but it still sounds unsafe In particular, if the complete wing falls off... so does the main landing gear on that side. But I guess nothing is left to set fire to (e.g. the fuel in the tanks) during the inevitable crash-type landing, so thats a plus in all cases.

I think the reality is if you do manage to lose an entire wing structure you probably lost most if not all of your hydraulic systems and electrical systems are badly damaged.  Assuming the fuselage doesn't immediately tear itself apart from the aerodynamic forces, you are really going to struggle to control the plane.  It is catastrophic.  It only took the blown bulkhead on a 747 to down JAL123, as all hydraulic systems were lost once the damage occurred to the vertical stabiliser/bulkhead.

I couldn't find a diagram for a 737, but it looks like in e.g. an A320 all three hydraulic systems pass through each of the wing structures so it would quickly render the plane uncontrollable... The redundancies are built for the assumption of something like an uncontained engine failure knocking out one or perhaps two hydraulic systems, not the aerodynamic failure of the wing.

https://scontent.flhr3-4.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/66368584_392278834735550_949041885261856768_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=jrqkKpHPrcAAX8uLq7r&_nc_ht=scontent.flhr3-4.fna&oh=00_AfAKdFCaT7pZcdCfRVimffW3H4sD7WaPjIp5aMWm2OvDpg&oe=66111F96

[tggzzz]

I think the reality is if you do manage to lose an entire wing structure you probably lost most if not all of your hydraulic systems and electrical systems are badly damaged.  Assuming the fuselage doesn't immediately tear itself apart from the aerodynamic forces, you are really going to struggle to control the plane.  It is catastrophic.  It only took the blown bulkhead on a 747 to down JAL123, as all hydraulic systems were lost once the damage occurred to the vertical stabiliser/bulkhead.

Lest we forget... UA232, which lost all hydraulic power so the only operating flying controls were the wing engines' thrust. Amazingly, the pilots kept it in the air for 40 minutes and managed to hit an airfield.

I first saw this transcript on usenet in '91, and occasionally re-read it.

Forget the movie starring James Coburn, since that focussed on the airport ground staff (and is mildly interesting and useful). Al Haynes' description of what happened on board and afterwards is far more interesting - and viscerally gripping.

NASA Ames Research Center, Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, California
                             presents
                           The Crash of
                        United Flight 232
                               by
                         Capt. Al Haynes
                           May 24, 1991
https://www.iamcraig.com/files/2010/11/al_haynes_united_232.txt

[tom66]

And of course, this...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Baghdad_DHL_attempted_shootdown_incident

Total loss of hydraulic control, aircraft landed more or less intact with a hole in the wing (they went off the edge of the runway due to a slight loss of control at the end, but it's close enough!)

But, that said, I suspect if you combined hydraulic loss with a significant change to the aircraft's handling/aerodynamics, it's a goner, no matter how skilled your pilots are. Especially because any wing structure failure is likely to lead to loss of an engine or at least the control of that engine.

[MT]

At the time there was videos on both of them incidents.

DHL the shoot and hit and flyover with wing on fire, landing video YT buried somewhere.


UA232 was unlucky due to a slight sudden side wind they say else they likely would have settled down fine.

[tggzzz]

And of course, this...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Baghdad_DHL_attempted_shootdown_incident

Total loss of hydraulic control, aircraft landed more or less intact with a hole in the wing (they went off the edge of the runway due to a slight loss of control at the end, but it's close enough!)

But, that said, I suspect if you combined hydraulic loss with a significant change to the aircraft's handling/aerodynamics, it's a goner, no matter how skilled your pilots are. Especially because any wing structure failure is likely to lead to loss of an engine or at least the control of that engine.

That's a new one to me.

This is fairly well known:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/a27584/b-52-landed-without-a-tail-fin/

[MT]

There have been several B52 incidents later discovered due to bad engineering like the fin loss so they changed the fuselage design.

[RJSV]

   Sincerely, in 'most' countries that would be called what it is;   Wing disintegration.   But still, I could somehow image myself, as Cabin Attendant in, say, Latvia, literally SHRUGGING IT OFF, while glancing briefly out the cabin window.
   "A little flap damage, not getting worse...WING is OK.".       And the plane takes off, on next leg of journey.   

   Not good, obviously, but that kind of moronic state of relaxation does happen, shockingly.

[tggzzz]

   Sincerely, in 'most' countries that would be called what it is;   Wing disintegration.   But still, I could somehow image myself, as Cabin Attendant in, say, Latvia, literally SHRUGGING IT OFF, while glancing briefly out the cabin window.
   "A little flap damage, not getting worse...WING is OK.".       And the plane takes off, on next leg of journey.   

   Not good, obviously, but that kind of moronic state of relaxation does happen, shockingly.

The last thing you want is a cabin attendant freaking out "OMG, we're all going to die".

I have known a club where they had to jump-start their powered aircraft at the end of the from a car. Not unreasonably, a response was shrugged shoulders and "it is only the engine; what's the problem?".

It was a gliding club, so engine failures and forced landings were normal. If you couldn't handle them you wouldn't go solo.

[tooki]

   Sincerely, in 'most' countries that would be called what it is;   Wing disintegration.   But still, I could somehow image myself, as Cabin Attendant in, say, Latvia, literally SHRUGGING IT OFF, while glancing briefly out the cabin window.
   "A little flap damage, not getting worse...WING is OK.".       And the plane takes off, on next leg of journey.   

   Not good, obviously, but that kind of moronic state of relaxation does happen, shockingly.

Why rag on Latvia, which was one of the technical focal points of the USSR, and is a modern, reasonably prosperous country today. On the Human Development Index, Latvia is closer to the USA than USA is to the #1 ranked country (Switzerland)…

(Disclaimer: my last boyfriend was Latvian!)

[RJSV]

   Thanks for the correction; mainly my ignorance, plus I figured maybe no one from there, or only a few.
   A Latvian grabbed a former girlfriend, (but we had already split up).   Still, there's that instinctive dis-like, regardless of better common sense.
   (She dropped him, too, later, lol).
Ce la Vie !

[Homer J Simpson]

Boeing whistleblower found dead in US

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68534703

[SiliconWizard]

That doesn't look good.

[tom66]

Disturbing twist.  Might have been nothing, but it seems very odd.  Was in the middle of legal proceedings and then he's found dead in his truck.

[Gyro]

Or the emotional cost of whistleblowing against Boeing. I hope the police investigation comes up with something thorough and conclusive.

I had completely forgotten about the 25% oxygen generator failure rate episode - the list is too long!

[SiliconWizard]

To be "fair", when you have worked in a company in a heavily-regulated field, it's pretty rare if you haven't witnessed at least once some disturbing shortcuts and sweeping stuff under the carpet.
What you'll do when that happens is entirely up to you, but if you start opening your mouth, even just inside the company's walls, you are likely to become a target.

[Homer J Simpson]

Wheel loss update and recent central hydraulic system failure  information.

[Homer J Simpson]

Loose Rocker Switch Cap Injures 50

[wraper]

   Sincerely, in 'most' countries that would be called what it is;   Wing disintegration.   But still, I could somehow image myself, as Cabin Attendant in, say, Latvia, literally SHRUGGING IT OFF, while glancing briefly out the cabin window.
   "A little flap damage, not getting worse...WING is OK.".       And the plane takes off, on next leg of journey.   

   Not good, obviously, but that kind of moronic state of relaxation does happen, shockingly.

FYI the only Latvian airline is state owned Airbaltic (EDIT: if you wonder why only one, Latvian population is <2 million). Airbaltic never had a crash in its 25 year history. It has the Europe’s second youngest fleet of 47 all-Airbus A220-300 that is one the safest aircraft that had zero accidents. My former colleague is a pilot at Airbaltic, he was first studying here and then more than a year in Florida, US, financed by the company.

[wraper]

Disturbing twist.  Might have been nothing, but it seems very odd.  Was in the middle of legal proceedings and then he's found dead in his truck.

Found dead in his truck in parking lot of a hotel he stayed at. With a hole in his head and a gun in his hand. He was going to testify that day. People who knew him say that he said if he's found dead, it's not suicide.
https://nypost.com/2024/03/14/us-news/boeing-whistleblower-john-barnett-didnt-seem-depressed-on-night-before-alleged-suicide-sources/

[SiliconWizard]

If it's not suicide, I have a couple ideas regarding how the guys behind that should be dealt with.

[tom66]

Certainly stinks.  One hopes the motel/hotel has CCTV that wasn't mysteriously erased, but chances are this is a professional job, if it is one.

I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories but it's very odd when someone who seems to otherwise be mentally well and competent, who is involved in a high-pressure trial (a path he has picked: he is not defending himself), to just end it like that. 

It's certainly not impossible it's suicide - and I suppose that doubt does create enough uncertainty to make it plausible - but it sure seems odd.

[wraper]

LOL, https://nypost.com/2024/03/15/us-news/boeing-737-loses-external-panel-mid-flight/
Boeing 737-800 loses external panel mid-flight

[tom66]

It's just dynamic weight shedding to save fuel; the aircraft landed safely without that part so what are you complaining about?  Boeing's quality and innovation never ceases, even well after their planes are delivered.

[BrianHG]

[EEVblog]

LOL, https://nypost.com/2024/03/15/us-news/boeing-737-loses-external-panel-mid-flight/
Boeing 737-800 loses external panel mid-flight

Too busy making TikToks?
https://www.tiktok.com/@united/video/7243901326441106730?lang=en

[VK3DRB]

Boeing whistleblower found dead in US

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68534703

Notice "self inflicted" was in quotes. Boeing puts profit ahead of safety. It is quite possible there was a contract out on him.

[SiliconWizard]

I'm seeing more and more "whistleblowers" getting medical certificates to prove they are in perfect health, both physical and mental.
Just a thought, for those who have something inconvenient to say.

[tom66]

I'm seeing more and more "whistleblowers" getting medical certificates to prove they are in perfect health, both physical and mental.
Just a thought, for those who have something inconvenient to say.

If a whistleblower really wants to be safe they should agree with a lawyer to release the encryption key to an archive that is publicly available in the event of their death.

Within that archive could contain everything they were prepared to document and release.

The loss of the archive isn't an issue, given the archive is publicly available beforehand in encrypted form.

Keeping the key with a trusted third party who remains anonymous until the release date creates additional security.

There should not be any particular risk to the lawyer since they are just releasing a 128-bit number which happens to decrypt that archive on the instruction of their now-deceased client.  They did not create the archive, they just released the password to access it.

[jpanhalt]

@wraper
If that's a picture of where the missing panel came off, notice that the quarter turn fasteners ("zeus fasteners") are still attached to the bulkhead.  Those Phillips head parts should be attached to the panel, not where they are.  That implies that they pulled through the panel -- perhaps due to excessive wear.

The way the aft skin is bent, it might have interfered with a down elevator, but I suspect the normal control on that airplane would not have been impeded much.  Binding in the elevator is not good in any event.

I had assumed from the news that it was simply a missing inspection panel that had not been fastened properly.

[SiliconWizard]

Check your seats!

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68580950

[BrianHG]

I like the line, Boing (deliberate misspelling) in my attached video above: 'Dish soap and hotel key cards were used on parts of Boing planes.'  from the audit which analyzed Max737 production.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/boeing-jet-loses-parts-of-the-wing-in-flight!/msg5394794/#msg5394794

Better yet, Aljazeera's undercover recording at Boing's assembly plant where the engineers said they would not fly on a Boing plane unless they had a death-wish.

[jpanhalt]

I didn't know airliners had ejection seats for the pilots. 

Seems like an awfully dumb thing to have active during flight or even when the seat is occupied.  I can understand the need for some way to move the seat far forward to access something under or behind it.

[vad]

Check your seats!

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68580950

Boeing could be responsible for this accident as they designed the switch and positioned it where a flight attendant could accidentally turn it on, without pilots being able to stop the seat movement before activating the plane's controls.

However, Airbus's side-stick controls are even more dangerous and prone to accidental activation than Boeing’s traditional yoke controls. I do not recall outcry when a similar accident happened with an Airbus A330, which plunged 4,400 feet due to the pilot's DSLR camera accidentally jamming the side-stick:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4197046/amp/Plane-plunged-4-400ft-captain-s-camera-stuck-controls.html

[coppercone2]

can't they make a hole for them to jump out of on the bottom of the plane? Like a 45 degree pipe that extends out so they slide down with parachutes