Boeing Reveals How They Plan To Fix Dangerous Engine Nacelles

Boeing disclosed how they plan to modify their engine Nacelles To Prevent Future Events Of Cabin Penetration.

Support The Channel Buy Me A Coffee

Maximus Merch
Hats, Mugs, Hoodies, and T-shirts

Copyright Disclaimer. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statutes that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational, or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

In case you want to send us something.
7918 El Cajon Blvd
Suite N345
La Mesa, CA 91942

[bobkaster]

Biggest thing to remember is that Boeing has gone from an aviation-first focus to a business-first focus. They want to push the costs out over time in order to not see a huge hit in any given quarter, as well as sort out any supply chain issues.

[beachboy]

To reiterate a point made earlier, the NTSB has no regulatory authority. The NTSB investigate and recommends -only. It is the FAA that has regulatory authority.

[todortodorov]

Just to clarify the role of the NTSB, as Maximus was slightly misleading in the video: The NTSB cannot mandate anything. They just investigate incidents and accidents. The NTSB can recommend changed. It is the FAA that can mandate changes - but as we all know - they used to be married to Boeing until recently.

[BlindBatG]

Makes you wonder how long Boeing has been sitting on these modifications.

[USAFA]

If the risk of death has to be 0 to certify an aircraft or engine, there wouldn’t be any aircraft flying at all. The CFM56 series of engines is the most prolific jet engine ever built with more than 30, 000 in service now or in the past. As far as I know there is one death that can be directly associated with fan blade separation after a CFM56 failure (in another accident there were several deaths after the pilots shut down the wrong engine after a fan blade separation event but those deaths did not occur as a direct result of the failure so much as from pilot error dealing with the failure) and that’s the Southwest customer several years ago. All in all, this engine is probably the safest engine ever fitted to a modern day jet airliner, even in its current form. One death in nearly 50 years isn’t really an emergency fix in my opinion.

I currently fly these engines nearly every day for work, so I literally bet my life on them, and I’m happy to do so. Perhaps the changes will make them even better.

[renetazken]

Enjoy your vids Maximus greetings from Ireland

[williambarrett]

Just another example of how the once incredibly great Boeing Company no longer exists.

[ddthompson]

I forget the exact quote, but goes something like, “Anyone can build something that stands, but only an engineer can build something that barely stands.” Same is true for planes; they’re all trying to build a plane that JUST meets requirements, so safety is only paramount after shareholders get their cut. The safest and most comfortable plane possible is too expensive to operate commercially, unfortunately.

[Sepolden]

Wow…a reminder that aircraft design is stunningly complex

[jm]

Just a little surprised Boeing Execs did not recommend a trip to the dollar store for some gorilla glue to help their customers; yes, this is a logical response to the way they want to play the game.

[TheFlyingBusman]

Correct me if I’m wrong but are not engines meant to be tested for such failures before being allowed into service?

[clarejarvis]

Your final comment was "Why has the NTSB taken five The NTSB is not the regulator, the FAA is the regulator. The FAA approves the changes.

[reddog-exdx]

Maximus, you need to change the name of these reports about Boeing to "As the Stomach Turns!"

[elel]

Should a boing engine nacelle directive also include the 777 series?

[castletown]

Seems to me that the FAA should look into the blade-off test performed during certification. This test clearly did not detect the CFM inability to contain a blade failure. Perhaps this test needs to be redesigned too.

[PhillipAlcock]

Wonder when Boeing management will realise it costs less to get things right first time! Rework and lost confidence costs money.

[Andy-dchr]

Sounds like a lot of work for airlines and or vendors.

[frhyuhy]

We all know that the fix has to be tested and approved. Parts need to be manufactured and delivered. Would make sense to implement the parts of the fix that can be done now while the suppliers are working on the parts for the rest.

[harrickvharrick]

The fact it took the NTSB five years to figure out, and finally to make public, that they would start demanding improvement in the matter may seem curious, but it may have been held back part of that time out of leniency. Not only would all parties have known that Boeing would have to design new parts from scratch, also it would have been impossible for Boeing to make improvements to parts of a worldwide fleet during the last nearly-two years of those five, with Covid-19 and borders closed, and anybody grounded anyway. The striking part of the story is that hardly any time passed between the directive coming out, and Boeing announcing that it had worked out the solution, cause THAT is the part one would think WOULD be time-consuming indeed: they had to figure out, design, prototype and test one or more completely new parts, and it had to be done to meet specs they previously had not managed yet. The fact there lays so little time between the NTSB's announcement and Boeing's can only mean at Boeing they have been working on this during the passed five years ANYWAY. Even with no directive out they of course knew already the situation as it stood was (or is) not satisfactory since the time those two accidents happened. Also I imagine there is enough informal communications in the industry for them to have known all along the NTSB was working on a directive. That one year and then some Boeing says it will take them to implement their improvements is easily explained: they have to start making these new parts from scratch, probably have to source new materials from God knows where on this planet, in times when transport and all kinds of industrial things are slow, probably have to train personnel, have to take this up with airlines across the world and start planning it with them, it's all kinds of things that they have got to figure out. I am very impressed they really have found a way to improve those cowlings so, that no fan blades can reach the cabin (or wing, I imagine!) next time any of them is gonna break off, at all.

[garyreed]

Just remember, to implement the fixes, it will take time to MANUFACTURE all of the repair pieces (there are a LOT of these engines). It will take time to gather the needed hardware, which needs to be manufactured. Instructions will need to be written and printed. Mechanics will need to be trained on implementation of the fixes. You can't just wave a Magic Wand or pull all of the parts out of a Trick Bag.
Also, smaller fixes - one at a time- can be installed during scheduled maintenance intervals without the need to remove the aircraft or engine from inventories for an extended period of time to implement ALL fixes at the same time.