BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?

Subject: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: Rasener
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 01:35 AM

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1231468,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: Crystal
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 05:00 AM

That is it, I'll DEFINITLY need Vallium to get me on a plane again!

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: Rasener
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 05:15 AM

Or never sit by the door again LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 10:37 AM

The 737 was based on our original 707 that ushered in the jet age.
Even if well maintained you should realize that if the plane were registered like an automobile it would require a special antique vintage license plate. These planes hail from the sixties and seventies and outnumber 737s that are less than 10 years old.

Newer planes can present problems of their own since pilots can erroneously expect similar control and instruments in newer versions and have made fatal mistakes as a result.

On a recent flight we had to wait on the boarding ramp for about 15 minutes with no explanation. When a maintenence man came off the plane with an oversize spool of duct tape we were allowed on board.

It seems this is the way they are keeping air pressure in the cabins of 737s which are full of countless cracks and seams after 25 years in flight.

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 11:00 AM

- snip- Statistically, the 737 has had a better than average safety record over its nearly three decades of service — 1.21 crashes per million flights for older models and 0.51 crashes per million flights for newer models. The figure for passenger jets of all types is 1.83 crashes per million flights -snip- (My emphais)

And the most common malfunction on them seems to be connected to the Rudder, and not any cabin pressure issues.

I'd not be worried about it, unless I happened to be flying by Russian backwater Airways or suchlike.....

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: skipy
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 12:21 PM

The 737 was based on our original 707 that ushered in the jet age.
Excuse me!
The comet ushered in the jet age!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 12:38 PM

The things that Villan dreams up to scare people NOT to have a holiday on a plane and go to his folk club instead!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: Rasener
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 01:22 PM

He he - don't give my secrets away SL :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 01:25 PM

The De Havilland Comet was the first jet airliner to fly a scheduled route in 1952, but the original version of the Comet had serious design problems leading to several highly-publicised crashes, and the entire fleet was eventually grounded (the Comet later reemerged in improved versions). The first truly successful jet airliner was the Boeing 707, which began service in 1958 on the New York City to London route; 1958 was also the first year that more trans-Atlantic passengers travelled by airline than ship.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 01:35 PM

our US correspondent ¹Andrew Wilson examines claims by two former ²auditors of Boeing

¹ And from what engineering school did "correspondent" Andrew Wilson receive his engineering degree(s) and on what date was he certified as an FAA approved compliance inspector (DER)?

² And for what purposes were audits by the "two former auditors" made, and did they have anything to do with part quality?

(If one looks at the other articles linked from the page, there's very little other than doom and disaster to read from there. It does make one wonder.)

It is not uncommon for parts with minor deviations from what's specified on the drawings to be used, "as is" or with corrective treatment. Every part produced in house or received from outside production vendors is inspected before issue to production, and every part for which a deviation is found is "written up" by inspection, and an Engineering Disposition is made.

Only designated Engineering Personnel certified as members of the "Material Review Board" have the authority at Boeing to determine corrective actions that may be made to allow use of a questioned part, or to determine and authorize that the "deviations" do not affect "form, fit, and function" of the part to permit use without modification.

All Engineering dispositions of deviant parts are reported to a "Designated Engineering Representive" (DER) certified by the FAA and specifically responsible to the FAA for assuring compliance with regulations. The DER does have the authority to challenge any Engineering (MRB) disposition of any part, and is obligated to report anything questionable directly to the FAA.

While the vast number of people involved in building an aiplane of this kind precludes any absolute assurance that procedures are followed in every case, so far as I've been aware the proper procedures are conscientiously followed, particularly with respect to disposition of any "deviation from print" that might affect safety.

If "correspondent Wilson" would like to provide the MRB stamp number of the Engineer who authorized the use of his "dangerous parts" I can probably look him up and ask for an explanation - if he/she is still alive(?). Barring that information, Mr Wilson goes in my category of another "babbling idiot" trying to sell a story.

I will admit that I intensely dislike flying in any commercial airplane for any purpose, but Boeing remains my "maker of choice" when/if I'm forced to. (I know too much about most of the others as well?)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 01:56 PM

"The comet ushered in the jet age!"

I thought it was Benny.

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 03:31 PM

No Peace, not Benny. I think it was really later and it was Joe Namath.

Anyway.............

If you read this stuff on a regular basis you find charges all the time regarding flight safety. While it is true that manufacturers sometimes get it wrong, it is far more likely you will have a problem based on airline/operator maintenance and repair. Design flaws AND maintenance errors often combine to cause crashes but as most crash investigators will tell you it takes a series of events and not just one to cause a crash. Perhaps the biggest problem we have in the US is the number of years that the watchdog agency wasn't interested in doing the job.

The FAA was delegated with the dual responsibility of promoting air travel and assuring safety. Any fool can see that won't work and yet it has been the norm for years at the FAA. In tyhe past few years much of that has changed but it is still going on enough to scare me more than any airframe fatigue. For many years my job required me taking about 6 flights a week and there were some interesting moments.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Aug 06 - 08:28 PM

The 737 has been in production for many years, and there are brand new versions flying today. It is one of the most flown models of all time if not the most flown passenger jet model of all time. It has an excellent safety record. If there are 'parts problems' they will not be limited to just the 737.

It is the most common passenger jet by far in 'laska. There is a special 'tundra' model in use here with a big metal plate under the front wheel and a compressed air 'blower' that taps some of the inner jet engine compressive flow in order to blast gravel away from the intakes.

The mountain air can shake the hell out of em, and does, but they can take it.

I would far rather be in a 737 than an Airbus, though I will fly in an Airbus.

Boeing isn't perfect, but it IS superior.

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: Bert
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 02:08 AM

I hate the 737. Aramco had leased one and we used to fly up to Safaniya in it once or twice a week.

I can't remember the number of times that we were just coming into land and the pilot advised us that we had a problem with the brakes and would have to go back to Dahran where they had fire fighting equipment.

Back in Dahran we'd transfer to a Fokker F27 and it was quite reassuring to see the RR logo on the engines.

Also I never could quite build up much confidence in a plane where the air conditioning NEVER worked.

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 03:09 AM

Also I never could quite build up much confidence in a plane where the air conditioning NEVER worked

I had a VW beetle that by all reports had a heater that never worked. One of the best cars I ever had (until I let my kids drive it for a while).

As a comparison, I worked on another "brand name" (smaller than 737) airplane for which I received numerous "squawks" that appeared to have been already worked, but the pilots were still complaining. In more than a half dozen instances, I found that good engineers had delivered very good rework instructions in response to the same pilot complaint at least six times previous to my receipt of the same complaint. In every instance, the engineers had done a very good job of "fixing the problem" with the small difficulty that the part for which they fixed the problem wasn't the part currently used in the airplane. This maker had no "configuration control" and simply didn't know how to tell what parts were used in any specific airplane. They still don't, and I WILL NOT FLY IN A **** AIRPLANE.

(Don't ask which airplane, as I won't tell, but I will reveal that it was a UK design currently manufactured in the US, and that all of the engineers who had previously worked the problem were "green card Brits" working in the US, intimately familiar with the airplane - and I respect their engineering abilities, I just can't respect the airplane. Configuration management simply was not to Boeing (or FAA) requirements.)

With an airplane as old as many of the 737s, there is also the difficulty of maintenance, and it is common for major maintenance facilities to "punt" repairs not strictly in accord with factory specifications. I have seen numerous instances of "unauthorized" repairs by maintenance facilities, but on the whole, for Boeing airplanes of which I have knowledge, the major facilities have very good levels of competence, and I have no particular reservations about the quality of work done on Boeing airplanes by or for most regularly scheduled airlines. (In a not too distant past, I incorporated some of the "unauthorized repairs" done by JAL in the specification for a similar new Boeing part, although Boeing doesn't know that.)

There might be some questions appropriate to maintenance for "fringe" airlines, but I've seen quite a few of the recent FAA incident reports applicable to the 737, and am not significantly worried by anything reported.

Airline problems do need to be considered separately from airplane problems, since poor or incorrect maintenace can turn any fine machine into a bucket of bolts - or rivets.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: Scoville
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 10:18 AM

I had a 1986 Nissan whose air conditioner not only didn't work, but drained what little horsepower it had while it wasn't working, so not only was I hot but I couldn't even get up enough speed to make rolling down the windows worthwhile. It was a great car in all other respects.

I used to live near the airport in Denver and we always joked about DC "Death Chariot" 10's falling out of the sky. We didn't worry about 737's.

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: robomatic
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 03:15 PM

A retired Alaska Airlines Captain, flying as a dead head passenger aboard Alaska Airlines flight 498 from Seattle to San Francisco, related the following public safety announcement from memory to his laptop computer just moments after it was made:

       Flight Attendant: "Hello, and welcome aboard Alaska Airlines flight 498 to San Francisco. If you're going to San Francisco, you're in the right place. If you're not going to San Francisco, you're about to have a really long evening ...

       We'd now like to tell you about some important safety features of this aircraft. The most important safety feature we have aboard this plane is -- the flight attendants. Please look at one now. There are five exits aboard this plane: two at the front, two over the wings, and one out of the plane's rear. If you're seated in one of the exit rows, please don't store your bags by your feet. That would be a really bad idea. Please take a moment and look around and find the nearest exit. Count the rows of seats between you and the exit. In the event that the need arises to find one, trust me, you will be glad you did. We have pretty blinking lights on the floor that will blink in the direction of the exits. White ones along the normal rows, and pretty red ones at the exit rows ...

       In the event of a loss of cabin pressure these baggy things (oxygen masks) will drop down above your head. You stick it over your nose and mouth like the flight attendants are showing you now. The bag will not inflate, but there is oxygen there -- I promise. If you're sitting next to a small child, or someone who is acting like a small child, please do us all a favor and put your mask on first. If you are traveling with two or more children, please take a moment now to decide which one is your favorite. Help that one first, then work your way down ...

       In the seat pocket in front of you is a pamphlet about the safety features of this plane. I usually use it as a fan when I'm having my own personal summer -- it makes a very good fan. It also has pretty pictures. Please take it out now and play with it.

       Now please take a moment to make sure that your seat belts are fastened low and tight around your waist. To fasten the belt, insert the metal tab into the buckle. To release, it is a pulley thing -- not a pushy thing like your car because you are in an airplane -- Hellooo!! ...

       There is no smoking in the cabin on this flight. There is also no smoking in the lavatories. If we see smoke coming from the lavatories, we will assume that you're on fire and put you out. This is a free service that we provide. There are two smoking sections on this flight, one on the outside of each wing exit. We do have a movie in the smoking sections tonight -- hold on, let me check and see what it is ... Oh here it is, the movie tonight is 'Gone with the Wind' ...

       In a moment we will be turning off the cabin lights, and it is going to get really dark, really fast. If you are afraid of the dark, now would be a good time to reach up and press the yellow button. The yellow button turns on your reading light. Please do not press the orange button (attendant) unless you absolutely have to. The orange button is your seat's ejection button. Just kidding. We are glad to have you on board with us today, and thank you for choosing Alaska Airlines."

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: gnu
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 04:26 PM

Hilarious, robo!!

I spent a lot of time in the Great White Whale (old EPA and later CPA colours) all over Atlantic Canada and I didn't mind them one bit. The Series 400 engines were a tad unsettling as they had a few failures, but, what a beast. I was in Wabush, Labrador when one of those engines failed on takeoff, but, a quick loop and we were back on the ground safely. The pilot made a joke about going back to get his coffee, but I wasn't laughing.

I can't recall, but, seems to me the 737 that pranged in the Potomac River was a Series 400 failure????

I used to fly a few times a week... don't miss it at all. It's much more exciting driving around town.

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: Sorcha
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 04:29 PM

LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 04:43 PM

Good one, Robo.

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: catspaw49
Date: 22 Aug 06 - 08:08 PM

Hilarious!!!!

And Gnu.....Yeah, it was a 737 but the main fault was a short between the headsets in the cockpit.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: GUEST,JCK
Date: 24 Aug 06 - 01:36 PM

ALl of the comments I have seen definitely have merit, but this case is more about a lack of ethics in corporate America then just a public safety issue. If any of you would research the original Mother Jones article, or the Washington Post article that details this case...you would find several points that none of you are addressing:

1. This is a Federal Law Suite, not a Civil Suite out to make money.

2. These people were hand picked to be part of a special committee to investigate Ducomun for parts issues.

3. These people were rewarded (by Boeing) for a job weel done.

4. Boeing then proceedecd to dismiss the findings, and retaliate against their own hand picked employees.

5. If you search the internet for Boeing wrong doings...you will find many, many cases of them being caught and fined for illegal activities.

6. The FAA did not do their job, although after the first time this suite was presented...the FAA did send out a memo to check for cracks around the doors.

There are so many aspects to this case that so many people are willing to overlook, and they should not. Just two years ago Boeing was fined 6 million dollars by the Government because it used Titanium melted in the Soviet Union instead of Titanium melted in America on planes sold to the Military. I think most people would think that a possible safety risk to millions of people would rate higher that the grade of Titanium used for Military aircraft. Just because a plane has not fallen from the sky does not mean that wrong doing did not happen. Remember...No one thought that Enron had done anything wrong until it all came crashing down around them. I still fly, and don't have much say in what plane I fly on. But, it is nice to know that there are peole who lay their professional carreers on the line to try to keep coporate America honest. Whether you think 737's are safe or not, you can't argue against people trying to do the right thing. Or maybe you can!

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 24 Aug 06 - 02:57 PM

I think I had that same flight attendant on a Southwest Airlines flight (famous for similarly irreverent safety spiels).

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: Cobble
Date: 24 Aug 06 - 07:39 PM

THe comet is still flying with the RAF its called Nimrod now. And the most succesful jet was the VC10 only 2 came down, while 707s formed a large scrapheap from the sky.

                TY

Subject: RE: BS: Boeing 737 safe or not?
From: GUEST,Bobert
Date: 24 Aug 06 - 08:33 PM

Pick on another plane... The 737's are tougher than yer danged mother-in-law... Fine airplane...

Bobert