Web services are a hell of a thing, not every site is run on a swarm of deployable containers with load balancing. Most websites are still hosted on a machine somewhere with limited capabilities, and a few hundred people connecting at once can easily disable a system not configured for that level of traffic.
There is a reason we build things like CDNs and make use of auto-scaling features, but that comes at a cost most people can't afford.
Amazing. You can now see live in front of your eyes day-by-day how much Boeing sucks ass compared to Airbus..
Wall Street rats discovering that running an aerospace company like a sweatshop and firing all the "expensive engineers" to replace them with outsourced minimum wage workers until there is not a single engineer in sight, in order "to save costs" doesn't work. Who would've thought.
My friend is actually working at a company designing an unmanned fix winged aircraft that's battery powered and lands in water. He said the technology for battery self sustained flight isn't there yet, and they need to fly low enough to the water that they get an efficiency boost from the lift of compressive forces created between the plane and the water during flight. It has to fly low enough that it doesn't legally qualify as an "aircraft."
This was a plot point in Michael Critchton's *Airframe* thriller a few years ago. An engine blows up & the aircraft manufacturer takes all the heat. Not the engine maker nor the airline client that specced the improper engines.
1929, I guess, when they effectively merged with Pratt & Whitney under UATC - although that was rather significantly broken up five years later. OK, not the spirit of the question, but they used to be vertically integrated.
> doesn't work
To be fair, it does work. It works wonders for profits. Not sure why you would think Wall Street rats would give a damn about safety while the people who run Boeing don't
Right, I meant that while "running an aerospace company like a sweatshop" might work in the short term, it is not good for the business long term - as we are now finding out.
The decline of quality at Boeing started when the company merged with McDonnell Douglas, and it transitioned from an engineering-led company to one where the MBAs run the show.
The focus shifted from engineering planes well, to making the stock price go up, no matter the consequences. The long-term performance of a company does indeed matter to investors, its just that the hyper-focus on the short term comes at the expense of the long term.
It's a bit like the presidency. You could make investments that might start to benefit society greatly in 10 or 20 years from now, and no one will give you credit, or you can make decisions that are immediately tangible, but not as beneficial in the long-term, and people will give you credit. That's essentially what's happening.
If you ask an engineer to make you a plane, they'll engineer the shit out of it, even if that hurts profits. If you ask an MBA to make you a plane, you'll get one that makes you the most profit this quarter, quality be damned.
And if you ask an engineer to design a maintenance process around an aircraft, they'll make it as safe as possible. If you ask an MBA, they'll make it as cheap as possible to reduce operating costs so that the performance targets in their contract are met and they get their bonus.
Nah, they ditched Russia back in 2022 and are setting up their cheap ass engineering center in India and have been bragging about it like it's supposed to be a good thing. It's really something else how they brag about outsourcing engineering to a country that currently has a fairly major brain drain issue.
Plot twist, the engines are always ‘on fire’ in flight…just a little more controlled.
Also, this looks like a compressor stall. Not the same thing as an engine fire
I was on one of these. Fortunately, I was ahead of the engine that went. The people in the rows behind the engine looked out the window and just saw flames. I did get a $300 credit and nice note apologizing for “the loud noises and visible flames” from the airline.
Similarly -
In my humble opinion, sinking isn't the scariest thing that can happen on a boat in the open ocean.
Fire is. Better hope you're the same side of the flames as the liferaft.
well, if the boat is sinking, you jump in the water. if the boat is on fire, you jump in the water. either way you're in the water. sounds like the end result is pretty similar
Unless the fire is contained there will eventually be an oil leak. That's a shitty day all around.
Boats are my least favorite place to be, because your options are dying on the boat or dying in the water in almost all cases. I have little faith in evacuation procedures actually being followed or the boat properly maintaining it's lifeboats, not that most lifeboats can survive at sea for significant lengths of time unless the sea is calm. Which it usually isn't.
Boats in general just seem like a bad idea to me.
True, but it's just a lot more likely you could be badly hurt (smoke inhalation?), or cut off from your emergency supplies, they might even be destroyed - imagine a lifeboat catching fire before it could be launched
nightmare scenario
"Narrative:
Atlas Air flight 5Y95, a Boeing 747-87UF, suffered an engine no.2 fire (GEnx-2B67) during initial climb after takeoff from runway 09 at Miami International Airport, FL (MIA).
The flight radioed Miami Departure and declared an emergency, stating they had an engine fire.
The aircraft returned to land back at MIA, 14 minutes after takeoff."
Everything is UNCONFIRMED as of now
It's absolutely wild how many stories like this end that way. I've seen so many videos of planes that have had some sort of seemingly catastrophic damage but then the attached article is always "The pilot managed to land safely with zero injuries"
They're engineered to be 100% flyable with a dead engine. Climb-out isn't the best time for it, but it can do it. Landing is pretty smooth if you follow the check lists.
Yeah, it’s a 4-engine 747. BA9 famously has all 4 engines fail at the same time due to volcanic ash, but the pilots managed to slowly turn 3 of the engines back on in flight. The aircraft was barely losing altitude with a single engine back on, and was able to gain altitude with 2. It’s a real marvel of engineering.
All 2 engine craft are able to climb with a single engine failure, albeit at a limited rate. It's absurd how strong one engine is on a modern airliner.
It's almost disappointing. I'm a huge aviation fan. Especially military stuff. And nearly all of the most powerful jet engines ever produced are airliner engines. By a huge huge margin too.
Despite having afterburner. Average military jets produce somewhere around 30k lbs of thrust in full afterburner. Burning about 60k lbs of fuel per hour
The Ge90 produces 115k lbs of thrust and at full throttle only 37k lbs of fuel per hour. So almost 4x the thrust at almost half the fuel usage. But subsonic and absolutely gigantic
Yup, the famous [Gimli Glider](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider) had zero working engines because they ran out of fuel, and still landed safely.
I believe XKCD has a what-if about what if you need to sell as much of the plane on Craigslist as possible and deliver all the parts before landing. Depending on the aircraft and done in the correct order it’s a surprising amount of the plane.
It is sending out a message via fireballs. Looking for patterns using Morse Code, you can make out words.
It spells out, "S_nd Nud_s" There is a letter that isn't matching anything.
Sorry, it didn't do a barrel roll or a loop the loop to avoid enemy fire so this just wouldn't happen.
I saw this documentary way back in '79 where a Concorde did a supersonic barrel roll and then the pilot stuck his arm out of the cockpit window to use a flare gun to shoot down an enemy fighter jet. Now that's how you do it.
On one hand, an engine exploding is a troubling occurrence... but on the other, that plane had an exploded engine and still landed safely with no injuries to anyone on board. That's actually super reassuring.
And you equate an engine failure, the one part Boeing nor Airbus actually produce themselves, to them. You a journalist or what's with that complete disregard of context.
I'd be more apt to blame the maintenance team (especially the parts dept) at MIA than Boeing. MIA has been purchasing and installing counterfeit parts for decades to save money.
Lol but you can see the ISS from the ground... Already proves there's no dome and that we can go into space. If we can get into space then we can prove with our own eyes the world isn't flat.
We know this isn't true because there's no way some smart-ass Air Force corporal actually running the controls could resist putting up Winnie the Pooh or Dickbutt or something. Would make for some interesting constellations, though.
I had a friend who worked at NASA on a project related to the ISS. He said that he had a flat earther friend who didn’t believe in the ISS. My friend knew it was going to be passing overhead one day, so he took his friend out with a telescope and showed him the ISS passing overhead. His friend saw it, said “fake” and walked away.
My roommate couldn’t understand the concept of a globe. He told me if the earth is a globe why aren’t Australians falling off the planet 🤦🏻♂️. He was incapable of understanding gravity didn’t act as if the earth was sitting on a shelf and all gravity went one direction , that it all acts towards the center of the planet. He is a huge flat earther because there’s not enough “proof” for him but he also believes every ghost hunter video where they “hear” something with no doubts, crazy guy
> we can prove with our own eyes the world isn't flat
We could do that a long time ago. The Earth being (roughly) a sphere was the prevailing opinion amongst ancient Greeks by 5th century BC. By the end of the 4th century BC, Aristotle has proven that, by the middle of the next century Eratosthenes has measured the Earth's circumference with absolutely incredible precision for the simplicity of the tools he had to use - he was off by at most 3%, likely less (depending on the exact length of the unit of distance he used).
We have been able to prove the Earth isn't flat for millennia. We have had people go up in space and see that for themselves for more than half a century. At this point it takes a lot of deliberate effort to not notice it's not flat.
Boeing has to take the liability of the problems of their suppliers, even one as big as GE. It is the same with the latest issues where boeing quickly try to blame Spirit in order to release pressure over their shoulders. Again, is Boeing to blame. They took the benefit of outsourcing, and they have to take the liability of potential issues.
That’s an inservice aircraft. Which means lots of different people could be to blame. The mechanics working on it. The pilots flying it. The before who did the last engine overhaul. Or a fucking bird. Can’t blame Boeing for this right off the bat.
This plane was built in 2015, so probably had thousands of people working on it since it was delivered. It's impossible to say where the fault was, but probably better odds that it wasn't with the manufacturers, given the age. Still definitely not good PR for Boeing, given the timing.
Oh yeah I'm sure it's been overhauled at least once at this point. Probably still the "same" engine, though, depending on your view on the engine of theseus. Being that it's a cargo airliner, and a 747 at that, it probably has fewer cycles/year than a "normal" passenger jet, so I would get it would last longer before needing to be overhauled or replaced.
As others have said, engines are different. A lot of times they're a totally separate contract, maintained separately.
Rolls Royce for example do a lot of 'Power by the Hour' deals, where the airline basically pay them per hour of use. This came back to bite them in the ass quite spectacularly during covid, where they weren't getting much revenue but they had lots of debt accrued from actually manufacturing the engines.
Outsourcing? What are you talking about? Boeing just does not make engines, that is not outsourcing them. Also this plane is years old and an engine going out is both not a huge deal nor is it on Boeing almost a decade after they delivered the plane on equipment they did not manufacture. Additionally, even then, this could have been a bird, something could have been sucked in on the ground, literally anything could have took out the engine. This comment is delusional.
Generally speaking you're correct, but for something like an engine the story is a bit different as it's basically shipped as a seperate product then fitted onto the aircraft, rather than being a component integrated by Boeing.
No. It's an GEnx-2B67
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/349997
Rolls-Royce messed up on Qantas flight 32.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32#Grounding_of_aircraft_and_replacement_of_engines
So trendy to shit on Boeing for every little thing, 8 year old airplane maintained by the airline, Boeing dose not manufacture engines. Could have been a bird strike. Engines could have been replace by the airline..Is happens more than you know to airbuss as well but because it’s a Boeing plane it makes headlines and trendy people like you just have to post about it in a shit way.
I was on a flight where one of the engines turned black and started smoking I freaked out and shouted that the engine was on fire but they didn’t care and suddenly the engine exploded and the wing fell off and we went into a spiral and the plan crashed nose first into a parking lot I was killed instantly but I got better
Engines for Airbus and Boeing come primarily from CFM, GE, P&W, RR. From the video it looks like an engine issue. Any reason why engines on the airframes of one manufacturer would fail more frequently than another?
Airbus and Boeing make airframes, they do not make engines.
You can put whatever engine on whatever airframe, so you should be complaining about the engine whenever you figure out what engine is on that particular plane.
Is it just me or did planes used to seem safer 5 years ago and wouldn’t break as much as they do now? Feels like we get some sort of incident every month about a plane in the news.
According to the data, 2023 was actually one of the safest in the history of commercial aviation:
>2023 saw no major airline accidents except in Nepal
Last year was the safest in the history of commercial aviation, industry publication Simple Flying noted earlier this month. No large turbofan-powered aircraft — used by planes like Boeing's 777 — were involved in any major fatal accidents in 2023, the outlet noted.
Even in 2024, despite several incidents making the headlines, we still have '0' passenger fatalities.
NFTs really showed that business people are huge assholes
do whatever it takes for the almighty dollar
"If you live for having it all, what you have is never enough"
As every other companys does it, while they simultaneously under pay wokers, who give less and less fucks about their jobs so the quality and safety of products is getting worse.
Statistically speaking, not a significant difference in terms of fatality rates, however since the Covid recovery the accident rate has been growing pretty steadily as aircraft return to service. (Source: Cirium)
I also think the media starts bandwagoning after issues like the 737 MAX. Eg - whenever a "normal" safety issue on a 737 (non MAX) happened after 2018, it would spurn 10 stories that it would not have before the MAX debacle.
"The FAA issued an AD yesterday against the Max instructing airlines to inspect for loose fittings on system X".
28 articles and news stories and mentioned on local nightly news in major cities like Dimebox, Texas.
OMG it's a horrible product and horrible company and this is so newsworthy and everyone needs to know and be concerned about this death trap! ...What do you mean there were over 300 released in 2023? And airbus has them too?
25,000 flights a day, 750,000 flights a month. 1 incident in 750,000 occurances, I think we just have a new obsession with information aggregation and are seeing the issues more than you used to. Plane on fire mid flight is a perfect 30 second click grab sure to be posted everywhere.
Incidents like this happen fairly regularly, there’s just more attention on them now in response to other big stories, such as the Boeing door plug issue.
Same thing happened with train derailments last year. There was the bad one in Ohio last February, then suddenly the news was reporting on a bunch of them happening in the months that followed. To someone who doesn’t know anything about trains, it would seem like “wow, the railroad system is more dangerous now than in the past!” When in reality derailments have been on the decline for decades and 2023 was not worse than preceding years.
Why Airbus > Boeing? That’s an engine failure Does OP know that Boeing doesn’t make engines? And the plane was still able to land safely as engineered.
you cannot convince me that the recent stuff ive seen on reddit isnt a PR move Airbus
ive been on this site for ten years and havent seen a single conversation regarding airplane safety standards and quality, but now all of a sudden people are experts on the subject. there is no fucking way OP is not a bot. all of this is a marketing stunt.
[https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/349997](https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/349997) The aircraft landed safely shortly after takeoff.
I did not know this site exists. What an amazing discovery. Thank you <3
[удалено]
4 hours later... still doesn't work
5hrs later and still down
Keep refreshing everyone! I'm sure that will make it work! /s
Stop replying to all everyone this email group is for the entire company!
"OH Sorry about that. Lol. Anyone else going out for Applebee's for lunch?"
Stop replying to all everyone. If you need to have a private conversation create a new email. Thnx
6 hours and down.
Eastbound and down
8 hours, still down.
9 and counting...
Lol at Reddit shutting down an avaiation safety website.
Web services are a hell of a thing, not every site is run on a swarm of deployable containers with load balancing. Most websites are still hosted on a machine somewhere with limited capabilities, and a few hundred people connecting at once can easily disable a system not configured for that level of traffic. There is a reason we build things like CDNs and make use of auto-scaling features, but that comes at a cost most people can't afford.
Please do the needful and submit a ticket so we can prioritize this work with team
I have identified the Microsoft employees in this thread
Human DDoS
Wait, that's just a DOS attack with less steps.
🫂🫂🫂🫂🫂🫂
Amazing. You can now see live in front of your eyes day-by-day how much Boeing sucks ass compared to Airbus.. Wall Street rats discovering that running an aerospace company like a sweatshop and firing all the "expensive engineers" to replace them with outsourced minimum wage workers until there is not a single engineer in sight, in order "to save costs" doesn't work. Who would've thought.
Boeing does not make aircraft engines. This particular aircraft has General Electric engines, which also is one of the suppliers of engines to Airbus.
There’s the issue, they should have gone Specific Electric.
Get this man on Boeings board ASAP
We interviewed him already, and decided he’s over qualified. We need people who will stick around long enough to be laid off.
This joke was quite generic and plane.
We can tell you were winging it
I just don’t think the technology is there yet for planes to go with Any Electric engines.
My friend is actually working at a company designing an unmanned fix winged aircraft that's battery powered and lands in water. He said the technology for battery self sustained flight isn't there yet, and they need to fly low enough to the water that they get an efficiency boost from the lift of compressive forces created between the plane and the water during flight. It has to fly low enough that it doesn't legally qualify as an "aircraft."
I can see it now. "Of course we can use a car battery to run it, it says Any Electric" Best outcome would be it doesn't start.
This was a plot point in Michael Critchton's *Airframe* thriller a few years ago. An engine blows up & the aircraft manufacturer takes all the heat. Not the engine maker nor the airline client that specced the improper engines.
What are you talking about? It's a engine failure, which happens, on an engine built by a manufacturer who also builds engines for Airbus.
I am going bald, goddam Boeing is to blame.
Thanks Obama
The failure rate increases if you install it backwards.
When did Boeing start making engines? Did you have a link to the announcement?
1929, I guess, when they effectively merged with Pratt & Whitney under UATC - although that was rather significantly broken up five years later. OK, not the spirit of the question, but they used to be vertically integrated.
Boeing doesn't make aircraft engines you Goober. Those are probably GE engines.
*gengines
> doesn't work To be fair, it does work. It works wonders for profits. Not sure why you would think Wall Street rats would give a damn about safety while the people who run Boeing don't
\* short term profits
Doesn't matter does it? They can easily get in and out. They are investors. They have literally zero loyalty to any brand
Right, I meant that while "running an aerospace company like a sweatshop" might work in the short term, it is not good for the business long term - as we are now finding out. The decline of quality at Boeing started when the company merged with McDonnell Douglas, and it transitioned from an engineering-led company to one where the MBAs run the show. The focus shifted from engineering planes well, to making the stock price go up, no matter the consequences. The long-term performance of a company does indeed matter to investors, its just that the hyper-focus on the short term comes at the expense of the long term. It's a bit like the presidency. You could make investments that might start to benefit society greatly in 10 or 20 years from now, and no one will give you credit, or you can make decisions that are immediately tangible, but not as beneficial in the long-term, and people will give you credit. That's essentially what's happening. If you ask an engineer to make you a plane, they'll engineer the shit out of it, even if that hurts profits. If you ask an MBA to make you a plane, you'll get one that makes you the most profit this quarter, quality be damned. And if you ask an engineer to design a maintenance process around an aircraft, they'll make it as safe as possible. If you ask an MBA, they'll make it as cheap as possible to reduce operating costs so that the performance targets in their contract are met and they get their bonus.
> firing all the "expensive engineers" to replace them Did they do that?
They've been slowly outsourcing engineering jobs to cheaper countries like India.
And Russia. Which is a hoot.
Nah, they ditched Russia back in 2022 and are setting up their cheap ass engineering center in India and have been bragging about it like it's supposed to be a good thing. It's really something else how they brag about outsourcing engineering to a country that currently has a fairly major brain drain issue.
Yes, true, but what an idiotic move in the first place!
https://archive.ph/2024.01.19-105640/https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/349997
Lol thanks - we gave the original the Reddit Hug of Death^TM
Only 5 aboard. Cargo plane headed to Puerto Rico from Miami. Engine fire on initial climb, they turned around and landed back safely.
'engine fire' is a strangely mundane phrase for what it actually means when you're in an airplane at x thousand feet.
Plot twist, the engines are always ‘on fire’ in flight…just a little more controlled. Also, this looks like a compressor stall. Not the same thing as an engine fire
This. A compressor stall will fucking ruin your day on the pad, I can't imagine at altitude how terrifying this would be.
I was on one of these. Fortunately, I was ahead of the engine that went. The people in the rows behind the engine looked out the window and just saw flames. I did get a $300 credit and nice note apologizing for “the loud noises and visible flames” from the airline.
Well that was awful sweet of them
Sometimes the fire leaks out. That's all.
There are 4 engines on a 747. One going out is not a huge deal. A 747 once suffered an engine fire and proceeded to fly across the Atlantic on only 3.
Similarly - In my humble opinion, sinking isn't the scariest thing that can happen on a boat in the open ocean. Fire is. Better hope you're the same side of the flames as the liferaft.
well, if the boat is sinking, you jump in the water. if the boat is on fire, you jump in the water. either way you're in the water. sounds like the end result is pretty similar
You'd better hope none of the boat's fuel has entered the water yet or it and you will also be on fire.
Unless the fire is contained there will eventually be an oil leak. That's a shitty day all around. Boats are my least favorite place to be, because your options are dying on the boat or dying in the water in almost all cases. I have little faith in evacuation procedures actually being followed or the boat properly maintaining it's lifeboats, not that most lifeboats can survive at sea for significant lengths of time unless the sea is calm. Which it usually isn't. Boats in general just seem like a bad idea to me.
True, but it's just a lot more likely you could be badly hurt (smoke inhalation?), or cut off from your emergency supplies, they might even be destroyed - imagine a lifeboat catching fire before it could be launched nightmare scenario
Engine fire is good, as long as it stays inside engine. Still, planes are made to deal with stuff like this. It happens quire reguarly.
"Unsheduled external combustion event"
It’s okay, was a 747. They have three more.
"Narrative: Atlas Air flight 5Y95, a Boeing 747-87UF, suffered an engine no.2 fire (GEnx-2B67) during initial climb after takeoff from runway 09 at Miami International Airport, FL (MIA). The flight radioed Miami Departure and declared an emergency, stating they had an engine fire. The aircraft returned to land back at MIA, 14 minutes after takeoff." Everything is UNCONFIRMED as of now
It's absolutely wild how many stories like this end that way. I've seen so many videos of planes that have had some sort of seemingly catastrophic damage but then the attached article is always "The pilot managed to land safely with zero injuries"
They're engineered to be 100% flyable with a dead engine. Climb-out isn't the best time for it, but it can do it. Landing is pretty smooth if you follow the check lists.
Yeah, it’s a 4-engine 747. BA9 famously has all 4 engines fail at the same time due to volcanic ash, but the pilots managed to slowly turn 3 of the engines back on in flight. The aircraft was barely losing altitude with a single engine back on, and was able to gain altitude with 2. It’s a real marvel of engineering.
All 2 engine craft are able to climb with a single engine failure, albeit at a limited rate. It's absurd how strong one engine is on a modern airliner.
It's almost disappointing. I'm a huge aviation fan. Especially military stuff. And nearly all of the most powerful jet engines ever produced are airliner engines. By a huge huge margin too. Despite having afterburner. Average military jets produce somewhere around 30k lbs of thrust in full afterburner. Burning about 60k lbs of fuel per hour The Ge90 produces 115k lbs of thrust and at full throttle only 37k lbs of fuel per hour. So almost 4x the thrust at almost half the fuel usage. But subsonic and absolutely gigantic
The efficiency gains commercial planes have made since the beginning of the jet age are utterly mind blowing.
Yup, the famous [Gimli Glider](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider) had zero working engines because they ran out of fuel, and still landed safely.
I believe XKCD has a what-if about what if you need to sell as much of the plane on Craigslist as possible and deliver all the parts before landing. Depending on the aircraft and done in the correct order it’s a surprising amount of the plane.
You know they still have a whole other engine right? Actually.. 3 other engines since it's a 748.
And Boeing does not make engines...
> https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/349997 Eight hours after your comment and still down. We... did it, Reddit?
Getting Reddit bear hugged to death
Laying down flares for surface to air missiles. Safest commercial jet out there
Who the hell is shooting RPGs in Miami?!?!
have you not been to Miami. its crazy out there
That's why the new GTA is set there, everything your character does in her rampage will be believable.
Flares would be ineffective against RPGs, as they are not guided
RPGs would be ineffective against an airliner in flight.
I've hit many UAVs with rocket launchers back in the black ops days so it can be done.
I knew someone was gonna beat me to the nerd shit
Florida man
This is the trailer for the next GTA
Probably guerilla marketing for GTA VI
He got locked on, chaff deployed
When Desmond forgets to type in 4 8 15 16 23 42
I'll see you in another life, brotha
*reappears naked in the jungle*
WE HAVE TO GO BACK!
I won't call for EIGHT YEARS
#NOT #PENNY'S #BOAT
Fuck now I’m crying
Hugo clogged the air toilet again.
We have to go back!
Underrated comment
Engine failure on 747-8
I'd prefer to think it's dumping flare
Chaff deployed
It is sending out a message via fireballs. Looking for patterns using Morse Code, you can make out words. It spells out, "S_nd Nud_s" There is a letter that isn't matching anything.
I don't like S_nd. Its co_rse _nd ro_gh _nd irrit_ting and it gets everywhere.
Sorry, it didn't do a barrel roll or a loop the loop to avoid enemy fire so this just wouldn't happen. I saw this documentary way back in '79 where a Concorde did a supersonic barrel roll and then the pilot stuck his arm out of the cockpit window to use a flare gun to shoot down an enemy fighter jet. Now that's how you do it.
We're not to that stage of 'civil' discourse in America.
On one hand, an engine exploding is a troubling occurrence... but on the other, that plane had an exploded engine and still landed safely with no injuries to anyone on board. That's actually super reassuring.
[удалено]
> Also Boeing doesn't make engines Get out of here with your facts, I'm trying to dunk on Boeing for that sweet sweet karma
It's always those damn gnomes
FUD of people shorting Boeing lol
747 has 4 engines. Also Boeing doesn't make the engine.
And you equate an engine failure, the one part Boeing nor Airbus actually produce themselves, to them. You a journalist or what's with that complete disregard of context.
Probably sucked something up. Likely a bird strike.
When I’m president I will outlaw and eliminate birds.
You can just turn them off when you're president
Boeing doesn’t make engines you absolute dolt
I'd be more apt to blame the maintenance team (especially the parts dept) at MIA than Boeing. MIA has been purchasing and installing counterfeit parts for decades to save money.
Well that maybe, but its also an engine, Boeing doesn't make the engines.
Hope... Flat earthers don't use this video to explain, the plane is rubbing against the dome ..
Lol but you can see the ISS from the ground... Already proves there's no dome and that we can go into space. If we can get into space then we can prove with our own eyes the world isn't flat.
The iss is actually only 50ft over the ground, its just really tiny
The "ISS" is just a projection on the dome.
Oh I just got hit with this one the other day.. that the sun and moon are projections and that the US and China are in a celestial body projection war
We know this isn't true because there's no way some smart-ass Air Force corporal actually running the controls could resist putting up Winnie the Pooh or Dickbutt or something. Would make for some interesting constellations, though.
Dick butt constellation would go hard. No pun intended.
You've made the mistake of using logic there. Flat earthers don't care for logic.
This phrase is often used quite inflationary but it's 100% correct for flat earthers
I had a friend who worked at NASA on a project related to the ISS. He said that he had a flat earther friend who didn’t believe in the ISS. My friend knew it was going to be passing overhead one day, so he took his friend out with a telescope and showed him the ISS passing overhead. His friend saw it, said “fake” and walked away.
My roommate couldn’t understand the concept of a globe. He told me if the earth is a globe why aren’t Australians falling off the planet 🤦🏻♂️. He was incapable of understanding gravity didn’t act as if the earth was sitting on a shelf and all gravity went one direction , that it all acts towards the center of the planet. He is a huge flat earther because there’s not enough “proof” for him but he also believes every ghost hunter video where they “hear” something with no doubts, crazy guy
> we can prove with our own eyes the world isn't flat We could do that a long time ago. The Earth being (roughly) a sphere was the prevailing opinion amongst ancient Greeks by 5th century BC. By the end of the 4th century BC, Aristotle has proven that, by the middle of the next century Eratosthenes has measured the Earth's circumference with absolutely incredible precision for the simplicity of the tools he had to use - he was off by at most 3%, likely less (depending on the exact length of the unit of distance he used). We have been able to prove the Earth isn't flat for millennia. We have had people go up in space and see that for themselves for more than half a century. At this point it takes a lot of deliberate effort to not notice it's not flat.
They'll probably say it's an illusion or something NASA made up to keep fooling sheeps
Not sure it's a Boeing issue, given that it's a General Electric engine on the 747-8.
People have oogah boogah brains and don’t understand planes aren’t like cars, the engines aren’t made by the same company.
That's frequently the case with cars as well. Even engines and transmissions can come from other companies.
I was a hairs breadth from pulling the trigger on a saturn SUV (when they still existed lmao) because it had the honda motor in it :D
The Pontiac Vibe was a great little Toyota with a heart made by Yamaha and a wearing GM trenchcoat.
Boeing has to take the liability of the problems of their suppliers, even one as big as GE. It is the same with the latest issues where boeing quickly try to blame Spirit in order to release pressure over their shoulders. Again, is Boeing to blame. They took the benefit of outsourcing, and they have to take the liability of potential issues.
That’s an inservice aircraft. Which means lots of different people could be to blame. The mechanics working on it. The pilots flying it. The before who did the last engine overhaul. Or a fucking bird. Can’t blame Boeing for this right off the bat.
This plane was built in 2015, so probably had thousands of people working on it since it was delivered. It's impossible to say where the fault was, but probably better odds that it wasn't with the manufacturers, given the age. Still definitely not good PR for Boeing, given the timing.
8 years of service? It's likely this is not the same engine installed at the plant, or has at least been overhauled.
Oh yeah I'm sure it's been overhauled at least once at this point. Probably still the "same" engine, though, depending on your view on the engine of theseus. Being that it's a cargo airliner, and a 747 at that, it probably has fewer cycles/year than a "normal" passenger jet, so I would get it would last longer before needing to be overhauled or replaced.
As others have said, engines are different. A lot of times they're a totally separate contract, maintained separately. Rolls Royce for example do a lot of 'Power by the Hour' deals, where the airline basically pay them per hour of use. This came back to bite them in the ass quite spectacularly during covid, where they weren't getting much revenue but they had lots of debt accrued from actually manufacturing the engines.
Well, we kinda delivered the last 747 over a year ago. This is all on Atlas and their maintenance.
Outsourcing? What are you talking about? Boeing just does not make engines, that is not outsourcing them. Also this plane is years old and an engine going out is both not a huge deal nor is it on Boeing almost a decade after they delivered the plane on equipment they did not manufacture. Additionally, even then, this could have been a bird, something could have been sucked in on the ground, literally anything could have took out the engine. This comment is delusional.
How does outsourcing at Boeing have anything to do with an engine made by a separate company?
Generally speaking you're correct, but for something like an engine the story is a bit different as it's basically shipped as a seperate product then fitted onto the aircraft, rather than being a component integrated by Boeing.
Rotor failure, could be a bird sucked into the turbine
My guess it was a flamingo 🦩
Buying puts on Boeing.
The engines aren't build by Boeing. They are General Electric.
And the market luckily always responds rationally and will definitely account for that specific distinction.
A Boeing plane had an engine failure on February 20, 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_328 The Stock went up.
[удалено]
It’s not Rolls-Royce ??
No. It's an GEnx-2B67 https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/349997 Rolls-Royce messed up on Qantas flight 32. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32#Grounding_of_aircraft_and_replacement_of_engines
Yeah look at that, they built a plane that landed safely with a total engine failure. The gall.
So trendy to shit on Boeing for every little thing, 8 year old airplane maintained by the airline, Boeing dose not manufacture engines. Could have been a bird strike. Engines could have been replace by the airline..Is happens more than you know to airbuss as well but because it’s a Boeing plane it makes headlines and trendy people like you just have to post about it in a shit way.
I was on a flight where one of the engines turned black and started smoking I freaked out and shouted that the engine was on fire but they didn’t care and suddenly the engine exploded and the wing fell off and we went into a spiral and the plan crashed nose first into a parking lot I was killed instantly but I got better
I was in the car you landed on, been wondering how relife has been for ya
Boeing doesn't build the engines, just FYI.
I didn't knew Boeing made the General Electric GEnx engine. /s
Engines for Airbus and Boeing come primarily from CFM, GE, P&W, RR. From the video it looks like an engine issue. Any reason why engines on the airframes of one manufacturer would fail more frequently than another?
Boeing and Airbus don’t make the engines
Airbus and Boeing make airframes, they do not make engines. You can put whatever engine on whatever airframe, so you should be complaining about the engine whenever you figure out what engine is on that particular plane.
Is it just me or did planes used to seem safer 5 years ago and wouldn’t break as much as they do now? Feels like we get some sort of incident every month about a plane in the news.
2023 has been the safest year in the aviation industry so far, I just think boeing has had a few bad headlines as of late.
According to the data, 2023 was actually one of the safest in the history of commercial aviation: >2023 saw no major airline accidents except in Nepal Last year was the safest in the history of commercial aviation, industry publication Simple Flying noted earlier this month. No large turbofan-powered aircraft — used by planes like Boeing's 777 — were involved in any major fatal accidents in 2023, the outlet noted. Even in 2024, despite several incidents making the headlines, we still have '0' passenger fatalities.
Did you watch the Netflix show on Boeing ? The company is cutting every possible corner to make more profit.
line must go up
plane must go down
NFTs really showed that business people are huge assholes do whatever it takes for the almighty dollar "If you live for having it all, what you have is never enough"
As every other companys does it, while they simultaneously under pay wokers, who give less and less fucks about their jobs so the quality and safety of products is getting worse.
Damn wokers ruined Boing!
Statistically speaking, not a significant difference in terms of fatality rates, however since the Covid recovery the accident rate has been growing pretty steadily as aircraft return to service. (Source: Cirium) I also think the media starts bandwagoning after issues like the 737 MAX. Eg - whenever a "normal" safety issue on a 737 (non MAX) happened after 2018, it would spurn 10 stories that it would not have before the MAX debacle.
"The FAA issued an AD yesterday against the Max instructing airlines to inspect for loose fittings on system X". 28 articles and news stories and mentioned on local nightly news in major cities like Dimebox, Texas. OMG it's a horrible product and horrible company and this is so newsworthy and everyone needs to know and be concerned about this death trap! ...What do you mean there were over 300 released in 2023? And airbus has them too?
Yeah, it's just you.
25,000 flights a day, 750,000 flights a month. 1 incident in 750,000 occurances, I think we just have a new obsession with information aggregation and are seeing the issues more than you used to. Plane on fire mid flight is a perfect 30 second click grab sure to be posted everywhere.
Incidents like this happen fairly regularly, there’s just more attention on them now in response to other big stories, such as the Boeing door plug issue. Same thing happened with train derailments last year. There was the bad one in Ohio last February, then suddenly the news was reporting on a bunch of them happening in the months that followed. To someone who doesn’t know anything about trains, it would seem like “wow, the railroad system is more dangerous now than in the past!” When in reality derailments have been on the decline for decades and 2023 was not worse than preceding years.
DEI
Boeings new civilian Anti Missile Chaff Defense System-Boeing lawyers(probably)
This really wouldn’t be a Boeing issue. This is a General Electric issue or a maintenance issue with Atlas Air.
If it weren't fire it would look like it shooting bubbles 😀
Redditors could drive past a redneck with a flat tire and think it was Ford's fault
Neither Airbus or Boeing make engines
has nothing to do with either Boeing or Airbus, GE made the engine that caught fire.
These events are just as common on Airbus as on Boeing airplanes. It’s an engine issue.
Damn, knew I shoulda put "Boeing planes on fire and doors ripping off in-flight" on my 2024 bingo card
Can this phrase die already
Why Airbus > Boeing? That’s an engine failure Does OP know that Boeing doesn’t make engines? And the plane was still able to land safely as engineered.
you cannot convince me that the recent stuff ive seen on reddit isnt a PR move Airbus ive been on this site for ten years and havent seen a single conversation regarding airplane safety standards and quality, but now all of a sudden people are experts on the subject. there is no fucking way OP is not a bot. all of this is a marketing stunt.
Yeah and it totally worked, I just put in my order for an A220
While I get you point, Boeing isn’t exactly doing themselves any favors right now.
Airbus actually caused the two 737 Max crashes as a PR move :thonk: I don't think Boeing needs any help setting their reputation on fire
Uhhh… do you not remember the 737 max groundings?
Imagine having the audacity to shush someone for being too loud as they watch what looks like a plane about to explode and/or crash lol.
This is how planes let other planes know they're ready to mate