Travel News - 737s - Bad DNA?

This should get a rise out of a few folks. Let the conversation begin:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/03/19/is-boeing-s-737-an-airplane-prone-to-problems.html

Bad DNA? No, more like Bad Reporting.

All airplanes are subject to cracking, every single one of them, from all manufacturers. High cycle airplanes, like those flown by Southwest, are more likely to see cycle induced cracks, and the maintenance programs are in place to inspect for and find/fix those cracks.

This is just a scare job designed to create hits to their website.

Bad DNA? No, more like Bad Reporting.

All airplanes are subject to cracking, every single one of them, from all manufacturers. High cycle airplanes, like those flown by Southwest, are more likely to see cycle induced cracks, and the maintenance programs are in place to inspect for and find/fix those cracks.

This is just a scare job designed to create hits to their website.

Exactly. Another "the sky is falling" article, which has no basis in reality for the safety of planes and flying.. especially considering the number 737's in service.

Agreed to disagree.

This is not a case of bad reporting: the facts regarding the 737 are clearly stated; there is obvious documentation of problems, and the conclusion cites other instances of 737 fuselage issues. The writer merely pointed out the need---in his mind, and that of other named experts--for a body material redesign.

It would be great if the reporter were to write about other aircraft and the problems specific to each manufacturer/model. Shared knowledge among engineers and mechanics is not a dangerous thing but rather, a benefit to all.

When I was returning on an AF A380 out of JNB to CDG last summer (JNB winter) our flight was cancelled because there was a hint of snow and possibly the most smidgey amount of icing one could possibly imagine. There was no de-icing equipment in the JNB airport, yet the DL 777 flight to ATL was able to depart. We were not. Why? Because the pilot informed us that the 777 was not "top-heavy" like the A380 and the difference in design was significant enough to (negatively) affect our flight. So there you have a flaw in the 380 design vs. the 777.

You don't use a Smart Car to trailer a 20' Mako, nor do you drive a mini-van in the Indy 500--at least, I hope you don't. Neither vehicle is a bad vehicle, provided it serves the purpose for which it was designed.

Agreed to disagree.

This is not a case of bad reporting: the facts regarding the 737 are clearly stated; there is obvious documentation of problems, and the conclusion cites other instances of 737 fuselage issues. The writer merely pointed out the need---in his mind, and that of other named experts--for a body material redesign.

Is the writer educated in aerospace design or engineering? Has he been trained in how airline maintenance programs are designed and met? Does he have a clue about how aircraft are tested? Simple answer, NO.

So yes, we can agree to disagree. As a licensed aircraft mechanic for the last 25 years, with some training in aviation repair engineering, I feel I can speak with some confidence. This article is a hack job, designed to make people who do not know better worry about airplanes. Take it from someone who DOES know, this article is crap.

When I was returning on an AF A380 out of JNB to CDG last summer (JNB winter) our flight was cancelled because there was a hint of snow and possibly the most smidgey amount of icing one could possibly imagine. There was no de-icing equipment in the JNB airport, yet the DL 777 flight to ATL was able to depart. We were not. Why? Because the pilot informed us that the 777 was not "top-heavy" like the A380 and the difference in design was significant enough to (negatively) affect our flight. So there you have a flaw in the 380 design vs. the 777.

Really? I find that hard to believe. The reason icing is a problem for aircraft is that it breaks up airflow over the wings, reduces lift, and increases stall speed. All modern airliners, including the A380, have anti-ice systems, typically by heating the wings using hot bleed air from the engines. Only severe icing is a problem for airliners - "the most smidgey amount" most certainly isn't. I suspect your pilot was lying (or vastly oversimplifying) to pacify his passnegers.

Really? I find that hard to believe.

Really? If you look at this discussion among avionics enthusiasts you will see there is a discussion about the A380 and the lack of proper de-icing.

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/332512-a380-ani-ice/

Also, I don't believe one has to be an absolute, firsthand authority in the field to write a solid piece of journalism. If that were the case, there would have been no Watergate exposure. One merely has to have the ability to research and assimilate information from credible sources--the opposite of "sensationalism". .

The writer of the 737 article didn't pull information from his imagination. He talked to credible sources who voiced their opinions based upon knowledge in the field as well as professional documents.

For every expert in the field who says something "is", there is another who says it "isn't".

Really? If you look at this discussion among avionics enthusiasts you will see there is a discussion about the A380 and the lack of proper de-icing.

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/332512-a380-ani-ice/

I see nothing on that page other than a little idle speculation by people who know very little about this area, and a lot of complaining about subsidies in the perpetual (and idiotic) AvB war.

I see nothing on that page other than a little idle speculation by people who know very little about this area, and a lot of complaining about subsidies in the perpetual (and idiotic) AvB war.

+1 ^

It would be great if the reporter were to write about other aircraft and the problems specific to each manufacturer/model. Shared knowledge among engineers and mechanics is not a dangerous thing but rather, a benefit to all.http://www.demama.info/hjk