Hacker Read

voldacar · 2022-01-09 15:45:26

That is actually kind of scary.

How many cycles does the airframe have to go through in order for this to become a problem? I tend to think that if the FAA gave a shit about general aviation maybe we wouldn't be flying planes from the 1960s

reply

fallingknife | karma 5335 | avg karma 2.24 · | 2021-05-20 15:18:06+00:00

I don't see why that's a problem. Airplanes have a lifespan of 30 years.

selimnairb | karma 2055 | avg karma 2.79 · | 2024-06-19 13:07:34

There’s a lot of inertia in commercial aviation. Airframes last for decades. At some point though, the current path will lead to ruin.

noahmbarr | karma 659 | avg karma 3.74 · | 2023-09-20 23:20:32

This isn’t a very very bad. This stuff is highly controlled for a reason.

Engines have a variety of LLPs (Life Limited Parts), and airlines are required to count cycles, hours, etc and replace with OEM certified replacements— all part of the reasons jets don’t fall out of the sky

reply

ceejayoz | karma 74610 | avg karma 3.33 · | 2015-11-03 16:30:02+00:00

Planes have pretty disastrous failure modes, and useful lifespans in the decades. An accelerated test cycle seems... unwise.

lstodd | karma 961 | avg karma 1.23 · | 2019-03-17 16:02:45+00:00

The airframe isn't getting old. In fact there's nothing left of the old airframe but the general shape of the windshields.

It's the type rating approval process that got old and caused all this.

reply

class3shock | karma 422 | avg karma 3.43 · | 2024-06-14 22:59:53

For anyone immediately going to UAF 232 as an example please realize that this is titanium used in the air frame not the engine. The engine is under dramatically higher loads and is far more material fault intolerant. I'm not saying this isn't serious issue but this is not as severe a concern, otherwise the planes would be grounded already.

Jesus_Jones | karma 219 | avg karma 1.42 · | 2018-04-04 18:53:26+00:00

This looks like a serious issue that the faa should investigate. Since they look at so many problems and frequently issue repair orders, recalls, etc by certain dates, why would they treat this particular issue so differently?

HPsquared | karma 7582 | avg karma 2.12 · | 2023-03-16 14:00:33

I don't understand how modern airliners, with all their advanced high-tech complicated design, operating in such a tightly controlled regulatory environment, can still be having trouble with this. Crazy.

jarin | karma 7296 | avg karma 3.76 · | 2011-12-06 20:08:35+00:00

Hoo boy, that could be dangerous if there's something physically wrong with the plane (a non-functional aileron or stabilator, for example).

leetrout | karma 7464 | avg karma 3.71 · | 2020-07-24 13:31:56+00:00

I have been wondering how dangerous flying is going to be when when / if it comes back and all these planes come out of storage. Mechanical things just sitting around is some times far worse than them being in constant use.

vultour | karma 1329 | avg karma 2.5 · | 2019-10-31 14:07:13+00:00

Except this is not about cracks in the airframe but in a component that is certified for significantly more cycles than when the cracks are being found. If these were benign FAA wouldn’t have released an AD to inspect and repair them.

hef19898 | karma 16236 | avg karma 1.77 · | 2024-02-27 15:10:16

If the Aircraft is 20 years old, you should worry a lot more about the airline's safety culture than the manufacturer's. Just saying.

cm2187 | karma 24483 | avg karma 3.15 · | 2023-12-12 13:57:59

I am not aware that the aiframe is the main reason why planes are taken out of service. Fuel inefficiency is typically the primary reason, plus increased maintenance cost. I can't remember an accident of a major airliner as a result of the airframe failing post the 1970s.

Will be interesting to look at fatigue of the control surfaces though, if they get used many times more per flight to adjust for minor turbulences.

reply

bigbillheck | karma 1619 | avg karma 1.04 · | 2021-10-14 13:00:48

What's wrong with that? Seems like good practice if you expect these planes to be flying for decades.

geonineties | karma 24 | avg karma 1.33 · | 2024-01-24 20:49:46

Yeah, this is getting ridiculous. Aircraft break all the time, and the FAA investigates all the time. I'm begining to think some people here have short positions in Boeing stock or something.

bluGill | karma 18458 | avg karma 1.43 · | 2021-02-21 02:21:58

That isn't completely true. We don't know exactly, but the documented time between overhaul and the life of the airframe place upper bounds on those.

Some cheap airlines might ignore those rules, but none in the US. (Only the poorest, most corrup, countires in the world will ignore those limits)

reply

throwaway0a5e | karma 11212 | avg karma 2.03 · | 2022-09-01 19:10:54

They were designed in the 60s and the FAA certification process makes designing a replacement cost prohibitive with current and future sales volumes.

JshWright | karma 13295 | avg karma 3.64 · | 2010-02-17 19:28:07+00:00

So, it's at least a 30 year old plane.

I'm not connected at all with the private aviation industry... What is the useful (safe?) lifespan of an aircraft like this?

reply

cf100clunk | karma 4407 | avg karma 3.68 · | 2021-11-22 12:57:57

"These are not considered an immediate safety concern but could cause premature aging of the airframe." So this would seem to be about quality control issues as opposed to design engineering or flightworthiness.