[NomadSK]

A Delta Airlines flight was forced to return to New York on Friday after an emergency slide billowed out from above one wing shortly after take-off.

Flight 520 to Los Angeles took off from JFK this morning. It returned safely at around 8:35 a.m. "after the crew reported a vibration," according to the FAA.

How is this even possible, I was of the opinion that these slides are inside the main airframe.

A post flight inspection revealed the right hand overwing emergency slide was missing.

The airline reported the crew received an indication concerning the right hand wing emergency slide and heard some sound from the right hand wing.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/newyork/...cy-exit-slide/

[PetrolHead2272]

If it's Boeing, I ain't going.

Incidents on a monthly basis and repeated change in senior management, Boeing truly lost to Airbus. The slump started with the MAX and imo it won't stop till the company decides to stop manufacturing planes altogether. I hope not just India but also all nations worldwide stop airlines to fly this plane in our skies.

No offence to anyone but if a company doesn't care about human lives then that company deserves to be stripped off all its wealth and reputation.

[Chetan_Rao]

Paraphrasing an aviation industry insider's comment on some content I recently watched: 'Boeing died in 1997. What we have today is McDonnell Douglas with a Boeing sticker slapped on.'

[libranof1987]

Just a quick fact before we join the blame-Boeing bandwagon. This plane was manufactured in 1990; so, way before all the factors that are currently plaguing Boeing came in. The aircraft is 34 years old; they say 30 years is the typical lifespan of one.

Unless this aircraft went through an overhaul carried by Boeing recently, there's no real reason to blame Boeing in this. Just yet. It could be an age / operational / fatigue - related issue, or something arising out of maintenance / repair (which wouldn't necessarily be Boeing's).

Is this worrisome? Definitely. As is any incident.

But let's wait until investigation is done to start pointing fingers.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by libranof1987

Just a quick fact before we join the blame-Boeing...

This may not be Boeing's fault specifically or at all, but the peculiar US aviation market, where the manufacturers, the regulators and airline operators are often found to veer away from a safety-first approach to aviation when doing the right thing means lost $$$, it's honestly difficult to give any of them the benefit of doubt.

As you can probably tell, I watch a bit too much of Air Crash Investigation and Mayday.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by NomadSK

How is this even possible, I was of the opinion that these slides are inside the main airframe. :]

On the 767 they are on the outside.

Jeroen

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

On the 767 they are on the outside.

Jeroen

A space optimisation thing?

I recall the 747-100 cargo bay door was designed outward opening for space reasons, and a faulty lock design caused some incidents before an updated locking mechanism was mandated.

[NomadSK]

Originally Posted by libranof1987

The aircraft is 34 years old; they say 30 years is the typical lifespan of one.

I thought aircrafts if maintained can go pretty longer than this age. Is that 30 years lifespan a FAA’s requirement or Boeing’s, if that’s the case then they should have given warning to their customers for “end of life” and in no case they should fly beyond that. Don’t they have airworthy fitness test certificates mandated every whatever hours which needs to be attested by Boeing and FAA. If not then it’s all about $$. Infact, in our industry that’s what we do with our equipment when they reach their shelf life. Yes, they are either abandoned or replaced.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

On the 767 they are in the outside

Thanks, then isn’t that a design flaw to have the weakest chain link outside the frame ?

[SR-71]

Slightly OT, the Americans seem to be the new Chinese when it comes to manufacturing goods by cutting corners and the new Indians in exploiting the said goods to death without adequate maintenance or care for safety.

[Hayek]

As many have said, this is an OLD 767, a plane launched in the 1980s, with a great safety record. Boeing screwed up on the 737 Max - by trying to extend the life of an airframe one time too often- but otherwise has done much better than Airbus.

The 777 outclassed the A340 and the A330 - while the 787 effectively wiped out the A330 program. Boeing’s call on point to point being the way to go was borne out by the billions Airbus lost on the A380 program.

Over the last decade of course, the A320 Neo series has wiped the pants off the Max, and due to the problems with the Max, the 777X has been delayed giving the A350 a window of advantage. But I am sure Boeing will be back - sooner rather than later

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by NomadSK

I thought aircrafts if maintained can go pretty longer than this age. Is that 30 years lifespan a FAA’s requirement or Boeing’s, if that’s the case then they should have given warning to their customers for “end of life” and in no case they should fly beyond that. Don’t they have airworthy fitness test certificates mandated every whatever hours which needs to be attested by Boeing and FAA. If not then it’s all about $$. Infact, in our industry that’s what we do with our equipment when they reach their shelf life. Yes, they are either abandoned or replaced.

Airplane age isn’t a safety factor, because it is tightly controlled by all kinds of FAA requirements. The older a plane the more stringent checks are done. As long as a plane has an airworthy certificate it is as safe as any other aircraft, irrespective of age.

I have never seen statistical evidence that suggest older planes are more accident prone then younger planes. However, there is one other factor. Older planes very often end up with carriers, that have a less than stellar record for maintenance. In parts of the world where the FAA has no jurisdiction.

For the Boeing bashers, or Boeing avoiders if you like. Yes, no doubt Boeing has and is having its share of issues with quality.

But to put that in perspective, go to AVHarald and type in Airbus. Here’s the list that came up just now: by the way, all of these Airbus incident happened in the last few weeks!



Planes are incredible complex bit of machinery, flying and operating is incredibly complex too. So things go wrong, every day around the world with Boeing, Airbus and any other plane manufacturer. Just follow AVHarald for a few days. It will list 6-8 incidents world wide everyday day, 365 days a year! 366 days during leap year.

Very few of these incidents lead to casualties. Which is a phenomenal achievement, based on how planes and procedures are designed with endless back up and safety procedures.

Irrespective of these incidents, and the occasional accident, listed daily on the AVHarald, and the ongoing troubles at Boeing, aviation is still incredibly safe!

Airbus has and is still having its fair share of quality issues as well.
Ask Qatar air and they will tell you, they can’t even paint their aircraft properly. They settled for 2 billion dollar last year as the whole A350 fleet was grounded!

Remember the AF447 crash? Airbus was found guilty. This Airbus suffered from inconsistent speed indications which led to the plane stalling and subsequently crashing! Airbus changed its design.

The list goes on and on.

Again, Boeing has issues, but so has Airbus. But it hasn’t made a dent in aviation safety record.

Jeroen

[sh3lby]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

but the peculiar US aviation market, where the manufacturers, the regulators and airline operators are often found to veer away from a safety-first approach to aviation when doing the right thing means lost $$$, it's honestly difficult to give any of them the benefit of doubt.

I mean you're right to an extent but I think we're giving the US Aviation industry too much flak. Imagine if instead of the FAA (or the EASA) we had the DGCA as the primary governing body for international aviation ... air crash investigations wouldn't be as detailed, and the possibility for corruption and gushing things up would be much higher...

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

I recall the 747-100 cargo bay door was designed outward opening for space reasons, and a faulty lock design caused some incidents before an updated locking mechanism was mandated.

Yeah..are you referring to United Airlines flight 811?

As you can probably tell, I watch a bit too much of Air Crash Investigation and Mayday.

Might I recommend Green Dot Aviation and Mentour Pilot on YouTube? They're great if you like this kind of stuff!