[dpark]

> The engine itself as well as the containment mechanism that’s supposed to prevent this kind of situation were the responsibility of CFM and had nothing to do with Boeing.

NTSB seems to think it’s Boeing’s responsibility to redesign the cowl to prevent this.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...

[labcomputer]

If you read your own link, they also think it’s the engine manufacturer’s (CFM’s) responsibility to work with Boeing to redesign the cowl, and recommend that the European Aviation Safety Agency require engine manufacturers to work collaboratively with airplane manufacturers for such cowl design in the future.

[dpark]

I don’t actually see that but I’m also not going to read all 193 pages.

That’s not the point regardless. The post I replied to made the claim that Boeing has no responsibility here. The NTSB clearly disagrees.

[beering]

Come on, you can’t say you can’t be bothered to read the document and also double down on your interpretation of it in the same breath.

[dpark]

My "interpretation of it" is explicitly in the document.

"Therefore, the NTSB recommends that the FAA require Boeing to determine the critical fan blade impact location(s) on the CFM56-7B engine fan case and redesign the fan cowl structure on all Boeing 737NG-series airplanes to ensure the structural integrity of the fan cowl after an FBO event. The NTSB also recommends that, once the actions requested in Safety Recommendation A-19-17 are completed, the FAA require Boeing to install the redesigned fan cowl structure on new-production 737NG-series airplanes. The NTSB further recommends that, once the actions requested in Safety Recommendation A-19-17 are completed, the FAA require operators of Boeing 737NG-series airplanes to retrofit their airplanes with the redesigned fan cowl structure."

Is your position that somewhere in this 193 page document, the NTSB buried a line that says "just kidding, Boeing is faultless here"?

[SR2Z]

It's not a question about fault. Boeing is responsible for the final integration of their aircraft, so naturally any orders to fix the engines would be given to them.

The engine is built by CFM, and it's CFM who will have to actually design the required fix. Boeing doesn't have the skills for that because the complexity of a modern turbofan is more similar to a microchip than the rest of the airplane. They certainly cost more than the rest of the airplane put together!

The public loves fire-and-brimstone responses to safety issues but the honest truth is that sometimes airplanes crash for stupid reasons and vaporizing all of the accumulated experience a company has following a crash is not going to make things safer.

Even with MCAS, even with the doors falling off, Boeing aircraft are incredibly safe because the US has spent nearly a century working with the company to improve things. This is a tricky thing to get right, because the FAA and NTSB have to unilaterally decide on a system that will make airplanes safe while also keeping them affordable enough to be flown.

[dpark]

> The engine is built by CFM, and it's CFM who will have to actually design the required fix. Boeing doesn't have the skills for that because the complexity of a modern turbofan is more similar to a microchip than the rest of the airplane.

From what I can tell, Boeing designed the existing cowl and NTSB says they need to redesign it. The complexity of the jet engine itself doesn’t seem particularly relevant because the cowl isn’t needed to make the engine function. It’s needed to catch shrapnel if the engine fails and flies apart.

> The public loves fire-and-brimstone responses to safety issues but the honest truth is that sometimes airplanes crash for stupid reasons and vaporizing all of the accumulated experience a company has following a crash is not going to make things safer.

No idea why you are saying this in response to my comment. All I said is the NTSB wrote that Boeing needs to redesign the cowl and you seem to think I said Boeing needs to be liquidated.