737NG Pickle fork issue

mjoelnir · Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:34 pm

DYSK wrote:
Spacepope wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
I think, it is to early to speculate about the winglets as the culprit. Lots of older frames never had winglets. The SAS frame, not to be repaired, should be a 737-600, as they are being retired, and the 767-600 at SAS did not have winglets.

I recall a post earlier stating the SAS frame that was cracked and to be retired anyway in November as a -700.

From different sources in the nordic community the retired -700 was LN-RPK.

that would be one without winglets

foxtrotbravo21 · Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:01 am

these pickle fork issues is most likely from a manufacturing fault ie in the heating of the forks or the metal mix which resulted in its weakness. Hope Boeing can identify the aircratfs through the maunfacturing batch of these forks/

sodbuster · Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:59 am

GOL -800 is now at VCV. -700 coming in 5 days. Korean -900's to be repaired in 2 weeks. Repair to take 14 days.

727Man · Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:01 pm

foxtrotbravo21 wrote:
these pickle fork issues is most likely from a manufacturing fault ie in the heating of the forks or the metal mix which resulted in its weakness. Hope Boeing can identify the aircratfs through the maunfacturing batch of these forks/

No, that was ruled out when line numbers above the initial batch of airplanes in the 900's were found with cracks. We were all hoping that was the case. It is believed to be a fatigue issue, but more analysis needs to be performed. The fail-safe strap underneath the pickle fork has also been found cracked where the pickle fork cracked, but not on all airplanes that have been found with pickle fork cracks.

planecane · Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:15 pm

727Man wrote:
foxtrotbravo21 wrote:
these pickle fork issues is most likely from a manufacturing fault ie in the heating of the forks or the metal mix which resulted in its weakness. Hope Boeing can identify the aircratfs through the maunfacturing batch of these forks/

We were all hoping that was the case.

On this forum, I don't think you can ever say "we were ALL hoping!"

highlanderfil · Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:05 pm

hiflyeras wrote:
highlanderfil wrote:
Glad I found this thread. As a super nervous flyer, I tend to favor the “get me off this plane, where is the nearest Amtrak station?” thought trail until the Xanax kicks in. I’ve got a few NG flights (DL and AK) coming up soon, so, naturally, my blood pressure has been somewhat elevated by this bit of news. Reading the opinions of the informed helps a lot.

Alaska's aircraft are spring chickens compared to many other airlines. Very few 'cycles' in comparison and one of the youngest fleets in the industry...only exceeded by two 'new' carriers (NK and F9)

N309AS (my AS548 bird) is 18+ years old.

This from MRO is reassuring, though: “ Alaska Airlines reports all 26 of its AD-covered aircraft were inspected, and none had cracks.” No idea, of course, if mine is among the 26.

n75jyv · Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:43 am

United has 40 737-700’s, average age 20 years and all, if I am not mistaken, second hand. What is the status of these planes?

Someone83 · Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:39 am

DYSK wrote:
Spacepope wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
I think, it is to early to speculate about the winglets as the culprit. Lots of older frames never had winglets. The SAS frame, not to be repaired, should be a 737-600, as they are being retired, and the 767-600 at SAS did not have winglets.

I recall a post earlier stating the SAS frame that was cracked and to be retired anyway in November as a -700.

From different sources in the nordic community the retired -700 was LN-RPK.

LN-RPK was scheduled for retirement in November anyway, so SAS will not spend any money on fixing this. So it has probably had its last flight with passengers

The other -700 found with cracks at SAS has winglets

SEU · Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:04 am

Ive seen that 40 737NGs are now grounded, 2 from SAS as well.

djm18 · Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:21 pm

I realize it is still early but wondering after the initial inspections, what is going to be the defined interval for checking the PFs and starting after how many cycles? I would assume it gets made part of the rolling C-Checks which many airlines use for the 737NG. And should it really be cycles as opposed to total flight hours?

ShamrockBoi330 · Tue Oct 15, 2019 10:38 pm

SEU wrote:
Ive seen that 40 737NGs are now grounded, 2 from SAS as well.

3 in Indonesia... think thats 18 identified !
Have there been more identified publicly?

The three grounded planes included one operated by state-run airlines Garuda Indonesia and two by private airlines Sriwijaya Air

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-1 ... 474260.htm

Jacob2877 · Thu Oct 17, 2019 1:28 pm

So the flight I’m taking on southwest this weekend is a 20 year old 737-700. I have to be honest. I’m a little freaked out due to the age. There’s no way to know that the aircraft has been inspected, correct? If it only flew 4 fc daily for 365/360 days a year it’s like 29990 fc. Any reassuring thoughts?

Thanks !

MIflyer12 · Thu Oct 17, 2019 2:58 pm

n75jyv wrote:
United has 40 737-700’s, average age 20 years and all, if I am not mistaken, second hand. What is the status of these planes?

United has some 737-700s that were delivered shiny new to CO. The subfleet of 40 is 17-22 years old, however. Planespotters.net doesn't show cycles.

exFWAOONW · Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:41 pm

Jacob2877 wrote:
So the flight I’m taking on southwest this weekend is a 20 year old 737-700. I have to be honest. I’m a little freaked out due to the age. There’s no way to know that the aircraft has been inspected, correct? If it only flew 4 fc daily for 365/360 days a year it’s like 29990 fc. Any reassuring thoughts?

Thanks !

They are finding the cracks (if any) before they fail. I flew on two DL 737-700s last week, didn't even cross my mind.

Spacepope · Thu Oct 17, 2019 6:29 pm

Jacob2877 wrote:
So the flight I’m taking on southwest this weekend is a 20 year old 737-700. I have to be honest. I’m a little freaked out due to the age. There’s no way to know that the aircraft has been inspected, correct? If it only flew 4 fc daily for 365/360 days a year it’s like 29990 fc. Any reassuring thoughts?

Thanks !

Reassuring? Well you're millions of times more likely to die in a car wreck on the way to the airport, so WN inspections should be the least of your worries.

Sleep tight!

solracfunk14 · Thu Oct 17, 2019 6:39 pm

Looks like GOL's 737 are already replacing the Pickle Fork. In this site is showing the video of PR-GTG at Victorville.

http://www.aeroin.net/video-mostra-troca-peca-trincada-boeing-737-gol/

hOMSaR · Thu Oct 17, 2019 6:51 pm

Jacob2877 wrote:
So the flight I’m taking on southwest this weekend is a 20 year old 737-700. I have to be honest. I’m a little freaked out due to the age. There’s no way to know that the aircraft has been inspected, correct? If it only flew 4 fc daily for 365/360 days a year it’s like 29990 fc. Any reassuring thoughts?

Thanks !

How do you know the age of the plane you’re flying this weekend? Southwest has a range of 73Gs, from the first one delivered right up to some built as recently as 2011.

lightsaber · Thu Oct 17, 2019 6:54 pm

highlanderfil wrote:
hiflyeras wrote:
highlanderfil wrote:
Glad I found this thread. As a super nervous flyer, I tend to favor the “get me off this plane, where is the nearest Amtrak station?” thought trail until the Xanax kicks in. I’ve got a few NG flights (DL and AK) coming up soon, so, naturally, my blood pressure has been somewhat elevated by this bit of news. Reading the opinions of the informed helps a lot.

Alaska's aircraft are spring chickens compared to many other airlines. Very few 'cycles' in comparison and one of the youngest fleets in the industry...only exceeded by two 'new' carriers (NK and F9)
N309AS (my AS548 bird) is 18+ years old.

This from MRO is reassuring, though: “ Alaska Airlines reports all 26 of its AD-covered aircraft were inspected, and none had cracks.” No idea, of course, if mine is among the 26.

Older aircraft had to be inspected early. Aircraft with fewer cycles are extremely low risk. The FAR said. Going from memory, 2,000 flight cycles. :old:

Anyone have the cycle count?

Lightsaber

djm18 · Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:14 pm

Great video which provides a unique look at the PF being removed, thanks for posting !!!

solracfunk14 wrote:
Looks like GOL's 737 are already replacing the Pickle Fork. In this site is showing the video of PR-GTG at Victorville.

http://www.aeroin.net/video-mostra-troca-peca-trincada-boeing-737-gol/

iamlucky13 · Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:40 pm

Jacob2877 wrote:
So the flight I’m taking on southwest this weekend is a 20 year old 737-700. I have to be honest. I’m a little freaked out due to the age. There’s no way to know that the aircraft has been inspected, correct? If it only flew 4 fc daily for 365/360 days a year it’s like 29990 fc. Any reassuring thoughts?

Thanks !

They are prioritizing the highest cycle aircraft for inspections, the majority of those are passing their inspections, and even those where cracks are being found could hypothetically be going for quite a while still until the cracks became critical. Plus, aircraft seldom get very close to their design limit wing loading in flight.

I hope you have a pleasant, stress free flight. Enjoy your trip!

kalvado · Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:45 pm

Spacepope wrote:
Jacob2877 wrote:
So the flight I’m taking on southwest this weekend is a 20 year old 737-700. I have to be honest. I’m a little freaked out due to the age. There’s no way to know that the aircraft has been inspected, correct? If it only flew 4 fc daily for 365/360 days a year it’s like 29990 fc. Any reassuring thoughts?

Thanks !

Reassuring? Well you're millions of times more likely to die in a car wreck on the way to the airport, so WN inspections should be the least of your worries.

Sleep tight!

Millions? Are you driving from the Moon?

Spacepope · Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:05 pm

kalvado wrote:
Spacepope wrote:
Jacob2877 wrote:
So the flight I’m taking on southwest this weekend is a 20 year old 737-700. I have to be honest. I’m a little freaked out due to the age. There’s no way to know that the aircraft has been inspected, correct? If it only flew 4 fc daily for 365/360 days a year it’s like 29990 fc. Any reassuring thoughts?

Thanks !

Reassuring? Well you're millions of times more likely to die in a car wreck on the way to the airport, so WN inspections should be the least of your worries.

Sleep tight!

Millions? Are you driving from the Moon?

total WN passenger enplanements vs passenger fatalities. In 2018 alone they carried 134 million vs how many fatalities?

kalvado · Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:17 pm

Spacepope wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Spacepope wrote:

Reassuring? Well you're millions of times more likely to die in a car wreck on the way to the airport, so WN inspections should be the least of your worries.

Sleep tight!

Millions? Are you driving from the Moon?

total WN passenger enplanements vs passenger fatalities. In 2018 alone they carried 134 million vs how many fatalities?

Since we're predicting future, using 1 crash per 10M flights is a reasonable assumption for well-run airline. 134M pax is about 1M flights, BTW.
There is about 1 fatality per 100M miles of road travel in US.
So statistically accurate statement is "10 mile drive to the airport is as likely to kill you as a single flight leg"
"Million times" assumes you need to drive from past Moon orbit.

ethernal · Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:59 pm

kalvado wrote:
Spacepope wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Millions? Are you driving from the Moon?

total WN passenger enplanements vs passenger fatalities. In 2018 alone they carried 134 million vs how many fatalities?

Since we're predicting future, using 1 crash per 10M flights is a reasonable assumption for well-run airline. 134M pax is about 1M flights, BTW.
There is about 1 fatality per 100M miles of road travel in US.
So statistically accurate statement is "10 mile drive to the airport is as likely to kill you as a single flight leg"
"Million times" assumes you need to drive from past Moon orbit.

Agree with your sentiment about millions of times better being wrong but your assumption implies a full plane fatality rate of 1 in 10M which hasn't been the case for US carriers in the past 15 years. It's more like 1 per 100M (there's about 10 million commercial flights per year) so you're off by an order of magnitude.

Jacob2877 · Thu Oct 17, 2019 10:07 pm

If anybody was wondering how I determine the age of the aircraft it is through using an application on my iPhone called flight radar 24. Kind of a neat application because it not only shows you flight route and information but you can sort through the legs of the aircraft over the last couple of months and potentially in the future as well

whisperjet727 · Thu Oct 17, 2019 10:13 pm

Jacob2877 wrote:
So the flight I’m taking on southwest this weekend is a 20 year old 737-700. I have to be honest. I’m a little freaked out due to the age. There’s no way to know that the aircraft has been inspected, correct? If it only flew 4 fc daily for 365/360 days a year it’s like 29990 fc. Any reassuring thoughts?

Thanks !

Call 1-800-USA-RAIL

sxf24 · Thu Oct 17, 2019 10:54 pm

I don’t think there’s a correlation to age. The oldest aircraft haven’t had issues, nor have the highest cycle ones.

solracfunk14 · Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:03 am

whisperjet727 wrote:
Jacob2877 wrote:
So the flight I’m taking on southwest this weekend is a 20 year old 737-700. I have to be honest. I’m a little freaked out due to the age. There’s no way to know that the aircraft has been inspected, correct? If it only flew 4 fc daily for 365/360 days a year it’s like 29990 fc. Any reassuring thoughts?

Thanks !

Call 1-800-USA-RAIL

I laughed hard here haha

kiowa · Sat Oct 19, 2019 1:29 pm

Spacepope wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Spacepope wrote:

Reassuring? Well you're millions of times more likely to die in a car wreck on the way to the airport, so WN inspections should be the least of your worries.

Sleep tight!

Millions? Are you driving from the Moon?

total WN passenger enplanements vs passenger fatalities. In 2018 alone they carried 134 million vs how many fatalities?

It’s also true that 100% of the airline fatalities in the US for the last 20 years has been on Southwest. Statistics are interesting aren’t they?

Spacepope · Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:28 pm

kiowa wrote:
Spacepope wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Millions? Are you driving from the Moon?

total WN passenger enplanements vs passenger fatalities. In 2018 alone they carried 134 million vs how many fatalities?

It’s also true that 100% of the airline fatalities in the US for the last 20 years has been on Southwest. Statistics are interesting aren’t they?

I seem to remember quite a few US airline fatalities about 19 years ago that were not WN, and just one yesterday in Alaska as well Might want to move those goalposts a bit.

kiowa · Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:10 pm

Spacepope wrote:
kiowa wrote:
Spacepope wrote:

total WN passenger enplanements vs passenger fatalities. In 2018 alone they carried 134 million vs how many fatalities?

It’s also true that 100% of the airline fatalities in the US for the last 20 years has been on Southwest. Statistics are interesting aren’t they?

I seem to remember quite a few US airline fatalities about 19 years ago that were not WN, and just one yesterday in Alaska as well Might want to move those goalposts a bit.

The “goalposts” specify airline fatalities not airplane fatalities. I am not aware of any recent airline fatalities in Alaska.

kalvado · Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:14 pm

kiowa wrote:
Spacepope wrote:
kiowa wrote:

It’s also true that 100% of the airline fatalities in the US for the last 20 years has been on Southwest. Statistics are interesting aren’t they?

I seem to remember quite a few US airline fatalities about 19 years ago that were not WN, and just one yesterday in Alaska as well Might want to move those goalposts a bit.

The “goalposts” specify airline fatalities not airplane fatalities. I am not aware of any recent airline fatalities in Alaska.

20 year goalposts include, at the very least, AA A300 from JFK, Colgan near Buffalo and wrong runway takeoff of RJ, don't remember details.

PhilMcCrackin · Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:15 pm

kiowa wrote:
Spacepope wrote:
kiowa wrote:

It’s also true that 100% of the airline fatalities in the US for the last 20 years has been on Southwest. Statistics are interesting aren’t they?

I seem to remember quite a few US airline fatalities about 19 years ago that were not WN, and just one yesterday in Alaska as well Might want to move those goalposts a bit.

The “goalposts” specify airline fatalities not airplane fatalities. I am not aware of any recent airline fatalities in Alaska.

There was one just yesterday on an overrun at Dutch Harbor. One of the props fractured and sent fragments through the fuselage that killed a pax. 121 operator.

Qf648 · Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:45 pm

Spacepope wrote:
Jacob2877 wrote:
So the flight I’m taking on southwest this weekend is a 20 year old 737-700. I have to be honest. I’m a little freaked out due to the age. There’s no way to know that the aircraft has been inspected, correct? If it only flew 4 fc daily for 365/360 days a year it’s like 29990 fc. Any reassuring thoughts?

Thanks !

Reassuring? Well you're millions of times more likely to die in a car wreck on the way to the airport, so WN inspections should be the least of your worries.

Sleep tight!

Yes but at least with the car you have some control over it.

Spacepope · Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:59 pm

kalvado wrote:
kiowa wrote:
Spacepope wrote:

I seem to remember quite a few US airline fatalities about 19 years ago that were not WN, and just one yesterday in Alaska as well Might want to move those goalposts a bit.

The “goalposts” specify airline fatalities not airplane fatalities. I am not aware of any recent airline fatalities in Alaska.

20 year goalposts include, at the very least, AA A300 from JFK, Colgan near Buffalo and wrong runway takeoff of RJ, don't remember details.

Plus the Alaska crash, plus East Coast Jetstream, plus American in Little Rock,... I count at least 477 in that time period, not counting 9/11. You can go ahead and add 217 more for the Egyptair flight that originated in the US.

kiowa · Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:10 pm

Colgan was in February of 2009 and therefore not in the last 20 years. Some of the other examples may be within 20 years but I doubt within 15 years. How bout this?

All US commercial airline fatalities within the past 15 years have been on Southwest Airlines as well as on a Boeing 737.

ethernal · Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:17 pm

kiowa wrote:
Colgan was in February of 2009 and therefore not in the last 20 years. Some of the other examples may be within 20 years but I doubt within 15 years. How bout this?

All US commercial airline fatalities within the past 15 years have been on Southwest Airlines as well as on a Boeing 737.

Did we enter a timewarp and unexpectedly land in 2029? Last time I checked, 2019 minus 20 is 1999...

It is true to say that there has only been one non-medical fatality on a major US passenger airline in the past 10 years and that was Southwest. This is the safest stretch of major airline safety in the US ever. Most of this is from the immense strides made in systems thinking of safety and the willingness to follow through implementing reforms. But some of it also comes to plain luck. There are numerous near-misses that could have resulted in major fatalities, and accidents like the Atlas Air crash show that we are not immune to crashes in modern airliners in the US.

kalvado · Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:17 pm

kiowa wrote:
Colgan was in February of 2009 and therefore not in the last 20 years. Some of the other examples may be within 20 years but I doubt within 15 years. How bout this?

All US commercial airline fatalities within the past 15 years have been on Southwest Airlines as well as on a Boeing 737.

it is 2019, so 2009 was well within "past 20 years"...
"past 10 years" would be a better bet - until Unalaska...

426Shadow · Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:50 pm

Qf648 wrote:
Spacepope wrote:
Jacob2877 wrote:
So the flight I’m taking on southwest this weekend is a 20 year old 737-700. I have to be honest. I’m a little freaked out due to the age. There’s no way to know that the aircraft has been inspected, correct? If it only flew 4 fc daily for 365/360 days a year it’s like 29990 fc. Any reassuring thoughts?

Thanks !

Reassuring? Well you're millions of times more likely to die in a car wreck on the way to the airport, so WN inspections should be the least of your worries.

Sleep tight!

Yes but at least with the car you have some control over it.

Unless someone swerves into oncoming traffic at which point you are out of control.

lightsaber · Sun Oct 20, 2019 1:28 am

Folks the topic is 737 pickle forks. Please stay on topic.

kiowa · Sun Oct 20, 2019 1:52 pm

[twoid][/twoid]

kalvado wrote:
kiowa wrote:
Colgan was in February of 2009 and therefore not in the last 20 years. Some of the other examples may be within 20 years but I doubt within 15 years. How bout this?

All US commercial airline fatalities within the past 15 years have been on Southwest Airlines as well as on a Boeing 737.

it is 2019, so 2009 was well within "past 20 years"...
"past 10 years" would be a better bet - until Unalaska...

You are correct. My mistake. And neither fatality was caused by the pickle fork issue.

kalvado · Sun Oct 20, 2019 1:59 pm

kiowa wrote:
[twoid][/twoid]
kalvado wrote:
kiowa wrote:
Colgan was in February of 2009 and therefore not in the last 20 years. Some of the other examples may be within 20 years but I doubt within 15 years. How bout this?

All US commercial airline fatalities within the past 15 years have been on Southwest Airlines as well as on a Boeing 737.

it is 2019, so 2009 was well within "past 20 years"...
"past 10 years" would be a better bet - until Unalaska...

You are correct. My mistake. And neither fatality was caused by the pickle fork issue.

True, there are no pickle fork related fatalities YET. And Boeing is working to keep that "yet" there forever - as they should. Addressing the problem in a timely manner, so that the those cracks don't come to " adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane and result in loss of control of the airplane" as AD describes it.

PW100 · Sun Oct 20, 2019 4:16 pm

Qf648 wrote:
Spacepope wrote:
Jacob2877 wrote:
So the flight I’m taking on southwest this weekend is a 20 year old 737-700. I have to be honest. I’m a little freaked out due to the age. There’s no way to know that the aircraft has been inspected, correct? If it only flew 4 fc daily for 365/360 days a year it’s like 29990 fc. Any reassuring thoughts?

Thanks !

Reassuring? Well you're millions of times more likely to die in a car wreck on the way to the airport, so WN inspections should be the least of your worries.

Sleep tight!

Yes but at least with the car you have some control over it.

Which (without realizing) is actually the most scariest part of all . . .

Mostly · Tue Oct 22, 2019 10:10 pm

By now, someone knows about numbers and types affected, the range of flight cycles, likely future ADs and temporary repair vs long term solution to the issue.

The last part is pretty important for appraising the value of an airline’s fleet (which airlines borrow against). Boeing may try to make this go away by just swapping in new versions of the same part. If so, a lot of book value evaporates for the global fleet of NGs

mjoelnir · Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:50 pm

lightsaber wrote:
highlanderfil wrote:
hiflyeras wrote:

Alaska's aircraft are spring chickens compared to many other airlines. Very few 'cycles' in comparison and one of the youngest fleets in the industry...only exceeded by two 'new' carriers (NK and F9)
N309AS (my AS548 bird) is 18+ years old.

This from MRO is reassuring, though: “ Alaska Airlines reports all 26 of its AD-covered aircraft were inspected, and none had cracks.” No idea, of course, if mine is among the 26.

Older aircraft had to be inspected early. Aircraft with fewer cycles are extremely low risk. The FAR said. Going from memory, 2,000 flight cycles.

Anyone have the cycle count?

Lightsaber

over 30,000 cycles inspections inside the week after the AD.

inside 1,000 cycles or flights for frames between 22,600 cycles up to 29,999 cycles

It seems that quite few airlines have not been waiting with inspecting the over 22,600 cycle frames.

LGeneReese · Wed Oct 23, 2019 2:38 am

mjoelnir wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
highlanderfil wrote:
N309AS (my AS548 bird) is 18+ years old.

This from MRO is reassuring, though: “ Alaska Airlines reports all 26 of its AD-covered aircraft were inspected, and none had cracks.” No idea, of course, if mine is among the 26.

Older aircraft had to be inspected early. Aircraft with fewer cycles are extremely low risk. The FAR said. Going from memory, 2,000 flight cycles.

Anyone have the cycle count?

Lightsaber

over 30,000 cycles inspections inside the week after the AD.

inside 1,000 cycles or flights for frames between 22,600 cycles up to 29,999 cycles

It seems that quite few airlines have not been waiting with inspecting the over 22,600 cycle frames.

Given how relatively quick and easy the inspections are, why would anyone wait. To be one of the first to publicly announce “Our entire fleet is crack free” would be a PR plus.

ShamrockBoi330 · Fri Oct 25, 2019 5:10 am

South Korea grounds 9

https://www.euronews.com/2019/10/25/sou ... ith-cracks

majano · Fri Oct 25, 2019 5:33 am

ShamrockBoi330 wrote:
South Korea grounds 9

https://www.euronews.com/2019/10/25/sou ... ith-cracks

9 of 42 is a much higher proportion (21%) than the +-5% we have seen so far. Are there some thoughts about factors specific to Korean leading to this?

mjoelnir · Fri Oct 25, 2019 11:27 am

majano wrote:
ShamrockBoi330 wrote:
South Korea grounds 9

https://www.euronews.com/2019/10/25/sou ... ith-cracks

9 of 42 is a much higher proportion (21%) than the +-5% we have seen so far. Are there some thoughts about factors specific to Korean leading to this?

We can still get in frames with cracks. Frames with cycles between 22,600 and 29,999 have 1,000 cycles to complete the checks.

djm18 · Sat Oct 26, 2019 5:12 am

They seems to have more -900s in their fleet which seems to be the planes affected.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net