Pictures surfacing of 777X Sept Test Failure - they are Bad.

I saw a quick clip on CNBC but no articles yet.

It failed just behind the wing splitting the lower lobe - it wasn't "Just" a door failure. But could have been as a result of that.

Boeing caught lying again?

Maybe I am naïve, but isn't this the purpose of the test? Find the faults and fix them? I do understand that perhaps this wasn't expected to fail at all though.

Yes they are expected to fail - I think the bigger part of the story will be Boeing downplaying the story.

Pictures https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... uffer_tw_m

Cool you can pull 3.74G's in the 777X before the frame fails!

What exactly do you want Boeing to say? Do you think any company is going to trash talk their own product? Neither Boeing or Airbus (or any other aircraft manufacturer) even take swipes at each other. It was a stress test and and it did exactly what it was intended to do. Find the weak points. If you can do better and promise a flawless result the first time then I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.

So there was a failure 3x at what is ever expected in the most extreme real life situation ever.

Why is this stuff news?

BlatantEcho wrote:

So there was a failure 3x at what is ever expected in the most extreme real life situation ever.

Why is this stuff news?

How do you get 3X? Ultimate load is 1.5X expected maximum in-service load.

BlatantEcho wrote:

So there was a failure 3x at what is ever expected in the most extreme real life situation ever.

Why is this stuff news?

Because the failure was catastrophic and not just door blowing off?

morrisond wrote:

Yes they are expected to fail - I think the bigger part of the story will be Boeing downplaying the story.

Naah, I guess Boeing‘s press department just mixed it up. Instead of writing “the crack is as big as a cargo door” they published “it was a cargo door”
Happens....

I hope aviation engineers can weigh in, but the keel of an airplane is one of the things that should never-ever fail. To be fair to Boeing, the article states they chose to stress the frame beyond what was required, (simultaneously stressing the wings and keel under high cabin pressure)...but the final analysis will be interesting. What are the FAA requirements for G-loading of the keel during non-normal operations?

morrisond wrote:

Yes they are expected to fail - I think the bigger part of the story will be Boeing downplaying the story.

Pictures https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... uffer_tw_m

It failed within one percent of plan which means they will do a little strengthening here and there and call it a day. This was just another step in the certification process and seems like the airframe did exactly what it was supposed to do...show Boeing where there are any weaknesses at FAR beyond anything you will run into with passenger service.

Airbus had to do the same thing in 2006 when the A380 wings failed at just under their design max.

Yes it sucks, yes it wasn't planned, yes it was not released as extreme as the pictures show (name one decent sized company anywhere that doesn't do this?) but in the end this is precisely why they're physically tested and not just completely dependent on computer models. My biggest concern on this and the 787 is that we're still figuring out metal fatigue (73N pickle fork issue) what do we not know about CFRP fatigue behavior?

morrisond wrote:

Boeing caught lying again?

Given the recent responses, the answer appears to be "no". Of greater importance is why some in the aviation community, in this thread and others, are prone to either assume or imply the worst with only one manufacturer while totally devoid of facts. That probably deserves a name, perhaps "Boeing Derangement Syndrome"?

Companies always downplay issues and bad news. Are some of you guys that naive?

This is a test. It failed, so Boeing is working to fix it. This is precisely the point of the these tests. Certification tests never have 100% pass rates by any company, there are always issues that crop up. Also keep in mind this was testing at high stress. Even a relatively minor fixable issue can cause some serious damage that makes things look worse than the situation actually is.

I prefer to get to know the truth over polished downplayed versions. I am ready to accept that tests can fail, no drama, but I want to know what exactly failed and what is done afterwards. So openness is best even indirect one like this time.

morrisond wrote:

It failed just behind the wing splitting the lower lobe - it wasn't "Just" a door failure. But could have been as a result of that.

If the failure was because of a door failure than technically it was “just” a door failure. The cause of the failure is the important part of these tests and what actually matters, not the full extent of the structural damage after the failure (although that can provide clues on how to best fix the issue). No structural damage is acceptable.

morrisond wrote:

Yes they are expected to fail - I think the bigger part of the story will be Boeing downplaying the story.

Pictures https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... uffer_tw_m

Don't take this the wrong way because I mean no disrespect. But did you read the entire article or just get caught up in the picture the second half of the article explains in full detain why this failure happen. Below is a small portion of the second half of the article and the extreme conditions this test frame was subjected even The Seattle Times concedes that the maximum G forces of a normal flight is 1.3 G whereas this test frame ultimately failed at 3.75 G.

Here is a copy and past of part of the second half of the article.
"As the test neared its climax, weighted pulleys had bent the jet’s giant carbon composite wings upward more than 28 feet from their resting position. That’s far beyond the expected maximum deflection in normal flight of about 9 feet, according to a person familiar with the details.

At the same time, the fuselage was bent downward at the extreme front and aft ends with millions of pounds of force. And the interior of the plane was pressurized beyond normal levels to about 10 pounds per square inch — not typically a requirement for this test, but something Boeing chose to do.

All this simulated the loads in a flight maneuver where a pilot would experience a force of 3.75 G, compared to the maximum of 1.3 G in normal flight.

The combination of the bending forces on the wing and fuselage created a high compression load on the bottom centerline of the fuselage — the keel — according to the person, who asked for anonymity because the details are sensitive."

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... uffer_tw_m

If the failure occurred at a lower percentage of the ultimate load, then maybe this story would be something to be concerned about. However, according to the article, this failure occurred at 99% of the load limit they test (1.48x of 1.5x).

Polot wrote:

morrisond wrote:

It failed just behind the wing splitting the lower lobe - it wasn't "Just" a door failure. But could have been as a result of that.

If the failure was because of a door failure than technically it was “just” a door failure. The cause of the failure is the important part of these tests and what actually matters, not the full extent of the structural damage after the failure (although that can provide clues on how to best fix the issue). No structural damage is acceptable.

I'm quite aware that stuff like this happens.

It's more a failure of the Seattle Times who initially reported it was just a door failure.

Going back reading Boeing's statements they actually didn't say much.

Even the article states:

“Yet the fix is very unlikely to require a retest.

A safety engineer at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), speaking anonymously without permission from the agency, said that because the blowout happened so close to the target load, it barely counts as a failure.”

Come on people!! READ a little.

What strikes me as odd is the fact the fuselage was pressurized to much more than standard. Just from a layman’s perspective, is it possible that was done to stiffen the fuselage? Could an engineer chime in with the net effects of the extra pressure on the test?

Why would extra pressure represent a worst case scenario if it’s not possible due to pressure relief valves in service, and it actually stiffens, or strengthens the tube during a loading test?

scbriml wrote:

BlatantEcho wrote:

So there was a failure 3x at what is ever expected in the most extreme real life situation ever.

Why is this stuff news?

How do you get 3X? Ultimate load is 1.5X expected maximum in-service load.

Uhm, read the article?

I’m really not too fussed over it that’s the truth. The A380 failed at about 1.45 if I remember correctly. I don’t know if there was a retest. But I wouldn’t be so bothered on it

BlatantEcho wrote:

scbriml wrote:

BlatantEcho wrote:

So there was a failure 3x at what is ever expected in the most extreme real life situation ever.

Why is this stuff news?

How do you get 3X? Ultimate load is 1.5X expected maximum in-service load.

you

Uhm, read the article?

To be fair, the plane was pressurized to a greater extent (3X) than required for certification, but it failed before reaching the required load (1.5X) so you are both partially right.

For people asking why the failure matters since the problem happens at such an extreme condition that is so far beyond the maximum in-service load. Because extreme conditions do happen in flight. The plane is expected to fly for 20 or even 30 years. With hundreds of 777X each flying 20 to 30 years, no matter how small the probability is, such an extreme condition is bound to happen on one of the 777X within their service time. Yes, this failure happen when the load applied is almost at the maximum certification requirement. But it still means it fails the requirement. It's not a test that is nice-to-have.

Boeing used to build very sturdy plane that doesn't fail even it is flying way beyond the maximum certification requirement. The 747SP in Flight CI006 experienced 5G and while there were severe structural damage, the plane (and its passengers) survived. Boeing needs to do some soul searching and remembers that incident.

It ruptured the fuselage skin aft of the wing and blew out a plug type door at 1.48x load. 1.5x was the target. The fuselage was pressurized beyond what was required for the test.

FAA says Boeing likely doesn't have to redo the test

The point here is that it went far worse than what Boeing admitted back when it happened. It's just now that Seattle Times got hold of the photographs they've told the truth.

Still, it's likely not a big deal with regards to certification.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ress-test/

airbazar wrote:

santi319 wrote:

A safety engineer at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), speaking anonymously without permission from the agency, said that because the blowout happened so close to the target load, it barely counts as a failure.”

Then why does he want to remain anonymous?
The days when Boeing and FAA could canoodle under the blankets and keep stuff like this secret from their clients are over. I guarantee you the customers are knocking on Boeing's door demanding a re-test or their money back.

He wants to remain anonymous because speaking to the media without permission is a quick way to get yourself fired, even in government (the FAA).

raylee67 wrote:

Yes, this failure happen when the load applied is almost at the maximum certification requirement. But it still means it fails the requirement. It's not a test that is nice-to-have.

No one claimed that it passed the test despite the failure below certification requirements-it didn’t. Boeing will have to make adjustments, but because of the failure point in the test computer modeling will probably be sufficient versus a retest (just like Airbus did when the A380 failed the wing test- they did not do a retest).

jayunited wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Yes they are expected to fail - I think the bigger part of the story will be Boeing downplaying the story.

Pictures https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... uffer_tw_m

Don't take this the wrong way because I mean no disrespect. But did you read the entire article or just get caught up in the picture the second half of the article explains in full detain why this failure happen. Below is a small portion of the second half of the article and the extreme conditions this test frame was subjected even The Seattle Times concedes that the maximum G forces of a normal flight is 1.3 G whereas this test frame ultimately failed at 3.75 G.

Here is a copy and past of part of the second half of the article.
"As the test neared its climax, weighted pulleys had bent the jet’s giant carbon composite wings upward more than 28 feet from their resting position. That’s far beyond the expected maximum deflection in normal flight of about 9 feet, according to a person familiar with the details.

At the same time, the fuselage was bent downward at the extreme front and aft ends with millions of pounds of force. And the interior of the plane was pressurized beyond normal levels to about 10 pounds per square inch — not typically a requirement for this test, but something Boeing chose to do.

All this simulated the loads in a flight maneuver where a pilot would experience a force of 3.75 G, compared to the maximum of 1.3 G in normal flight.

The combination of the bending forces on the wing and fuselage created a high compression load on the bottom centerline of the fuselage — the keel — according to the person, who asked for anonymity because the details are sensitive."

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... uffer_tw_m

It raises the question of why they would have added to the test conditions. It’s nice that they increased cabin pressure, but no one was giving them bonus points for that. Seems foolish.

raylee67 wrote:

For people asking why the failure matters since the problem happens at such an extreme condition that is so far beyond the maximum in-service load. Because extreme conditions do happen in flight. The plane is expected to fly for 20 or even 30 years. With hundreds of 777X each flying 20 to 30 years, no matter how small the probability is, such an extreme condition is bound to happen on one of the 777X within their service time. Yes, this failure happen when the load applied is almost at the maximum certification requirement. But it still means it fails the requirement. It's not a test that is nice-to-have.

Boeing used to build very sturdy plane that doesn't fail even it is flying way beyond the maximum certification requirement. The 747SP in Flight CI006 experienced 5G and while there were severe structural damage, the plane (and its passengers) survived. Boeing needs to do some soul searching and remembers that incident.

It has more to do with the fact that it provides a margin of safety for metal fatigue, production defects, and other affects over time, as well as a margin of safety for any unmodeled/unexplained forces, than it has to do with trying to build a plane that can survive a nosedive at terminal velocity.

SFOtoORD wrote:

jayunited wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Yes they are expected to fail - I think the bigger part of the story will be Boeing downplaying the story.

Pictures https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... uffer_tw_m

Don't take this the wrong way because I mean no disrespect. But did you read the entire article or just get caught up in the picture the second half of the article explains in full detain why this failure happen. Below is a small portion of the second half of the article and the extreme conditions this test frame was subjected even The Seattle Times concedes that the maximum G forces of a normal flight is 1.3 G whereas this test frame ultimately failed at 3.75 G.

Here is a copy and past of part of the second half of the article.
"As the test neared its climax, weighted pulleys had bent the jet’s giant carbon composite wings upward more than 28 feet from their resting position. That’s far beyond the expected maximum deflection in normal flight of about 9 feet, according to a person familiar with the details.

At the same time, the fuselage was bent downward at the extreme front and aft ends with millions of pounds of force. And the interior of the plane was pressurized beyond normal levels to about 10 pounds per square inch — not typically a requirement for this test, but something Boeing chose to do.

All this simulated the loads in a flight maneuver where a pilot would experience a force of 3.75 G, compared to the maximum of 1.3 G in normal flight.

The combination of the bending forces on the wing and fuselage created a high compression load on the bottom centerline of the fuselage — the keel — according to the person, who asked for anonymity because the details are sensitive."

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... uffer_tw_m

It raises the question of why they would have added to the test conditions. It’s nice that they increased cabin pressure, but no one was giving them bonus points for that. Seems foolish.

Who knows - maybe the pressurization made the frame stiffer and harder to bend to failure. Think of an inflatable structure. But this is pure speculation and the opposite may be true.

An engineer's job is to aim for the certification requirement, no more, no less.

Less means you can't sell the airplane, more means you've made it too heavy... They were pretty close to the target here, so minor tweaks and reinforcements should be all it takes. That still means they need to analyse the failure, design a fix, test it in massive computer simulations and implement it, including in airframes that have already been built...

Impressive boom, however.

What's funny about the pressurization test is that it essentially takes the airframe to around 1 Bar of differential pressure, which equates to pressurizing the cabin to sea level atmospheric pressure in space...

.
I was told it was just a cargo door latch, A380 had something similar & there are no indications program could be delayed.





Are we serious ?! Airframe write-off. No wonder it became so quiet & everybody was looking the other way.

Everything is just fine, nothing to see here.... I recommend a solid root cause analyses, by FAA & JATR.

Hopefully it has nothing to do with overly aggressive Grandfathering of 77W Design & Requirements. I give it 50% chance.

keesje wrote:

Are we serious ?! Airframe write-off. No wonder it became so quiet & everybody was looking the other way.

Any failure at those stresses during the test would result in an airframe write-off. Did you seriously think “door failure” just mean the lock broke and the door popped open a little or something?

The A380’s failure also was an “airframe write off”

The main issue here is that they calculated it would withstand the test and it did not, therefore an assumption was wrong, how serious that is will have to be seen, it could be as simple as a part not made well or something more serious. Now they have managed to destroy this frame they might have to get a different one to do additional testing (either regulatory or for their own purposes) I am sure that is unhelpful. I M sure they will figure it out.

keesje wrote:

.
I was told it was just a cargo door latch, A380 had something similar & there are no indications program could be delayed.





Are we serious ?! Airframe write-off. No wonder it became so quiet & everybody was looking the other way.

Everything is just fine, nothing to see here.... I recommend a solid root cause analyses, by FAA & JATR.

Hopefully it has nothing to do with overly aggressive Grandfathering of 77W Design & Requirements. I give it 50% chance.

You and this grandfathering, put a stake in it already. The 777X really is no different to the development of the A345/A346 in terms of grand fathering. A345/6 had a much larger wing vs previous A340s, stretched fuselage and slapped on new engines.

You act grandfathering is a new technique employed by Boeing.

MoKa777 wrote:

If the failure occurred at a lower percentage of the ultimate load, then maybe this story would be something to be concerned about. However, according to the article, this failure occurred at 99% of the load limit they test (1.48x of 1.5x).

This is news because everything remotely negative concerning a Boeing aircraft right now is news. This is what happens when a company screws up as bad as they did with the MAX. It will get fixed. This is not the first time something like this has happened. Note, the A380 had a static test wing break between 1.45 and the target 1.5% target. “The failure occurred last Tuesday between 1.45 and 1.5 times the limit load at a point between the inboard and outboard engines,” says Airbus executive vice president engineering Alain Garcia. “This is within 3% of the 1.5 target, which shows the accuracy of the FEM.” He adds that the ultimate load trial is an “extremely severe test during which a wing deflection of 7.4m (24.3ft) was recorded”. This didn't make the mainstream news because Airbus hadn't suffered a monumental failure on the scale that Boeing inflicted on itself. People in the industry understand this.

TTailedTiger wrote:

What exactly do you want Boeing to say?

The truth, which is not simply that "a cargo door blew off." Boeing has had a troubling pattern of behavior lately, and really since the fake roll-out of the 787. They tried to dictate the timeline of 737-MAX reapproval publicly and were rebuffed by the FAA, the latest in a long string of misleading comments about the progress on that program. Now, they say that "a cargo door blew off" the test frame during an ultimate load test. They could have said that "the test frame failed at greater than 99% of the maximum load" and that would have been much less misleading.

I am seriously concerned for Boeing if their management keeps instructing their PR department to make misleading statements. And given that these misleading statements can impact Boeing's stock price, there could even be criminal matters at play here. They need to watch their collective mouth.

It would have been much less damaging if Boeing had just told everyone what happened. There would have been no need to leak these pics. But when these pics are leaked and show that Boeing's characterization of "a cargo door blew off" is so understated as to be dishonest, that just further hurts the company's credibility.

It's better to tell the truth, even if it makes you look bad, because lying and then the truth getting out (and it always gets out) is far worse.

EDIT: on review of Boeing's actual statement at the time of the incident, I retract the above post. I am leaving it up as a matter of honesty.

keesje wrote:

The test team followed all safety protocols and there were no reported injuries. The team is currently working to understand what happened and ensure the area is safe for work to continue.”

For work to continue !? Do you feel correctly informed?

There is really nothing wrong about that statement. The problem is you personally just want more information than you really have any right to, and you want it immediately.

Would prefer the statement said:

“We had a failure today. No one was hurt but it was really scary. The airframe looks like someone took a can opener to it, omg it is so bad what are we going to do? In light of this we are halting all work on the 77X. Obviously there is no point in continuing with the program. It should magically fix itself. If not we are trashing it.”

?

I'll never understand why so many people seem to want Boeing (or Airbus) to fail. This just makes no sense whatsoever for me.

BTW, I'm glad Boeing put its new product through a very rigorous test so that no hidden flaw would go unnoticed. If anything, this makes me even more confident that I'll fly in a very safe aircraft once the 777X is flying commercially worldwide.

N14AZ wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Yes they are expected to fail - I think the bigger part of the story will be Boeing downplaying the story.

Naah, I guess Boeing‘s press department just mixed it up. Instead of writing “the crack is as big as a cargo door” they published “it was a cargo door”
Happens....

That did not come from Boeing. The media jumped to conclusions. Today, the Seattle Times is admitting:

A day after the incident, based on incomplete information, The Seattle Times and other media outlets incorrectly reported that a cargo door had blown out.

Here is Boeing's actual statement, which was very short:
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-relea ... tem=130500

btfarrwm wrote:

I hope aviation engineers can weigh in, but the keel of an airplane is one of the things that should never-ever fail. To be fair to Boeing, the article states they chose to stress the frame beyond what was required, (simultaneously stressing the wings and keel under high cabin pressure)...but the final analysis will be interesting. What are the FAA requirements for G-loading of the keel during non-normal operations?

There is not a G-loading requirement for the keel. There is a limit load x factor of safety requirement, which is based on the loads generated in flight (as well as landing, which is another high load case for parts of the keel, and I presume tested by upward loads at the landing gear interfaces and downward (inertial) loads across the fuselage).

Also, keep in mind the keel area is structurally complicated in the area around the wheel well. The details provided suggest to me failure of the skin near the keel, not the keel-beam and related fittings, for example.

DocLightning wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

What exactly do you want Boeing to say?

The truth, which is not simply that "a cargo door blew off." Boeing has had a troubling pattern of behavior lately, and really since the fake roll-out of the 787. They tried to dictate the timeline of 737-MAX reapproval publicly and were rebuffed by the FAA, the latest in a long string of misleading comments about the progress on that program. Now, they say that "a cargo door blew off" the test frame during an ultimate load test. They could have said that "the test frame failed at greater than 99% of the maximum load" and that would have been much less misleading.

I am seriously concerned for Boeing if their management keeps instructing their PR department to make misleading statements. And given that these misleading statements can impact Boeing's stock price, there could even be criminal matters at play here. They need to watch their collective mouth.

It would have been much less damaging if Boeing had just told everyone what happened. There would have been no need to leak these pics. But when these pics are leaked and show that Boeing's characterization of "a cargo door blew off" is so understated as to be dishonest, that just further hurts the company's credibility.

It's better to tell the truth, even if it makes you look bad, because lying and then the truth getting out (and it always gets out) is far worse.

I think you need to look up more what Boeing actually said about the failure vs what the media said about the failure when first reported.

BlatantEcho wrote:

So there was a failure 3x at what is ever expected in the most extreme real life situation ever.

Why is this stuff news?

It was behind what was originally expected. Boeing being Boeing and downplaying it is what is concerning to me. I mean I can't blame them with simultaneous issues on the MAX, 787 Trent's and now this. But their level of transparency seems to be slipping.

DocLightning wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

What exactly do you want Boeing to say?

The truth, which is not simply that "a cargo door blew off." Boeing has had a troubling pattern of behavior lately, and really since the fake roll-out of the 787. They tried to dictate the timeline of 737-MAX reapproval publicly and were rebuffed by the FAA, the latest in a long string of misleading comments about the progress on that program. Now, they say that "a cargo door blew off" the test frame during an ultimate load test. They could have said that "the test frame failed at greater than 99% of the maximum load" and that would have been much less misleading.

I am seriously concerned for Boeing if their management keeps instructing their PR department to make misleading statements. And given that these misleading statements can impact Boeing's stock price, there could even be criminal matters at play here. They need to watch their collective mouth.

It would have been much less damaging if Boeing had just told everyone what happened. There would have been no need to leak these pics. But when these pics are leaked and show that Boeing's characterization of "a cargo door blew off" is so understated as to be dishonest, that just further hurts the company's credibility.

It's better to tell the truth, even if it makes you look bad, because lying and then the truth getting out (and it always gets out) is far worse.

I didn't know Boeing or any other company had any obligations to answer to the public. As far as I know they only answer to the regulators. And since this test exceeded government requirements, I still fail to see the outrage. If Boeing said they weren't going to worry about it or fix it then we might have cause for concern.

thewizbizman wrote:

BlatantEcho wrote:

So there was a failure 3x at what is ever expected in the most extreme real life situation ever.

Why is this stuff news?

It was behind what was originally expected. Boeing being Boeing and downplaying it is what is concerning to me. I mean I can't blame them with simultaneous issues on the MAX, 787 Trent's and now this. But their level of transparency seems to be slipping.

Boeing is responsible for RR's engine issues now? Do you hold Airbus responsible for the PW GTF issues?

Polot wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

What exactly do you want Boeing to say?

The truth, which is not simply that "a cargo door blew off." Boeing has had a troubling pattern of behavior lately, and really since the fake roll-out of the 787. They tried to dictate the timeline of 737-MAX reapproval publicly and were rebuffed by the FAA, the latest in a long string of misleading comments about the progress on that program. Now, they say that "a cargo door blew off" the test frame during an ultimate load test. They could have said that "the test frame failed at greater than 99% of the maximum load" and that would have been much less misleading.

I am seriously concerned for Boeing if their management keeps instructing their PR department to make misleading statements. And given that these misleading statements can impact Boeing's stock price, there could even be criminal matters at play here. They need to watch their collective mouth.

It would have been much less damaging if Boeing had just told everyone what happened. There would have been no need to leak these pics. But when these pics are leaked and show that Boeing's characterization of "a cargo door blew off" is so understated as to be dishonest, that just further hurts the company's credibility.

It's better to tell the truth, even if it makes you look bad, because lying and then the truth getting out (and it always gets out) is far worse.

I think you need to look up more what Boeing actually said about the failure vs what the media said about the failure when first reported.

I just did and I retract my criticism. What Boeing said was vague, but not inaccurate.

Bigfootz67 wrote:

MoKa777 wrote:

If the failure occurred at a lower percentage of the ultimate load, then maybe this story would be something to be concerned about. However, according to the article, this failure occurred at 99% of the load limit they test (1.48x of 1.5x).

This is news because everything remotely negative concerning a Boeing aircraft right now is news. This is what happens when a company screws up as bad as they did with the MAX. It will get fixed. This is not the first time something like this has happened. Note, the A380 had a static test wing break between 1.45 and the target 1.5% target. “The failure occurred last Tuesday between 1.45 and 1.5 times the limit load at a point between the inboard and outboard engines,” says Airbus executive vice president engineering Alain Garcia. “This is within 3% of the 1.5 target, which shows the accuracy of the FEM.” He adds that the ultimate load trial is an “extremely severe test during which a wing deflection of 7.4m (24.3ft) was recorded”. This didn't make the mainstream news because Airbus hadn't suffered a monumental failure on the scale that Boeing inflicted on itself. People in the industry understand this.

Notice the difference, in the Airbus case the damage was limited to a specific area of the wing. The pics of the fuselage show many structural components broken.

What's the test? Airliners have to take 2.5G, times a 1.5 safety factor?

For the new few years, any little thing that to the naive public doesn't seem "normal" will be front page headlines, even if it's not even newsworthy

The centre wing box on the 777X’s is made out of aluminium and titanium. In contrast, the centre wing box on the 787 is made out of CFRP and titanium. They are both made by Subaru, formerly known as Fuji Heavy Industries.

Interestingly, The A380 has a centre wing box made of CFRP (40% content) and aluminium/titanium, but the A380 still has metal wings. On the A350 and A400M, the centre wing boxes are also made of CFRP/aluminium/titanium, but the CFRP content has been increased to 50%.

Hence, it would appear as if the 777X is the first aircraft with large composite wings that is not using composites in its centre wing box.

So, the question is if the load-bearing properties of the 777X centre wing box has been compromised by not using composites in its structure?

Also, is this the first time that wings being tested at ultimate load (1.5 times the limit load) has resulted in the rupture of the fuselage instead of the wings themselves?

Perhaps, therefore, the 777X wing/centre-wing-box is rather a step backwards in the implementation of new composite technologies in civilian aircraft, since the next generation composite aircraft will, in all likelihood, have a single-piece composite wing box.

The single-piece composite centre wing box fully leverages advances in composite technologies, including the moulding of complex parts combined with continuous fibre. This makes it easier to assemble, and provides improved load-bearing properties.

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/en/2017/01/airbus-new-centre-wing-box-design-holds-great-promise-for-future-aircraft.html