Boeing Knew About Flaws in UPS Plane That Crashed in Louisville, NTSB Says (nytimes.com)
- Reference: 0180588790
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/26/01/15/1859211/boeing-knew-about-flaws-in-ups-plane-that-crashed-in-louisville-ntsb-says
- Source link: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/14/us/louisville-crash-report.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ElA.uzHK.gEKJkRJZMkPW&smid=url-share
> The N.T.S.B. has said that cracks in the assembly holding the left-side engine in place may have contributed to the November crash, though it has not officially cited a cause. The part had fractured in similar fashion on at least four other occasions, on three different airplanes, according to the report, which cited a service letter that Boeing issued in 2011 regarding the apparent flaw.
>
> In the service letter, which manufacturers issue to flag safety concerns or other problems to aircraft owners, Boeing said that fractures "would not result in a safety of flight condition," N.T.S.B. investigators wrote. The plane that crashed was an MD-11F jet, made by McDonnell Douglas, a company that Boeing acquired in the 1990s. It was taking off from Louisville and bound for Hawaii on Nov. 4 when a fire ignited on its left engine shortly after takeoff.
>
> The plane crashed into several buildings, including a petroleum recycling facility, on the outskirts of the Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport. The three crew members on board and 11 people on the ground were killed in the crash; a 12th person on the ground died of injuries sustained during the episode.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/14/us/louisville-crash-report.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ElA.uzHK.gEKJkRJZMkPW&smid=url-share
and so did UPS and the FAA (Score:4, Insightful)
The headline is mostly click bait. more fair would be "industry and regulators knew about..."
These kind of inspection items exist all over the industry (and other industries including cars). Right now it's looking like UPS inspections missed the cracks at least once and possibly twice.
The modeling of this kind of tail risk and precise categorization is hard to judge for accuracy ...
anyway to me seems unfortunate but nothing like the MCAS facepalm. (as an interested layperson not in aerospace or specifically risk mgmt)
Re: (Score:2)
> Right now it's looking like UPS inspections missed the cracks at least once and possibly twice.
And by that, you mean that they did the inspection (which just requires looking at the part to see if there are visibly obvious cracks, and would not necessarily detect internal fracturing), and did not detect the cracks even though they were there (but may not have started at the surface, and may not have been visible).
This strongly points towards inspections not being a viable alternative to actually fixing a design flaw, or at least not adequate for this one. Regulators should have demanded that Boeing
Re: (Score:2)
Also, nobody wants to spend millions to redesign and retrofit parts for old crusty MD-11. If they go that route, they'll all get scrapped.
Less Click-Baity Article from Industry Press (Score:3)
> Regulators should have demanded that Boeing redesign the part to prevent the failure. One would hope they will now.
There is a bit of a nuance here that's best captured by [1]industry coverage with a less click-baity headline ("Boeing Warned Of MD-11 Part-Failure Risk In 2011, NTSB Finds") [aviationweek.com]:
> Boeing’s [2011] letter instructed operators to inspect the bearing as part of routine, repetitive pylon mount inspections, normally every 60 months. It also updated the MD-11 maintenance manual to reflect the new inspections. Boeing also recommended installing a different bearing that does not include a groove. But it does not caution against using an airworthy grooved bearing to replace an unserviceable one of the same design.
[1] https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/safety-ops-regulation/boeing-warned-md-11-part-failure-risk-2011-ntsb-finds
Re: (Score:2)
I concur fully! This clickbait headline takes advantage of the current plethora of failures that have plagued Boeing products following years of poor upper management.
Look at [1]the Wikipedia article on past Boeing leadership [wikipedia.org], specifically the entries covering the two decades from 1996 to 2015. If you start following links, you'll begin to see the root causes of many of the later disasters. And contrary to what you might hear from the mainstream media, the company has been turning itself around under the le
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing#Past_leadership
Re: (Score:2)
Especially given that the plane was nearly 35 years old at the time of crash. That is a really long time for commercial aircraft and at some point the risk has to shift more to maintenance than the manufacturer.
Re: (Score:2)
In part it depends on whether the cracks actually caused the crash and whether the NYT story is true. If Boeing really said the cracks wouldn't be a hazard to flight safety and it turns out they caused a crash, then they may be in trouble.
Once again... (Score:2)
> the manufacturer Boeing had previously concluded would not affect flight safety
The eternal optimism of business decisions.
Boeing has fallen so much (Score:2)
Boeing has fallen so much
Re: (Score:2)
You have to remember how Boeing got here. They took over McDonnell Douglas but the MD management philosophy (abandoning knowledge and engineering) took over Boeing.
Nationalize Boeing and they will take over the US government. Rather than fixing Boeing, this will cause the US to fail. One theory might be that the process has already begun.
Re: (Score:2)
This can all be definitely laid at the feet of Jack Welsh whose philosophy of greed has been a cancer on American businesses for years, long after he died. He infected McDonnell Douglas, and after the cancer killed them, Boeing bought the leftovers, only the the cancer wasn't dead and it infected them too, leading the MAX disaster and the subsequent problems they've been having ever since.
While I can't blame Jack Welsh for the design of the MD11 pylons, his influence later in the company's life prevented t