Comment by stouset
1 day ago
The engine that failed on the Southwest flight was a CFM International CFM56, which has also been used on multiple Airbus planes including the A320. 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. This could just as easily have happened on an A320.
This example only serves to highlight how popular narratives take hold and get reinforced by laypeople.
Boeing absolutely deserves to be raked through the coals over MCAS, over their deteriorating engineering culture, and over regulatory capture. But blame them for the things they actually carry responsibility for.
> 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/...
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.
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.
2 replies →