Delta Airlines Boeing 737 makes emergency landing in Aruba after engine catches fire after takeoff

 

Delta flight DL581 with 168 passengers forced to make emergency landing in Aruba due to mechanical issue

The Boeing 737-900 pilot circled the Caribbean island four times before safely landing back on the ground because of a “mechanical issue.”

A representative from the airline informed DailyMail.com that the plane carried 168 passengers, along with four flight attendants and two pilots. Passengers had to stay an additional night in Aruba before being flown out on Wednesday.

“Delta flight DL581 from Aruba to Atlanta experienced a mechanical issue shortly after takeoff. It landed safely and returned to the gate uneventfully,” the spokesperson said. “Delta teams are working to get our customers to their final destinations as quickly and safely as possible and we apologize for the delay in their travels.”

One passenger talked about the incident on Reddit. They wrote that: “One of the engines blew up mid takeoff, we circled Aruba four times and emergency landed.”

One passenger mentioned that Delta covered the costs for hotels and meals during the delay. Another passenger reported hearing a ‘loud boom’ shortly after the flight took off.

“It sounded like it happened right after the landing gear went up. I thought at first one side of the gear got stuck and went up late.”

Passenger describes captain’s announcement during engine issue, Boeing continues to face challenges

The passenger mentioned that the captain used the announcement system to inform everyone that the left engine was on fire, but assured them it was under control. After conducting the required checks, the pilot decided to return to Aruba.

 https://insiderpaper.com/delta-airlines-boeing-737-makes-emergency-landing-in-aruba-after-engine-catches-fire/

"Absolutely Unacceptable" - Leaked Boeing Memo Shows 'Debris' Found In 737 MAX Fuel-Tanks

Please kill me. You're Boeing, you know you want to.Above is a 727. one of their best.

And the hits just keep on coming...

• Boeing...a name for safety and innovation, but since their merger with McDonnel Douglas, they make planes that break into three pieces and the exact same places, every time.
• They fall out of the sky.
• They intentionally try to crash themselves.
• And every part of the last two generations of the737 and other models, have so very many flaws, that are flat out, by themselves, deadly. You have to wonder... who would ever design, build and then sell to airlines, planes they know to be unsafe except on the ground with the engines off?

 The above isn't speculation, but well documented fact, with dozens and dozens of examples in each category to back up the point. Combined, you are literally on the flight of the Titanic, and rolling the dice.


With airline after airline pushing back their 'return-to-service' dates based on Boeing's total lack of clarity on the path forward for the 737 MAX, the troubled aircraft maker (and the troubled aircraft) now faces more problems.

According to an internal memo, seen by Reuters, Boeing found debris that could pose potential safety risks in the fuel tanks of several 737 MAX aircraft that are in storage and waiting to be delivered to airlines.
To be clear about what 'debris' means, Reuters  details that:

"an industrial term for rags, tools, metal shavings and other materials left behind by workers during the production process."

And notes that this 'debris' problem has been a quality control issue for various Boeing aircraft, such as its KC-46 tankers.

Foreign-object debris (FOD) “is absolutely unacceptable. One escape is one too many,” Mark Jenks, a Boeing vice president and general manager of the 737 program, said in a message to employees that was viewed by Reuters.
“With your help and focus, we will eliminate FOD from our production system,”

The FOD problem on the MAX was first reported Tuesday on Scott Hamilton’s Leeham.net aviation site:

“There’s a systemic issue with Boeing’s quality control that hasn’t been corralled yet,” said Hamilton in an interview.
“This is not related to the MAX crashes or exclusively a MAX issue. Boeing has these FOD issues on other airplane programs.”

A Boeing spokesman confirmed the memo’s authenticity; and Boeing now having to inspect more than 400 stored 737 Max jets, but Bernard Choi said “it’s still undecided if we will inspect the rest” of the MAX fleet - another 385 aircraft that were delivered to customers but have been grounded for almost a year and are parked at airfields around the world.

“Obviously, we’ll do what’s right for safety,” Choi added.

Boeing spokesman Chaz Bickers was, however, careful to claim that the company does not see the debris as contributing to delays in the jet’s return to service. (The inspections will take two to three days per aircraft. Fuel must be drained from the wings before a mechanic can go in and do a thorough check.)

The Federal Aviation Administration said it was aware that Boeing “is conducting a voluntary” inspection for debris in the undelivered aircraft “as part of the company’s ongoing efforts to ensure manufacturing quality.”

It may delay the airlines' decision to accept delivery of the jets though (as its not exactly reassuring to crew members and passengers of the company’s commitment to manufacturing quality and safety!)

Boeing 737s...deadlier than ever

One of the biggest flaws keeping Boeing's 737 MAX 8 grounded has nothing to do with AI and advanced flight-control software. Instead, it's an issue of whether all pilots will have enough upper body strength to turn a crank - a surprisingly low-tech hangup in a scandal that was catalyzed by malfunctioning software.

Boeing has scrambled to redesign the 737 MAX and its software to eliminate the safety flaws that contributed to the crash lawn darting of two jets in under six months from October to March. All told, 346 people died after the 737's MCAS anti-stall software misfired, driving the planes into deadly downward spirals, murdering all aboard. Not to mention the 12 NG 737s that crashed for the same reasons in 2018.

That's a lot of dead people. Not just TWO crashes, but a DOZEN. Max and NG.

However the real problem is the design of the plane, not the software. Which means the problems will not go away with a silly software upgrade ala Tesla Motors.

Now, the latest obstacle for Boeing, which hadn't been reported before WSJ published a story on Wednesday morning, appears to be convincing regulators that all pilots will possess the upper body strength to turn a crank that controls a panel in the rear of the plane. That panel, in turn, can change the angle of the plane's nose, potentially saving it from the types of malfunctions that afflicted the two planes that crashed. Apparently, during times of crisis, when the plane is moving unusually fast at an unusually steep angle, the crank can become extremely difficult to move.

What's worse for Boeing, not only is this safety procedure part of the 737 MAX 8, but its also present in the 6,000+ 737s from the prior generation of planes which are also in service. The question is whether regulators will request that this issue be fixed on those planes, too.
All of the 737 MAX’s underlying safety issues must be resolved before the FAA will unground the planes. At this point, Boeing is considering operational, training and pilot manual changes to resolve safety concerns (though, to be sure, there are no plans to restrict which pilots are allowed to fly what planes, based on sex, because that would be extremely sexist). Not that we need to tell you that.
With Boeing finding the first new buyer for its 737 MAX at the Paris Air Show, the company is probably optimistic that the day when the planes will be re-certified will soon arrive, especially given that the company officials were bribed to lay down the order, a common practice in aviation to encourage other sales by other airlines and governments.

REAL PROBLEMS OF THE 737. FROM THE PILOTS WHO FLY THEM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCPSXTE9Mg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoNOVlxJmow 

FROM THE INTERNET

So, this plane has hi tech software controlling its flight, but the pilot has to 'hand crank' a panel open to gain control over the software? Can't 'software' be used to help open the panel?

Or how about just training pilots to fly these things like we used to? Use the software to control things like the 'fasten your seat belts' lights, or to play the in-flight movie, but leave the actual FLYING to pilots?

There is such a determination to get 'tech' into everything. Tech needs to be kept in its place, as an ASSIST to humans, not to take over all functions. There should ALWAYS be an easy, fast way for a human operator to take control from a software program without compromising the operation. No system unable to be over-ridden should ever be permitted to operate, in ANY field.

Because as wonderful as these 'toys' may seem, in the end one must remember that they were designed and built by HUMANS. The same human 'flaws and faults' that the tech is supposedly compensating for are already present in the design, because it was built by those same humans. If planes have become so hi tech that pilots are having trouble with them, then it is unlikely that any software designed to fly these things will be any better at it...can any of the designers of this stuff even fly a plane at all? And have they?

This is the conundrum of tech. We look to it to solve our real-world problems, problems we have always struggled with. But we forget that it is really just another human invention, and as such cannot ever be 'better' at it than the humans who invented it. You can't get something perfect from something imperfect, period. If 'tech' is outperforming people, it isn't because the tech is better, its because the tech has made people lazy. The same way that giving a child a calculator will erode their math skills, to the point where they become dependent on the calculator to perform even basic functions and soon forget how to manually add, subtract, divide...The tech isn't 'better' than the child, the child has deteriorated to the point that the tech just LOOKS better. And the better the tech LOOKS, the less likely the child is to bother even trying to learn those basics. Why bother when they can hit a few buttons and get the answer?
-----------

A bit of bad news. Another 737 crash is hard by the door. And the cause...well, you know. Don't you? All the intel is right here on this blog. 

Frankly the Max is out of balance and only a redesign and Boeing to stop farming it out to illegal alien employee companies in the south will correct the problem.

Finally this and REMEMBER. Many of these crashes are QRS311 fly by wire remote takeovers, using the MCAS as the cover scapegoat. The Ethiopian crash was such a crash, as UN investigators were heading back to report on human trafficking in the Congo area. Those witness, some two dozen, were murdered all at once, in a single flight.  They couldn't pass up the opportunity to kill a bunch of stones with one drone flight.

Indeed MCAS is a stupid fix to a hardware design failure, but in some cases, these planes were never meant to arrive at destination. Because of who was on board. MH370 was just such an instance of this.
----------------