According to this Newsweek article - which seems like a reputable source - the FAA has issued a number of Airworthiness Directives to address stress fatigue concerns with the 737NG series:

Between 2000 and 2011, as the number of NG series in the air grew to more than 2,000, I identified 13 directives that specifically concerned cracking and fatigue issues in the model’s fuselage.

The article focuses on potential issues with the aft pressure bulkhead:

But the most alarming alert concerned involved a repeatedly troubled area called the aft pressure bulkhead (the rear portion of the cabin). In an Airworthiness Directive dated Nov. 5, 2001, the agency called for “immediate corrective action” to deal with a flaw in the aft pressure bulkhead [...] Four airlines had discovered, during checks, that if a 737 made a hard landing, damaging the main landing gear, or simply a certain kind of hard landing that led to shimmying, involving violent swerves on the runway (not uncommon in turbulent weather), the forces transmitted from that impact would end up damaging the aft pressure bulkhead, fatally jeopardizing the tailfin.

There were five alerts about problems with this bulkhead. [Prof. Tony] Ingraffea, after looking at the [details], told me in an email: “Skin cracking and aft bulkhead problems are clearly chronic.” [...] In a written memo to Newsweek, Boeing claimed that to say that there were “persistent problems” with the bulkhead is “not correct” but did not elaborate.

Based on the number of ADs (and any other relevant information), is Newsweek accurate in claiming that the 737 is more susceptible to stress fatigue than other, similar aircraft? Is the number of ADs for this issue unusual? Is there any measurably higher risk associated with flying in a 737 because of this issue?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ A comment discussion regarding this question has been moved to chat. $\endgroup$ – voretaq7 Apr 7 '16 at 20:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 737s tend to be used for short, frequent flights, so they accumulate fatigue cycles faster than longer-haul airplanes. Any answer will need to take this into account. $\endgroup$ – Mark Apr 7 '16 at 22:50
  • $\begingroup$ I suppose a simple answer is "is 13 AD/2000 aircraft flying" high, low, or average. Of course, someone would have to do the research... $\endgroup$ – FreeMan Feb 4 '19 at 13:58
  • $\begingroup$ One should not compare AD/number of planes, the relevant ratio is AD/aircraft type. Number of aircraft tells you how many people have been put at risk by underperforming designer/manufacturer, AD/type tells how competent the d/m organization is. Number of cycles and/or operating conditions are also not a very good excuse for AD's, as those factors should be taken into account during design phase. Of course the operator is responsible for careful handling of the planes... $\endgroup$ – Jpe61 Feb 6 at 20:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.