...or year, perhaps? The horrible runway incursion collision at Haneda, Tokyo on Jan 2.

The day before, an unconscious man, who ultimately passed away, is found after he encroached the airfield at Salt Lake City Int'l, then crawled inside an engine of a plane being de-iced. Fox59

Then yesterday, an exit door on an Alaska Airlines 737-9 MAX separates about 20 minutes into the flight. This was a "plug" style door that should have never failed this way, on a plane only 10 weeks old. Alaska has now grounded its entire fleet of 737-9s. Flight Radar 24

Not just Alaska. The FAA has temporarily grounded all 737-9 MAXs.

How does a complete door assembly separate from the airframe. Seriously.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
How does a complete door assembly separate from the airframe. Seriously.

My guess is rubbish fasteners. I think they'll find out when they look at/test the ones made right at the same time frame. Supplier issue, that's my guess.

For bonus points, (not that we'll ever know) I'm gonna throw in a China-at-the-root-of-it spin.

Even more confusing as I believe it wasn't a "real" door, but a permanent plug for an unused and deactivated emergency exit.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:

The day before, an unconscious man, who ultimately passed away, is found after he encroached the airfield at Salt Lake City Int'l, then crawled inside an engine of a plane being de-iced. Fox59

Local news said he had a history of mental health issues, parents were interviewed.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Not just Alaska. The FAA has temporarily grounded all 737-9 MAXs.

Well....respectfully disagree. Not ALL 737 Max -9's have been grounded, as all articles I've read state "some".

I believe what constitutes "some" are those airframes that have yet to be processed through what would be called a "B Check". So if a Max -9 airframe has had enough cycles/time on it to have been processed through a B Check, then it could...could...be bypassed for this inspection; I'm sure all airlines are looking at the risk/reward or cost/benefit data to determine if they'll inspect all or some. I believe in my airline's fleet, there are Max -9 airframes that fall into this category, i.e., they HAVE received a B Check inspection.

If the traveling public were smart and possessed two neurons to rub together, they would pay GREAT HEED to the safety demonstration the Flight Attendants so professionally present from here on out instead of having their faces buried in their f---ing phones and tablets. We do that sh*t for a reason, and Alaska was the poster child of exactly WHY. But as we know, the "common man" has the attention span of a Tse Tse Fly. Probably shorter...

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
Even more confusing as I believe it wasn't a "real" door, but a permanent plug for an unused and deactivated emergency exit.

That is correct, kkina. It's just a plug. It's not like an over-the-wing emergency exit door that hinges out and up like a gull wing door. When the Max -10's are built, however, that plug will be replaced by an emergency exit door that has an automatically inflating emergency slide.

Juan Browne, as usual, as an excellent presentation and perspective...

If I understand the design of the plug door (which I admittedly don't probably), then the 4 fitting bolts would have to fail before the door could move upwards the requisite 4 cm in order to clear the stop fittings and allow the door to jettison.

However, there shouldn't be any direct cabin pressure force on the fitting bolts themselves, since they only function as retaining pins. Even sub-quality bolts would hold. The only thing left is their absence altogether. If someone had simply neglected to install them in the first place, it wouldn't be easily detected being hidden by the cabin's interior molding. Then it would only be a matter of time and vibration until the door crept high enough to bypass capture.

I wonder what the plug door directly opposite the portside door looks like? Maybe it's missing bolts as well. I know they're checking all 737-9s. Maybe that's what they're checking for?

In this case a better term would be "Emergency Door Delete Option".

Aircraft is on the line being assembled, this specific hull is designated sold to Alaskan Airlines.

It is configured for X number of seats, and therefore the company (Alaskan) does not require the extra exit(s), and the plain is scheduled to be "plugged" for that exit/hull station/location.

So, instead of all the components to install a "emergency door" at that station, a "plug", (components to create a permanent bulkhead seal) in place of the emergency door. So, outer skin, inner bulkhead to create a proper structural sealed hull component.

It is done on a great number of aircraft types.


In this case, all aspects of this application will be reviewed, the "fastening hardware" will be most critical. But, all components, their installation tech data, methods and procedures will be reviewed.

There is a great deal of layers to aircraft design, manufacture, deployed "options" and operations/maintenance after delivery.

What you see from the 6 o'clock news, and what you see in the world where knowledgeable people actually "touch the parts" of the aircraft, in a "biblical way", is very different.

While aviation incidents and accidents sometimes happen in clusters like this, the rate is still far lower than ground transportation. Also, incidents and accidents directly caused by the design of the aircraft are even more rare.

As stated above, this isn't a plug door, it is a straight up plug. The door option wasn't purchased. Boeing cuts the opening anyway because the next buyer may want additional seats which would require that the plug be removed and an emergency exit added. I suspect it is also more efficient to make all the hulls the same.

As for plug type doors, they are widely used and very reliable. This plug should have been even more so.

Monday morning quarterbacking is not something aviation is a fan of but in this case nobody died, the crew handled it well, and it is more a manufacturing issue so here goes. I suspect someday didn't install it right, not enough bolts, the wrong fasteners, something of this vein.

The entire fleet of Max 9's was grounded so each could be inspected. I heard it was a 4-8 hour inspection and then returned to flight. I saw on the flight aware tracker that they are flying again so I think this is a one off event.

Hadena was a miracle. If you watched the video that big airliner touched down pretty early in the touchdown zone. That means it hit that Dash8 with all the wheels on the ground. The Dash 8 was positioned near a fairly normal part of the touchdown zone, if the A350 had still been flying when it hit the death toll would likely been massive.

The Bone I chalk up to it just happens sometimes. I read that the weather was dog shit and they were "encouraged" not to fly. First off I never met a flight engineer who wouldn't rather take his flight pay sitting drinking coffee in the hangar than go flying on a shitty, cold, early, late day. (that is an aviation joke, old chiefs used to tell me that one hour after they hit the monthly flight time to get paid they were now taking a pay cut lol)

Military aviation needs to fly, for the most part. They need to fly when it's bad. Because they may have to. Commercial airlines can wx cancel easily, the military can't to the same degree. I read at least one account that said they were on fire so who knows at this point? I won't Monday morning this one.

Very low death toll for 3 big events. Not a win exactly (5 dead) but certainly something to be thankful for.

Just to be clear, I was using the term "plug door" for lack of a better term. I'm familiar with its basic design and the options the end customer has on this aircraft model.

quote:

Hadena was a miracle.

That's "Haneda". Being we're all about correct terminology today.

I’m glad you know the difference but I wasn’t even commenting to you.

Haneda was a miracle. No comment other than I misspelled it. Hell you put it in a separate post.

You seem to be the one on edge. Haneda, Haden’s, Hawaii, Hadena, I never been to any of them, it’s called a misspelling.

Edited to add: Like I said, I don’t know why you appear to be singling out my comments. I just added information and an actual professional viewpoint from an actual aviator of Boeing 737 Max aircraft. If you don’t want to read them then move on, but don’t call me out. Please. Para asked me to be nice but calling out my misspelled word “since we are being all about terminology today” doesn’t help.

Wonder how many peoples shoes got sucked out when that thing opened. One of the reasons I never take my shoes off on a plane and that I wear proper footwear when traveling. You just never know when SHTF

If you examine my previous comment, you'll see I posted only the quote, and not the person who wrote it. That was intentional. I was responding only to the text, not its author.

It's the humidity

It is a one page thread. I think it is pretty apparent who you are quoting from two posts away. Whatever. Spell check me all day if it makes you happy. I would prefer to respond to you actually commenting on the thread but life is full of disappointment.

Anyway back on topic. As a lifelong aviator I always tell my family to pick footwear that they could escape in. Potentially through burning fuel, broken glass, jagged metal. I mainly say this to the ones that like flip flops because it is easy to get through security with them on. Now this might be taking it too far and I accept that but I also tend to wear cotton or natural fibers if at all possible. I remember the photos from Tenerife (I didn't check the spelling Kina) of passengers wandering around with ripped clothing that had literally melted in the heat. Cotton ain't perfect but it is better than polyester.

quote:

Originally posted by r0gue:

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
How does a complete door assembly separate from the airframe. Seriously.

My guess is rubbish fasteners. I think they'll find out when they look at/test the ones made right at the same time frame. Supplier issue, that's my guess.

For bonus points, (not that we'll ever know) I'm gonna throw in a China-at-the-root-of-it spin.

Point taken, but that begs the question of who at Boeing is inspecting parts and working with the supplier on subpar components.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:

Anyway back on topic. As a lifelong aviator I always tell my family to pick footwear that they could escape in. Potentially through burning fuel, broken glass, jagged metal. I mainly say this to the ones that like flip flops because it is easy to get through security with them on. Now this might be taking it too far and I accept that but I also tend to wear cotton or natural fibers if at all possible. I remember the photos from Tenerife (I didn't check the spelling Kina) of passengers wandering around with ripped clothing that had literally melted in the heat. Cotton ain't perfect but it is better than polyester.

I do all of my flying (now only several flights/yr since retirement) in substantial hiking books, denim jeans and a long sleeve Bulwark FR shirt. This is a direct result of having attended a safety seminar back in 1997. Sponsored by the FAA's WINGS program, the speaker was Al Haynes, the pilot of United Airlines' ill-fated Flight 232 in 1989. He spoke at length about being prepared for worst case scenarios when in the air. It really struck a chord with me.
Yes, it's a hassle going through security. But I can deal with the minor aggravation, for the potential benefits should Murphy strike.