737 max loses window
Discussion
From the BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-6789956...
Looks like it was an emergency exit, but not configured as one from the BBC article. Is the 737 max just unlucky, or are there now further serious questions to ask? One off or indicative of poor production quality?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-6789956...
Looks like it was an emergency exit, but not configured as one from the BBC article. Is the 737 max just unlucky, or are there now further serious questions to ask? One off or indicative of poor production quality?
That looks like fun 
There was something in the news last week about missing bolts and something else (might have been the same bolts?) about inspections of a bolt in the tail after a bolt was found to be loose (I think)?
I have no idea how accurate that is as it wasn't read anywhere that specialises in aviation news it just the BBC or something similar.
There was something in the news last week about missing bolts and something else (might have been the same bolts?) about inspections of a bolt in the tail after a bolt was found to be loose (I think)?
I have no idea how accurate that is as it wasn't read anywhere that specialises in aviation news it just the BBC or something similar.
Another 737 Max too. This series of aircraft seem to be cursed. Luckily the passengers still appear to have had their seatbelts on. Apparently one lost his shirt as it was ripped off and out the side.
There will be questions to both Boeing and Alaska. Reports suggest there had been a pressurisation warning on the previous flight.
https://theaircurrent.com/feed/dispatches/alaska-7...
There will be questions to both Boeing and Alaska. Reports suggest there had been a pressurisation warning on the previous flight.
https://theaircurrent.com/feed/dispatches/alaska-7...
Edited by colin79666 on Saturday 6th January 08:47
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: That looks like fun
There was something in the news last week about missing bolts and something else (might have been the same bolts?) about inspections of a bolt in the tail after a bolt was found to be loose (I think)?
I have no idea how accurate that is as it wasn't read anywhere that specialises in aviation news it just the BBC or something similar.
https://airwaysmag.com/boeing-airlines-inspect-737-max-rudders/There was something in the news last week about missing bolts and something else (might have been the same bolts?) about inspections of a bolt in the tail after a bolt was found to be loose (I think)?
I have no idea how accurate that is as it wasn't read anywhere that specialises in aviation news it just the BBC or something similar.
I suppose it doesn't help much when the people in the US Senate who are overseeing the certification requirements of the MAX design can simply be lobbied by Boeing into extending their time scales to make it "easier, quicker, cheaper" for Boeing to certify new MAX 7 and 10 models and recertify the older MAX 8-9 models.
All of thais refers back to the faulty MCAS system, which Boeing still haven't actually "fixed" to the FAA's liking in the new 7-10 designs yet, hence the request for even more time to sort this in every MAX design since the fleets were grounded nearly 4 years ago, however the 8-9 designs have been allowed to start flying again as these were easier to fix.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/19/us-lawmakers-set-t...
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense...
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense...
https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-N...
All of thais refers back to the faulty MCAS system, which Boeing still haven't actually "fixed" to the FAA's liking in the new 7-10 designs yet, hence the request for even more time to sort this in every MAX design since the fleets were grounded nearly 4 years ago, however the 8-9 designs have been allowed to start flying again as these were easier to fix.
said:
The $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill passed by the Senate on Thursday includes a provision that would allow for the Boeing 737 Max-7 and Max-10 planes to be certified without further upgrades to the cockpit alerting system.
Language on the change, which had been lobbied for by Boeing, was agreed upon Tuesday, according to reports.
This change was due to financial pressure on Boeing who had deals to sell the MAX 7 to several airlines this year which the lack of certification was holding up. Remember folks, Boeing's bottom line is thought to be more important to the Senate than passenger safety!Language on the change, which had been lobbied for by Boeing, was agreed upon Tuesday, according to reports.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/19/us-lawmakers-set-t...
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense...
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense...
https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-N...
Edited by IanH755 on Saturday 6th January 10:41
IanH755 said:
This change was due to financial pressure on Boeing who had deals to sell the MAX 7 to several airlines this year which the lack of certification was holding up. Remember folks, Boeing's bottom line is thought to be more important to the Senate than passenger safety!
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/19/us-lawmakers-set-t...
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense...
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense...
https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-N...
Crazy!https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/19/us-lawmakers-set-t...
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense...
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense...
https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-N...
Edited by IanH755 on Saturday 6th January 10:41
Looks to me that Boeing have plenty of issues to sort out... the 777X is massively delayed too.
Quite amusing reading on a aviation forum, Boeing fanbois trying to defend all the issues with Boeing and their aircraft, and that todays issue with the Alaska aircraft is nothing because no one died or was injured.
Edited by airbusA346 on Saturday 6th January 10:50
Just to clarify a few things.
1) It was not a window failure but a deactivated plug door.
2) The same aircraft was involved in a pressurization issue a couple of days ago.
3) Alaska has grounded all their Max 9 aircraft.
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/alaska-737-max...
1) It was not a window failure but a deactivated plug door.
2) The same aircraft was involved in a pressurization issue a couple of days ago.
3) Alaska has grounded all their Max 9 aircraft.
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/alaska-737-max...
What is a "deactivated" plug door?
Are you saying aircraft are allowed to fly passengers with a failed emergency exit that's therefore been deactivated?
From the images I've seen it looks as though the whole door section blew out. i.e. the frame separated from the fuselage and took the door with it.
Are you saying aircraft are allowed to fly passengers with a failed emergency exit that's therefore been deactivated?
From the images I've seen it looks as though the whole door section blew out. i.e. the frame separated from the fuselage and took the door with it.
phil squares said:
Just to clarify a few things.
1) It was not a window failure but a deactivated plug door.
2) The same aircraft was involved in a pressurization issue a couple of days ago.
3) Alaska has grounded all their Max 9 aircraft.
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/alaska-737-max...
And it was apparently only at about 16,000 ft at the time, so not such a huge pressure differential. (Having said that, a bottle of Coke that I had opened at the top of Snowdon was significanly flatter when we got back to the station at the bottom) 1) It was not a window failure but a deactivated plug door.
2) The same aircraft was involved in a pressurization issue a couple of days ago.
3) Alaska has grounded all their Max 9 aircraft.
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/alaska-737-max...
Panamax said:
What is a "deactivated" plug door?
Are you saying aircraft are allowed to fly passengers with a failed emergency exit that's therefore been deactivated?
From the images I've seen it looks as though the whole door section blew out. i.e. the frame separated from the fuselage and took the door with it.
The door is plugged/deactivated (not failed) because it isn't required. With a lower capacity seating the exit isn't required by regulations, but to run the maximum allowed of 220 seats, the extra behind wing exits are required.Are you saying aircraft are allowed to fly passengers with a failed emergency exit that's therefore been deactivated?
From the images I've seen it looks as though the whole door section blew out. i.e. the frame separated from the fuselage and took the door with it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/18zux81...
As someone put on another forum "what units do they (Boeing) use to measure their tolerances, refrigerators per football field?"
That's interesting, thanks.
But why would you ever deactivate one possible means of escape? You won't know it's needed unless and until the excrement meets the extractor. For instance, all those JAL passengers evacuated through one side of the aircraft.
And how would deactivation (how exactly is that done? Electrical switch? Clamp the handle?) of the opening panel of the door affect the whole frame blowing out of the aircraft?
I'm trying to imagine a sequence of events,
But why would you ever deactivate one possible means of escape? You won't know it's needed unless and until the excrement meets the extractor. For instance, all those JAL passengers evacuated through one side of the aircraft.
And how would deactivation (how exactly is that done? Electrical switch? Clamp the handle?) of the opening panel of the door affect the whole frame blowing out of the aircraft?
I'm trying to imagine a sequence of events,
- Someone tests the door and finds it won't open and close properly.
- This is due to distortion of the frame which is tearing away from the fuselage but nobody notices.
- The aircraft continues flying with an appropriate number of passengers and the door deactivated.
- Further pressurisation cycles continue to tear the frame out of the fuselage.
- There's a flight where it's noticed the plane has difficulty staying pressurised, and that's logged.
- Engineers check "the usual suspects" and can't find any fault. And presumably you can't fully pressure test an aircraft that's sitting on the ground at normal atmospheric pressure.
- No fault found - carry on flying. [This seems to me where the question marks really kick in. Lack of full engineering support at whatever airfield had been the destination? It looks OK - we'll get it fully checked out next time, back at our home base.]
- The next pressure cycle is the last. Presumably blew out during ascent so fortunately all passengers still strapped. Lucky!
So to clarify, is it presumably the case that the ‘door’ is fitted as essentially a fixed panel at the factory, and never would or have actually functioned as an opening door? And presumably the interior has the normal non-door cabin fittings over it, so you’d never know from the inside that it was anything other than a normal bit of aircraft window?
airbusA346 said:
Crazy!
Looks to me that Boeing have plenty of issues to sort out... the 777X is massively delayed too.
Quite amusing reading on a aviation forum, Boeing fanbois trying to defend all the issues with Boeing and their aircraft, and that todays issue with the Alaska aircraft is nothing because no one died or was injured.
There but for the grace of god. I'm guessing it was on climbout with everyone belted...?Looks to me that Boeing have plenty of issues to sort out... the 777X is massively delayed too.
Quite amusing reading on a aviation forum, Boeing fanbois trying to defend all the issues with Boeing and their aircraft, and that todays issue with the Alaska aircraft is nothing because no one died or was injured.
Edited by airbusA346 on Saturday 6th January 10:50
Panamax said:
That's interesting, thanks.
But why would you ever deactivate one possible means of escape? You won't know it's needed unless and until the excrement meets the extractor. For instance, all those JAL passengers evacuated through one side of the aircraft.
And how would deactivation (how exactly is that done? Electrical switch? Clamp the handle?) of the opening panel of the door affect the whole frame blowing out of the aircraft?
I'm trying to imagine a sequence of events,
There is no door. It's like the blank panel for the switch for the optional extras your car doesn't have.But why would you ever deactivate one possible means of escape? You won't know it's needed unless and until the excrement meets the extractor. For instance, all those JAL passengers evacuated through one side of the aircraft.
And how would deactivation (how exactly is that done? Electrical switch? Clamp the handle?) of the opening panel of the door affect the whole frame blowing out of the aircraft?
I'm trying to imagine a sequence of events,
- Someone tests the door and finds it won't open and close properly.
- This is due to distortion of the frame which is tearing away from the fuselage but nobody notices.
- The aircraft continues flying with an appropriate number of passengers and the door deactivated.
- Further pressurisation cycles continue to tear the frame out of the fuselage.
- There's a flight where it's noticed the plane has difficulty staying pressurised, and that's logged.
- Engineers check "the usual suspects" and can't find any fault. And presumably you can't fully pressure test an aircraft that's sitting on the ground at normal atmospheric pressure.
- No fault found - carry on flying. [This seems to me where the question marks really kick in. Lack of full engineering support at whatever airfield had been the destination? It looks OK - we'll get it fully checked out next time, back at our home base.]
- The next pressure cycle is the last. Presumably blew out during ascent so fortunately all passengers still strapped. Lucky!
Don't see why you can't pressure test an aircraft by pressurising it on the ground to an equivalent differential it will use in flight.
Panamax said:
But why would you ever deactivate one possible means of escape?
According to reports I've seen the airline ordered it in that configuration to facilitate a higher seating density. Rather than manufacture the plane without a door Boeing simply leave the door in place but put a normal panel inside the cabin so the passengers don't even know a door is there.Southerner said:
So to clarify, is it presumably the case that the ‘door’ is fitted as essentially a fixed panel at the factory, and never would or have actually functioned as an opening door? And presumably the interior has the normal non-door cabin fittings over it, so you’d never know from the inside that it was anything other than a normal bit of aircraft window?
My understanding is the interior looks entirely normal - hence some comments initially that it was a window that blew out as the pax didn't appreciate there was a "latent" door there.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff