Alaska Airlines grounds Boeing 737 Max 9 planes…

[alangla]

rjfp1962 said:

FAA grounds 171 Boeing planes after mid-air blowout..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-6790365...

Not a huge number of Max 9s in Europe (Icelandair, any others?). If the Max 8 was to be grounded again then Ryanair and Tui, Tui especially, would be completely fked, not to put too fine a point on it.
Thinking more about this, are there not configurations of the A321 Neo that have plugged doors? Hopefully Airbus ones are better fitted.

[Eric Mc]

alangla said:

Not a huge number of Max 9s in Europe (Icelandair, any others?). If the Max 8 was to be grounded again then Ryanair and Tui, Tui especially, would be completely fked, not to put too fine a point on it.
Thinking more about this, are there not configurations of the A321 Neo that have plugged doors? Hopefully Airbus ones are better fitted.

It wasn't a door or a window that failed.

[loafer123]

Eric Mc said:

alangla said:

Not a huge number of Max 9s in Europe (Icelandair, any others?). If the Max 8 was to be grounded again then Ryanair and Tui, Tui especially, would be completely fked, not to put too fine a point on it.
Thinking more about this, are there not configurations of the A321 Neo that have plugged doors? Hopefully Airbus ones are better fitted.

It wasn't a door or a window that failed.

It was a plugged door, i.e. a location where you can have a door, but if you choose not to, they put in a permanent plug in the hole.

[Leon R]

Technically it isn’t a door it’s an aperture but that is being extremely pedantic.

[foxbody-87]

Panamax said:

Anyone who thinks Boeing has a poor safety record had better check their school maths book and see how the British civil aviation industry worked out.

De Havilland Comet - 114 built (including prototypes). Three disintegrated in mid air. Call it a 2.5% total failure rate.

Concorde - 20 built (including prototypes). One crashed and the rest were never financially viable. Total failure rate of 5%.

Boeing 737 - 11,600 built....

Well yes if you compare the 737 Max with aircraft that first flew 70+ and 50+ years ago respectively the safety record probably looks quite good? What an unusual comparison.
Surely it would make more sense to compare it with contemporary aircraft?

[MrBogSmith]

dvs_dave said:

vaud said:

I wont fly on the 737 Max

After all who needs QC when you can just lobby the FAA and then mislead.

Oh please, that’s risible. You would actually refuse to board if one showed up at the gate? What mode of transportation do you take to get to and from airports, and how safe are they? How unlucky do you think you are?

FWIW, like many millions of others, I’ve been on plenty of Max8’s without incident. I guess I’m just lucky.

Obviously it's overwhelmingly probable you'll be safe on one of the planes, but it's not necessarily about the rational, objective statistics. Nor about relative risks i.e. more danger travelling to the airport.

Perhaps it's about sending a message to Boeing that any compromise or avoidable risk is unacceptable. That any 'lobbying' for safety exemptions is unacceptable. That having a system with no redundancy accompanied by seemingly no pilot training, that smashes two planes into the ground isn't really acceptable.

[eldar]

loafer123 said:

Eric Mc said:

alangla said:

Not a huge number of Max 9s in Europe (Icelandair, any others?). If the Max 8 was to be grounded again then Ryanair and Tui, Tui especially, would be completely fked, not to put too fine a point on it.
Thinking more about this, are there not configurations of the A321 Neo that have plugged doors? Hopefully Airbus ones are better fitted.

It wasn't a door or a window that failed.

It was a plugged door, i.e. a location where you can have a door, but if you choose not to, they put in a permanent plug in the hole.

Not so permanent! Seems odd that a door which opens and closes seems relatively more reliable.

[hidetheelephants]

eldar said:

Not so permanent! Seems odd that a door which opens and closes seems relatively more reliable.

The plug was probably cobbled up in the Max programme whereas the door has been in production since 1967. Boeing have fallen so far.

[dcb]

MrBogSmith said:

Obviously it's overwhelmingly probable you'll be safe on one of the planes, but it's not necessarily about the rational, objective statistics. Nor about relative risks i.e. more danger travelling to the airport.

Surely the fact that Airbus, Boeing's main competitor, don't get this wrong
is much more important.

If the market starts to believe that Boeing are a bunch of bodge-it merchants,
they are in trouble.

As other posters have indicated - if it's Boeing, I'm not going.

It's over five years since I went on an airplane - not missing it.

[alangla]

hidetheelephants said:

The plug was probably cobbled up in the Max programme whereas the door has been in production since 1967. Boeing have fallen so far.

I wonder if Alaska are now regretting binning those relatively new Airbuses that they got in the Virgin America takeover. It’s interesting that even long-term all-Boeing operators like Jet2 are now buying Airbus. Wikipedia claims that Airbus had courted Ryanair, if either they or SouthWest start buying A320/321s then surely the Max would have to be replaced with a new design.

[loafer123]

alangla said:

I wonder if Alaska are now regretting binning those relatively new Airbuses that they got in the Virgin America takeover. It’s interesting that even long-term all-Boeing operators like Jet2 are now buying Airbus. Wikipedia claims that Airbus had courted Ryanair, if either they or SouthWest start buying A320/321s then surely the Max would have to be replaced with a new design.

With a finite production capacity and lots more demand, they will have the pleasure of telling Michael O’Leary where to shove his money.

[hidetheelephants]

loafer123 said:

With a finite production capacity and lots more demand, they will have the pleasure of telling Michael O’Leary where to shove his money.

Yes, it's doubtful Airbus could increase production enough to fill the gap, at least in the short term. Would be quite a thing having Ryanair buy chinese.

[dvs_dave]

Lotobear said:

...if it's Boeing I ain't going

For the record, the original saying is “if it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going”.

Presumably you’re ok with flying on a “Scarebus”?

[dvs_dave]

dcb said:

Surely the fact that Airbus, Boeing's main competitor, don't get this wrong
is much more important.

If the market starts to believe that Boeing are a bunch of bodge-it merchants,
they are in trouble.

As other posters have indicated - if it's Boeing, I'm not going.

It's over five years since I went on an airplane - not missing it.

Another one. You and Vaud can be the designated drivers.

[dvs_dave]

MrBogSmith said:

bviously it's overwhelmingly probable you'll be safe on one of the planes, but it's not necessarily about the rational, objective statistics. Nor about relative risks i.e. more danger travelling to the airport.

Perhaps it's about sending a message to Boeing that any compromise or avoidable risk is unacceptable. That any 'lobbying' for safety exemptions is unacceptable. That having a system with no redundancy accompanied by seemingly no pilot training, that smashes two planes into the ground isn't really acceptable.

Nope, just calling out twaddle based hyperbolic sanctimony.

And there’s far better ways “to send a message” if you care that much.

[Gareth79]

hidetheelephants said:

eldar said:

Not so permanent! Seems odd that a door which opens and closes seems relatively more reliable.

The plug was probably cobbled up in the Max programme whereas the door has been in production since 1967. Boeing have fallen so far.

There's a detailed video here - mostly static photos of the different configurations that you can just skip through. It was basically the outer shell of a real door but with a normal window, and 4x bolts to secure it from opening. The bolts don't need to hold the internal cabin pressure, just to stop the door swinging upwards. Suggestion is that most likely the lower bolts were not fitted, or worked loose (seems less likely).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw4eQGAmXQ0


edit: a pic

Edited by Gareth79 on Sunday 7th January 16:32

[MrBogSmith]

dvs_dave said:

MrBogSmith said:

bviously it's overwhelmingly probable you'll be safe on one of the planes, but it's not necessarily about the rational, objective statistics. Nor about relative risks i.e. more danger travelling to the airport.

Perhaps it's about sending a message to Boeing that any compromise or avoidable risk is unacceptable. That any 'lobbying' for safety exemptions is unacceptable. That having a system with no redundancy accompanied by seemingly no pilot training, that smashes two planes into the ground isn't really acceptable.

Nope, just calling out twaddle based hyperbolic sanctimony.

And there’s far better ways “to send a message” if you care that much.

As an individual consumer the greatest way you can usually 'send a message' is to not use that company's products / services.

If enough people do the same then the company usually pays attention. Or goes bust.

[No ideas for a name]

Gareth79 said:

a pic

Boeing (should) know far more about this than me, but..

It seems that the only thing holding the door in is two bolts in tension at the top corner.
From the picture they don't look of a very large size.

I have been involved in desiging and testing enclosures to resist ingress from external pressure, and the usual method was lots of fixings regularly spaced, clamping down on a seal. (I know the aircraft is the opposite and the pressure is from within.)

Logically, there doesn't seem to be anything to stop that plug 'ballooning' (other than the obvious that the door itself is reinforced with ribs to stay in that shape - it isn't just a sheet).

Further to that, it looks like the door is effectively 'strapped on' the outside - I always thought the idea was doors should fit from the inside so can't blow out even if all the fixings are missing.

At my, sub-bozo, level of aeronautic design, it doesn't look ideal.

I guess they know what they are doing as they don't generally blow out (so far).

Edited by No ideas for a name on Sunday 7th January 17:17

[Panamax]

If I've understood correctly from that video a plug door is essentially a door panel without any of the internal mechanical bits that would usually constitute the locking mechanism.

Because it's not an opening door, there's no electrical sensor to detect whether the door panel is properly closed and the warning light (installed but not connected) is blanked off.

The plug door is not held in place by bolts. However, there are supposed to be four bolts which simply prevent the door panel from moving into a position where it could open. If those bolts are not correctly in place the door could move to a "not secured" position and as the aircraft pressurises it will blow open. As would any other door if not properly closed.

Then we get to the bottom line, that once the cabin interior has been installed you can't see whether or not those four bolts are correctly in place.

Presumably the workers who install the interior are different people with different skills than those who build the metal fuselage and/or install the plug doors. They would be unlikely to notice missing bolts when they installed the interior, hiding the bolts from view.

To my my mind unless there's been some extraordinary mechanical failure (await finding of the door) attention will focus on installation of the plug door and inspection afterwards.

The oddity to me is that since the four bolts simply locate the door panel, rather than holding it shut, you'd think that one or two of them missing wouldn't make any difference. Hmmm. Perhaps they were all located "finger tight" and never torqued up - something that wouldn't show on a visual inspection and wouldn't be possible to detect after the interior was installed. I've no idea whether normal inspection of bolts during aircraft construction involves an inspector walking round with a torque wrench and checking bolts. Similarly it might be tempting to have a habit of checking both plug doors and then ticking all the check boxes in one go. Momentary distraction half way through the inspection could lead to only one door being checked but all the boxes ticked for both doors. Who knows. One imagines the inspection records (all aircraft of that specification) will reveal whether there had been previous issues around these bolts.

[hidetheelephants]

Three of the four bolts could be missing and the plug shouldn't move, as the door mechanism is the loadbearing part.