Flight AS1282: Are We Seeing Another Boeing 737 MAX Crisis Unfold?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 січ 2024
- Sadly, it would appear that Boeing has found itself in another crisis. As most people may know by now, a Boeing 737 MAX 9 experienced a blow-out incident on January 5th during an Alaska Airlines flight out of Portland. From inside the aircraft, the section of the fuselage appeared to be just a regular window section. However, this panel was actually a deactivated emergency exit.
Articles:
simpleflying.com/737-max-alas...
simpleflying.com/missing-boei...
Our Social Media:
/ simpleflyingnews
/ simple_flying
/ simpleflyingnews
Our Website
simpleflying.com/
For copyright matters please contact us at: legal@valnetinc.com - Розваги
UPDATE: Upon inspection of their 738 MAX 9 fleet, United Airlines has reported finding loose bolts on their aircraft. A statement said:
"Since we began preliminary inspections on Saturday, we have found instances that appear to relate to installation issues in the door plug -- for example, bolts that needed additional tightening,"
No, your headphones/speakers aren't broken! Our usual voice guy wasn't available to handle this last-minute request. But don't worry, he'll be back in a few days!
Still appreciate this.. slight ASMR session.
Is availability on an adhoc basis? Or is there a specific schedule?
I thought I was watching another channel 😂
@@KyleJoelBilbao r u from Bilbao?
To be frank, hearing a different voice for a worrying issue hits different, it increases the attention to the problem
Boeing is saving Airbus's millions in marketing that's for sure.
And Apple too !@@sncy5303
Well Airbus can’t make up the orders lost by Boeing so I don’t think this will hurt Boeing too much.
@rokiesensei A350 saved everyone inside.
Poor Boeing, bankrupt.
Airbus has its own issues.
This could have been the 3rd 737 Max crash.
They were lucky the plug-door failure happened at 16,000 feet rather than 36,000 feet, where the explosive decompression forces would have been much greater. It could have ended up like Turkish Airlines flight 981, where a cargo door failure caused structural damage that brought down the whole plane.
It's ironic that after the Boeing / McDonnell Douglas merger, and the cultural changes that brought, that the 737 Max is gaining the same reputation as McDonnell Douglas' biggest plane, the DC-10.
The Merger can be the biggest mistake Boeing ever made. Not only MD's commercial division management changed Boeing's culture, the merger also removed the biggest thing pushing Boeing forward - Domestic competition, a competition can't get around though tariffs.
McDonell Douglas made some cool planes, however those planes weren’t really safe. It’s a shame that it’s becoming the next DC10, as Boeing was rushing the launch of the MAX to meet the Airbus A320NEO, which is similar to MD rushing to compete with Lockheed Martin.
Also lucky the door didn’t hit the horizontal stabiliser 😬 that could’ve brought the whole plane down…
Clean separation of a structure from an aircraft requires a lot of effort to make it safe. It could easily have struck a control surface.
Well, the First MAX-9 for sure. Since the MAX-8 (those that crashed a few years ago now) do not have these door plugs.
And this is the same company who's asking regulators for safety exceptions to certify their max 7 and max 10 aircraft. What a joke
I think (and hope) this will certainly delay max 7 and 10 certification.
Yeah, for the reason of getting the planes sold and off the ground. Boeing definitely isn’t what they used to be, usual corporate dystopian BS of “Who cares if it’s dangerous? Who cares if people die? We want the money now” instead of. Ya know. Fixing the issues with the airframe or cutting their losses on the MAX series and making something reliable and selling safe aircraft folks will want to buy.
But no, short term profit over everything it seems is corporate mottos these days like it’s the early 1900s again
You do realize that alaska was at fault for not keeping up with maintenance 💀
@@Ashura4665 Please cite your sources sir. I'm not aware of any such conclusion to the investigation. On the contrary, United has found issues with side panels on their max 9s so it's not carrier-dependent
@@Ashura4665maintenance? The plane was 10 weeks old. If you have to take off an inside panel of a plane and re-tighten bolts (that aren't meant to ever be re-tightened) every 10 weeks...then there's a serious problem with the manufacturing process of the planw
Insane that a BRAND NEW plane has all these maintenance alerts and even more insane it was accepted.
It's not new it's a bodge of a old plane airbus make new planes boeing bodge adjust cock up now a criminal investigation needs to be done who is at fault and no more 737 inair until airbus is the best 100%
Let’s take a moment to accept the 737’s design is getting outdated
Welcome to the real world. You probably don’t want to know all the things that pop up on all new aircraft at EIS. As my boss used to say, that’s when the real systems integration testing happens.
Airbus isn't that safe
@@tomjardine100 just look at accident with a350 onrunway all out alive do to design aircraft if boeing doors would jam
No matter how you look at it, the 737 is an old design that has been modified many times over the years. Boeing needs a newly designed aircraft.
Well beyond its 1960’s use by date. Boing has made its money from this design. Get on with a clean sheet (or computer) B797. Using modern tech advances that came with B787. Long overdue, the best of B757 and B767 in a new B797. It’s time, Boing!
Psst. *whispers* It's the same door design on the -900ER.
It’s an old design but reliable. And it ages well, the problem is Boeing is experimenting too much with the design that worked so well before. Designing a completely new plane would be underway if airlines wanted it… but airlines have already said if Boeing makes the 797, they won’t buy it due to training costs. especially the 737 only airlines like Southwest or Alaska. Additional training costs, maintenance costs and others would be added should these airlines add another aircraft type.
@@soonerguy8011that’s not true at all. There were a lot of airlines interested in the 797. Delta, United, and SpiceJet, to name a few. Delta had actually mentioned that they were interested in being the launch customer.
I heard there was going to be a double decker 737 designed.
Instead of designing a new airplane from scratch Boeing has taken a perfectly good airplane and modified it to the point that it’s dangerous. That’s what happens when you pay more attention to the bean counters then to the engineers.
They should have went with a clean slate design.
absolutely right bean counters rule, quality, engineering excellence and innovation go out the door plug
Exactly!!!!!!!
@@suspicionofdeceitthey would have, but airlines already said they won’t buy the 797. They tried to get Southwest and American on board but both said they’d rather keep the 737 and just have it modified.
That's just hysteria and bullshit. The 737 Max design is quite safe. Even with MCAS it's quite safe, provided the flight crew has been properly instructed on it. Anything is unsafe if you don't know how to operate it correctly.
From what I can see, that plug popped out too cleanly for it to be anything other than an installation issue. I'm going to predict that it'll be shown to be another result of the corner cutting Boeing has been doing for years. And it might just circle back around and bite the FAA in the ass again too, considering how overly friendly the two are.
It is abundently clear that the bloody thing wasn't screwd in properly. The simple fact that the plug exited the mainframe proves it 'rotated' freely in order to get through the gap. Hence it was not connected, even partially. There is no damage on the air frame fittings which there would be if the plug had been attached. Quality Control must have been non existant.
Bingo, it’s pretty clear this is what occurred.
You’re right. Boeing has gotten away lightly ... so far.
That’s what happens when you employ morons
I admit that's te most logic explanation, but it is too soon to really tell for sure.
i doubt we'll ever get a full, clear picture of what happened. they'll give us the simplified version like "Boeing assemblers failed to secure device as engineers specified" or some BS@@wilsistermans1118
After the MCAS grounding, with all the scrutiny, it was assumed the MAX would be the safest plane type in the sky.
And I remember the request for exemption for a few certification requirements of MAX 7.
It is, and remember, the scrutiny was by the regulators. Once they are not there and watching 100% of the time, and you have human factors (people with wrenches/tools and removing/missing quality checks, again by people) any system, be it aircraft or toasters, there will always be complacency/missed steps/quality isses, schedule pushes by management due to shareprices/stockholders.
The MCAS issue has not been fully fixed, and this was a clear indication of them not caring.
Did an Airbus ever lost a Door midflight, without human interaction? Boeing and McDonnal Douglas have quite a history off flawed designs regarding their doors. Starting with the DC 10 up to the 747, now the 737. So lucky nobody died.
@@dirtykrautairbus used state of the art doors. Airbus historically has had problems with their flight computers and engines.
I remember as well boeing wanting sone FAA exemptions for their dash 7 and 10s. The audacity. How can they even suggest that?
If this had happened in Southeast Asia, Boeing would have tried to blamed the aircraft maintenance crew again 🙄
Very true
I was about to comment the same thing
For those of you always rooting for Boeing, they'll be plenty of roots upon landing.
After almost a century of overwhelming success, they were due for a slump.
There’s a very good reason to, Airbus would be a monopoly and that wouldn’t be good.
Yeah, let people choose death machines free will.
@@Bobspineablecomac?
@@GG-hi5if I doubt comic will get that big purely for political reasons
Funny how stuff like this is not happening to Airbus..
They stopped flying themselves into trees 30 years ago, true.
I am not sure if it had even happened to the Russians! As we might expect them to.
@@michlo3393I know you’re trying to be a smartass but you just sound dotish
What are you even talking about dude. lmao. A321s w/ the Pratt engines are done for man. Google it. Spirit is F'd.
Airbus historically has had problems with engines and flight computers. The flight computer part is still a problem today however. And there’s some fear someone could hack the control systems of the Airbus eventually. However rn airbus has the airframe figured out even though it too is quickly aging out
This isn't a Boeing 737 MAX crisis unfolding, it is a Boeing crisis unfolding as the same plugs are also used in older NG models.
@@alexbeuerman7608 Correct, so the problem is Boeing, they could have used the same flight line inspection team but didn't.
@@apveeningthis exact plane is only a few months old. 😂
@@Effervescent_Smegma So what? Boeing discontinued the flight line inspection teams, so it is a Boeing problem, not limited to this type of plane.
If its Boeing im not going ... Seriously iv rebooked to get on a airbus flight & going by what iv seen yesterday here in NZ a lot of other people are doing the same .
@@billhanna8838And? Airbus seems to have this exact same issue if they are assembling their planes at the same factory. They also saw two A321 planes blow their windows out.
This just adds to my concerns flying the 737.
I said it when it happened the first time. If its a Boeing. I am not going...
Terrifying that Boeing just can’t seem to get it all together.
@@alancooper4368 please take your meds!
stop with the deflection tactics, pathetic@@alancooper4368
The 321 is a pile of shit. The ACT is a joke
@@GiovanniPietro9000I fly the Airbus and confirm this. The flight computer (involving the flight controls) and engine problems are common. Mainly in the NEO. The Airbus has problems but they are easier to catch for the airlines before they hit the sky. It is not that way with the 737. Airbus’s longevity however is bad. An old Airbus is a shit plane lol. I’d rather fly the older 737 than an older A320. The old A320’s are gonna kill someone lol
@@CandyMan2001 I fly the Airbus. I’ve seen these problems first hand lol
Remember when we were saying the Max was now the safest aircraft due to the sheer level of scrutiny it was under?
Boeing, you just need to build an aircraft that doesn't have ANY part fall out of the sky. . .it's surely not that hard 🤔?
They went from the whole plane going down, to just a door, if that isn't progress, what is!?
Boeing now makes FLYING COFFINS
Comac c919 is the safer plane now
@@azeopropyou know what you bet your ass it is the Americans love laughing at Chinese aircraft’s but look at what is happening to their own karma is a real thing
You are left wondering where the scrutiny was directed 😂
Absolutely unacceptable.
At this rate, the 737 Max will become more notorious than the DC-10
Maybe Alaskan Airlines will reconsider selling off the Airbus jets it’ll gain from the Alaskan/Hawaiian merger.
Yeah. The Alaska A321neo's were already sold to American Airlines
Too late, Alaska sold off all the Airbus which is bit mistake for Alaska airline.
Replacement voice guy also has a smooth voice 👍
But this couldn’t have happened at a worse time for Boeing, days after Airbus’ safety is proved to such a degree 😬
Yes, he is much, much better.
Well remember when Airbus was suffering setbacks with its a330 after media scrutiny many clowns said the same for Boeing..
Just imagine if that left horizontal stabilizer had been wiped out as the door was departing the aircraft.
I refuse to believe these were all coincidences… those 2 seats being empty, the door not hitting anything on its way out, the plane not being at cruising altitude…
@@damlatorun6756 what is your theory then?
@@damlatorun6756You have a very overactive imagination. 😏
& it was at max attitude ?
I used to work for Boeing. As soon as I pointed out the flaw for Safety, they let me go. All they think is about $$$ Not about Human Life. They don't care about You and Me !!
Three possibilities:
1. A freak accident
There were no freaks aboard, there is video footage!
2. A construction error:
As mentioned here and in many other sources: The construction is already used in many hundreds of planes, including many of the NG series, so this is very unlikely.
3. A catastrophic sloppiness and failures in installation and quality control
Is this the first time, the second, .... hundred time ? I lost the count of the cases years ago ....
Well this has been the first major accident of a MAX on US soil. Giving the NTSB full authority to investigate Boeing and I'm sure the NTSB has a long a list of question waiting for Boeing already.
It’s not a major accident. No deaths or injuries.
@@chrissmith7669 It's an official accident. Giving NTSB the full authority to investigate it however they like.
NTSB: *unzips*
Boeing: *bites pillow*
@@chrissmith7669oh, it’s a major incident. Had they reach higher altitude already, everyone would probably be dead.
It’s not just a mechanical problem, we’re talking about a door popping off and United Airlines who found a few loose bolts on these plug doors.
@@ellaella5537 no one injured or dead. It doesn’t get rated as major.
If someone had been next to it when it left it would have been major.
If it happened at altitude the result wouldn’t have been much different.
They’ll write an official inspection in an AD for all planes delivered and change the inspection required for the FAL.
The seats adjacent to the door plug were two of only (I believe) eight unoccupied passenger seats. I'd want to rule out if someone in the reservation chain flagged those seats for some reason (eg, passenger complaints of unusual noise).
Great minds think alike. I don’t believe in coincidences. What are the odds of those seats being empty randomly?
I just saw a report stating that the CVRs from this plane were overwritten and that there were 3 pressurization alarms on this aircraft leading them to only fly routes over land for "safety" sake.
@@tonymurray814 being suspicious of everything because you dont believe in coincidences makes you stupid and easily manipulated
... or integrity concerns (related to prior pressurization issues).
Sadly? If anything this happening the way it did was extremely fortunate. No deaths or serious injuries, and the world is alerted to yet another failure of Boeing and the 737 MAX.
It's good that Boeing's failures are being highlighted in a non-fatal manner, unlike with the MCAS disaster, as it will hopefully draw their current operations under more scrutiny and draw more ire, which (we hope) will set them back on the right path, of safety and engineering first, profit second. Currently they have those the wrong way round.
After the two MCAS (software) caused crashes, I remember the FAA did a deep dive into the procedures/processes Boeing was using in the factory and the design/development. Some "to the point" emails were discovered which were pretty damning. One person wisely wrote that the plane was designed by clowns and supervised by a team of monkeys. The response Boeing gave to those emails was:
"The language used in these communications, and some of the sentiments they express, are inconsistent with Boeing values, and the company is taking appropriate action in response. This will ultimately include disciplinary or other personnel action, once the necessary reviews are completed".
Their response was nothing more than "kill the messenger". Rather than disciplining the truth teller, they should have listened and learned. Their response showed that they weren't interested in the truth. Their solutions was simply to create a climate of fear for anyone that speaks up. If the plane was not designed by clowns and supervised by monkeys, there would have been no need to keep it grounded for so long for all the additional problems to be resolved. Even now, more problems keep appearing.
Right, if your thermometer says you have fever, just break the thermometer...
Why were the ONLY two 737MAX crashes with third-world Airlines?
Flying an airplane that up until the time of the crashes had experienced ZERO incidents.
After a year of test flights and data-gathering, the MAX gained certification from the FAA in March 2017, followed by other global regulators later that month.
By May 2018, a year after the first delivery, more than 130-MAX's were in service with 28-different airlines around the world and had flown almost 42,000 flights.
With ZERO incidents
Before the second crash, there were nearly 50-carriers that were operating the MAX. Using it for an estimated 8,600 flights per week.
With no ZERO incidents.
That the FAA and EASA didn't know about MCAS, a meme being pushed by BOEING BASHERS and the MSM, is bovine excrement.
Although Boeing did not call MCAS out by that name, the Boeing Flight Crew Operation Manual (FCOM) described the function in detail, and how to override it.
And 50-carriers crews had no problems with understanding it.
The FCOM was successfully used by 50-carriers to train crews in flying the new 737 variant.
Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines with their low-time inexperienced pilots and with inadequate management of their crew training - ruined the safety record of a perfectly safe airplane.
The fuselage plug issue occurred in ONE airplane, out of 1,420 delivered and after flying over 100,000 incident free flights!
The plane and crew handled the incident perfectly. Nobody was hurt. Not even a sticking plaster was needed in this "disaster"!
Boeing and Spirit will take remedial action - and the 737MAX will go on to be as safe as any other commercial aircraft currently flying.
Boeing has 4,031 MAX aircraft in its order backlog.
You think these folks who fly these wonderful airplanes every day for a living think the MAX is dangerous? Yeah right!
Crossing the street, or driving one's car to get groceries, is 1,000 times more likely to get you killed than flying in a Boeing 737MAX.
This is just an over-the-top, hysterical, hyperbolic nonsense coming from woke folk who want to live a life of 100% safety!
Better stay at home and sit on their couch!
@@DennisMerwood-xk8wp Sure. the groundings that lasted nearly 2 years (longer in other countries) can be blamed on third world air lines.
Having a computer system that gets faulty information from one of the stall sensors takes control from the pilot and crashes the plane, rather than looking at the other sensor, and rather than noticing that air speed is very high, and the ground is very very close, that's a good design. Sure.
@@cherryjuice9946 The design has worked perfectly well for over 100,000 flights.
Yes its a good design.
And your description of now MCAS works shows that you have a lot of reading to do my man.
Am I the only one thinking that this isn’t just involving the 737 Max 9 but also the 737-900ER? They’re similarly equipped with the same Door or Door Plug. If I were the Airlines and the FAA, I’d would be checking both variants.
This accident sounds like a one time issue though, seeing as it has never happened on any 737-900ER and 737 MAX 9 until now.
The doors on Max 9 and 900ER are not necessarily the same doors, during production a lot of parts of any airplane go through iterational improvements and are likely to be different in a lot of ways. On top of that the Max variants of 737 is pressurized more than NG variants, which also means that structural elements and/or internal panels are changed too and the combination of all those factors lead to the outcome on hand.
I think this has nothing to do with design, but a lot with bad quality control.
The 900ER's are also on the list of aircraft to be inspected.
@@gnkethey do not pressurize more
Mcdonald Douglas was the worst thing to happen to Boeing
MD-80’s were built like tanks though
Just read that this aircraft was banned by Alaska Airlines from flying over open water due to issues with the depressurization light kept going off 6 times. It was due for maintenance. Sure enough, BOOM!
Not “due” for maintenance, it needed to actually get fixed when it was written up
737 max = DC-10
Rushed design and Rushed production to grab as much money as possible.
I see from the photos that there are more bolt holes around the opening, and they only use 4 bolts? Is this another cost cutting to save a few bolts? Can we start a gofundme to help Boeing buy more bolts for the MAX jets?
Those are not bolt holes. Door stops and pads are installed in those lugs/holes. They are not designed to hold bolts to secure the plug.
@@stephenjarzombek2903 Ok, thanks for the clarification. I stand corrected.
There are 4 tracks on the sides of the door and 4 pins in the door opening in the frame. The door has to be lifted up and out of the tracks for it to be opened. The 4 bolts sole job is to block off the 4 tracks so that the door can't be lifted up. There is very little force on those bolts and having only 1 installed would prevent the door from being lifted up. I think it's pretty obvious that the odds of 4 bolts under very little stress with cotter pins preventing the nuts form falling off all failing at once is zero. They were never there to begin with.
@@wally7856 It makes sense. As long as at least 2 bolts are in place, loose or not, the door should not shift up.
This accident (it's too serious to be called an incident, according to the NTSB) will bring scrutiny to Boeing, which is ultimately responsible, but also to Spirit AeroSystems, which operates the former Boeing plant that supplies 737 MAX fuselages to Boeing. It calls into question Boeing's judgement in moving its fuselage manufacturing to an external supplier.
Even before this latest accident, I had heard discussions about Boeing's relationship with Spirit Aerosystems, including suggestions that Boeing starved them of funds during the pandemic, as they both tried to cope with a bad situation all around. There have been recent issues with the quality of fuselages supplied by Spirit AeroSystems. I don't recall the details, but it seems that parts supplied to Spirit from subcontractors were okay, but those same parts that came from Spirit AeroSystems internally were defective.
Whatever the other ramifications once the NSTB report on the root causes comes out, this will certainly affect Boeing's efforts to ramp up production of its major cash cow. I understand Boeing has delayed its target of reaching 38 narrowbody planes per month. In the meantime, Airbus is on track to reach 65 planes per month and is talking to suppliers about 75 planes per month. Aircraft buyers are all hoping for Boeing to get its act together, a reasonable level of competition for Airbus will help keep them honest, and provide buyers more options and price-bargaining power.
Boeing's big problem is not competition from Airbus. For the past five years since the two fatal MAX crashes, Airbus has had such a big backlog of orders for A320 family jets that they have not been able to go after Boeing customers. Operators with Boeing narrowbodies are stuck with planes that are growing older and they are forced to push back their plans of fleet renewal. Boeing is leaving money on the table, and the flying public is getting a progressively worse experience with flying. And now, new concerns about safety arising from Boeing and not the competition. Boeing's worst enemy is itself; it keeps shooting itself in the foot.
Why were the ONLY two 737MAX crashes with third-world Airlines?
Flying an airplane that up until the time of the crashes had experienced ZERO incidents.
After a year of test flights and data-gathering, the MAX gained certification from the FAA in March 2017, followed by other global regulators later that month.
By May 2018, a year after the first delivery, more than 130-MAX's were in service with 28-different airlines around the world and had flown almost 42,000 flights.
With ZERO incidents
Before the second crash, there were nearly 50-carriers that were operating the MAX. Using it for an estimated 8,600 flights per week.
With no ZERO incidents.
That the FAA and EASA didn't know about MCAS, a meme being pushed by BOEING BASHERS and the MSM, is bovine excrement.
Although Boeing did not call MCAS out by that name, the Boeing Flight Crew Operation Manual (FCOM) described the function in detail, and how to override it.
And 50-carriers crews had no problems with understanding it.
The FCOM was successfully used by 50-carriers to train crews in flying the new 737 variant.
Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines with their low-time inexperienced pilots and with inadequate management of their crew training - ruined the safety record of a perfectly safe airplane.
The fuselage plug issue occurred in ONE airplane, out of 1,420 delivered and after flying over 100,000 incident free flights!
The plane and crew handled the incident perfectly. Nobody was hurt. Not even a sticking plaster was needed in this "disaster"!
Boeing and Spirit will take remedial action - and the 737MAX will go on to be as safe as any other commercial aircraft currently flying.
Boeing has 4,031 MAX aircraft in its order backlog.
You think these folks who fly these wonderful airplanes every day for a living think the MAX is dangerous? Yeah right!
Crossing the street, or driving one's car to get groceries, is 1,000 times more likely to get you killed than flying in a Boeing 737MAX.
This is just an over-the-top, hysterical, hyperbolic nonsense coming from woke folk who want to live a life of 100% safety!
Better stay at home and sit on their couch!
wasn’t ready for the voice LOL 😂
Woah, I wasn’t ready for the normal voiceover guy to be unavailable
Considering that the Max aircraft are the most scrutinised aircraft in the world it makes you wonder two things - whats the use of the FAA and what other faults are laying in wait to be revealed. Boeing just needs to ditch the 737 and get into designing a new aircraft.
Boeing need a whole new narrow bodied jet, messing about with what is a 1960s airframe fuselage is crazy, the lower to ground 737 fuselage and wheel setup is designed for the older torpedo shaped engines also used on the boeing 707 as well! The 737 is too low to the ground to extend the fuselage, a longer extended body and banging bigger engines on it affects stability and landing speed. Due to this we are seeing all sorts of issues.
Remake the 757!!!
Those are called JT-8’s
Boeing isn’t going to make a new plane for one reason: no one wants it. All these airlines told Boeing they wanted an upgraded 737 rather than a new plane. So Boeing did that. The 797 won’t sell well especially with Airbus across the pond and now Airbus has built a huge maintenance facility in the US which should’ve put further pressure on Boeing
@@justing42 thanks i could not think of the name of those engine types! The 737 is sat too low to the ground to enhance it, sticking bigger engines on it is clearly causing all sorts of probs
My dad is an airline pilot, and he has a saying: “If it’s a Boeing, I’m not going!”
Back when people didn't trust Airbus's fly by wire systems they used to say "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going."
@@garydodson6737still the chance of you actually dying is still incredibly low. Otherwise Maxes would be falling out of the sky constantly.
@@Bobspineable I mean thats now a 2nd fleet grounding in only 7 years of service. That's not good at all. It's also Boeing's 3rd fleet grounding in the last 14 years with the Dreamliner battery fires in the mid 2010s.
Sure statistically Boeing's are safer to fly than to drive, but the company is an empty shell of its former self, To have 3 fleet groundings in 14 years from one of the biggest manufacturers in the world is not a good thing at all
Yawn
Then fly Spirit airline or Allegient Airline, they operate the fleet of airbus planes.
There is NO EXCUSE for this, Boing.
Stupid question, but why should passengers trust Boeing or the FAA - anything FAA has "certified" - considering this is a reocurring event? It is by mere luck that the incident didn't happen at a higher altitude or that noboy was sitting by the window, or was getting up to go to the restroom.
Why do you claim it is a recurring event? The same fundamental design has not failed on the 737-900ER that has been in service since 2006.
@@stephenjarzombek2903 By "event" I am referring to Boeing 737 airplanes being certified despite safety flaws. 346 dead so far in the previous crashes... would YOU have your child sit on the seat next to the door in those planes - or even take those planes?
I’m a little confused, isn’t the whole point of a plug door for safety to be redundant by having the in cabin pressure keep the door closed? Using the frame to keep the in place???
2:16. Why is this lady’s phone on the edge of the table?
If bolted then it can be removed and restored. The big question to ask is; "was the plug ever removed and replaced at any time after manufacture?".
The door is closed by location pins entering guide slots attached to the fuselage frame and which guides the door over the retaining lugs and drops down behind them. A compound hinge system secures the bottom of the door to the fuselage and allows this movement. A handle mechanism would then usually lock the door in place. On a deactivated door I assume the handle mechanism is removed and replaced with locking bolts of some kind. Perhaps the locking bolts were missing or somehow became detached or otherwise failed and the door vibrated off its stops. It speaks to an assembly line error at worst..
The plug on this aircraft was not a deactivated door, but a different part entirely. The aircraft can be supplied with a deactivated door if ordered that way. Doors have small circular portholes, and only the plug has a full size window.
Wow, first time to hear this new voice!
Going to do everything possible to avoid flying on a MAX aircraft when I travel. Although difficult, it is possible. If this happened at altitude, would have been a disaster of major proportions. Way ta go boeing...
Same, all these incidents have finally convinced me to give up on Boeing's 737s
From the undamaged appearance of the fuselage, it appears that the door plug was not properly installed along with the safety bolts, nuts, and cotter pins. Human error? Did Spirit Aerosystem's personnel install the door plugs or was it Boeing's personnel?
Bolts are bolts.
Inspectors from the FAA should be held accountable too.
They had nothing to do with this
@@justing42 were you there when it was inspected?
There is a difference between the deactivated emergency door and door plug. It also impact the capacity, depending on it a plug, deactivated door, or active door.
Exactly, this was not a deactivated door.
De-activated doors are an option, but they have a much smaller window rather than the full sized one of the plug. Unlike the plug (which needs to be replaced), de-activated doors can be re-activated.
I saw a video on the options around this opening, be it plug, de-activated, or active. Inside, the inactive options have a full sized window side panel covering the plug, and a windowless side panel covering the de-activated door.
There are several options of active door, each affecting the maximum number of allowed passengers.
I sure now airlines are going to require that passengers be bucked up throughout the entire flight…
Your description of the failure is a bit off. There is no bolt(s) holding the door in place. There is a door wide horozontile bar bar, both top and bottom that moves up on the top and down on the bottom. The ends of both of these bars go into a socket that is attached to the airplane frame At these 4 attachment points there is a non structural bolt that keep the bar from vibrating loose from the socket but only on the plug doors. On the working doors there is no bolt to keep the bar in the socket to do this as the bars are moved in and out of the sockets to open and close the door. The door operating mechanism keeps the bars in place in case they vibrate. I looks like the WRONG sockets were installed by the factory as the PLUG style doors require sockets with a hole for the safety bolt while the working style doors do not need or use a safety bolt. An assembly screw up for sure and maybe some sockets had the wrong part number All the sockets look very similar but ARE NOT THE SAME.
One thing I don’t understand is why they ground the MAX 9 but not the other MAX variants? Can they be so certain that problems in 1 variant won’t also be present in the others?
It sure sounds like the 4 locking bolts, used to prevent the door plug from opening, may have been left out during the build process. This should have been obvious when the door plug was recovered from "Bob's" backyard. It seems unlikely that Alaska would have inspected or serviced the door plug mechanism on its brand-new aircraft before this flight.
They never get looked at other than during the walk around
1:58 2:07 Blown out.
Why would u eliminate an emergency exit, and why wouldn't u have the same structural integrity as an actual door?
Boeing also wants a safety exemption for the Max 7. The hell with that.
NTSB has a busy week. 1st in NYC evaluating the subway derailment & this event.
Malaysia Air Line bought many of this Boeng 737 Max and they are very proud of it.😢
Was it even screwed on ? It just popped out of the aircraft too clean.
Scary to think that the 'plug' is attached only with 4-bolts. You'd think being a significate sized part/piece of the plane more bolts/fasteners would have been used. Seems Boeing was cutting costs or taking the fast and loose choice!
7 hold a Trent 7000 on wing…it weighs about 15000 lbs.
There are 2 tracks on each side of the door (4 total) and 4 pins in the door frame. The door slides down in these tracks securing it. The are also 10 stops along the perimeter of the door that line up with 10 stops on the frame that take the force of pressurization preventing the door from pushing out. In order to open the door you have to lift up the door so that the tracks lift up and out of the way of the pins and that the stops lift up and out of the way of their corresponding stops. The 4 bolts in question's sole job is to go through the track blocking it off so that you can't lift up the door. There is no force on these bolts unless you are actively lifting up on the door. If even only 1 bolt was in place that door couldn't be lifted up and out of its tracks. I think it's safe to say that these 4 bolts were never installed as they are secured with cotter pins so they can't back out even if loose.
This is a Quality Control issue, part fabrication, material source, installation process. This could be a "one of" or systemic: bad set of forgings could we wider spread, or mechanic had a rough weekend, and the quality guy missed it.
“Quality guy” is called an inspector, and they are involved in about 10% of maintenance. The only way they would have been involved is if there was a slide on that door/plug (it’s a plug and there was no slide) so there is no inspector required, and no “second set of eyes”. The inspectors were finding the end of the internet or sleeping…guaranteed.
The door "plug" is not a plug in the normal sense used in aviation. A plug does not rely on bolts, it relies on cabin pressure to force it into place. The inside part of the plug "wedge" is wider than the narrowest part of the aperture.
Would be interesting to know why this is only a MAX-9 grounding issue given the MAX-8 is made on the same production line
Because the plug doors are only a 737 MAX 9 thing
Going to try avoid row 26 then haha be c**** myself in row 26 now!
The Max8 does not have this type of door plug system.
This is why it's a good idea to keep your lapbelt on until the aircraft reaches cruise altitude.
You should keep your seat belt on at all times unless you need to stand up.
Things like this gonna make sure my belt is on 25/8
And avoid rows 25 to 27 at all cost
kind a sick that you need to keep a seatbelt on al all times. A bit like having to having fully inflated air bags in a car at al times "because its safer"!
Or just at all times
And I am not convinced a bit that the cockpit door should open in case of depressurization. That's why they should have valves for that. Because it is a risk for the crew.
Boeing were super lucky this didn’t happen at cruise altitude. Had that occurred then people not wearing seatbelts would have been the least of the worry. The rear of the aircraft would have literally been ripped off.
I personally already made a choice never to fly this type. Any carrier that operates this aircraft or on a route I need to fly will not get my buisness.
Is this the new Made in the USA quality standard?
MCAS used only 1 air speed sensor so the software could not calculate that a sensor went wrong. And now only 4 screws for a door plug ?
There are 3 holding a 717 engine on
It is NOT a deactivated emergency exit. This plane used the Plug option, not the deactivated option.
From what it seems, this only affects Max 9’s. What is the difference between Max 9 and Max 8 regarding this door plug?
max 8s dont have door plugs
now i will never fly on any 737 max type
They were still climbing, so in-flight service had not started and the set belt signs were probably still on.
One plane I wouldn't fly on just no confidence in max 737
Hopefully if there's other models with similar doors, or production procedures, that they would give those a second look aswell... a "door squads" if you will...
and they must hold air, keep that in mind...
20-30 years old Boeing and a few MD-11 were coming/going with cargo all night to 3 airports near me. Boeing, YES, I am going!
I could see a situation where Max 9s with plugs have to be retrofitted with doors. Examples with mid-aft doors are not affected.
It isn’t a problem with the aircraft but with whoever closed the plug after the cabin was fitted. Whoever put that plug back didn’t do The job properly.
Exactly.
I’m not an aircraft engineer but have read and heard this is a really old plane with multiple upgrades.
It’s a strong design, even past its expiry date, but boeing messed with it to the point it became unsafe. They can’t make an all-new design either, because there simply isn’t any demand for it.
Boing gave up on Safety and Quality a long time ago.
It may not be just a Boeing 737 MAX issue. It may be a Boeing issue. If the investigation concludes that the incident resulted from a manufacturing issue, then this would not be the first time Boeing's output came at the expense of quality control to meet production goals. Corporate culture needs to change.
Am I the only one who thinks that a plug door should be held in with cabin pressure and not a few stinking bolts?
If it's Boeing, I ain't going.. for sure
All jokes aside but how ironic is alaska airlines „proudly all boeing“ on this plane 😂
Didn’t Boeing just put out a warning about 737 max missing bolts?
Brand new? Hate to see what's gonna happen when these planes get more miles,(other stuff?). 🤔?
Yes we are.
Some reports indicate that people's phones were sucked out of the airplane at the moment the of the blow-out, what would happen if there was a kid not wearing a seatbelt on the lap of a parent?
There are no "Accidents", there are only short cuts taken to save money over safety.....
Only demand will determine whether Boeing will work on the NMA or not. Until then we are stuck with the MAX issues
Wheras an a350 frame does perfectly in hnd and jal staff pull off a perfect evacuation
As a consistent exit row person, I’m freaked the f out
Way to go Boeing. Here we go again. Is anyone surprised? I’m not. I called this a couple years ago.
The Associated Press in the USA is reporting that the aircraft had an ongoing problem with the pressurisation failure warning light coming on. Boeing has failed to get a grip on their quality control issues on the production lines, and this would seem to be another obvious one.
However, there's a new issue here. Why did Alaska keep the aircraft in service with a critical safety system repeatedly indicating a fault? I expect the FAA will be asking the airline some hard questions.
It is not yet clear if the plug, which is originally installed by Spirit in Wichita before transfer to Boeing in WA, was removed and replaced by Boeing during the completion process, or by a third party that Alaska uses to finish the interior, or if perhaps Alaska did remove and replace the plug while trying to troubleshoot the source of the pressurization warnings.
Because the hacks at Alaska Airlines kept pencil whipping it. “Checks ok”. Guarantee you the write ups would have had “loud squeal at row ____” You pressurize the plane, and leak check the door (from the outside )using “soap” type solution and if there is a leak, BIG bubbles appear where it is leaking. Then go from there. There is no way this happened.
Its NOT deactivated emergency exit, it was never an ACTIVE emergency exit in first place,
"If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going..."?
This is not just an anomaly, this a production issue deeply rooted within the current quality control culture of Boeing and its subcontractors.
Those 737 Max should be banned for ever at this point, Boeing lost complete trust from companies and public after major system design problems and structural issues on brand new aircrafts.
Unacceptable.
Time to build a new airplane.
The FAA must be acting with Boeing so that work on aircrafts aren't rushed and all routine inspections and quality checks are conducted thoroughly.
Boeing priority must be producing quality aircrafts, not boosting profits.
For how the door plug - which is meant to be there for the lifetime of the aircraft - may have failed and came off, it is not hard to think that the bolts and nuts utilised weren't of the right type, as they had to resist the same pressurisation cycles and the vibrations as other similar components, like the rear bulkhead.
Hope Boeing put their acts together and changes their attitude...
I have no idea why everyone seems to be concerned about the voice over. I thought he was excellent