Alaska Airlines 737-900 MAX loses a door in-flight out of PDX
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 790
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I other words, you're probably right.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Somerset
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Likely Cause
Yup
So not a failure of design (would be all in series with no inpection)
Not a fatigue failure (would require much greater diagnosis)
Points to failure of assembly e.g. missing bolts or other fixings that are on the design
So not a failure of design (would be all in series with no inpection)
Not a fatigue failure (would require much greater diagnosis)
Points to failure of assembly e.g. missing bolts or other fixings that are on the design
Judging by where the altitude drops on the FR24 track, the door may well be here somewhere.
It's a well populated area, so I'd have thought someone will eventually find it...
It's a well populated area, so I'd have thought someone will eventually find it...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Non max 737-900 also seem have these plugs.Why are these not affected?
A metal door sized object at 12,000 feet should have left clear primary radar returns. It shouldn't be too difficult to find in the "tapes," if someone hasn't already found the door lying on top of Rudolph in their front yard.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming the exit door is the cause, who would have configured the door to be properly latched and secured prior to the installation of the panel, Alaska or Boeing?
Informative video:
Indicates a non-functional door was used rather than in-oping an exit door and suggest retaining bolts were missing. If so, then there will be a paper trail back to whoever signed off that the bolts were installed.
Indicates a non-functional door was used rather than in-oping an exit door and suggest retaining bolts were missing. If so, then there will be a paper trail back to whoever signed off that the bolts were installed.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Usually firmly on the ground
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ETOPS
That it was removed from ETOPS schedules with the prior pressurization issues shows that the system at least filled some of the Swiss cheese holes.
if it was anywhere at FL39 instead of 16,000 feet the decompression would have been much more dramatic - probably sucking that kid out the hole that lost only his shirt. Lots of ‘lucky’ elements to this.
The fact that the FAA did a mass grounding points to it being a factory install issue - not an Alaska maintenance issue - such as troubleshooting the pressurization snag.
if it was anywhere at FL39 instead of 16,000 feet the decompression would have been much more dramatic - probably sucking that kid out the hole that lost only his shirt. Lots of ‘lucky’ elements to this.
The fact that the FAA did a mass grounding points to it being a factory install issue - not an Alaska maintenance issue - such as troubleshooting the pressurization snag.
Force on Door
Just to put some figures on the forces involved. If the door is 4ft by 3ft, then its area is 4x3x144, = 1728 square inches.
If the differential pressure is 5 psi, then the total force on the door is 8640 pounds, or about 4 tons.
As the door would weigh much less than 1/4 ton, it would experience an acceleration of over 16G., if all the fasteners failed at once.
If the differential pressure is 5 psi, then the total force on the door is 8640 pounds, or about 4 tons.
As the door would weigh much less than 1/4 ton, it would experience an acceleration of over 16G., if all the fasteners failed at once.
There's what looks like quite an informative contribution by a former Boeing engineering guy (jimpalmer1969) in the comments section below Juan Browne's initial analysis.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Montreal
Age: 65
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The emergency airworthiness directive has been issued, just now
https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExte...106201913.0001
https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExte...106201913.0001
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The emergency airworthiness directive has been issued, just now
https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExte...106201913.0001
https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExte...106201913.0001
FAA emergency AD grounds all MAX 9 with dummy plug door installed. Those airframes with operational emergency exit at that cabin location are not affected by AD.
The AD basically says no further flight until a yet to be specified inspection is carried out.
id imagine this inspection will be released very shortly.
The emergency airworthiness directive has been issued, just now
https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExte...106201913.0001
https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExte...106201913.0001
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Montreal
Age: 65
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel like that's because they don't know the exact root cause. They give a contact person in para j, I imagine he and his people will be up for a few days looking at all the feedback from inspections and coordinating with Boeing. Then there will be a final AD.