Alaska Airlines 737-900 MAX loses a door in-flight out of PDX
The point of the door-style plug is it can be reconfigured to become an emergency exit for future use. So the aircraft is more flexible if the next operator should intend to max out the possible max seat count.
Kinda gives the lie to "Low fares, Great care" (latest advert) - they obviously aren't interested in safety ... rushing to buy aircraft where there is a demonstrated lack of quality in the build.
If for no other reason than this: Ryan Air if now firmly on my list of airlines to avoid.
If for no other reason than this: Ryan Air if now firmly on my list of airlines to avoid.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Montreal
Age: 65
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While “Throwawayboeing...” alleges that damaged and improperly installed rivets were recorded by Boeing to have been found on the door plug itself, The Air Current (TAC) reported (as posted here by joe_bloggs #1378 (permalink)**) on the basis of separate inside sources that these defects found by Boeing were “in the fuselage structure just forward of the plug exit door frame.” Both accounts date this recording on 1 Sept and note that Spirit “repaired” the issue by painting the affected rivets over, without addressing the underlying defects. TAC dates this recording by Boeing on 7 Sept and both accounts report that the defect was then sent back to Spirit to be readdressed.
...
...
In business, it's considered normal to try to get away with ethically grey things. "Let's try literally painting over the problem and see if we get away with it. If not, hey, we had to try." In business, that is considered virtuous, but it's poison for safety culture. Everyone from Boeing to subcontractors working for Spirit have got to be motivated, incentivized, trained, and rewarded for doing it right and erring on the side of caution.
I think the feeling of doom a lot of us feel is due to the fact that it's hard to imagine Boeing giving up its addiction to gross margin for anything. That's why Aviation Week expressed the opinion that over the coming years Boeing would give up on civil aviation, as impossible as that is to imagine.
Last edited by incompleteness; 29th Jan 2024 at 13:59. Reason: Spelling
Red emphasis mine. It think the attempt by Spirit to get away with a cosmetic 'repair' cuts right to the heart of the cultural conundrum that Boeing faces. I think we all realize this is about more than four bolts. There is something wrong with Boeing & it's supply chain.
I suspect few of us anticipate that someone formally reported "painted over it".
Yes, that has been mentioned a number of times earlier in the thread. Aimed at lessors, obviously.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: SOF BG/EU
Age: 63
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taped door plugs on N704AL
"Aviation Flights" has all kind of photos per airline of 737 MAX's coming out of Renton, whether it's being spotted first time outside the facility or first, second test flight, third and fourth test/acceptance flight. On their page for Alaska Airlines (https://aviation.flights/boe/custome...5/all/all/0,15) the green primer photos (when being spotted first time coming fresh out of the facility) are very interesting. Most primer aircraft are shown with already then fully installed, flush, apparently ready to fly mid-aft door plugs. For the accident aircraft N704AL (LN 8789) however, the mid-aft doors on these photos are tape sealed all around. This raises the question whether even at that stage there were some remaining issues and at the same time puts doubts whether the four bolts even at that late stage would or should have been definitely been installed. According to the website referred to, the photos of N704AL (LN8789) below were taken on 23 Sept, that is four days after Spirit contractors had completed the repair works on/or around the door plug and Boeing accepted as done. For comparison, the last two photos are from other green, just out of the factory aircraft from the same website around the same time (hence the same test registration). Tape, no tape = Work unfinished, work finished = Bolts not yet installed, bolts installed???
All photos credited to @CA350
All photos credited to @CA350
Last edited by D Bru; 29th Jan 2024 at 15:22. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Montreal
Age: 65
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something I've come across in various process/engineering situations is the whole mainstream Method Statement and QA checklist is thoroughly documented and watertight. However, this may not extend to the handling of QA failures, which may just rely at best on inspectors then using their ability for the process now needed to retest everything that needs retesting, down to the repairer just reporting back "fixed", without documenting what they did, or how.
I suspect few of us anticipate that someone formally reported "painted over it".
I suspect few of us anticipate that someone formally reported "painted over it".
I this case I suspect it was Spirit quality, not the tech, who decided to try painting it over. Yikes, right?
Last edited by incompleteness; 29th Jan 2024 at 15:08. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Wall Street Journal: Alaska Airlines Plane Appears to Have Left Boeing Factory Without Critical Bolts
It's behind a paywall
https://www.wsj.com/business/airline...d=hp_lead_pos3
Piece intro:
"Bolts needed to secure part of an Alaska Airlines jet that blew off in midair appear to have been missing when the plane left Boeing’s factory.
Boeing and other industry officials increasingly believe the plane maker’s employees failed to put back the bolts when they reinstalled a 737 MAX 9 plug door after opening or removing it during production, according to people familiar with the matter.
The increasingly likely scenario, according to some of these people, is based partly on an apparent absence of markings on the Alaska door plug itself that would suggest bolts were in place when it blew off the jet around 16,000 feet over Oregon on Jan. 5.
They also pointed to paperwork and process lapses at Boeing’s Renton, Wash., factory related to the company’s work on the plug door."
It's behind a paywall
https://www.wsj.com/business/airline...d=hp_lead_pos3
Piece intro:
"Bolts needed to secure part of an Alaska Airlines jet that blew off in midair appear to have been missing when the plane left Boeing’s factory.
Boeing and other industry officials increasingly believe the plane maker’s employees failed to put back the bolts when they reinstalled a 737 MAX 9 plug door after opening or removing it during production, according to people familiar with the matter.
The increasingly likely scenario, according to some of these people, is based partly on an apparent absence of markings on the Alaska door plug itself that would suggest bolts were in place when it blew off the jet around 16,000 feet over Oregon on Jan. 5.
They also pointed to paperwork and process lapses at Boeing’s Renton, Wash., factory related to the company’s work on the plug door."
I don't think there is any doubt or ambiguity over what it does, even if the terminology used is somewhat confusing.
The 737-9 (and the -900ER) are built with two additional large holes behind the wing, one each side, and obviously before flight, something has occupy those holes to stop passengers falling out ...
Customers take their pick as to what the "something" is: an active E/E (if the number of seats requires it), a deactivated E/E, or the stopper-upper© (technical term) that most airlines have chosen.
The 737-9 (and the -900ER) are built with two additional large holes behind the wing, one each side, and obviously before flight, something has occupy those holes to stop passengers falling out ...
Customers take their pick as to what the "something" is: an active E/E (if the number of seats requires it), a deactivated E/E, or the stopper-upper© (technical term) that most airlines have chosen.
You don’t build something. Depending on what you build means a whole lot of different requirements, processes, and products. There is also a big difference in price, accuracy, post delivery, etcetera.
Customers don’t ask OEM’s to put ‘something’ in (not a technical term, as you well know). The cost difference between the options above could be say 100:10:1, while the pricing to customers might differ for commercial reasons.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: SOF BG/EU
Age: 63
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s not about confusion but about risk. Words are very important here (believe it or not). Potential confusion also spreads out over the 5 phases that I sketched earlier. It would not surprise me if it turns out to be a core or contributing factor in this ‘lucky escape‘ event. Don’t know if you are familiar with interchangeability and what it means.
You don’t build something. Depending on what you build means a whole lot of different requirements, processes, and products. There is also a big difference in price, accuracy, post delivery, etcetera.
Customers don’t ask OEM’s to put ‘something’ in (not a technical term, as you well know). The cost difference between the options above could be say 100:10:1, while the pricing to customers might differ for commercial reasons.
You don’t build something. Depending on what you build means a whole lot of different requirements, processes, and products. There is also a big difference in price, accuracy, post delivery, etcetera.
Customers don’t ask OEM’s to put ‘something’ in (not a technical term, as you well know). The cost difference between the options above could be say 100:10:1, while the pricing to customers might differ for commercial reasons.
Last edited by D Bru; 29th Jan 2024 at 16:27. Reason: further precision
Join Date: May 2011
Location: U.S.
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree on the risk issue. And how many of the well over 400 plugged 900ER's out of a just over 500 overall 900ER's (delivered between 2007 to 2019) have since been converted into having an active E/E? I believe that number could well be close to zero. And given that most Max flying airlines apparently prefer the door plug option over a an active E/E door, what is wisdom? How to create a risk problem for nothing could be the question here. Could it have been better to stick to an all active E/E in the given spot, which could be deactivated if airlines would wish so. In stead of having a plug door, no door that is? That the "no door" didn't pose a risk until very recently is of course another matter. But as obviously times are changing, so should perhaps the options....
Following on from United's comments about the MAX9 grounding, Ryanair : "If United cancel any MAX10 slots, we will have them ..."
Ryanair tells Boeing it would buy any MAX 10 orders dropped by US airlines (msn.com)
I'm sure "at a price".
Ryanair tells Boeing it would buy any MAX 10 orders dropped by US airlines (msn.com)
I'm sure "at a price".
Join Date: May 2010
Location: SOF BG/EU
Age: 63
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So now, because of this suspected "escape" or "mis-engineering" of "the four plugs" and the public response (followed by websites that allow for filtering out certain 737 seatings), there finally could be a belated and unprecedented industry run on replacing the "door plug" with a non-functional E/E door. This still could fit all well within the readapted parameters of Boeing following the recent incident with N704AL. Of course this was not intended to be, but I'm not hiding a certain amount of irony
Last edited by D Bru; 29th Jan 2024 at 17:26.
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: NC
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: LA
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So now, because of this suspected "escape" or "mis-engineering" of "the four plugs" and the public response (followed by websites that allow for filtering out certain 737 seatings), there finally could be a belated and unprecedented industry run on replacing the "door plug" with a non-functional E/E door. This still could fit all well within the readapted parameters of Boeing following the recent incident with N704AL. Of course this was not intended to be, but I'm not hiding a certain amount of irony
An openable door assembly mounts in much the same way as the plug - it still uses the same stop fittings to hold the force from inside the aircraft and must have a similar motion to move the door stops past the fuselage stops. But now it has a latch that's intended to be releasable (and a slide if it's an active door). So instead of four fixed bolts, any one of which should be able to hold the plug in place, now there's a single latch mechanism that's more complicated and has an active release capability. It does at least have sensors and alarms, but those are also things that can fail and have to be maintained.
If it's turned into an inactivated door you end up with a releasable latch whose existence is completely hidden behind interior trim. So that hidden latch has to have some equivalent of the four bolts to keep it positively closed, leaving us with a similar risk of leaving the retaining/locking fasteners out, but with the addition of a complex mechanism that's actually intended to open.
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: KDCA
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see the point of a non-functional E/E door. Just seems like a potential catastrophe when people try to use it in an emergency and it's inop. Safer to just panel over a plug (assuming you can install the plug correctly...)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alexandria VA USA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not correct. Boeing recommends the standard deactivated exit for customers who anticipate conversion to a configuration requiring an additional exit. In fact, as pointed out in Chris Brady’s video on mid cabin doors, Boeing warns that there is significant rework necessary for reconfiguring a plug to a door. The purpose of the plug was to allow for an extra full sized window for customers who would never need the additional exit door.