Alaska Airlines 737-900 MAX loses a door in-flight out of PDX

[chucko]

Originally Posted by remi

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.

Watch for it to turn up on eBay.

[lateott]

Originally Posted by spornrad

Spring-eject was probably avoided via glue by paint / stickiness of seals. These plugs are never opened. Maybe the springs not installed? Vibration in ground ops overcame the sticking after some cycles. At least the upper two bolts were clearly not installed or fell out, since the retainer eyes are completely undamaged on the pics.

Maybe

I speculate the springs are present even in the plug adaptation (to aid install and maintenance of the plug and frame.)

I cannot see a good photo of the upper attachment points in the doorframe through which bolts in the upper guide fittings would install horizontally towards the fore and aft. But I would agree it is likely the upper bolts were missing or stripped or (maybe) sheared.

If I were working on my boat or RV I would pull the plug in from the top or middle for leverage, step on both hinges to counteract the spring, shove at least 1 bolt in the top to hold it against the spring force, then go about installing all the bolts.

But I suppose the installation/maintenance SOP may be more prescriptive in where to grab/pull/push for proper positioning.

These kinds of adaptations need to consider human factors in install/maintenance. If it were a door, that door would have a proper handle and latch and a logical "closing" sequence that naturally counteracts the springs. The fact that this is a plug adapted to the airframe may cause the technician to improvise.

[fdr]

Originally Posted by runner1021

All things considered, Boeing had a very lucky day. Had this happened on a flight halfway to PHNL at FL390, Boeing would no longer be in the commercial aircraft business.

Not quite, but it would be somewhat more embarrassing. The overwater flights are EDTO/ETOPS operations, and the depressurised fuel case has to be covered. Thats the good news. The bad news is that sitting at 10,000' for 2.5 or more hours, even near the tropics is going to be coolish for the fare payers. Needs lots of coffee. ~-5C outside (new inside temp for convertible model) There is a minor constraint that the range at the depressurised altitude is going to be a fair bit faster than desired for flight with a door open. Above 200KIAS gets pretty impressive buffet inside, but in this case, the guys were around 16,000' so the panel departed the plane at somewhere between 250-280KCAS, the usual climb speed for the 737. They could end up having to shut an engine down if limited by buffet to lower speeds.

Boeing would survive that, the pax would be pretty irritated.


Seat Guru probably just got a big increase in traffic....

[lateott]

Originally Posted by Intecler

Stupid question but..

Have a question about the plug.

In the video that MechEngr linked to, you don't see if the stop fittings will be on the inside of the stop pads or no.

If you compare with the door model, you can clearly see that it is on the inside in the closed position.

Can't link but search for "Climb on board Boeing's new 737 Max 9" on Google, it's the first link from Cnet, picture no.12.

Good question. Yes, the stop fittings would be on the inside of the stop pads when properly aligned. However, as noted before, the plugs (and doors where used) are mounted on spring-loaded hinges which force the plug up 1.5" and forces the stop fittings up above the stop pads until there is no more retention.

Edited to add: Also, that CNET photo 12 shows an actual door in the test aircraft, not a plug as was in this Alaska Airlines aircraft. However, the stop fittings are the same. The plug has no latch, only the 4 bolts to keep it in place.

[lateott]

Originally Posted by runner1021

All things considered, Boeing had a very lucky day. Had this happened on a flight halfway to PHNL at FL390, Boeing would no longer be in the commercial aircraft business.

True, however I speculated that it may not have been possible for this failure mode to occur at a higher altitude and pressure differential. More pressure differential means more friction on the stop fittings and less likelihood of shifting enough such that the plug would be shifted enough to be ejected.

Chain of events. There was surely a root cause, but multiple circumstances and contributing factors likely needed to align for this failure.

[JamaicaJoe]

Originally Posted by EDLB

Looks that all hinge bolts are still there so they should be able to figure what happened without the missing door. Strange that the door blew so low with little pressure differential. There must have been something serious amiss. Not a crack or single bolt failure, more like no bolt nuts at all and hold in place by luck and paint.

So that was where that bag of ten big bolts was supposed to go, -my bad,,, -- said some Boeing technician last night....

https://www.cnet.com/a/img/resize/bf...ebp&width=1200

[MAN777]

This sounds like the door was designed by IKEA, doesn't fit properly and you end up with extra bits.

[tdracer]

Before you all get too wrapped up in your anti-Boeing crusade, you might want to consider this little inconvenient fact: The fuselage isn't built by Boeing - all 737 fuselages are assembled in Wichita by Spirit AeroSystems. The fuselages are shipped to Renton by rail as basically complete structures with the plug (or door) already installed. Assuming that this was an assembly issue (as seems likely based on the lack of associated damage from the departed plug, as well as the AD'ed inspection), the blame should fall squarely on Spriit, not Boeing.
While Spirit was "Boeing Wichita" at one time, that hasn't been the case for nearly 20 years (Boeing sold them in 2005) and it has operated as an independent subcontractor since. Spirit is also a major supplier to Airbus.
While an alert inspector at Boeing might have picked up on missing fasteners, given that fuselage portion arrives as a compete, approved assembly, it is very unlikely that there is any task at Boeing Renton to verify that the appropriate fasteners are installed on that door plug.
Unfortunately, QA at Spirit has been an on-going issue for some time - especially with the 737 fuselages (the often-mentioned issue with the miss-drilled aft bulkhead holes also traces back to Spirit.
Interestingly, there was an article in the Seattle Times recently regarding Boeing and Spirit re-negotiating the contract for the 737 fuselages to include improved quality and QA inspections (presumably with an increase in price to Boeing, although I don't think the article specifically said that).

While I doubt it's feasible at this point for Boeing to bring in a new subcontractor for the 737 fuselage, I think Spirit badly needs to step up their game if they expect to receive any future new business (Boeing, Airbus, or anyone else). No airframer wants to be associated with the sort of liability (not to mention bad press) that the recent Spirit screwups have caused Boeing.

[helispotter]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

Unconfirmed reports that Alaskan had previously had to do work on the door.

I have read about prior pressurisation problems on this aircraft but where are the unconfirmed reports on what "work" (post #55) may have been performed on the plug? That is important since it may point to whether this is an issue related to manufacture or to maintenance activities.

[cooperplace]

Originally Posted by tdracer

Before you all get too wrapped up in your anti-Boeing crusade, you might want to consider this little inconvenient fact: The fuselage isn't built by Boeing -.

Hi TD,
Thank you for your as always detailed knowledge of Boeings, and it's good to know where the problem lies. Nonetheless, if a wheel fell off your Ford, you'd go back to the Ford dealer. If they said "that's not us, that's the fault of the sub-contractor that makes that part" you'd be unimpressed. You'd say "I paid my money to Ford, and I expect Ford to have better QC, and I might not buy a Ford next time".

Maybe selling Boeing Wichita was a mistake?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by tdracer

Before you all get too wrapped up in your anti-Boeing crusade, you might want to consider this little inconvenient fact: The fuselage isn't built by Boeing - all 737 fuselages are assembled in Wichita by Spirit AeroSystems. The fuselages are shipped to Renton by rail as basically complete structures with the plug (or door) already installed. Assuming that this was an assembly issue (as seems likely based on the lack of associated damage from the departed plug, as well as the AD'ed inspection), the blame should fall squarely on Spriit, not Boeing.
While Spirit was "Boeing Wichita" at one time, that hasn't been the case for nearly 20 years (Boeing sold them in 2005) and it has operated as an independent subcontractor since. Spirit is also a major supplier to Airbus.
While an alert inspector at Boeing might have picked up on missing fasteners, given that fuselage portion arrives as a compete, approved assembly, it is very unlikely that there is any task at Boeing Renton to verify that the appropriate fasteners are installed on that door plug.
Unfortunately, QA at Spirit has been an on-going issue for some time - especially with the 737 fuselages (the often-mentioned issue with the miss-drilled aft bulkhead holes also traces back to Spirit.
Interestingly, there was an article in the Seattle Times recently regarding Boeing and Spirit re-negotiating the contract for the 737 fuselages to include improved quality and QA inspections (presumably with an increase in price to Boeing, although I don't think the article specifically said that).

While I doubt it's feasible at this point for Boeing to bring in a new subcontractor for the 737 fuselage, I think Spirit badly needs to step up their game if they expect to receive any future new business (Boeing, Airbus, or anyone else). No airframer wants to be associated with the sort of liability (not to mention bad press) that the recent Spirit screwups have caused Boeing.

Spirit is a product of the Boeing culture, Cheap, Fast, Nasty. Boeing contractually incentivizes the quantity over quality mindset that virtually guarantees the pickle fork debacle, extra holes in the pressure bulkhead, departing exit EE plugs etc etc all of which are a direct result of bean counter management that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Boeing is the poster child of an organization that never has the time, people, or money to do the job right, then has to scramble to find the time, people, and money to do the job over.

What a sad end to a company that was the world leader in commercial aviation.

[CMM]

Originally Posted by tdracer

Before you all get too wrapped up in your anti-Boeing crusade, you might want to consider this little inconvenient fact: The fuselage isn't built by Boeing - all 737 fuselages are assembled in Wichita by Spirit AeroSystems. The fuselages are shipped to Renton by rail as basically complete structures with the plug (or door) already installed. Assuming that this was an assembly issue (as seems likely based on the lack of associated damage from the departed plug, as well as the AD'ed inspection), the blame should fall squarely on Spriit, not Boeing.
While Spirit was "Boeing Wichita" at one time, that hasn't been the case for nearly 20 years (Boeing sold them in 2005) and it has operated as an independent subcontractor since. Spirit is also a major supplier to Airbus.
While an alert inspector at Boeing might have picked up on missing fasteners, given that fuselage portion arrives as a compete, approved assembly, it is very unlikely that there is any task at Boeing Renton to verify that the appropriate fasteners are installed on that door plug.
Unfortunately, QA at Spirit has been an on-going issue for some time - especially with the 737 fuselages (the often-mentioned issue with the miss-drilled aft bulkhead holes also traces back to Spirit.
Interestingly, there was an article in the Seattle Times recently regarding Boeing and Spirit re-negotiating the contract for the 737 fuselages to include improved quality and QA inspections (presumably with an increase in price to Boeing, although I don't think the article specifically said that).

While I doubt it's feasible at this point for Boeing to bring in a new subcontractor for the 737 fuselage, I think Spirit badly needs to step up their game if they expect to receive any future new business (Boeing, Airbus, or anyone else). No airframer wants to be associated with the sort of liability (not to mention bad press) that the recent Spirit screwups have caused Boeing.

I don’t see any relevance to this argument.

The aircraft has Boeing written on the side of it. Customers pay Boeing. Boeing selects its contractors. If they’re crap it is still Boeing’s problem and reflects badly on Boeing as a company.

That is really all there is to it IMO. They are going the same way as all companies in other safety critical industries that cut costs because quality processes are expensive, then cut too much and it all blows up in their faces and costs way more than doing things properly in the first place would.

The sad thing is the public and the workers (who usually turn up to work to try and do a good job) suffer. The people who set the policies get away with it.

I would like to see large numbers of senior managers fired over this; not the factory fitters. That would send a message.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by Big Pistons Forever

Spirit is a product of the Boeing culture, Cheap, Fast, Nasty. Boeing contractually incentivizes the quantity over quality mindset that virtually guarantees the pickle fork debacle, extra holes in the pressure bulkhead, departing exit EE plugs etc etc all of which are a direct result of bean counter management that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

No first hand knowledge, but scuttlebutt at the time Boeing spun off Wichita to Spirit was that Seattle was sick and tired of their lack of control over what Wichita was doing. Wichita was where many of the engine nacelle bits were produced, and the issues we had with those components was legend - and when Wichita was part of Boeing, taking the contract away and giving it to a non-Boeing supplier was a non-starter. The hope was that, making Wichita a non-Boeing supplier would actually increase our leverage by giving us the ability to take our business elsewhere.
The rot in Wichita dates back to long before you could blame the MacDac effect.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by CMM

I don’t see any relevance to this argument.

The aircraft has Boeing written on the side of it. Customers pay Boeing. Boeing selects its contractors. If they’re crap it is still Boeing’s problem and reflects badly on Boeing as a company.

That is really all there is to it IMO. They are going the same way as all companies in other safety critical industries that cut costs because quality processes are expensive, then cut too much and it all blows up in their faces and costs way more than doing things properly in the first place would.

The sad thing is the public and the workers (who usually turn up to work to try and do a good job) suffer. The people who set the policies get away with it.

I would like to see large numbers of senior managers fired over this; not the factory fitters. That would send a message.

Funny, I don't recall similar "Airbus Sucks" threads when the A350 had issues due to the Rolls engine shutdown rate, or A220/A320s ending up AOG because of issues with the Pratt geared turbofan...
Yes, it all reflects badly on Boeing, and the general public don't know the difference. But I expect a little better from aviation 'professionals'.

[Easy Street]

Originally Posted by tdracer

Funny, I don't recall similar "Airbus Sucks" threads when the A350 had issues due to the Rolls engine shutdown rate, or A220/A320s ending up AOG because of issues with the Pratt geared turbofan...
Yes, it all reflects badly on Boeing, and the general public don't know the difference. But I expect a little better from aviation 'professionals'.

That's a weak response considering that professionals understand very well how customers choose their engine manufacturer and have their engines supported independently of the airframer.

[CMM]

Originally Posted by tdracer

Funny, I don't recall similar "Airbus Sucks" threads when the A350 had issues due to the Rolls engine shutdown rate, or A220/A320s ending up AOG because of issues with the Pratt geared turbofan...
Yes, it all reflects badly on Boeing, and the general public don't know the difference. But I expect a little better from aviation 'professionals'.

I don’t think the problems related to quality that Boeing are having are in any way comparable with other aircraft manufacturers. I realise there will be some sentimentality based on your location, but the proof really has to be in the eating.

It appears there is a vast difference in Quality Culture between organisations.

[Tobin]

Originally Posted by lateott

Facts and speculations:
3) The plug design is spring loaded to lift itself 1.5 inch, clear its stop fittings from the frame's stop pads, swing down, and eject itself from the plane at flight speeds (facts with hyperbole)

This seems consistent with the videos explaining it, but it immediately raises the questions:

Why is the plug door, which is never meant to be opened, designed such that it can be raised out of its stop fittings, as if to open? Why is so much of the opening mechanism apparently present in this non-opening plug? Why is opening only prevented by a few bolts? Why is the plug not fundamentally shaped so that it cannot move at all, and certainly not beyond the stop fittings, under any circumstance?

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by Easy Street

That's a weak response considering that professionals understand very well how customers choose their engine manufacturer and have their engines supported independently of the airframer.

Curious, what non-Rolls Royce engine option is there on an A350 (or non-GE option on a 777x)?
While the airframer has some control over their suppliers, in the end all they really do is pull the contract and give it to someone else who will do a better job.
Not overly practical for an A350 (or 777) engine or the 737 fuselage.
Oh, and what makes you think the bits Spirit supplies to Airbus are of any better quality than what they supply to Boeing?

[ve3id]

Originally Posted by ACW342

And yet again we see the reluctance for U.S. pilots to declare MAYDAY!! MAYDAY!! MAYDAY!! that gets EVERYBODYS immediate attention rather than a mumbled call and where a controller had to ask "are you an emergency or do you just wish to return to Portland" that was after he stopped their descent at 7000' from what I could hear on the R/T recording, posted earlier. Unless, of course, you don't consider having a piece of your aeroplane falling off causing an explosive decompression (or should that be an unplanned pressure operated, gravity assisted, removal of a fuselage panel and internal atmosphere) A342

Mayday sounds like French to the Yanks! I cleaned up on French wine in a US store once when they were having a snit with them, as they sold it cheaper than local vintages and seemed glad for me to take it!

[OldnGrounded]

Originally Posted by tdracer

While an alert inspector at Boeing might have picked up on missing fasteners, given that fuselage portion arrives as a compete, approved assembly, it is very unlikely that there is any task at Boeing Renton to verify that the appropriate fasteners are installed on that door plug.

Unfortunately, QA at Spirit has been an on-going issue for some time - especially with the 737 fuselages (the often-mentioned issue with the miss-drilled aft bulkhead holes also traces back to Spirit.

"It's not our fault, it was the subcontractor!" Not a very persuasive defense argument.

Perhaps, since there is a known, ongoing QA problem at Spirit, someone at Renton should be doing those inspections.