Boeing 737 Planes Grounded

The US FAA has grounded 171 Boeing planes after a piece fell off one in mid flight.

The US airline regulator has ordered the temporary grounding of some Boeing 737 Max 9 jets after an outer section of one of the planes fell off during an Alaska Airlines flight.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67903655

[idi banashapan]

Last time any of those people on board will get on a plane, I'm sure. Especially the guy who had his shift ripped off him... F that!

[nffc]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

Last time any of those people on board will get on a plane, I'm sure. Especially the guy who had his shift ripped off him... F that!

It's the kind of thing which happens so rarely it's big news when it does.


Statistically air travel is very safe, getting in a car and going to the supermarket is probably more likely to get involved in an accident. Of course, when a plane crashes, it's more likely to seriously injure or kill a lot more people but then that's the case if a bus crashes as opposed to a car too.


This looks to be some sort of manufacturing defect - it is noticeable that the shape ripped off is a door shape, and that Alaska got their 737s without an optional door in that place. It's possible the process of converting that was defective and maybe it wouldn't be something that might be picked up in maintenance. When you're travelling a long way up and at speed the pressurisation is much different so anything which could be weaker may well pop over time.

Commercial flights are by far the safest per mile travelled (Motorbikes are the least safe).
Private flights however have a poor record, they are the second worst, so if your going to fly, do it on a commercial flight.

[Hom3r]

The door that failed was blocked as its not used on the seat configuration used.


The plane was only 2 months old.


As has been said, you have more chance dying on the way to the airport than flying to your destination.

Originally Posted by Hom3r

The door that failed was blocked as its not used on the seat configuration used.


The plane was only 2 months old.


As has been said, you have more chance dying on the way to the airport than flying to your destination.

Unless you’re flying in a Boeing 737 max, which has a greater than average chance of crashing itself or jettisoning bits of its fuselage at random.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by nffc

This looks to be some sort of manufacturing defect - it is noticeable that the shape ripped off is a door shape, and that Alaska got their 737s without an optional door in that place. It's possible the process of converting that was defective and maybe it wouldn't be something that might be picked up in maintenance.

I'd go along with that analysis. The original configuration with a door would have been thoroughly modeled and tested, may be the conversion wasn't.

The door that blew out is apparenly held on by 4 bolts, that really doesnt sound like many.

An unused emergency exit door blew out, leaving a gaping hole in the side of the fuselage.

The door in question is meant to be securely bolted to the fuselage using four bolts.
The aircraft was only two months old, meaning simple wear and tear is unlikely to have been a factor.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67906367

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by nffc

This looks to be some sort of manufacturing defect - it is noticeable that the shape ripped off is a door shape, and that Alaska got their 737s without an optional door in that place. It's possible the process of converting that was defective and maybe it wouldn't be something that might be picked up in maintenance. When you're travelling a long way up and at speed the pressurisation is much different so anything which could be weaker may well pop over time.

Well…. Yeah.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Paul

The door that blew out is apparenly held on by 4 bolts, that really doesnt sound like many.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67906367

As mentioned in another thread, I’m an “Aircrash investigation” obsessive.

It may interest you to know that the tail of the Airbus A300, the Airbus equivalent to the 737, is only held on by three bolts.

And in 2001 a pilot over stressed the tail ( or vertical stabiliser) by wiggling the plane to avoid wake turbulence from the plane in front, and it sheared off.

The plane crashed killing all 260 on board.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...nes_Flight_587

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig1_279693318

Wow ..... my front door is held in place by more bolts.

Originally Posted by Paul

Wow ..... my front door is held in place by more bolts.

I bet your door wouldn’t withstand 900 kilonewtons before flying off

(The tail fin of that Airbus withstood more than doubled its design tolerance before failing - the ‘wiggling’ Pierre described was actually a series of extremely violent and excessive control inputs by the plane’s first officer, who had been poorly trained on how to escape the emergency situation they were in).

In the present case, Boeing has allowed yet another flawed 737 Max 9 out of the factory. The type is turning out to be a disaster. Netflix’s damning documentary on the company (Downfall: The case against Boeing) is well worth watching. It focuses on the software issue that caused the autopilot to crash more than one of them and concludes that the corporate culture at Boeing has gone rotten, killing off the safety culture the company used to be famous for.

The blanking plate installed in this aircraft where there would otherwise have been an optional emergency door is either badly designed, or else its installation at the factory was botched and then quality control failed to pick it up. Either possibility is unnerving.

Originally Posted by Chris

I bet your door wouldn’t withstand 900 kilonewtons before flying off

I not about to test that theory, it did withstand storms Gerrit and Henk.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

Netflix’s damning documentary on the company (Downfall: The case against Boeing) is well worth watching.

Definitely, I’ve watched it and a couple of others too.

It wasn’t so much the software issue, which was an attitude correcting program. The plane flew fine, if you knew how to fly it. As always it was about the money.

History…..Because the 737 airframe is essentially the same one for 55 years, but engines have changed, and for modern engines to fit the 55 year old frame they have to be slung way forward, therefore making the plane slightly unstable.

Boeing fixed this with software, as Chris says, but they filed the change as BAU, therefore not requiring retraining of pilots, because that is very expensive. So pilots did not not know that this software would make corrections to the plane’s attitude independently of the pilots inputs.

So, when you took off, you had the plane pulling up, so the pilot pushed down, and vice versa, which led to two crashes.

It was simply cost cutting over safety. Unforgivable, especially in aviation.

This morning’s developments:

- this specific aircraft had pinged pressurisation warnings in the cockpit on multiple occasions and Alaska Airlines had restricted it from long-haul flights over water in case it needed to land quickly.
- a teacher called Bob found the missing piece of fuselage in his back garden in Portland.
- an iPhone sucked out of the cabin during the emergency has been found, in working order.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67909417