United and Alaska Find Loose Bolts on Boeing 737 Max 9 Planes (theguardian.com) 155
UnknowingFool writes: Following the incident on Alaska Airlines 1282 on Friday where a door plug blew off mid-flight, the FAA ordered all Boeing 737 Max 9 airplanes to be grounded and the door plugs to be inspected. Both United Airlines and Alaska Airlines have now reported finding loose parts on their planes with United specifically listing "bolts" whereas Alaska only referred to "hardware." Both airlines have repaired the situation and put the planes back into service. It remains to be answered why the parts were loose and what further issues could arise.
who let the cost cutting PHB take over boeing? (Score:5, Insightful)
who let the cost cutting PHB take over boeing?
Re:who let the cost cutting PHB take over boeing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Contract driven project management results in cheapest by a nickel contractors. As they gain experience and their value/price goes up, they don't win the next bid. Thus no knowledge gain across projects - classic corporate penny pinching that leads to this type of crap.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a project/construction manager for construction of buildings/facilities, not for manufacturing aircraft. Having been in the consulting engineer side of construction for more than 40 years, I know that it's a very common practice for companies to hire outside entities for project management and construction management when expanding or remodelin
Re:who let the cost cutting PHB take over boeing? (Score:5, Informative)
who let the cost cutting PHB take over boeing?
When Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's own money, Boeing's tried-and-true leadership bailed out and Douglas' incapable, inept cost-cutting management moved in and changed the company culture.
That was 1997.
There were political motivations for this. At the time, Douglas was looking to China for potential partners. USA can't have that, no sir, so they forced this ill-advised merger.
And here we are. I'd rather fly in a 30 year old 757 with way too many hours on its hobbs meter than set foot on any post-merger design of Boeing's.
Re: (Score:2)
When Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's own money, Boeing's tried-and-true leadership bailed out and Douglas' incapable, inept
Note that they weren't inept, they were inept at building airplanes. They were good at office politics. These things go hand-in-hand.
Re: (Score:2)
who let the cost cutting PHB take over boeing?
The plug would have likely been initially installed at the manufacturer Spirit Aero. Boeing does final assembly of the aircraft after the fuselage is shipped to them. The question (still unanswered, but it will be) is who is responsible for checking the bolt's tightness. As I recall, in some cases, on some aircraft, the plug(s) may be removed to install some interior equipment (and reinstalled afterwards), but I am not familiar with the final assembly on the 737 Max 9 to know if that happened in this ca
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Mostly agree, but this bit:
In the end, Boeing takes the hit (in the public's eyes) as it is their aircraft.
Maybe in some eyes, but what I heard was a door blew off an Alaska Airlines flight. "The bolts weren't fastened tight enough at the factory" is not an excuse that will fly with me (a guy who checked every bolt on my new bike, and rechecks them periodically, and that's just a damn bicycle).
Fast forward to this article and we see that the airlines themselves when and checked the bolts, found them to be loose, tightened them, and returned them to service! Um... if those are user serv
Re: (Score:3)
Um... if those are user serviceable parts (Boeing told the airlines to check them; they didn't send out their engineers to check them), why haven't they been checked before?
Because accessing those bolts requires removing two rows of seats, multiple panels, five technicians and between four and eight hours.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you x-ray the welds too?
If checking the bolts is on the manufacturer's maintenance schedule and it wasn't done, then the airline is at fault. If it's not, or it wasn't recommended in the interval, then it's not. It is not a good idea to have every airline making up its own maintenance schedule from scr
Re: (Score:3)
If checking the bolts is on the manufacturer's maintenance schedule and it wasn't done, then the airline is at fault. If it's not, or it wasn't recommended in the interval, then it's not. It is not a good idea to have every airline making up its own maintenance schedule from scratch, because it is not just a damn bicycle.
The plane that had the issue was delivered in October 2023. I am pretty sure it has very few things to check on its maintenance schedule especially a bolt behind an interior panel that no one accesses.
Re: (Score:2)
Certain things on aircraft are inspected before and after every flight. On the 737 the maintenance A Check occurs every 500 flight hours, which on a heavily utilized airliner could be almost once a month, but is typically more like every two months.
You're right, interior bolts wouldn't be on any of the frequent maintenance schedules, which is why airlines shouldn't be messing with them on delivery, as the OP suggested.
Re: (Score:2)
This particular aircraft that the door plug blew out on was only two months past initial flight certification. It's basically a brand new airplane.
Alaska isn't totally without fault here either - it's not been reported that particular aircraft had the depressurization warning light come on a few times in previous flights, so it was restricted from flying an over-ocean route so they could emergency land if there was a depressurization event.
Sorry, if that light comes on, you better positively find out why b
Re: (Score:2)
Should be "now been reported." God damn no-edit-button.
Source [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Um... if those are user serviceable parts (Boeing told the airlines to check them; they didn't send out their engineers to check them), why haven't they been checked before?
On almost all transport (cars, trains, boats, aircraft, and even bycycles), the manufacturer sets out a maintenance schedule to be performed on a regular interval, and not before each and every trip. If every item was checked before every flight there would be more like one flight per aircraft about once every few months (the heavy maintenance can take over two months for some aircraft).
Those forms of transport also come with extensive documentation as to how to perform that maintenance when it is neede
Re: (Score:2)
More than that, Alaska Airlines took delivery of this particular aircraft in October. It's a brand new airplane - to think that you would have to start tearing apart the fuselage to check the bolts on a god damn door plug of a 2 month old aircraft is ludicrous.
This is nothing but another huge Boeing quality control issue.
Oh, and apparently United has now found several MAX 9 aircraft with loose door plug bolts as well.
This is not a "routine maintenance" issue. It's shitty manufacturing that they were very
Re: (Score:2)
The question (still unanswered, but it will be) is who is responsible for checking the bolt's tightness.
I submit that question will remain unanswered. Either some minimum wage scapegoat will be blamed and fired,
In *theory* there is someone who does the work, and someone else (the inspector) who checks that the work was completed properly. So at least two people (one of which is somewhat senior) will need to be scapegoated (which may still happen).
or the assembly records will be conveniently lost (like the cockpit voice recordings)
The cockpit voice recordings were not lost. The Airline Pilots union insisted that recordings are erased after two hours (in order to protect the privacy of the pilots). The NTSB will likely, again (this is not a new issue) make recommendations that the time frame be
Re: (Score:2)
There's just something *wrong* about moveable escape hatches.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism, that's who!
Re: (Score:2)
More face-saving than cost-saving. Possibly personal-bonus-saving.
Boeing management promised to deliver so many planes in 2023, and as the year drew to a close they were behind, so they ordered the production lines to sprint [reuters.com] to meet the promises.
Some of the things that ended up getting cut like quality control checks probably did save money in the short term, but nobody in his right mind could possibly think rushing to build something complex as an airliner is going to end well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't fly, but I think it should be safe. I also think the fuel should be taxed the same as my car. Not everyone forced it. I am tired of hearing planes overhead. Now please excuse me, my lawn needs some attention.
Oh I agree it should be taxed, but when the price rises I *will* complain about it, and that's the point isn't it.
Re:who let the cost cutting PHB take over boeing? (Score:5, Insightful)
It’s getting so deep in here I need a shovel. This is a direct result of engineers no longer running the company. It has nothing to do with poor people flying you entitled prick. Airbus doesn’t seem to produce planes that fly you into the ground or lose critical pieces during flight. Maybe because they have competent management who value safety over pennies.
Re:who let the cost cutting PHB take over boeing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Airbus has certain had it's share of design flaws [google.com], too.
Boeing just has it's share, and McDonnell Douglas' share, and several other companies shares as well.
Any company that size is run by MBAs, always, because the shareholders won't have it any other way.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, Boeing and Airbus issues are not comparable here.
Out of the two main manufacturers, Boeing is the one that has seen 4 major groundings of its aircraft since the 1980s (the 737 Classic in 1989, the 787 in 2013, the MAX in 2019 and 2024), while Airbus has had none.
Re: (Score:2)
That's [aiaa.org] not [pagesuite.com] true [latimes.com]. (That last one is from 2002, but involved a crash).
Boeing has had more, and worse, problems, but Airbus isn't the icon of perfection you want me to believe it is.
Engineers Running Show is Wrong (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Having observed Dennis Muilenberg for almost 10 years as the Boeing PM on Army FCS, it was clear that 'engineering' was not his interest. His primary interest was earning 100% of the award fee each year. Despite the well-documented problems with Boeing engineering, Muilenberg exercised no oversight to fix the engineering problems. "If the government pays full award fee, we don't have any real problems." I still remember watching him and the Army PM standing in front of the assembled "OneTeam" claiming FC
Re: Engineers Running Show is Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
"Engineers running the show" does not mean "the CEO earned an engineering degree and he runs the show, so...".
It means the CEO lets his engineers run his show.
--
Plenty of engineers go through a 'conversion experience' in the earning of their MBA degree. Engineering is a state of mind. It's practise includes reasonable respect to financial constraints. Utter devotion to financial metrics (aka greed) takes hold of many erstwhile 'engineers'.
Re: (Score:2)
Does wanting things to be cheaper make me entitled? Congrats you just described 100% of the human race removing all meaning of the word.
You don't seem to understand my point. The premise of the question has nothing to do with airbus's better safety record, it was "who let the cost cutting PHB take over boeing?" and the answer remains us, the market which shareholders wanted Boeing to capture.
Re:who let the cost cutting PHB take over boeing? (Score:4, Insightful)
You forced it. I forced it. Everyone forced it. We wanted everyone to be able to afford to fly, and not save flying for only the wealthy upper-class. To do that one of the things Boeing had to do was remove $50m from the sticker price (in todays dollars).
The market at work.
Who is "we"? And the drivers for the 737 Max were also time no doubt expressed as dollars. And there was significant cheating as well. They wanted the Max out quickly to compete with Airbus They wanted to maintain the normal 737 flight characteristics, so that they didn't have to have pilots retrained on flight simulators. They wanted to have bigger engines, but the 737 was already gulping air fairly close to the ground, so they raised the wing which with the bigger engine, which made for an unstable airframe, as at high angles of attack, the engine nacelles contributed to the lift, making stall more likely to happen. Enter the MCAS, and who on earth made the decision to keep it some sort of secret.
The door is a new issue, but all of the other issues of this star crossed plane would have been taken care of by not making MCAS secret, not trying to make it pretend to be a normal 737, and sensibly have pilots need simulator training, and above all allowing pilots control of MCAS.
I'm sure at the time the bean counters and top management thought these were sound decisions. Obviously they weren't. But it isn't anyone's fault but theirs.
Re: who let the cost cutting PHB take over boeing? (Score:3)
"I'm sure at the time the bean counters and top management thought these were sound decisions."
Only if you mean that in the sense that they expected not to get in trouble for these decisions personally. And I'll bet they were right.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm sure at the time the bean counters and top management thought these were sound decisions."
Only if you mean that in the sense that they expected not to get in trouble for these decisions personally. And I'll bet they were right.
Sure - when people who have no interest or understanding of the knowledge needed to build the technology they want to squeeze every last piaster out of, they will make certain to give themselves a get out of jail free card. Even if forced to resign, they personally profit. Some Janitor or Bob in the mailroom will pay though! 8^)
Re: (Score:2)
Who is "we"? And the drivers for the 737 Max were also time no doubt expressed as dollars.
Who is we? Anyone who flies or wants to fly somewhere, i.e. the market.
And yes the drivers are clearly my point. I want a cheap flight, you want a cheap flight. Airlines want us to buy their flights, but they need to upgrade their planes. Boeing wants to sell them planes but needs to do it at budget prices. At no point is anyone willing to give up profit.
The request comes from the bottom up.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet flying is nearly unimaginably safer than it was back in the days when it was only for the rich. Or the 80s, 90s or 00s.
Re: (Score:2)
That has zero to do with Boeing and everything to do with the FAA and global air safety regulations. Money doesn't give a shit about safety, case in point, the entire MAX 8 saga.
Re: (Score:2)
That has zero to do with Boeing and everything to do with the FAA and global air safety regulations. Money doesn't give a shit about safety, case in point, the entire MAX 8 saga.
I don't understand the argument. Death and destruction costs money when it occurs to say nothing of cost to reputation and prospects for future sales. How can money not give a shit when fucking up costs far more than doing it right the first time?
Re: (Score:3)
So how does Airbus, Bombardier, Lear, Gulfstream, etc. manage to build aircraft that don't try to lawn dart themselves from altitude (737 Max 8) or blow out door-sized chunks of the fuselage 2 months after rolling off the assembly line (737 Max 9)?
If it was a function of cost cutting, don't you think we'd see issues from aircraft manufacturers not named Boeing as well?
Seems you didn't think that one through in your rush to blame "the market" rather than "the only manufacturer with these issues."
Re: (Score:2)
We've had discount flights since the 1960s without incidents like this.
I remember discount flights in the 1960s. They cost about 2-3x as much as a flight today. An average intercontinental flight in the 60s cost 6x as much as it does today. Inflation is a thing you need to adjust for.
Flying is far FAR cheaper than it was in the 60s, claiming otherwise is quite delusional.
Re:who let the cost cutting PHB take over boeing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:who let the cost cutting PHB take over boeing? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because it's definitely not the fault of the multi-billion dollar companies.
Of course it's not the "fault" of those companies. They exist to make money. The will try and keep making that money. If they want to offer cheaper services to you who demand them they will find savings. Share holders are investors and expect returns.
This isn't their "fault", this is their expected method of operation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: who let the cost cutting PHB take over boeing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Boeing merged with McDonnell-Douglas and went straight to hell immediately. It has nothing at all to do with what people will pay for flights.
Top-level Boeing managers quit. (Score:5, Interesting)
"A company once driven by engineers became driven by finance."
Boeing must change leadership: Former employee [yahoo.com] Jan. 9, 2024
Quoting that story:
Boeing executives "need to get out of their corporate headquarters and they need to spend time with their troops on the factory floor and they need to understand what they're dealing with," Pierson, a former Boeing Senior Manager and a whistleblower on similar issues in 2019, adding: "If it was up to me, I would absolutely advocate the change of leadership."
Re:who let the cost cutting PHB take over boeing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone who scrolls through travelocity.com to find a flight that is $0.01 cheaper.
I'm sorry, I missed the option to click for "plane that doesn't fall apart." Can you tell me where it is in the UI?
Re:who let the cost cutting PHB take over boeing? (Score:4, Funny)
I'm only being halfway sarcastic. I know people who pick flights this way as they refuse to fly on a max. Sometimes you have to use a third party website like Seatguru to reverse engineer it and figure out what the plane will be (and hope it doesn't change).
Re: (Score:3)
It's the part of the UI that says "Airbus." Often you have to click through to the seat map.
I'm only being halfway sarcastic. I know people who pick flights this way as they refuse to fly on a max. Sometimes you have to use a third party website like Seatguru to reverse engineer it and figure out what the plane will be (and hope it doesn't change).
One of the reasons I prefer Google Flights (and it's older compatriot, ITA Matrix), they'll tell you the aircraft type during the search, sadly you cant' filter for it. As an aeroplane enthusiast, I like to pick certain aircraft (Yes, I'll pay extra to fly on an A380... at this point I'd pay a few quid extra _not_ to fly on a 787 Squeezeliner). I'm less concerned about the Max, the EU will kill it's chances of flying before things get too bad, even if the FAA does nothing, also I do have a flair for the fat
Re: (Score:2)
>I'm sorry, I missed the option to click for "plane that doesn't fall apart." Can you tell me where it is in the UI?
Look for flights on an Airbus.
Mod parent up, informative! (Score:2)
Your informative comment was modded down to -1?! When it should be modded to the MAX?
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone who scrolls through travelocity.com to find a flight that is $0.01 cheaper.
Are they the same ones responsible for the Boeing Starliner being the disaster that it has been? Its first unmanned flight MISSED the ISS where it was supposed to dock. Boeings reaction? "We count that as a success". Only a public outcry made NASA do an investigation that found 87 flaws. The next flight docked with "issues" including TWO propulsion systems down to the 3rd and final backup by the time the mission ended and they STILL don't know why. The next mission cancelled due to valve problems nee
Re: (Score:3)
Boeing (Score:2)
You think that's bad (Score:5, Funny)
Just look at all the loose nuts in the seats.
The Door Fell Off. Then the Stock fell off. (Score:2)
- What happened ?
- The Door Fell Off
- Why ?
- A bolt was loose.
- Is that unusual ?
- Oh Yeah. In A Boeing? Chance in a million.
- Where is this door now?
- It is out of the Environment...
- What happens after ?
- The Boeing Stock Fell off
- Is that unusual ?
- I want to make the point that that is not supposed to happen.
Re: The Door Fell Off. Then the Stock fell off. (Score:2)
Clarke & Dawe reference?
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously.
Not surprising... (Score:3)
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Informative)
...given that there seems to be more than one screw loose in Boeing's management. First, they cut corners in the flight software leading to two crashes, then they had to warn pilots about not using the de-icing system too much otherwise it could overheat, now they have door panels blowing out. If anti-lemon laws applied to aircraft I suspect there would be airlines queuing up for refunds.
Congrats. You've noticed half of the problems that the MAX line has experience in its first six years.
That last one could have been a maintenance mistake, but the other five are clearly design or manufacturing mistakes, and the sixth one might be (still under investigation, I think).
Re: (Score:2)
"has experienced"
Swears at keyboar.
Re: (Score:2)
That last one could have been a maintenance mistake
Boeing's shitty record aside, they do not make engines. If the leak was in the engine then it was more likely the fault of another company's shitty practices.
Obvious answer (Score:2, Informative)
If the defect is found across multiple aircraft then it goes back to the question of why this "door" was plugged in the first place.
I've watched enough aircraft accident reconstruction videos to know that if this "blew out", then the plug was not designed like the door it was supposed to replace (eg larger on the interior part of the aircraft.) And what very very likely is the reason is that the airlines wanted more passenger space so they removed the rear emergency door. They just didn't design a plug to f
Re: (Score:3)
"If the defect is found across multiple aircraft then it goes back to the question of why this "door" was plugged in the first place."
A 'plug-door' means that the door is hold closed and tight by the difference in air pressure, meaning these doors open to the inside, like in subs, to the outside.
But these model has doors opening the the outside, so I guess it's just shitty locks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Obvious answer (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There was a notorious accident caused by a cargo door being changed from an open-inwards and bigger on the inside door (plug door) to one that wasn't. The reason was inward opening doors had less cargo space to make room for the door, the new doors allowed more cargo space. The problem was the locking mechanism had to fool proof. Well it turned out that not only could the door appear to be locked when it wasn't but ground crew could force the locking lever into place even if it wasn't locked.
https://en.w [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The plug exists for the fact that depending on the seating arrangement used by the airline they may or may not be required to have a second emergency exit door.
As I have read several times about this is that this is not new to the MAX and has been the standard on 737 for a long time so either something changed in the design or some type of step is being missed. I am thinking something about the fastening design changed and is becoming loose over flight cycles.
Re: (Score:2)
As I have read several times about this is that this is not new to the MAX and has been the standard on 737 for a long time so either something changed in the design or some type of step is being missed. I am thinking something about the fastening design changed and is becoming loose over flight cycles.
A possibility but the plane that had the issue was delivered to Alaska in October 2023 so that leads me to believe there was a problem with installation and QA. Installation as there should be a specification on the minimum torque required to tighten the bolts that should not become loose in 3 months. QA in that being that a structural component, it have been inspected and tested at least once before it went to the customer.
Re: (Score:2)
A possibility but the plane that had the issue was delivered to Alaska in October 2023 so that leads me to believe there was a problem with installation and QA. Installation as there should be a specification on the minimum torque required to tighten the bolts that should not become loose in 3 months. QA in that being that a structural component, it have been inspected and tested at least once before it went to the customer.
Not even three months. Alaska probably had final fit-and-finish work to do upon delivery. The plane's first commercial flight was on November 11. Nothing comes loose in 8 weeks unless it started out that way.
Re:Obvious answer (Score:5, Informative)
And what very very likely is the reason is that the airlines wanted more passenger space so they removed the rear emergency door.
About 180 degrees from reality. More passengers = more emergency doors.
There are international standards on how quickly an aircraft can be completely evacuated in case of an emergency. Evacuation times directly correlate with the ratio of meat bags that need to squeeze out emergency exits to the number of emergency exits. Airlines have great latitude in how interior seating is configured in the aircraft they order. This particular airframe, if the airline wants maximum seating, would need that 'plug' to be a working emergency exit. Alaska Airlines chose to tilt the scales a little bit in favor of passenger comfort and have their aircraft delivered from the factory with fewer seats crammed in. Those fewer seats drop the aircraft to a maximum passenger count low enough that they are not required to have this be a working emergency exit.
Boeing does not want to have different fuselages just for different seat configurations. What they do when an airline orders a plane configured with a low enough maxiumum passenger count is 'plug' it. Remove the mechanisms that allow for a manual opening. Remove the emergency slide. Skin the inside with a cosmetic pannel that makes the interior look like a normal cabin wall. The restraining mechanisms that keep the door from opening in flight are still there. The hinges are still there. It is still a door. It just has no way for someone to try to open it and four bolts with cotter pins on the nuts are installed to physically keep the door from moving.
Outstanding question is whether those four bolts were just missing or if the cotter pins were missing and the nuts on the bolts vibrated themselves off over time. The fact that two airlines who have ripped open the inside of their planes for inspection have reported either 'losse bolts' or 'loose parts' could be taken as 'bolts are there but the nuts were coming off'.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that two airlines who have ripped open the inside of their planes for inspection have reported either 'losse bolts' or 'loose parts' could be taken as 'bolts are there but the nuts were coming off'.
That would be unfortunately the best scenario is that someone did not do a good job in installation and QA. It would be worse if the real reason was the nuts cannot hold the bolts. Or cheaper bolts/nuts were used. Or Boeing changed the spec to use different bolts and nuts than previous generations, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The nuts are castle nuts with cotter pins. When installed correctly, the cotter pins do not move or bend in use, so work hardening fatigue should not be an issue. The question is, what broke?
The reports that for the 3 previous flights had recorded cabin pressurization issues suggest that the plug was no longer sealed against the fuselage. That implies that either the seal failed (unlikely, IMO), one or more of the bolts yielded or snapped, a the castle nut(s) somehow loosened.
The fact that other airlines
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Could they fix the problem by giving every plane a proper evacuation door rather than making it optional? I haven't been hearing about problems from the ones that took the option, so perhaps the problem exists in the plugs but not the doors. That would mean they'd have to provide the (almost certainly costlier) option and perhaps not charge for it, but at least they'd be able to continue producing and shipping.
Re: (Score:2)
The door was plugged because in some seating arrangements a door has to go there but in other seating arrangements you don't want a door. So you build all the fuselages the same and then put door in some and a plug in the others.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of a plug that screws in where a door sometimes goes. It should be at least as safe from a design standpoint as having an actual door there. The problem is that it doesn't matter how sound your *design* is if the *assemblers* don't in
If it's the same bolts on every plane? (Score:5, Interesting)
Then it's either astounding laziness/ineptitude, or someone did it on purpose.
There's going to be detailed records of who worked on what - and who signed off on those actions.
Re:If it's the same bolts on every plane? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's worse than that. It's extremely unlikely that a "loose bolt" would allow that door to come off. It's multiple bolts with castle nuts and cotter pins. Being "loose" would not make them fall out AND the door needs to be lifted up off of "hooks" that go over the structure that the bolts go through.
So all of the cotter pins would have to be missing for the nut to unscrew all the way then all of the bolts would have to somehow have to slide out, then the door would have to move up and over the hooks. The last part is easily possible but all of those nuts and bolts falling out is damn near impossible even with the poorest quality control.
I'm thinking there is a possibly the bolts weren't even installed.
Re:If it's the same bolts on every plane? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a good point, I was always under the impression that any critical bolt in an aircraft is secured with safety wire to prevent exactly what you described.
https://malinco.com/everything... [malinco.com].
Maybe some things were dropped from this process because what I have seen is it labor intensive and somewhat skilled to do so many of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Detailed records cost time and money. Watch the investigation find no records or botched paperwork. So in the end it’s really nobody’s fault so nobody can take the blame.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then it's either astounding laziness/ineptitude, or someone did it on purpose.
That may be an immediate cause, but it's not the root cause. The root cause is poor QA/QC practices that allow a lazy/inept/malevolent person to cause this issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Poor QA/QC? That IS laziness.
Why is the plug even there? (Score:2)
One thing that gets me is why is the plug even there? It doesn't seem to be suitable for normal access and its presence seems to create a structural weakness. Is this a side effect of the way th 737 Max 9 is manufactured?
Re:Why is the plug even there? (Score:5, Informative)
Did a bit more hunting and found the following article:
https://www.travelcodex.com/wh... [travelcodex.com]
The relevant paragraph states:
Airlines can order an aircraft with whatever number of seats that can legally fit in that aircraft. It is for this reason that the door plug exists on the Boeing 737 MAX 9. Most 737 MAX 9 aircraft have less than 190 seats so the standard four exit doors and four overwing exits will satisfy the emergency egress requirement. RyanAir orders their Boeing 737 aircraft with high-density seating where there are 199 seats or more. On the RyanAir aircraft, the plug door is an actual full-functioning exit door. All airlines flying the MAX 9, have opted for the less-expensive door plug instead of a full-functioning exit door because these aircraft have less than 190 seats. It is interesting to note that the airline that has the functioning exit door, RyanAir does not fly the 737MAX 9. They currently fly a high-density seating 737 MAX 8-200 with 199 seats. This unique MAX 8 aircraft does have full-functioning doors at row 28.
Re: (Score:2)
One thing that gets me is why is the plug even there? It doesn't seem to be suitable for normal access and its presence seems to create a structural weakness. Is this a side effect of the way th 737 Max 9 is manufactured?
The plug is used when the airline selects a seating configuration that does not require another emergency exit. AFAIK none of the US airlines need that exit door due to their seating choices so all have plugs (while in some other countries the airline packs as many people as possible into the plane so requires the plug to be replaced by an emergency exit).
Using a plug allows some weight savings, and also make the experience of being in that row more consistent in the airplane.
Other models/versions of
Re: (Score:2)
The plugged door on the Max 9 is optional depending on how many seats the airline decides to put in. The aircraft is certified for a range of different seating configurations, and in the most dense variations an additional exit door is necessary given the number of passengers. In the seating config Alaska uses, the extra exit door is not required, so it is plugged.
Re: (Score:2)
One thing that gets me is why is the plug even there?
The Boeing 737 Max 9 has 10 doors in base configuration; however, all doors are only required by safety regulations if the plane has maximum seating capacity. For some airlines, they have multiple seating classes so they do not seat maximum capacity and are not required to have all 10 doors. So they will plug the door and put a row of seats there. This specific door makes more sense as the front and rear doors are used for loading the plane and supplies. The wing doors also do not make sense to plug either.
Wow, just wow (Score:2)
In an earlier article I said it was too early to assign blame. Let's see, in the past month, loose rudder bolts and now loose bolts found again. It seems evident that Boeing has lost its way. This 737 Max debacle has already killed 346 people and it looks like that count may continue to rise unless these piles of junk are pulled from service. There is no way in hell I would ever fly on recent Boeing aircraft. Airlines would be best to avoid Boeing like the plaque from this point forward. Boeing is done, bot
Re: (Score:2)
Literally every aircraft of every manufacturer ever built has an extensive list of inspect, eddy test, dye pen, replace, retorque, calibrate, rebuild, lubricate items on the mandatory maintenance lists. Some of these are airworthiness directives, some manufacturer service bulletins, some airline SOPs, some maintenance manual checklists, some just in the experience of seasoned mechanics. Just because a few of them have made the news on Boeing aircraft doesn't mean the list is any smaller or less impactful
Have you seen the price of threadlocker lately? (Score:2)
Have you seen the price of threadlocker lately?
I for one am prepared to give Boeing a complete pass on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you and remember to tip your servers, I'll be here all week!
just grab (Score:2)
First class (Score:2)
rivets screws (Score:2)
Damn, aviation figured this out decades ago, it needs to be designed for an use rivets.
https://aviation.stackexchange... [stackexchange.com]
Hardware (Score:2)
with United specifically listing "bolts" whereas Alaska only referred to "hardware."
I wonder if Alaska Airlines didn't want to use a more specific term because the door was being held on with drywall screws.
Undocumented change (Score:2)
Someone on Reddit speculate: https://www.reddit.com/r/boein... [reddit.com]
Spirit assembled these units for temporary installation as required to plan, and so these bolts were never final torqued and the crown nuts on the other side are not wired.
This is because planning called for Boeing to disassemble the fitting during installation,
and then Boeing was to reinstall the fitting, and included in the reinstall procedure were the steps to final secure and pin or wire the nuts on the far side.
Someone at Boeing figured out
Re: (Score:2)
[process failure deleted for brevity]
If that's what caused this, then more proof that bureaucracy kills. smh. Project / planning failure.
Even more stunning -- this airplane had lit indicators before about pressurization issues and the airline chose to still fly it in revenue service.
That's like one of us running the car with the CEL / MIL not just lit -- but flashing.
A single broken torque wrench (Score:2)
I have a broken one in my workshop too.
The root cause nobody will face (Score:5, Insightful)
There is supposed to be a somewhat hostile (at least SKEPTICAL) relationship between a regulatory authority like the FAA and an entity it regulates, like Boeing. Human beings are flawed, corruptible, temptable, and yes just plain lazy and greedy. As a result, any large entity full of humans is going to be at risk of bad behaviors. This means Boeing needs the FAA to look at them and their work with a skeptical eye. It also means congress needs to do proper oversight and look at the FAA with a skeptical eye. There was another skeptical eye that was required, but which totally failed - the federal government's anti-trust folks NEVER should have allowed Boeing to merge with its only remaining domestic competitor. I would argue that the Pentagon also should never have purchased aircraft from any company not also making civilian aircraft (this would have forced Lockheed to stay in the commercial market, including as an airline builder in order to be able to still feed at the Pentagon's giant cost-plus program funding trough).
With Lockheed dropping out of civilian airliner production after the L1011, and then Boeing merging with McDonnell Douglas, The USA only had one builder of passenger planes, and thus it became both a national security matter and a matter of national economic policy that Boeing needed protection. With that, the un-written rule in government became that Boeing could not be harmed. The FAA could scold them, but was never going to come down on them hard enough to put them at real risk. In that environment, it's not surprising that the FAA allowed Boeing to inspect and certify its own work. This might have worked as long as the old Boeing people were still around, but the WWII generation are gone, the generation that did the 747 and the original 737 are gone, and the hired-gun executives (many of whom came over from MD in the merger, but some of whom are post-merger with ZERO corporate memory of the old safety-first Boeing teams) are mostly "bean counters" rather than aircraft designers and builders. Your average maker of small propeller-driven planes is probably more scrutinized by the FAA at this point than Boeing. Just consider that, after TWO fatal 373Max crashes and all the public outcry, one would have expected the FAA to give the entire Max program a safety colonoscopy, but clearly that did not happen. Just like it did not happen when 767-based air tankers were delivered to the USAF with loose TOOLS banging about in the airframes.
My European friends may choose to chuckle over this, but the European regulatory overseers have a similar relationship with Airbus (which similarly replaces multiple legacy European airliner builders). Air France 447 comes to mind with its known pitot tube problems. Just as the American regulators cannot be seen sabotaging the remaining American airframer, the European regulators cannot be seen destroying Airbus. And given the alliances across the Atlantic, American regulators need to accept the European stuff and European regulators need to work with and accept the American stuff. This is very BAD and more manufacturers are needed competing on BOTH sides of the Atlantic, not only to restore some normal market forces, but also to make it so that no single plane builder is too vital to its economy and government to be allowed to fail.