AS Flight1282: Another Boeing 737 MAX crisis

Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Adding to the mystery, The Air Current aviation news website reported Thursday that during final assembly of the MAX 9 involved in the accident, Boeing mechanics did find some loose bolts in the door frame — different from the four bolts discussed above — around the plug on the right side that did not blow out, and had tightened them.”

I really don’t know what to make of that. It sounds like they started the procedure of installing the door and for whatever reason didn’t finish it. Someone signed it off.
 
andytiedye said:
Those were seats that someone could have been upgraded TO, since they had extra legroom.
Click to expand...
If there had been a real emergency exit at that row - YES - extra legroom might be in play.
But since this was not the case - suspect that the normal seat to seat leg room to be the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jis
Maglev said:
The door plug was made in Malaysia:

https://fortune.com/asia/2024/01/18...-malaysia-spirit-aerosystems-boeing-supplier/
Click to expand...
It's not the part, it's the assembly. The FAA is being tougher this time. It's not clear if the inspection will extend to more bolts in more places. The comments section at the Seattle Times is well-informed and not overrun by junk, by the way.

Spirit AeroSystems's main customer is Boeing, but it also supplies Airbus and Bombardier. More from an older Spirit press release:
WICHITA, Kan., Oct. 30, 2020... Acquisition of select assets of Bombardier aerostructures and aftermarket services businesses in Belfast, Northern Ireland (known as Short Brothers); Casablanca, Morocco; and Dallas, United States.

... Acquired certain liabilities... including ... obligations under a repayable investment agreement between Short Brothers and the United Kingdom's Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy...

Spirit AeroSystems designs and builds aerostructures for both commercial and defense customers... operates sites in the U.S., U.K., Malaysia and Morocco. The company's core products include fuselages, pylons, nacelles and wing components...
Click to expand...

Spirit just last fall was trying to put the squeeze and Boeing and Airbus.
 
All posters must recognize that all door openings either active or plug doors are the same. That is all hardware on the door frames are the same so an emergency door can be easily inserted into the opening. Only the attach hardware for plug doors connecting to frame hardware is unique. That connects the plug door to the frame of the opening. As I understand it the hardware attaching the door hardware are bolts going into the frame. However, some of that connecting hardware includes a bolt and cotter pin nut so those bolts were initially suspect. IMO all bolts on ALL doors need to be checked!

Spirit sends the fuselages fully sealed, windows access panels & wing connection points among other items. Remember that Boeing removes all doors once fuselages arrive at Everett for necessary construction work. That includes over wing exit & cockpit sliding windows. As well probably some access panels as well. During "D" checks that I inspected those removals were often done as well.

With the non-disclosure of other connection problems including mis placed aft bulkhead ones who knows.
 
I wonder why they don't have more than four bolts, or maybe some redundant saftey chains or catches. So the door/plug would wiggle around obviously loose before completely letting go.
Of course if someone completely botched the final assembly somehow it wouldn't matter.
 
United Airlines' quarterly financial summary had a lot to say about Boeing and quality control:

https://aviationweek.com/air-transp...es-removes-max-10-internal-plan-cant-count-it
Apparently paywall-free only until Jan 30, 2024. Key quote:

“They’re going through a rough patch right now, but I believe that Boeing—across the board from top to bottom—is committed to changing and fixing it,” (CEO Scott) Kirby said. “I’m encouraging them to do it even faster.”
 
tgstubbs1 said:
I wonder why they don't have more than four bolts, or maybe some redundant saftey chains or catches. So the door/plug would wiggle around obviously loose before completely letting go.
Of course if someone completely botched the final assembly somehow it wouldn't matter.
Click to expand...
Asher said:
“Adding to the mystery, The Air Current aviation news website reported Thursday that during final assembly of the MAX 9 involved in the accident, Boeing mechanics did find some loose bolts in the door frame — different from the four bolts discussed above — around the plug on the right side that did not blow out, and had tightened them.”

I really don’t know what to make of that. It sounds like they started the procedure of installing the door and for whatever reason didn’t finish it. Someone signed it off.
Click to expand...

A Dominic Gates story, offering tentative answers to many questions that have come up, has just posted: Errors by Boeing at Renton plant led to Alaska Airlines MAX 9 blowout, industry source says
It includes a diagram of how the plug is attached. He covers a purported insider account of the QA in this case. It's a lengthy, detailed narrative that's been going around. He compares it to what he knows from his own sources.
 
The CEO of Boeing was on Capitol Hill today trying to pacify Senators, but the Chairperson of one of the Committees overseeing Airline issues, said that Public hearings will be held.

Aii 737 Max's are Grounded and the FAA ordered production @ Boeing to be halted as investigations continue!
 
Just think of it - - - take all those 737 questionable air frames (i.e. plug doors) cut off the tail - nose section
replace with connecting platforms and couplers between coaches and put it on railroad wheels -
AND - instant passenger coach cars requiring no cabin pressurization or plugged emergency doors.
Well something on that order - - - - - Boeing instead of Budd transport ?
Maybe something like 200 frames available for conversion - - -
Oh well back to the wishing drawing engineering board !

In the good ole USA we are way behind in refining the transportation system
 
As previously reported, a new aircraft was a non-starter for a number of reasons. With the current technology, there really isn't any advantage to the huge expense of designing a new midrange aircraft. All the efficiencies are in the engines and the wing tips. The wing tips are a no-brainer, but the newer, more efficient engines were too large to fit under the wings without moving them forward and upward. This made the plane somewhat unstable under certain circumstances, leading to the MCAS fiasco. But again, as well known, the airlines put *huge* pressure on Boeing to not change the 737 type certificate. The cost of retraining and having multiple type fleets is enormous. Boeing didn't want to make a new plane, and the airlines, without exception, didn't want one.

So the market and design forces combined to make an infinite series of 737's inevitable. What didn't have to happen was Boeing's attempts to make the planes as cheaply as possible by moving both plants and management around the country, and parting out as much of the prefab as possible. For a very technical discussion of how this affected safety communication, see:

 
railiner said:
With all the 'fixes' the 737 Max version's have undertaken, in retrospect, would Boeing have been better off designing an all-new aircraft for the market's it's designed for? 🤔
Click to expand...
That would have required keeping on the engineering and design staff at Renton, which would have been the kind of expense that depresses shareholder value and makes new aircraft expensive. Having to work with legacy computer code that new engineering graduates don't know meant that the later generations of 737s are the functional equivalent of trying to design an electric car using the works of a 67 Mustang. As older engineers left, refused to relocate and compete for their jobs, or retired, fewer and fewer engineers remain that are even moderately capable of doing that. At least, that's what the old timers at Boeing think.
 
Last edited:
railiner said:
With all the 'fixes' the 737 Max version's have undertaken, in retrospect, would Boeing have been better off designing an all-new aircraft for the market's it's designed for? 🤔
Click to expand...
Boeing did not need to design a new aircraft. It could have used the B-757 airframe as an easily modified and lengthened aircraft. As well the maximum possible stretch of a B-757 could canary more passengers than any 737 MAX will be able to do.

The biggest advantage is that the 757 landing gear is tall enough that engines could remain in the proper position under the wings. There fore no MCAS system needed. Either the rolls Royce or P&W engines have capability to be upgraded to produce 25 - 40% more thrust. Also, the pilots 757 type rating is good in the B=767 aircraft as cockpit layout and performance almost identical.

The one problem I can see with a 757 is that the taller landing gear will cause the cabin floor and door ways to be higher. No problem in the USA with most airports having jet ways. However, in third world countries some portable stairs might not reach floor 757 level.
 
west point said:
The one problem I can see with a 757 is that the taller landing gear will cause the cabin floor and door ways to be higher. No problem in the USA with most airports having jet ways. However, in third world countries some portable stairs might not reach floor 757 level.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the A321NEO have the same issue? I don't know if it's as high as the 757, but it's definitely higher than the 737. Despite the height, the a321 has been very popular.
 
west point said:
Boeing did not need to design a new aircraft. It could have used the B-757 airframe as an easily modified and lengthened aircraft. As well the maximum possible stretch of a B-757 could canary more passengers than any 737 MAX will be able to do.

The biggest advantage is that the 757 landing gear is tall enough that engines could remain in the proper position under the wings. There fore no MCAS system needed. Either the rolls Royce or P&W engines have capability to be upgraded to produce 25 - 40% more thrust. Also, the pilots 757 type rating is good in the B=767 aircraft as cockpit layout and performance almost identical.

The one problem I can see with a 757 is that the taller landing gear will cause the cabin floor and door ways to be higher. No problem in the USA with most airports having jet ways. However, in third world countries some portable stairs might not reach floor 757 level.
Click to expand...

The 757 is history. From Wikipedia:

"Customer interest in new 757s continued to decline, and in 2003, a renewed sales campaign centered on the 757-300 and 757-200PF yielded only five new orders. In October 2003, following Continental Airlines' decision to switch its remaining 757-300 orders to the 737-800, Boeing announced the end of 757 production."

Further down in the article, it said that reviving the 757 had been studied in 2015 and in 2020, and both times had been decided against. Airlines want their 737's. They just want them to not blow open.
 
Last edited:
west point said:
Boeing did not need to design a new aircraft. It could have used the B-757 airframe as an easily modified and lengthened aircraft. As well the maximum possible stretch of a B-757 could canary more passengers than any 737 MAX will be able to do.

The biggest advantage is that the 757 landing gear is tall enough that engines could remain in the proper position under the wings. There fore no MCAS system needed. Either the rolls Royce or P&W engines have capability to be upgraded to produce 25 - 40% more thrust. Also, the pilots 757 type rating is good in the B=767 aircraft as cockpit layout and performance almost identical.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of knowledgeable people who agree with you - from enthusiasts to engineers, however @Brian Battuello has accurately summarized the end of the 757 and the subsequent attempts to resurrect it. I have several friends in the industry who think it's one of the best models ever built or flown by their airline. Its replacement was supposed to happen a few years ago but Boeing decided to focus on the MAX versions of the 737, which were supposed to save the airlines money on training. The latest A321 models fill much of the remaining niche.
 
Still yet none of this aircraft stuff helps the (Amtrak) passenger railroad service achieve a better level
of travel experience.
Trains are not pressurized with poppable plug emergency doors.
With the number of planes grounded this does not help moving the masses of travelers forcing perhaps
alternative travel by rail.
It will cause crowding on dated equipment - badly needing up grading - but now needed to solve the
movement of limited scheduled air service.
This is not anywhere near as bad as the 911 activity with all aircraft grounded - but should certainly
serve a wake-up call to get more railroad equipment as an efficient alternative means of travel.
 
737s were pi8cked over 757s because Boeing priced the 737 lower. But a super stretch 757 costs per seat would have been less. But they were never built not even one as speculation.

Now more problems and one as a pilot dislike extensively. Engine anti ice overheats after 5 minutes, What is not said if that is both on ground and / or in flight. I have had to use engine anti ice much longer on taxiing, takeoff, & climb until out of icing. Air Florida did not and look how they landed on the Potomac.


"QUOTE" "MSN"
Just a week before the Alaska Airlines 1282 blowout incident, a nut was found to be missing in the rudder system of a 737 MAX in India, leading Boeing to find loose bolts in its new aircraft awaiting delivery. In August, the FAA warned that the anti-ice system overheats if used for more than five minutes at a time, which could lead to part of the engine breaking off. The FAA said that this “may cause fuselage and/or window damage, potentially resulting in decompression and hazard to window-seated passengers aft of the wing and/or impact damage to the wing, flight control surfaces, and/or empennage, which could result in loss of control of the airplane.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/ne...S&cvid=7f21e98d56624a39b8a7e0663d2cc9e8&ei=30
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top