| Alaska Airlines 11:20 - Jan 8 with 3030 views | CBBlue |
So it appears Alaska Airlines knew there was a problem with that plane as the warning light had come on during three previous flights 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67909417
That's just made my confidence in plane safety dip quite considerably reading that. |  |
| |  |
| Alaska Airlines on 11:55 - Jan 8 with 2876 views | factual_blue |
Lawyers across the States are rubbing their hands in glee. |  |
| |
| Alaska Airlines on 12:15 - Jan 8 with 2830 views | stonojnr |
just wait till you hear what the safety record of the vehicles that take you to the airport is like. | | | |
| Alaska Airlines on 12:52 - Jan 8 with 2718 views | ElderGrizzly |
They knew there was a pressurisation issue with the plane, not necessarily that part that had the issue.
Planes fly every day with issues, which are permissible under the manufacturers and airlines guidelines but should be fixed next time at base or when the next technical check is due.
Despite the headlines here, this is not anything abnormal. |  | | |
| Alaska Airlines on 13:04 - Jan 8 with 2623 views | Churchman |
| Alaska Airlines on 12:52 - Jan 8 by ElderGrizzly |
They knew there was a pressurisation issue with the plane, not necessarily that part that had the issue.
Planes fly every day with issues, which are permissible under the manufacturers and airlines guidelines but should be fixed next time at base or when the next technical check is due.
Despite the headlines here, this is not anything abnormal. |
You are right. Bits drop off aeroplanes all the time too. It’s how it is has always been. It doesn’t sound anything abnormal to me either.
I’ll be interested to know why a chunk of the fuselage failed on a relatively new aircraft. The actual airframe design dates to the 1960s. 737s have been around that long.
Regardless if ever there was a lesson to keep your seatbelt on (albeit loosely) when not mooching round the cabin, that was it. |  | | |
| Alaska Airlines on 13:11 - Jan 8 with 2589 views | CBBlue |
| Alaska Airlines on 12:52 - Jan 8 by ElderGrizzly |
They knew there was a pressurisation issue with the plane, not necessarily that part that had the issue.
Planes fly every day with issues, which are permissible under the manufacturers and airlines guidelines but should be fixed next time at base or when the next technical check is due.
Despite the headlines here, this is not anything abnormal. |
Not exactly what I want to hear as a nervous flyer...now to pretend I never read that  | |
| |
| Alaska Airlines on 13:14 - Jan 8 with 2581 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Alaska Airlines on 12:52 - Jan 8 by ElderGrizzly |
They knew there was a pressurisation issue with the plane, not necessarily that part that had the issue.
Planes fly every day with issues, which are permissible under the manufacturers and airlines guidelines but should be fixed next time at base or when the next technical check is due.
Despite the headlines here, this is not anything abnormal. |
They (Boeing) are always going to get heightened scrutiny after the 737-Max disasters in 2019. Rightly so since they looked to offload blame to the pilots rather than a design defect.
Worth having a watch of the Netflix documentary on the allegedly poor practice at Boeing. Certainly the accusations of cuttting corners in order to maximise profits are very concerning. | | | |
| Alaska Airlines on 13:45 - Jan 8 with 2473 views | stonojnr |
| Alaska Airlines on 13:04 - Jan 8 by Churchman |
You are right. Bits drop off aeroplanes all the time too. It’s how it is has always been. It doesn’t sound anything abnormal to me either.
I’ll be interested to know why a chunk of the fuselage failed on a relatively new aircraft. The actual airframe design dates to the 1960s. 737s have been around that long.
Regardless if ever there was a lesson to keep your seatbelt on (albeit loosely) when not mooching round the cabin, that was it. |
because it was a door, well technically a plug instead of a door, a plug door you might say.
the fuselage is built one size fits all, so it comes with the hole for an emergency door there whether you want one or not, Alaska did not need one there due to the passenger capacity they were going for, and so you use a plug door to fill the gap and it then looks identical to the rest of the plane from the interior.
in theory the plug door is secured by a series of bolts, and a setup which means it has to be pushed down and use a spring mechanism to open, to make up for the fact its a plug door, rather than an emergency exit with a proper latching lock mechanism, and never in the life of the plane is ever expected to open, or be opened, except for specific maintenance checks.
so based on that what do you think the likely problem was ?
the plane is too new for it to be fatigue cycle based wear of components, so it implies there was something missing in the way the plug door was secured to the fuselage.
which is most likely the bolts, at least imo, either werent fitted at all, werent fitted properly or were defective in some way, as all the other parts of the mechanism if faulty or broken would be spotted visually outside as the door wouldnt be closed.
so the why is relatively straightforward, the how is a different matter as how were the bolts missed or not fitted properly, and who was the last person who touched them
as this is where you get into a complicated chain of Boeing subcontract the fuselage build to an ex Boeing contractor, it gets delivered to Boeing who do the assembly and build before passing it off to Alaska, who might then use other contractors for additional build requirements Boeing dont provide, and then Alaskas maintenance team might have to sign the plane off as fit to fly in service.
thats alot of eyeballs that missed a set of bolts on a safety critical component. | | | |
| Alaska Airlines on 14:16 - Jan 8 with 2408 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Alaska Airlines on 13:04 - Jan 8 by Churchman |
You are right. Bits drop off aeroplanes all the time too. It’s how it is has always been. It doesn’t sound anything abnormal to me either.
I’ll be interested to know why a chunk of the fuselage failed on a relatively new aircraft. The actual airframe design dates to the 1960s. 737s have been around that long.
Regardless if ever there was a lesson to keep your seatbelt on (albeit loosely) when not mooching round the cabin, that was it. |
Indeed. Definitely should always do that. Proper turbulence can result in some significant injuries.
I was on a Virgin Atlantic 747 off to USA back in 2018 and they had an issue with one of the engines at the gate. They decided to continue the flight with 3 fully operational engines and believed the 4th would 'restart' fully at altitude. Which it did.
The issue for Boeing will be have they 'tweaked' something else on this evolution of the 737 rather than a full re-design. Although the plug door concept has been around for a while. Given the age of this plane, it would likely be a factory issue, not an operator introduced issue too. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Alaska Airlines on 15:12 - Jan 8 with 2318 views | Churchman |
| Alaska Airlines on 14:16 - Jan 8 by ElderGrizzly |
Indeed. Definitely should always do that. Proper turbulence can result in some significant injuries.
I was on a Virgin Atlantic 747 off to USA back in 2018 and they had an issue with one of the engines at the gate. They decided to continue the flight with 3 fully operational engines and believed the 4th would 'restart' fully at altitude. Which it did.
The issue for Boeing will be have they 'tweaked' something else on this evolution of the 737 rather than a full re-design. Although the plug door concept has been around for a while. Given the age of this plane, it would likely be a factory issue, not an operator introduced issue too. |
It’ll be very interesting to see what the NTSB report looks like.
Glad they managed to get the fourth engine going! Always useful. Modern engines are so much more powerful and reliable than older ones. I read ages ago that all four of the original 747 engines c1970s were less powerful than one modern one. | | | |
| Alaska Airlines on 17:41 - Jan 8 with 2189 views | Plums |
| Alaska Airlines on 15:12 - Jan 8 by Churchman |
It’ll be very interesting to see what the NTSB report looks like.
Glad they managed to get the fourth engine going! Always useful. Modern engines are so much more powerful and reliable than older ones. I read ages ago that all four of the original 747 engines c1970s were less powerful than one modern one. |
A former pilot was showing a few of us around the Vulcan at Newark Air Museum last year (well worth a visit if you like Cold War stuff in particular) and mentioned the improvement in jet engine development from the 40s to what is being tested now is something like a x70 improvement.
He also said they're so much cleaner. A single Vulcan fuel load would heat a home for 12 years. It explains all that smoke. |  |
| |
| Alaska Airlines on 21:39 - Jan 8 with 2067 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Alaska Airlines on 15:12 - Jan 8 by Churchman |
It’ll be very interesting to see what the NTSB report looks like.
Glad they managed to get the fourth engine going! Always useful. Modern engines are so much more powerful and reliable than older ones. I read ages ago that all four of the original 747 engines c1970s were less powerful than one modern one. |
It’s now not just Alaska, which points all fingers at Boeing.
One of the United planes was only 3 months old
| | | |
| Alaska Airlines on 07:18 - Jan 10 with 1726 views | Herbivore |
| Alaska Airlines on 12:15 - Jan 8 by stonojnr |
just wait till you hear what the safety record of the vehicles that take you to the airport is like. |
Trains have a fairly decent safety record. |  |
| |
| Alaska Airlines on 08:22 - Jan 10 with 1657 views | IPS_wich |
Boeing are going to really regret the decision to rush out a further iteration of the 737 rather than redesigning a new plane from scratch. This is getting closer and closer to the early years of the DC10 - a series of different incidents in the first few years of operation that mean the manufacturer never really recovers the reputation of the plane regardless of how much safer it becomes.
If the Alaska Airlines incident had seen a fatality (and likely a US citizen at that) then it could have been even more catastrophic from a PR perspective.
As it is, couldn't have come at a worse time, in the same week as the Japanese Airbus (A350) incident where Airbus has taken a lot of plaudits for designing a plane that was able to evacuated with no loss of life despite it becoming engulfed in flames after 4-5 minutes (following an incident where the Airbus was blameless).
I'm a very happy flyer - but I'm getting to the point where I would actively prioritise an airline/route that doesn't use the 737 Max - even if it were more expensive. | | | |
| Alaska Airlines on 09:18 - Jan 10 with 1599 views | StokieBlue |
| Alaska Airlines on 08:22 - Jan 10 by IPS_wich |
Boeing are going to really regret the decision to rush out a further iteration of the 737 rather than redesigning a new plane from scratch. This is getting closer and closer to the early years of the DC10 - a series of different incidents in the first few years of operation that mean the manufacturer never really recovers the reputation of the plane regardless of how much safer it becomes.
If the Alaska Airlines incident had seen a fatality (and likely a US citizen at that) then it could have been even more catastrophic from a PR perspective.
As it is, couldn't have come at a worse time, in the same week as the Japanese Airbus (A350) incident where Airbus has taken a lot of plaudits for designing a plane that was able to evacuated with no loss of life despite it becoming engulfed in flames after 4-5 minutes (following an incident where the Airbus was blameless).
I'm a very happy flyer - but I'm getting to the point where I would actively prioritise an airline/route that doesn't use the 737 Max - even if it were more expensive. |
Boeing have had a lot of issues lately but it doesn't seem to have stopped companies ordering their planes.
The first iteration of the 737 Max had 2 crashed due to software and was grounded and now we have this issue and it's grounded again for checks. Despite that Ryanair for instance have 400 Max 10's on order and aren't intending to change that order. One has to wonder why they are so keen on taking Boeing planes.
This is my favourite though, rather than actually fix their software (integer overflow error I believe) Boeing decided that part of the maintenance schedule for the 787 should be to turn it off and on again every 51 days to solve the problem:
https://www.theregister.com/2020/04/02/boeing_787_power_cycle_51_days_stale_data
SB |  | | |
| Alaska Airlines on 10:02 - Jan 10 with 1549 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Alaska Airlines on 09:18 - Jan 10 by StokieBlue |
Boeing have had a lot of issues lately but it doesn't seem to have stopped companies ordering their planes.
The first iteration of the 737 Max had 2 crashed due to software and was grounded and now we have this issue and it's grounded again for checks. Despite that Ryanair for instance have 400 Max 10's on order and aren't intending to change that order. One has to wonder why they are so keen on taking Boeing planes.
This is my favourite though, rather than actually fix their software (integer overflow error I believe) Boeing decided that part of the maintenance schedule for the 787 should be to turn it off and on again every 51 days to solve the problem:
https://www.theregister.com/2020/04/02/boeing_787_power_cycle_51_days_stale_data
SB |
Ryanair placed a huge order not long after those first crashes which meant they got a rather good deal financially.
Also Ryanair are actively asking Boeing not to include the Max name on the fuselage which is standard for everyone else. | | | |
| Alaska Airlines on 10:05 - Jan 10 with 1543 views | StokieBlue |
| Alaska Airlines on 10:02 - Jan 10 by ElderGrizzly |
Ryanair placed a huge order not long after those first crashes which meant they got a rather good deal financially.
Also Ryanair are actively asking Boeing not to include the Max name on the fuselage which is standard for everyone else. |
Anyone concerned enough with the quality of the plane is going to not be fooled by removing the Max. In fact it's fairly disingenuous of Ryanair to do that but I guess to be expected given that is part of their operating procedure (ie. quote a fare and then have a million add-ons which make the original quote utterly meaningless).
SB | | | |
| Alaska Airlines on 12:20 - Jan 10 with 1479 views | IPS_wich |
| Alaska Airlines on 10:05 - Jan 10 by StokieBlue |
Anyone concerned enough with the quality of the plane is going to not be fooled by removing the Max. In fact it's fairly disingenuous of Ryanair to do that but I guess to be expected given that is part of their operating procedure (ie. quote a fare and then have a million add-ons which make the original quote utterly meaningless).
SB |
Especially with the 737 Max wingtips being so distinctive - there’s no hiding the Max from the 737-800 / -900 series it has replaced. They look completely different. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
