Boeing

[bungeejumper]

News just in: The plane had been withdrawn from long sea routes because of pressurisation warnings over a period of nearly a month: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67909417

Oh dear, oh dear. The FT is quoting Jennifer Homendy, the chair of the National Transportation Safety Board, as saying that Alaska Airlines had ordered "maintenance" on the pressurisation lights that had been flashing up the warnings, but that the work hadn't been completed at the time when the panel fell out of the plane.

So how many of us would be prepared to get into a taxi where the airbag lights had been coming on for three weeks?

BJ

[Gerry557]

Bungeejumper

Lots of aircraft fly with issues, it's rare to get one that would be classed fully serviceable but you never see that side of things.

Fortunately most systems have built in redundancy.

It sounds like there were possibe issues that might be related to this event that can be relooked at with the benefit of hindsight and with the knowledge from the door being found.

It's difficult to spot things on the ground if you can't reproduce the fault. It might have been compounded by different maintenance teams not knowing of previous issues.

Fortunately this has had a good outcome and should lead to some excellent Intel to make things even safer. A lot easier than the Comet pressure issues albeit some time ago now.

[bungeejumper]

Lots of aircraft fly with issues, it's rare to get one that would be classed fully serviceable but you never see that side of things.

Fortunately most systems have built in redundancy.

It sounds like there were possibe issues that might be related to this event that can be relooked at with the benefit of hindsight and with the knowledge from the door being found.

It's difficult to spot things on the ground if you can't reproduce the fault. It might have been compounded by different maintenance teams not knowing of previous issues.

Agreed, I take your point about how faults can be hard to spot on the ground, because pressurisation issues only happen in the air. You might say the same about the dreaded front end shakes on a fast car or motorbike, that's only detectable when it's doing an indecent speed. But they sure as hell take those issues seriously, because they daren't do anything else in case they have a dead customer. (Reminds me of a friend who had that very experience on a new Superbike. His bike shop had to buy the bike in, because although it could hire Thruxton for a road test, it couldn't find an engineer who was prepared to get on it and test its limits above 120 mph )

But I digress. Yes, there are many possible causes for an emergency pressurisation light, including software errors (not that those have ever happened on a 737 Max... ) What makes this one different is that, with hindsight, its alarm diagnosis appears to have been right on the money! But the maintenance still hadn't been done by the time the panel failed. That's no way to run a machine that's in charge of 177 lives.

Finally, of course, it seems relevant that this particular plane was fresh out of the factory and had (allegedly) only clocked up 150 hours....

BJ

[Lootman]

Alaskan is a good airline in my opinion, and for a few reasons:

........

3) For safety, it is the highest ranked US airline

News just in: The plane had been withdrawn from long sea routes because of pressurisation warnings over a period of nearly a month: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67909417

More about the pressurisation warnings at https://news.sky.com/story/teacher-find ... t-13043876 (near the end of the article)

BJ

Yeah and Boeing is down 7% today.

I wish Boeing had updated the 757 instead. That was my favourite narrow-body plane.

[Gerry557]

Lots of aircraft fly with issues, it's rare to get one that would be classed fully serviceable but you never see that side of things.

Fortunately most systems have built in redundancy.

It sounds like there were possibe issues that might be related to this event that can be relooked at with the benefit of hindsight and with the knowledge from the door being found.

It's difficult to spot things on the ground if you can't reproduce the fault. It might have been compounded by different maintenance teams not knowing of previous issues.

Agreed, I take your point about how faults can be hard to spot on the ground, because pressurisation issues only happen in the air. You might say the same about the dreaded front end shakes on a fast car or motorbike, that's only detectable when it's doing an indecent speed. But they sure as hell take those issues seriously, because they daren't do anything else in case they have a dead customer. (Reminds me of a friend who had that very experience on a new Superbike. His bike shop had to buy the bike in, because although it could hire Thruxton for a road test, it couldn't find an engineer who was prepared to get on it and test its limits above 120 mph )

But I digress. Yes, there are many possible causes for an emergency pressurisation light, including software errors (not that those have ever happened on a 737 Max... ) What makes this one different is that, with hindsight, its alarm diagnosis appears to have been right on the money! But the maintenance still hadn't been done by the time the panel failed. That's no way to run a machine that's in charge of 177 lives.

Finally, of course, it seems relevant that this particular plane was fresh out of the factory and had (allegedly) only clocked up 150 hours....

BJ

Im not sure what maintenance that wasn't done that you are referring too. Maintenance usually means planned event.

The fault is usually an unplanned event. I might have been a cable short putting the light on rather than an actual pressure fault although I think the jury is out on that one. Hopefully the door will provide as good indication of the root cause. I might have to search the tinternet to see if there are any pics

[XFool]

The fault is usually an unplanned event. I might have been a cable short putting the light on rather than an actual pressure fault although I think the jury is out on that one.

Ah. The old "Fire Alarm Fault" as I like to call it (Goes along with my (in)famous "Is My Car Safe?" issue).

Somewhere a fire alarm goes off. "There's a fire!" "No, they are just testing the fire alarms again. Ignore it!"

One day somewhere, a fire starts...

[ReformedCharacter]

United Airlines has found loose bolts and other “installation issues” on multiple 737 Max 9 aircraft, it said on Monday, referring to the Boeing model that has been grounded after a panel blew off an Alaska Airlines-operated plane mid-flight over the weekend.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/08/united-finds-loose-bolts-boeing-737-max-planes

As someone claimed on pprune:

Boeing has put together a team of 20 accountants to investigate the problems.

RC

[Gerry557]

The Accountant's have found the solution :

1. Limit flights to 10,000 ft
2. Double lap straps in that row

This fits the, ask pilots to remember to switch off the faulty anti icing system solution.

Simple and cost effective.

This will allow the airline to charge extra for the premium seats.
Extra income from Apple after proving how good phones are after falling 16000 ft
You can sell extra windmill toys to kids
Income from parachute hire with returnable deposits

We shouldn't laugh.

More doors with issues. Is it fitment or design?

[bungeejumper]

More doors with issues. Is it fitment or design?

Well, it isn't an "unplanned event", is it?

I've not been keeping up with this, but opinion on the FT's discussion columns seems to be that Boeing's attempt to reduce its delivery backlog has revealed a gaping hole in its quality control procedures. Discuss.

BJ

[Mike4]

More doors with issues. Is it fitment or design?

Well, it isn't an "unplanned event", is it?

I've not been keeping up with this, but opinion on the FT's discussion columns seems to be that Boeing's attempt to reduce its delivery backlog has revealed a gaping hole in its quality control procedures. Discuss.

BJ

Well, a post on pprune.org points out that inconveniently for Boeing bashers, the A350 fuselages are not made by Boeing.

They are subbed out to Spirit Aviation, who deliver them to Boeing with the door plugs already fixed in position. So currently, it looks as though Spirit didn't fix the door plug in position rather than Boeing.

Spirit used to be a subdivision of Boeing but were spun off as a separate company 20 years ago. I think I also read that Spirit make fuselages (now commonly called 'hulls' it appears) for Airbus too, so that's a whole new dimension that might need exploring, given the quality control problems at Spirit/Boeing.

[bungeejumper]

Well, a post on pprune.org points out that inconveniently for Boeing bashers, the A350 fuselages are not made by Boeing.

They are subbed out to Spirit Aviation, who deliver them to Boeing with the door plugs already fixed in position. So currently, it looks as though Spirit didn't fix the door plug in position rather than Boeing.

Fair point indeed, thanks for that. But unfortunately that's a distinction that is largely lost on anyone considering the functionality (and desirability!) of the plane.

Most aircraft manufacturers outsource a large part of their production - as do most car manufacturers - but the buck still stops with the company whose brand is on the label. Toyota's share price took a hammering because of failures from its (45 million?) Takata airbags, and precisely nobody said "look, it's a subcontractor problem, nothing to do with us".

BJ

[doolally]

Well, a post on pprune.org points out that inconveniently for Boeing bashers, the A350 fuselages are not made by Boeing.

They are subbed out to Spirit Aviation, who deliver them to Boeing with the door plugs already fixed in position. So currently, it looks as though Spirit didn't fix the door plug in position rather than Boeing.

The A350 is Airbus. The recent issue was with a Boeing 737 Max-9
doolally

[Mike4]

Well, a post on pprune.org points out that inconveniently for Boeing bashers, the A350 fuselages are not made by Boeing.

They are subbed out to Spirit Aviation, who deliver them to Boeing with the door plugs already fixed in position. So currently, it looks as though Spirit didn't fix the door plug in position rather than Boeing.

The A350 is Airbus. The recent issue was with a Boeing 737 Max-9
doolally

Oops, my mistake! I posted while musing how this incident has totally eclipsed the A350 accident and fire in the news media. The 737 Max-9 hull is built by Spirit.

Dunno about the A350.

[Lootman]

musing how this incident has totally eclipsed the A350 accident and fire in the news media.

The Haneda incident was a lot closer to being a disaster than the MAX incident, in my view.

However nobody is blaming the plane for the Haneda incident. Nobody is blaming anything but the plane for the Portland incident.

[XFool]

I posted while musing how this incident has totally eclipsed the A350 accident and fire in the news media.

Surely not really a surprise?

It's new news, which necessarily eclipses old(er) news - that's the nature of news.
The A350 was a definite one off accident, no reason to suspect other A350s could suffer the same fate.
The A350 accident is a known event - subject to learning the actual reasons behind it, which will take time to be uncovered and will then be in the news again. Briefly.

[bungeejumper]

From this morning's FT. (https://www.ft.com/content/9bcc0db3-b92 ... a04124549b):

Last April, Boeing announced that its supplier, and former subsidiary, Spirit AeroSystems, had improperly installed two fittings on the fuselage of certain models of the 737 Max, delaying deliveries. In August, it revealed that Spirit had incorrectly drilled holes in the rear of the aircraft fuselages, incurring further delays. And in December, it asked inspectors to look for loose bolts that might be rattling around rudder control systems.

As 007 might have said, once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is a rogue element that just isn't taking enough care. And now Boeing is asking the FAA to exempt its new Max-7 from safety standards on anti-icing systems until May 2026, because it hasn't developed a fix yet and the production delays are getting embarrassing. As the author says, it's not a good look.

BJ

[staffordian]

Well, a post on pprune.org points out that inconveniently for Boeing bashers, the A350 fuselages are not made by Boeing.

They are subbed out to Spirit Aviation, who deliver them to Boeing with the door plugs already fixed in position. So currently, it looks as though Spirit didn't fix the door plug in position rather than Boeing.

But apparently Boeing remove the door plug on receipt of the fuselage from Spirit, to enable interior fittings to be taken into the aircraft. They then subsequently refit it.

If accurate, the ball is back in Boeing's court. Though in truth, it surely always would be. As manufacturer, I'd suggest they are ultimately responsible for their own work and that of any subcontractors.

[Mike4]

musing how this incident has totally eclipsed the A350 accident and fire in the news media.

The Haneda incident was a lot closer to being a disaster than the MAX incident, in my view.

However nobody is blaming the plane for the Haneda incident. Nobody is blaming anything but the plane for the Portland incident.

I was actually musing about why the firefighters appeared to do so little to fight the fire on the JAL airframe after the successful evacuation. Maybe that they knew the lithium batteries on board are self-fueling and impossible to put out, once burning.

Also that culture plays a part. Tell a bunch of Japanese to get off and leave their hand luggage behind and they'll do it. Tell a bunch of English holidaymakers the same and they are as likely to respond with "F off, nobody tells me what to do" (according to a cabin crew person posting on pprune).

[Mike4]

[Gerry557]

The Haneda incident was a lot closer to being a disaster than the MAX incident, in my view.

However nobody is blaming the plane for the Haneda incident. Nobody is blaming anything but the plane for the Portland incident.

I was actually musing about why the firefighters appeared to do so little to fight the fire on the JAL airframe after the successful evacuation. Maybe that they knew the lithium batteries on board are self-fueling and impossible to put out, once burning.

Also that culture plays a part. Tell a bunch of Japanese to get off and leave their hand luggage behind and they'll do it. Tell a bunch of English holidaymakers the same and they are as likely to respond with "F off, nobody tells me what to do" (according to a cabin crew person posting on pprune).

I dont know why more fire fighting wasn't carried out. I can guess that the trucks have limited foam/water. I don't know what additional supplies were available or if the earthquake was a factor. There were x3 fire sites that needed to be considered with priority probably give to the coastguard aircraft. Additionally a fire fighter was killed fighting a fire on an evacuated aircraft so maybe it was actually part of normal operations post update from that event.