mikegarrison Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 (edited) 8 minutes ago, tater said: Maybe a dumb question that someone knows the answer to, but what's the nominal door latching mechanism look like? Clearly not locked nuts... Why not have the door-plug otherwise more door-like, and have the latch only on the inside, and nonetheless covered by the interior trim panel. It can then be removed (opened) easily for maintenance, and the only care required is to lock the door. All the functional doors have latches, after all, and they certainly take intent to unlatch. The video you posted explained this. This option is the only one that, from the point of view of the cabin, makes it like the door isn't there at all. It lets them use a 3-abreast seat and has a full-sized window. The other options all take up space in the cabin and require 2-abreast seating in that row. 3 minutes ago, tater said: Given they found the door, but no bolts, I wonder how they move forward? Look for indications of how a bolt failed in the parts the bolts pass through? Looking for indications that a bolt was even there in the first place. Edited January 10 by mikegarrison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 Apparently the loose bolts they have been finding in these other inspections are the 2 right bolts, not the castellated ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 When I was a kid, my dad had all kinds of funny-looking nuts and bolts in the garage. It was only years later that I realized these were aerospace fasteners. When he was getting through college, he worked at Boeing as a machinist. (He became a civil engineer, working for the Seattle Water Department.) Anyway, on his last day there, after he had gotten hired as an engineer, he had to take his toolbox home. While he was away from it, his co-workers thought it would be funny to fill it up with random fasteners and drill bits and such, as if he was trying to smuggle them out of the plant. He rolled it out to the gate, and the guard asked him what was going on. He explained he had gotten a job as an engineer, so he was taking his machinist tools home with him. The guard let him drive his truck in and helped him load it into the bed. Neither one of them knew it full of smuggled fasteners. I bet he *still* has some of those fasteners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 9 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: The video you posted explained this. This option is the only one that, from the point of view of the cabin, makes it like the door isn't there at all. It lets them use a 3-abreast seat and has a full-sized window. The other options all take up space in the cabin and require 2-abreast seating in that row. I missed the specifics I guess. I remembered the alternate seating arraignments, just not that the exact thickness of the trim would have to be different, even for a never seen latch. There's a flush outside latch on the real doors, for example, maybe just that one exists? 1 minute ago, mikegarrison said: I bet he *still* has some of those fasteners. A friend's dad (died years ago) was a Los Alamos physicist. Had done bomb testing back in the day, he was a detector guy, working on super high speed photography at one point (like blast starting to break the bomb casing fast). He also worked on other stuff, nothing he could talk about... Anyway, after he died, my buddy was going through boxes and found explosives in a few of them (C4 I think). He used to experiment with shaped charges in the backyard, apparently. He had notebooks with his experiments kept track of. Was a different time. Back in the 80s we'd head up to visit his parents' house (and get fed!), and his dad would have work spread out on the table on the other room. A couple decades later taking a laptop with work offsite gets you prison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PakledHostage Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 16 hours ago, tater said: I missed the specifics I guess. I remembered the alternate seating arraignments, just not that the exact thickness of the trim would have to be different, even for a never seen latch. There's a flush outside latch on the real doors, for example, maybe just that one exists? The exterior handle is just that: A handle. The hinge mechanism isn't so much a latch as a mechanism to move the door up past the stops and swing it out. Again, it is the stops that hold the door in as the pressurization loads try to push it out. Also, if you had a closing mechanism hidden behind a fixed panel, how would you ever verify that it remains properly closed? Retain it with bolts? Bolts that could come loose and fall out, allowing the door to come open? I expect that an Alert Service Bulletin will eventually be released for this, calling for the plug to be wired with proximity sensors and connected to the electronics that monitor the states of all the doors on the aircraft. (I am sure the door monitoring system has an acronym, but avionics wasn't my specialty so I don't know it off the top of my head.) The system is likely already capable of supporting that door. The service bulletin will probably have a deadline for installation of the wiring and sensor(s) of 24 months to allow planning and implementation at a regularly scheduled heavy maintenance opportunity. And if they're worried enough about something coming loose during those 24 months, they will probably also include a requirement for a repeat inspection until the sensors are installed. Alert Service Bulletins aren't automatically Airworthiness Directives (ADs), but I would also expect an AD to follow, mandating that the Alert Service Bulletin be completed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shpaget Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 More from FAA https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-increasing-oversight-boeing-production-and-manufacturing Quote Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today announced new and significant actions to immediately increase its oversight of Boeing production and manufacturing. [...] The actions announced today include the FAA conducting: - An audit involving the Boeing 737-9 MAX production line and its suppliers to evaluate Boeing’s compliance with its approved quality procedures. The results of the FAA’s audit analysis will determine whether additional audits are necessary. - Increased monitoring of Boeing 737-9 MAX in-service events. - Assessment of safety risks around delegated authority and quality oversight, and examination of options to move these functions under independent, third-party entities. Hopefully this will lead to the abolishment of the practice of governments delegating health and safety oversight to the companies themselves. This is not a problem with just Boeing, or just aviation, nor is it endemic to USA. It's a widespread issue globally, that I find beyond absurd. One can hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 52 minutes ago, Shpaget said: Hopefully this will lead to the abolishment of the practice of governments delegating health and safety oversight to the companies themselves. This is not a problem with just Boeing, or just aviation, nor is it endemic to USA. It's a widespread issue globally, that I find beyond absurd. I guess they’ll stop pushing the FAA to let them certify themselves. But but but what about the shareholders?!? /s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 (edited) 2 hours ago, Shpaget said: More from FAA https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-increasing-oversight-boeing-production-and-manufacturing Hopefully this will lead to the abolishment of the practice of governments delegating health and safety oversight to the companies themselves. This is not a problem with just Boeing, or just aviation, nor is it endemic to USA. It's a widespread issue globally, that I find beyond absurd. One can hope. The FAA (or EASA either) does not have the budget or expertise to not rely on the manufacturers themselves to do most of the certification work. I can only imagine how the SpaceX fans in this forum would be howling if that was the standard that applied to Starship. I have personally worked with many designated engineering representatives (experts employed by the manufacturer who are also the first line of certification for the authorities), and they take their responsibilities very seriously. They swear an oath (with heavy legal penalties) to represent the certification authorities and not the company when they are doing that work. Managers face serious legal penalties if they try to influence the certification work. And in pretty much all cases, the regulators have the final say. The engineers delegated to work for them on certification are only allowed to approve things that the regulators have already ruled on. Anything unexpected or novel has to be presented to the government-employed regulators for a ruling. Air travel is amazing safe -- far safer than riding in a car. The system you are fretting about works *very* well. Of course nothing is perfect, and if there are improvements to be made, then we should keep making them. But I assure you, taking the engineering experts that work for the manufacturers out of the certification loop would *not* be a safety improvement. And you know, we all fly on these airplanes too. So do our families and friends. Edited January 12 by mikegarrison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shpaget Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 21 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: snip Like I said, my stand is not focused just on aerospace but on general concept of self control, including other industries like food production, animal husbandry, utilities etc... One of the regulations over here is that food manufacturers (among others), are allowed to control themselves, with government inspectors taking a back seat. If the manufacturer finds irregularities, they are required to report it to the gov inspectors and then conduct self controls more often for some time. These are not only a burden but may lead to recalls and drop in public approval of whatever the product, resulting in loss of profits for the company. That means that the manufacturer is continuously in conflict of interest and there is always at leas some incentive to neglect the reporting of issues, just kind of fix it and hope the public never finds out. Just because an inspector is not an employee of a company they are inspecting, doesn't mean they are less competent than the in house personnel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunlitZelkova Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 https://www.koin.com/news/alaska-airlines-flight-1282/flight-passengers-file-class-action-lawsuit-against-boeing-after-planes-critical-failure/ The passengers have filed a class action lawsuit against Boeing over emotional distress. “The force of the depressurization ripped the shirt off a boy, and sucked cell phones, other debris, and much of the oxygen out of the aircraft,” the suit reads. “The shirtless boy leapt over the woman next to him, and escaped toward the front of the plane. At least two others seated near the hole followed and found new seats closer to the front.” This is a little fishy, the incident occurred during ascent and no one should have been allowed to unbuckle and walk around especially after the incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuke Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 (edited) On 1/9/2024 at 3:14 PM, mikegarrison said: +\ hen I was a kid, my dad had all kinds of funny-looking nuts and bolts in the garage. It was only years later that I realized these were aerospace fasteners. When he was getting through college, he worked at Boeing as a machinist. (He became a civil engineer, working for the Seattle Water Department.) Anyway, on his last day there, after he had gotten hired as an engineer, he had to take his toolbox home. While he was away from it, his co-workers thought it would be funny to fill it up with random fasteners and drill bits and such, as if he was trying to smuggle them out of the plant. He rolled it out to the gate, and the guard asked him what was going on. He explained he had gotten a job as an engineer, so he was taking his machinist tools home with him. The guard let him drive his truck in and helped him load it into the bed. Neither one of them knew it full of smuggled fasteners. I bet he *still* has some of those fasteners. as a fellow fastener hoarder i understand. also didn't know you guys were talking about this until now. now im thankful that alaska airlines never uses their newer planes on alaska routes. i was shocked to get the 737-700 on my last flight. even been on a 400 once. we also used to have this combi which had cargo up front passengers in back. but they retired it because they needed more cargo capacity and opted for a dedicated cargo plane. Edited January 12 by Nuke cat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 (edited) ‘This Has Been Going on for Years.’ Inside Boeing’s Manufacturing Mess. (msn.com) Quote “It is known at Spirit that if you make too much noise and cause too much trouble, you will be moved,” said Joshua Dean, a former Spirit quality auditor who says he was fired after flagging misdrilled holes in fuselages. “It doesn’t mean you completely disregard stuff, but they don’t want you to find everything and write it up.” Auditors are not supposed to be liked. It's their job to be hated. If they're not finding anything wrong, then they are not looking hard enough. I once had an auditor flag my work for something that I was sure was fine, but if they dig hard enough, it won't be fine anymore. I get that you don't want them finding a ton of stuff, but as they used to say, "if a shirt's dirty, it's dirty." OTOH, a piece of lint doesn't make it dirty, but it's also no longer perfect. While a piece of lint may not be a critical problem in a fuselage, it could conceivably gum up a precision bearing in an engine, I suppose... Boeing just seems to be in such a tailspin... Edited January 14 by StrandedonEarth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunlitZelkova Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 https://www.koin.com/news/alaska-airlines-flight-1282/boeing-picks-a-retired-admiral-to-lead-a-team-that-will-review-safety-in-manufacturing-planes/ Admiral Kirkland Donald (retired) will head an in-house team to review Boeing’s manufacturing processes and make recommendations for improvement. He previously headed the navy’s nuclear propulsion program for eight years and now is chairman of Huntington Ingalls Shipbuilding. I wish I knew more about the personality of this guy. I wonder if he can do what Richard Feynman did for the Challenger investigation. Kinda asking questions someone from within Boeing wouldn’t, going against the grain of whatever Boeing wants to happen with the investigation and not being afraid to make damning statements. I think we have a nuclear boat vet here. @TheSaint? Did you happen to hear anything about this guy? He might have been before your time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSaint Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 56 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said: https://www.koin.com/news/alaska-airlines-flight-1282/boeing-picks-a-retired-admiral-to-lead-a-team-that-will-review-safety-in-manufacturing-planes/ Admiral Kirkland Donald (retired) will head an in-house team to review Boeing’s manufacturing processes and make recommendations for improvement. He previously headed the navy’s nuclear propulsion program for eight years and now is chairman of Huntington Ingalls Shipbuilding. I wish I knew more about the personality of this guy. I wonder if he can do what Richard Feynman did for the Challenger investigation. Kinda asking questions someone from within Boeing wouldn’t, going against the grain of whatever Boeing wants to happen with the investigation and not being afraid to make damning statements. I think we have a nuclear boat vet here. @TheSaint? Did you happen to hear anything about this guy? He might have been before your time. Looking at his Wiki page, apparently he was CO of the Key West when I was in. So, nope, never ran into him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 On 1/12/2024 at 1:27 PM, SunlitZelkova said: This is a little fishy, the incident occurred during ascent and no one should have been allowed to unbuckle and walk around especially after the incident. Having your shirt pulled off and a huge hole opening near your seat might change your mind on whether to consider whether you're "allowed" to move away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 On 1/12/2024 at 2:27 PM, SunlitZelkova said: This is a little fishy, the incident occurred during ascent and no one should have been allowed to unbuckle and walk around especially after the incident. If my shirt got ripped off and my cell phone flew sideways I would be well past caring what was allowed. Common sense supercedes regulations in this situation. I'd be moving to a safer location and urging those around me to do the same. I certainly wouldn't want to stay there and get repeatedly hit in the head by cell phones ripped from the hands of those trying to livestream the drama. Don't sit in the fatal FOD funnel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PakledHostage Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 (edited) Presumably the shirt and cell phones went out when the cabin pressure equalized with the outside air (this happened when they were above 16000 feet, so the differential was already quite high). Once they were at equilibrium, the speed of the air flowing out would have been much less; more like a skydiving plane. I agree that I wouldn't have wanted to sit by the opening, but "fatal FOD tunnel" is a bit much. Edited January 20 by PakledHostage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 41 minutes ago, PakledHostage said: Presumably the shirt and cell phones went out when the cabin pressure equalized with the outside air (this happened when they were above 16000 feet, so the differential was already quite high). Once they were at equilibrium, the speed of the air flowing out would have been much less; more like a skydiving plane. I agree that I wouldn't have wanted to sit by the opening, but "fatal FOD tunnel" is a bit much. That was added humorously. Sorry if it came across super serious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monophonic Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 On 1/20/2024 at 2:01 AM, darthgently said: If my shirt got ripped off and my cell phone flew sideways I would be well past caring what was allowed. Common sense supercedes regulations in this situation. I'd be moving to a safer location and urging those around me to do the same. I certainly wouldn't want to stay there and get repeatedly hit in the head by cell phones ripped from the hands of those trying to livestream the drama. Don't sit in the fatal FOD funnel I agree the obvious instinct is to get as far away from the danger as possible. That said it is also common sense to not cut loose the strap keeping you tightly attached to your seat. So whichever instinct wins may vary from person to person. Anyone who was not seated and strapped yet is still inside the plane is likely to flee of course. All I hope is I don't have to find out which instinct would win in me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 11 hours ago, monophonic said: I agree the obvious instinct is to get as far away from the danger as possible. That said it is also common sense to not cut loose the strap keeping you tightly attached to your seat. So whichever instinct wins may vary from person to person. Anyone who was not seated and strapped yet is still inside the plane is likely to flee of course. All I hope is I don't have to find out which instinct would win in me. This, now the wind and cold at the open door would bee an issue to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shpaget Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 From FAA https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-statement-recommending-visual-inspections-boeing-737-900er-mid-exit-door-plugs Quote As an added layer of safety, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is recommending that operators of Boeing 737-900ER aircraft visually inspect mid-exit door plugs to ensure the door is properly secured. The Boeing 737-900ER is not part of the newer MAX fleet but has the same door plug design. No words on whether anybody found anything on ERs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kartoffelkuchen Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 (edited) 11 hours ago, Shpaget said: From FAA https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-statement-recommending-visual-inspections-boeing-737-900er-mid-exit-door-plugs No words on whether anybody found anything on ERs. Apparently some airlines did a voluntary inspection of the plugs and found loose and damaged bolts, leading to that FAA notice. Edited January 23 by Kartoffelkuchen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 (edited) I get the feeling this was inspired by Boeing... Edited January 23 by StrandedonEarth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monophonic Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 17 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said: I get the feeling this was inspired by Boeing... Mayhaps. I think among other things Boeing acquired this "open door policy" with McDonnell Douglas. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_96 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.