Boeing 737 Max: the saga continues…

[kerbiloid]

Comparing this to the Reuters article about SpaceX, there is a question: does Boeing manufacture flamethrowers? They could motivate the assemblers ,if use them inside the building.

[PakledHostage]

15 hours ago, Shpaget said:

The first group of Alaska Airlines 737s return to service.

I saw in the CNN article that Alaska Airlines' COO,  Constance von Muehlen, was seated in the seat adjacent to the L/H plug door on the first flight that they operated (from Seattle to San Diego). It's a token gesture,  but a respectable one.

[Meecrob]

17 hours ago, PakledHostage said:

I saw in the CNN article that Alaska Airlines' COO,  Constance von Muehlen, was seated in the seat adjacent to the L/H plug door on the first flight that they operated (from Seattle to San Diego). It's a token gesture,  but a respectable one.

Its way more than a token gesture. He is saying "I have complete confidence that the incident was caused by an installation issue and not a design flaw. To prove this, I will trust it with my life"

Many potential travelers have no idea how the door plug was engineered and what went wrong, they just saw a gaping hole in the side of a plane...and to be honest, if I was just your average traveler and not an aviation enthusiast, I'd be demanding to see someone from the C-suite sit there before I'd ever consider it myself after this incident.

As an aviation enthusiast, the thought I cannot let go of is "What else did the bean-counters at Boeing/Spirit rush their technicians to do in order to meet corporate targets?"

Edited January 28 by Meecrob

[PakledHostage]

17 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

Its way more than a token gesture. He is saying "I have complete confidence that the incident was caused by an installation issue and not a design flaw. 

 

Constance von Muehlen is woman. And it is a token gesture because she's not making the determination on her own that it's safe to fly. A whole team of experts, from regulators to engineers to mechanics have done that. There are people under her and in adjacent roles to her whose job it is to deem an aircraft airworthy. She's a figurehead and she's showing leadership, but she's not taking on any more risk than any other passenger takes on any other flight.  All passengers on all flights are trusting with their lives that the team of experts (pilots, mechanics,  engineers etc) have done / will do their jobs correctly. 

[monophonic]

On 1/25/2024 at 5:38 PM, PakledHostage said:

I am not going to make excuses for Boeing. That wasn't the intent of my post. My post was intended to point out that the people in the industry generally aren't a bunch of "Mr Burns" types, with an array of evil plans. Neither the MCAS nor the door plug issue should have happened, that is clear. But let's not over-simplify those problems (or their solutions) either. 

My apologies. I didn't mean to imply that. What I tried to communicate was that I think the source of the issues is 100% at the management level and cannot be fixed if fixing is not started there. But that has been quite thoroughly discussed since my last visit to this thread, I feel.

12 hours ago, PakledHostage said:

Constance von Muehlen is woman. And it is a token gesture because she's not making the determination on her own that it's safe to fly. A whole team of experts, from regulators to engineers to mechanics have done that. There are people under her and in adjacent roles to her whose job it is to deem an aircraft airworthy. She's a figurehead and she's showing leadership, but she's not taking on any more risk than any other passenger takes on any other flight.  All passengers on all flights are trusting with their lives that the team of experts (pilots, mechanics,  engineers etc) have done / will do their jobs correctly. 

There used to be a tradition, in our air force, that after a major servicing the chief mechanic who worked on the airframe was on board during the first flight. I don't know whether that is still a thing, although certainly it isn't possible with single seaters like most fighter aircraft are. But that would certainly have provided motivation to do the maintenance properly.

[Meecrob]

On 1/28/2024 at 1:32 PM, PakledHostage said:

Constance von Muehlen is woman. And it is a token gesture because she's not making the determination on her own that it's safe to fly. A whole team of experts, from regulators to engineers to mechanics have done that. There are people under her and in adjacent roles to her whose job it is to deem an aircraft airworthy. She's a figurehead and she's showing leadership, but she's not taking on any more risk than any other passenger takes on any other flight.  All passengers on all flights are trusting with their lives that the team of experts (pilots, mechanics,  engineers etc) have done / will do their jobs correctly. 

I apologize to Constance for assuming their gender.

 

Having said that, are you serious? Figurehead or not, she sat in the seat where she would arguably be sucked out of the fuselage and plummet to her death if a similar failure were to occur. This is the crux of my point. Most bosses sit behind a desk, this boss is sitting in a seat that could have been lethal, putting their "own life on the line." I put it in quotes because there is not a single 737 with missing door plug bolts anymore. The real question is if there are other bolts missing elsewhwere.

You are correct when you say she is not taking on any more risk than any other passenger, but what you don't get is that that is the point. She is showing that sitting in that seat is just as "safe" or "dangerous" as any other seat by sitting in it. Surely you can see the point of showing customers that she is confident with the plane.

The issue is an installation error, not a design flaw. Its not good, don't get me wrong, but it is a known issue that has a known fix*.

* Before someone razzes me over the fact there isn't a final report out yet, yes, you are correct. But there is an FDR and CVR and an intact plane and intact door. This isn't a mystery. If it was, the planes would still be grounded.

 

Edited February 1 by Meecrob

[PakledHostage]

3 hours ago, Meecrob said:

Having said that, are you serious? Figurehead or not, she sat in the seat where she would arguably be sucked out of the fuselage and plummet to her death if a similar failure were to occur.

You clearly see it differently and that's your prerogative, but yes  I am serious.  She's no different than any other passenger.  Sure she sat there and that's commendable, but she didn't sit there on every Max 9 flight... that day or any day since. If she (and the team of experts behind her) didn't trust that the aircraft was OK to fly and for ANYONE to sit there, it shouldn't have been flying. Full stop. 

In my own career, I was called upon almost daily to authorize deferrals, substitutions and continued operation of aircraft with damage outside the manufacturer's (i.e. Boeing,  Airbus, Douglas) documented allowables. I never once thought "Nobody I know is flying on that plane", or "the boss isn't flying on that plane", so OK... If an aircraft is deemed airworthy, it is airworthy for everyone. That's how the system works.

[tater]

 

 

[PakledHostage]

@tater: What are we supposed to take from that? His presentation seems biased. Nowhere does he mention that the engines, nacelles and cowls aren't made by Boeing (they are made by Safran and the Leap 1 engine type is also used on Airbus A320NEO aircraft and Chinese Comac C919 aircraft). Isn't that relevant to the discussion? Odd that he left it out?

In fairness, it sounds like the new acoustic panels aren't very robust, and clearly that's a problem. Delamination of those panels has been an issue for decades, even when they were made of metal. I question why they'd go CFRP, but to lay it all at Boeing's feet is disingenuous. As this guys says, the NAI system should maybe have an auto mode on the 737 to mitigate the lack of robustness of the acoustic panel design, but that's arguably still a bandaid. It's good, not bad that Boeing is delaying certification of the new Max variants to work through these issues first. 

[tater]

He’s just reporting. Juan is an active 777 pilot, btw. He seems to like his own aircraft.

This thread is about continued 737 issues, thought it was relevant. I was thinking about it looking out my window not long  ago 

I’d post the cool glory pic with the 737 engine in the foreground, but Imgur and mobile are crap.

 

[StrandedonEarth]

20 minutes ago, tater said:

I’d post the cool glory pic with the 737 engine in the foreground, but Imgur and mobile are crap.

It took me a bit to figure it out, but, using the imgur app on iPhone, I  tap the pic so it just shows the pic and a few icons underneath, tap the right pointing arrow at bottom right, then scroll down to copy link. Then over to the forum and paste. It works for me, just did it earlier today in the RIP thread…

[tater]

[PakledHostage]

37 minutes ago, tater said:

He’s just reporting. Juan is an active 777 pilot, btw. He seems to like his own aircraft.

I did see that in another of his videos.  But it just seemed odd that he went on for 10 minutes or so and didn't once mention that the engine, cowls and nacelles that he was talking about aren't made by Boeing and that the Leap 1 engines aren't unique to the 737 Max jets either. Aside from that, he presented pretty well.  But it left me feeling like he's not really being completely objective,  because those details matter, especially when communicating to laypeople who might otherwise make assumptions. 

Edit: @tater That's quite literally a "glory shot"... nice.

Edited February 2 by PakledHostage

[tater]

It was clear it was for cert of 2 variants with very few aircraft already in service. The big issue is that there is already a backlog of 737 orders after the MCAS stuff. Hopefully they get everything sorted. 737 is a helluva workhorse aircraft.

[tater]

 

I should add (too many free cocktails later, lol) that I picked a seat even with compressor blades. When. I think Boeing, I still imagine that B-17 nearly bisected by a Bf-109 collision that none the less took the crew home. I’m NOT a hater.

Edited February 3 by tater

[mikegarrison]

Rightly or wrongly (and I will remind you that in general the system works quite well), the normal situation would go like this:

1) Design is certified.

2) Problems are discovered in-service (namely in this case that operating the inlet anti-ice system when it is not needed can get the inlet too hot).

3) Warnings are sent out to the operators.

4) A fix is designed.

5) The fix is made available for retrofit. Depending on how serious the problem is, the fix may be mandated by the FAA or it may be just recommended.

Also what is normal is that derivatives of an already certified design can be themselves certified with the same design. Typically the workaround that was allowed to be used (in this case, a reminder to only use the anti-ice when it is needed) would just be extended to the derivative until an actual fix is completed.

However, in this case, Boeing and the FAA decided to play it safe(r) and not complete the certification of the new derivatives until the fix was finished.

[Meecrob]

On 2/1/2024 at 3:30 PM, PakledHostage said:

You clearly see it differently and that's your prerogative, but yes  I am serious.  She's no different than any other passenger.  Sure she sat there and that's commendable, but she didn't sit there on every Max 9 flight... that day or any day since. If she (and the team of experts behind her) didn't trust that the aircraft was OK to fly and for ANYONE to sit there, it shouldn't have been flying. Full stop. 

In my own career, I was called upon almost daily to authorize deferrals, substitutions and continued operation of aircraft with damage outside the manufacturer's (i.e. Boeing,  Airbus, Douglas) documented allowables. I never once thought "Nobody I know is flying on that plane", or "the boss isn't flying on that plane", so OK... If an aircraft is deemed airworthy, it is airworthy for everyone. That's how the system works.

I am not talking about anything to do with airworthiness. I 100% get that C-suite members are not part of the maintenance department.

I am talking about public perception. I'm sure all of us who work in aviation have heard the sentiment of" I'm not flying on that "dangerous" turboprop, I'd rather fly on something with "reliable" engines!"

My point is the Executive knows that the general public do not have the time or interest to actually get into the details of the malfunction beyond some news bytes, so to those people she is saying "This is NOT a design flaw, this is an installation error. I know you will not take me at face value since I have a conflict of interest in the public thinking this aircraft is safe, so I am personally sitting in the seat."

Actions speak louder than words, especially when the "words" usually end with "The described maintenance has been performed in accordance with the applicable airworthiness requirements." What does that even mean to a layperson? They are definitely not looking up the FARs referenced.

Its the same way when law firms talk to the press, they speak in English, not legalese. They are trying to communicate a point to a group of people who do not speak the language of the trade.

[SunlitZelkova]

https://www.koin.com/news/portland/report-bolts-for-door-plug-on-alaska-airlines-flight-1282-were-missing-during-takeoff/
 

The door plug bolts weren’t even installed when it took off.

Boeing accepts responsibility and vows to do better.

By the way, the full 19 page NTSB report is present in this article at the bottom.

EDIT- For clarification, it is a preliminary report.

Edited February 7 by SunlitZelkova

[mikegarrison]

6 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

By the way, the full 19 page NTSB report is present in this article at the bottom.

This is a preliminary report.

The protocol for reports like this comes from ICAO Annex 13, and requires a preliminary report within 30 days that includes all factual information known at that point. No recommendations are in the Preliminary Report.

A Final Report is due later, which includes all final conclusions and recommendations. The Final Report is to be issued within one year of the incident, if possible. If not complete, an Interim Report is due in a year (and another one every year after, until a Final Report is released).

Edited February 7 by mikegarrison

[darthgently]

No matter what really happened, this is very sad.  People who shine a light on facts in an era of illusion should be highly valued and respected.  Not shamed and rejected (or worse)

 

 

[Superluminal Gremlin]

Welcome to Australia, where whistleblower laws do exists but don't at the  same time if you know what I mean.

[Vanamonde]

Some comments removed. Please do not engage in speculation regarding wrong doing without evidence. 

[Nuke]

whether or not it was staged, it paints boeing in a bad light. since most of the planes i fly on are made by them, its what alaska airlines primarily flys (though the planes actually used in alaska tend to be the older ones where boeing meant quality), i dont think im going to fly again any time soon. i have my suspicions about the decline in quality control at boeing, but since they get political i will keep them to myself.

and now boeing caught deleting maintenance records.

Edited March 14 by Nuke

[SunlitZelkova]

I'm glad the "Alaska" flight I'm flying on this summer is actually a Horizon Air flight on an Embraer something.

[Nuke]

37 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I'm glad the "Alaska" flight I'm flying on this summer is actually a Horizon Air flight on an Embraer something.

i was curious about those. i saw one at the anchorage airport a few years ago, i think it was headed for adak so i guess they are using it as a village hopper. i was like, huh whats that? not an aircraft i was aware of up to that point. i guess if this boeing situation gets bad i might be seeing more of those. alaska has mostly flown 737s, they used 272s (my first airliner flight was on one of these, stranger things actually nailed this not only did they use the right plane for the era but also the right flight attendant uniforms) earlier and i think tried to replace them with the md-80 and those also were phased out. dont know when they picked up the embraers but i thought it was a cute little plane.

Edited March 14 by Nuke