Alaska Airlines door blowout

[Gregg]

Anyone hear anything about this. Happened the other day. They were about 16,000 feet in the air and the door came off the plane. People's cell phones and other debris were sucked out of the plane. The pilot turned and made an emergency landing so they landed safely but could you imagine being on this flight.

 

 

 

 

[RkFast]

If its Boeing, I aint going. 

 

That company is in complete freefall. 

 

Quick Summary Here:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/08/business/boeing-safety-quality-problems/index.html

 

Also...if some of the rumors of how Alaska Air handled this issue are true, its clear they learned absolutely NOTHING from their Flight 261 disaster (https://planecrash.fandom.com/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261) and I wouldnt fly on that airline if it was the only flight available to my mother's funeral. 

Edited January 11 by RkFast

[boater]

There's a reason my seat belt is always fastened.

[DrDawkinstein]

This is a Boeing issue, not an Alaska Air issue.

 

Boeing is screwed. I think United found loose bolts on the same type of panels on 9 planes when they re-inspected after this.

 

Boeing used to be an innovative company lead by Engineers. Then it merged with McDonell Douglas and the bean counters took over, and it became all about cutting costs and the bottom line, which always makes for garbage products.

 

Not good.

[K-9]

Lucky it didn’t happen at higher altitude so it could have been much worse.

[DrDawkinstein]

What's really crazy is the two people that were supposed to be seated in that row next to that panel MISSED THEIR FLIGHT.

 

Send that story into Time Life Books.

 

 

[RkFast]

11 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

This is a Boeing issue, not an Alaska Air issue.

 

Boeing is screwed. I think United found loose bolts on the same type of panels on 9 planes when they re-inspected after this.

 

Boeing used to be an innovative company lead by Engineers. Then it merged with McDonell Douglas and the bean counters took over, and it became all about cutting costs and the bottom line, which always makes for garbage products.

 

Not good.

 

As I note above, there are some nasty rumors floating around with regard to this airline. Specificially that Alaska acknowledged the warning lights but kept it flying, just without its over water (ETOPS) certification. One REALLY nasty rumor is that they purposely didnt book the seats in the row this door plug is located on purpose becuase they knew the door plug was faulty.  If so....WOW. Its one thing to not book a seat becuase maybe the seat belt or tray table is broken. Those parts fail all the way and literally nothing happens. But this WAY beyond that. And if true, IMHO the airline should have its certification pulled, which of course I realize would never happen. Becuase $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Edited January 11 by RkFast

[DrDawkinstein]

29 minutes ago, RkFast said:

 

As I note above, there are some nasty rumors floating around with regard to this airline. Specificially that Alaska acknowledged the warning lights but kept it flying, just without its over water (ETOPS) certification. One REALLY nasty rumor is that they purposely didnt book the seats in the row this door plug is located on purpose becuase they knew the door plug was faulty.  If so....WOW. Its one thing to not book a seat becuase maybe the seat belt or tray table is broken. Those parts fail all the way and literally nothing happens. But this WAY beyond that. And if true, IMHO the airline should have its certification pulled, which of course I realize would never happen. Becuase $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

 

The warning lights thing isnt a rumor as far as I know, it's real. They kept it on "limited" flights while they were trying to figure out the warning lights. The article I read earlier this week stated it as known fact, but maybe that was just bad writing.

[Wacka]

35 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

What's really crazy is the two people that were supposed to be seated in that row next to that panel MISSED THEIR FLIGHT.

 

Send that story into Time Life Books.

 

 

Seth Mc Farlane  was hungover  and missed his plane. It was taxiing away from the gate.  He was sitting at restaurant th Boston airport waiting for the next flight and he saw on the TV that it had hit the WTC.

[Saxum]

Alaska Air is also buying (or bought) Hawaiian Airlines.

[Augie]

1 hour ago, DrDawkinstein said:

This is a Boeing issue, not an Alaska Air issue.

 

Boeing is screwed. I think United found loose bolts on the same type of panels on 9 planes when they re-inspected after this.

 

Boeing used to be an innovative company lead by Engineers. Then it merged with McDonell Douglas and the bean counters took over, and it became all about cutting costs and the bottom line, which always makes for garbage products.

 

Not good.

 

There are some products where you just do NOT go the cheap route. This is no garden hose. “Hey, what’s the worst that could happen?” is a very reasonable question!  I saw this on the news the other night. I can’t imagine!!! 

 

EDIT: BTW, we went skydiving once from 14,000 feet and the one thing that surprised me most was how much cooler it was on a warm summer day. I sat directly next to the great big door/hole in the plane. BRR! Just a random thought. 

 

.

Edited January 11 by Augie

[sherpa]

Don't believe rumors.

The fuselage is made by Spirit AeroSystems in Wichita KS.

The actual component is a non operable plug door, since US carriers have smaller passenger capacity cabins and don't need the additional escape door.

Clearly, there is a QA problem at both Spirit Aerosystems and with Boeing, as they should have inspected it and noticed the issue.

 

Either way, I'd still prefer a Boeing over an Airbus.

[GoBills808]

this plane did a bunch of flights in Hawaii prior to coming apart

 

my brother who flew in recently from Seattle to visit was on this very airplane on its first pacific leg right beforehand

[RkFast]

On 1/11/2024 at 4:06 PM, sherpa said:

Don't believe rumors.

The fuselage is made by Spirit AeroSystems in Wichita KS.

The actual component is a non operable plug door, since US carriers have smaller passenger capacity cabins and don't need the additional escape door.

Clearly, there is a QA problem at both Spirit Aerosystems and with Boeing, as they should have inspected it and noticed the issue.

 

Either way, I'd still prefer a Boeing over an Airbus.

 

Im no pro, just an enthusiast but IMHO they need to stop with the 737. When they put the high efficiency wing on it it was a slam dunk and greatly expanded the airframe's capabilities and what airlines can do with it. But now, its been stretched and toyed with and altered so much that its a frankenplane that is not even aerodynamically stable on its own anymore and needs computer assistance (MCAS) to be so. The whole MAX concept was just a quick band aid to compete with the Airbus A320 NEO and it has failed. 

 

Of course, Im happy for you to tell me Im an idiot like DCTom would with regard to my opinion here.  
 

On edit… check out the responses to this post.  Once the public loses trust, then the orders for new planes from that manufacturer stop coming in because airlines ain’t gonna take that risk. Boeing is in deep deep trouble.
 

 

Edited January 12 by RkFast

[stuvian]

the marketing people said this was a variation on the helicopter skiing option

[Whites Bay]

On 1/11/2024 at 2:06 PM, boater said:

There's a reason my seat belt is always fastened.

Multimillion mile flyer on United.  Aisle seat, belt fastened.

[sherpa]

5 hours ago, RkFast said:

 

Im no pro, just an enthusiast but IMHO they need to stop with the 737. When they put the high efficiency wing on it it was a slam dunk and greatly expanded the airframe's capabilities and what airlines can do with it. But now, its been stretched and toyed with and altered so much that its a frankenplane that is not even aerodynamically stable on its own anymore and needs computer assistance (MCAS) to be so. The whole MAX concept was just a quick band aid to compete with the Airbus A320 NEO and it has failed. 

 

Of course, Im happy for you to tell me Im an idiot like DCTom would with regard to my opinion here.  
 

On edit… check out the responses to this post.  Once the public loses trust, then the orders for new planes from that manufacturer stop coming in because airlines ain’t gonna take that risk. Boeing is in deep deep trouble.
 

 

First, I am never going to claim you are an idiot.

You seem like you are familiar with this stuff, and I am not that kind of guy.

 

But.....there are no problems with the "stability" issues re the 737.

The MCAS issue was directly related to Boeing trying to get into the non first world airline base,

Airbus made that decision years ago, knowing that to sell to that market, they needed to acknowledge that the people flying their airplanes would be less experienced and far less competent.

Ergo, they built in a computer over man priority.

MCAS failures would have never resulted in a hull loss if it happened with US or first world trained pilots.

 

Moving to the door blow out on Alaska, it is a QA issue with the fuselage manufacturer and Boeing's inspection process after delivery.

Alaska is completely innocent.

 

Back to original point, I am never going to claim people are idiots on this, until they try to make it political.

Regards.

[Beck Water]

57 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

First, I am never going to claim you are an idiot.

You seem like you are familiar with this stuff, and I am not that kind of guy.

 

But.....there are no problems with the "stability" issues re the 737.

The MCAS issue was directly related to Boeing trying to get into the non first world airline base,

Airbus made that decision years ago, knowing that to sell to that market, they needed to acknowledge that the people flying their airplanes would be less experienced and far less competent.

Ergo, they built in a computer over man priority.

MCAS failures would have never resulted in a hull loss if it happened with US or first world trained pilots.

 

Moving to the door blow out on Alaska, it is a QA issue with the fuselage manufacturer and Boeing's inspection process after delivery.

Alaska is completely innocent.

 

Back to original point, I am never going to claim people are idiots on this, until they try to make it political.

Regards.

 

We have an employment Hx with Boeing here in the fam (not I) and I don't think that's quite right.  Here are a couple articles that explain it pretty well if anyone is interested.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/09/boeing-hid-design-flaws-in-max-jets-from-pilots-and-regulators/

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/the-inside-story-of-mcas-how-boeings-737-max-system-gained-power-and-lost-safeguards/

 

My understanding: Boeing aeronautical engineers (we know several) ID'd an aerodynamic problem with the Max during scale model testing - a pitch-up during a specific area of the flight envelope.  They didn't ID a straightforward aerodynamic fix within their timeline.  So yes, there was a known stability issue requiring a software fix, and this had nothing to do with intended non-first-world airline sales.  They decided to develop MCAS to address the stability issue - but they designated it as  "non safety critical",  thus able to actuate off a single sensor instead of the redundant sensors  required of safety critical items, because they explicitly assumed (and the FAA signed off on the assumption) that well-trained pilots would immediately respond to an unexpected activation (within 3 seconds).  Then, because it was designated "non safety critical", they left a description of MCAS and the assumption that the pilots were the primary backup for a MCAS malfunction out of their manuals and training programs (and again, the FAA signed off on this). 

 

There's more dirt but I'll stop there.  I'm not saying that there may not have been some design considerations around hoped-for 3rd world markets, but there was definitely a stability issue with the Max for which they implemented a software control fix.

As far as the plug door, United Airlines may be correct that the loose bolts relate to a manufacturing issue.  Of course it's in their interest to say "not on their watch" as far as any maintenance/inspection program.  Early days.  But in general, anything bolted in place that regularly undergoes vibration and thermal expansion and contraction needs a data-driven regular inspection interval to ensure the bolt torque remains in spec.  Expect scrutiny of how the regulatory process defining the inspection and setting the interval played out between the FAA and Boeing.

 

Spirit, the supplier, has been under scrutiny for QA/QC issues in general .  Boeing spins off business units to become independent companies, who then serve as contract manufacturers for Boeing but with less oversight from both Boeing and the FAA.  The contractors then prioritize product delivery over safety and cut corners.   Spirit is one example of many.  We have one in St Louis that has had issues.  Would be nice to see that change.

 

 

[sherpa]

A thoughtful, informed post deserves a serious response.

Picked up out new pup last night, a fourteen week old Great Pyranees and Golden mix, so I've been a bit busy

[sherpa]

Regarding MCAS and the issues surrounding it, there is a justifiable reason why it wasn't addressed, specifically.

There are classifications of abnormal events that pilots are trained to deal with.

Very few are called "immediate action," which means they must be memorized and performed without reference to a checklist.

One of them is "runaway stabilizer."

That means that if the stabilizer, which is the pitch, (nose up or down), changes rapidly without command, you have to stop it.

 

It is extremely obvious if this happens, and the procedure is to immediately disconnect the stabilizer for auto control.

 

Boeing put MCAS in to handle a near stall situation.

But.....The situation of an unnecessary MCAS activation is the exact same as a runaway stabilizer and should be reacted to in the same, memorized manner.

 

Both MCAS crashes were in third world airlines where the pilots did nothing to stop it, and the "fix" is simple and obvious.

In the first case, they simply rode the thing into the water.

In the second, they initially disconnected the autopilot, which stopped the problem, then for some insane reason reconnected it, resulting in the crash.

The odds of that happening in a US or first world trained cockpit are near zero.

 

That aside, the fact that a single sensor could trigger it, especially one on the outside fuselage, is a really bad and since corrected, idea.

 

The philosophies of Boeing and Airbus are a bit different.

Airbus marketing strategy involved knowing they would sell to underserved markets, Africa et all,  with pilots with little experience.

Airbus products default to computer controlled actions.

The most famous of this is their Paris Airshow demo where an Airbus did a really low flyby, and the autothrottles determined that they were so low that they were landing. The guy pulled the thing up, but the throttles remained at ide, even when pushed full forward,

The ended up plowing through a one forest killing everyone on board.

 

The Air France 447 from Rio to Paris was another of their computer fault failures that am inexperienced copilot never figured out.

An iced over pitot tube was telling the system they were overspeeding, when in fact they were too slow and stalled. 

The captain, who was out of the cockpit at the onset, figured it out, but ran out of time.