Is the Max 9 a Max 8 with a new name?

[soin2la]

Most on here will remember this five year old lengthy thread about the 737 Max 8.
https://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s51/boeing-737-max-43504.html

So many bright air guys on here, how ready to go are your speculative juices on this very lucky Max 9 blowout?
https://youtu.be/xS-NHdMVOQs

 

[rslifkin]

I'm really curious to hear what the cause is, as that door isn't a new design for the Max. The previous 737NG had the same door on the -900ER variant, so that door has been in use for 15+ years with no similar issues. For the Max it's currently on the -9 and the 200 passenger variant of the -8.

 

[soin2la]

I'm really curious to hear what the cause is, as that door isn't a new design for the Max. The previous 737NG had the same door on the -900ER variant, so that door has been in use for 15+ years with no similar issues. For the Max it's currently on the -9 and the 200 passenger variant of the -8.

One report said it was a "plug" in a structural opening where a door could be fitted, but was not a door on this plane.

 

[rslifkin]

One report said it was a "plug" in a structural opening where a door could be fitted, but was not a door on this plane.

That aligns with what I've seen on the issue. Many airlines with the 737-900ER and 737-9 don't put enough seats in them to require the extra exit, so they get a plug instead of a door and just paneled over on the inside. One less door, slide, etc. to maintain that way in exchange for a lower approved passenger capacity.


Accordingly the "ground until inspection" AD the FAA just put out appears to only affect the -9 models built with the plug, not the ones that actually have a door in that spot.

 

[O C Diver]

One report said it was a "plug" in a structural opening where a door could be fitted, but was not a door on this plane.

I believe that's correct as the exterior shot of the plane I saw lacked any decals around the opening.

My son in-law works for Boeing painting division. Currently he's working at one of the plane repainting contractors as a Boeing supervisor. He will tell you there are a dizzying amount of decals on a plane, and they all have to be in the exact correct spot.

Can't imagine a door without decals around it.

Ted

 

[soin2la]

Lip service from Boeing: “We’re going to approach this, No. 1, acknowledging our mistake.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/10215662/boeing-ceo-alaska-airlines/

 

[Action]

Now all 737 Max 9s will have speed tape wrapped around the entire body of the aircraft from the cockpit to the tail.

Ain't nuttin' gonna fall off now!

 

[AlaskaProf]

Now all 737 Max 9s will have speed tape wrapped around the entire body of the aircraft from the cockpit to the tail.

Yup

 

[soin2la]

Now all 737 Max 9s will have speed tape wrapped around the entire body of the aircraft from the cockpit to the tail.

Ain't nuttin' gonna fall off now!

Naw, they just gotta go around with a hammer and whack the threaded ends of all the boltss.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67919436

 

[FWT]

The large majority of that model are in the fleets of Alaska and United

Yesterday it was reported United pulled theirs to inspect and found loose bolts in "several" of the doors.

 

[HopCar]

I’ve been following the discussion on YouTube. The door plug was held in by four bolts with castellated nuts with cotter pins. The bolts were not found on the airplane or the plug. Other loose bolts have been found. I think this one is going to be on Boeing.

 

[AlaskaProf]

I’ve been following the discussion on YouTube. The door plug was held in by four bolts with castellated nuts with cotter pins. The bolts were not found on the airplane or the plug. Other loose bolts have been found. I think this one is going to be on Boeing.

Almost certainly; it was a brand new airplane. The airline hadn't had any time to F it up. Boeing CEO has already apologised

 

[AlaskaProf]

Interesting side effect:


Alaska Air has inadvertantly exposed to public scrutiny the foundational myth of ETOPS with the story of the recurring pressurization alarm.


The internet is reacting with puzzled rage: "What? The airplane was not good enough to fly over the ocean, but they left it in service?!?

 

[rslifkin]

From what I can find, pulling it from ETOPS flights was the conservative option, but wasn't required. Diversion after depressurization is one of the scenarios covered in ETOPS planning. So given the same failure with no resulting catastrophic damage it would be an unpleasant (potentially long) diversion, but otherwise no worse.

 

[AlaskaProf]

The problem with the whole "Engine Turns Or Passengers Swim" concept lies in the statement that these aircraft will get "special maintenance", implying that others will not. Which should cause any sentient traveller to ask, "Wait...there's something you could inspect and maintain on my flight from SFO to ATL that you have elected to NOT DO!?

The decision to not send the aircraft to HNL with an unresolved, likely false, alarm was consistent with conservative "safety culture."
The decision to dispatch it to ONT, may even have been within rules and doctrine and the MEL, but it has revealed to the general public something they never suspected. Truly an unforseen consequence.

 

[AlaskaProf]

The other fallacy of air travel that is drawing attention because of this blowout is the "lap infant". National press has begun asking if allowing an unrestrained 40 pound human projectile to bang around the cabin or worse is good public policy.

 

[26permacraft]

Whoa, that old 737 Max 8 thread brings back memories! As for the Max 9 blowout, just watched the vid. Pretty wild stuff. Can't help but wonder what the air pros around here think.

 

[AlaskaProf]

The other fallacy of air travel that is drawing attention because of this blowout is the "lap infant". National press has begun asking if allowing an unrestrained 40 pound human projectile to bang around the cabin or worse is good public policy.

"At least twice during news conferences this week, the NTSB has stressed that both it and the Federal Aviation Administration recommend that parents or guardians buy separate seats for infants on flights instead of holding them in their laps."


NY Times 1/11/24

 

[Action]

If a child was pulled out of a plane during flight, might as well shut down the company.
That would be so horrible.
The parents go on TV holding a picture of the infant, crying over their loss.

Not sure why airlines have not required some type of restraint for infants at this point. Or covering ALL passengers.

Action

 

[AlaskaProf]

Not sure why airlines have not required some type of restraint for infants at this point. Or covering ALL passengers.
Action

No one wants to be the one "cruel money-grubbing" company that requires the public pay for appropriate safety measures.


The solution is simple: government requires that every passenger buy a ticket and be restrained in an appropriately designed seat.


Yes, I can honestly say that both of my infants always complied with the rule I am proposing. They were...and continue to be worth more than a couple hundred bucks.


The issue is about more than the safety of the kiddies. When impact G-forces rip the little nipper out of Mommie's loving embrace it becomes a projectile, and you and I potential targets.

 

[porman]

If a door plug blew out of a jet halfway to Hawaii, would it have enough fuel to make it at 10,000 feet?

 

[Action]

I am not in the industry, however I do know a calculation is done (with a lot of data) as to how much fuel is needed to make the planned trip. Then that amount of fuel plus a margin is added to the aircraft before take off. I am guessing that the margin may be greater for an aircraft with a planned route over water. However again I am not in the industry.

Commercial jets are designed to fly the most efficently at a certain altitude. 10,000 feet is not that altitude. However if a flight experienced an event like that, yes the flying altitude would be lowered so passengers would not need as much O2 and to get to a lower attitude that was far warmer than say 35,000 feet. The aircraft WOULD burn more fuel because of the lower altitude and hull breach.

And hopfully would have enough additional fuel to complete the trip to the nearest airport for an emergency landing.

The greater issue would be a hull breach causing other damage to the aircraft from debris. If great enough "other damage" occurred, it could bring the aircraft down no matter how much fuel the aircraft had.

 

[AlaskaProf]

If a door plug blew out of a jet halfway to Hawaii, would it have enough fuel to make it at 10,000 feet?

Too many variables to answer, but the possibilities are not good.

 

[rslifkin]

If a door plug blew out of a jet halfway to Hawaii, would it have enough fuel to make it at 10,000 feet?

Yes. One of the planning criteria for ETOPS is that you need enough fuel to divert to somewhere if you end up depressurized at the worst point in your flight. Same goes for an engine failure or down an engine and depressurized (which usually burns less fuel than depressurized with all engines running).

That wouldn't account for the extra drag from a hole in the plane, but there's a contingency add on to normal flight plan fuel that would hopefully be enough to cover the extra drag.

 

[soin2la]

Lots of talk about damage to Boeing; airlines cancelling orders and travellers doing everything they can to avoid Boeing planes.

I somehow doubt a change at the top and “we must do better” will restore trust very quickly.

Can Boeing recover? Ford, FedEx, Apple, Netflix and a dozen other globally recognized brands did.

Which manufacturers are capable of picking up the pieces? Will there be a government bailout? Will the public buy into that?

Years ago, when chasing a wall leak in our home, we removed a section of siding to find the overlap in the building paper was installed backwards. Behind the paper in spray paint were the words F--k B---a (the builder).

How can sabotage be prevented on the factory floor of such a huge operation? Would such events ever see the light of day?

 

[twistedtree]

I heard two interesting and related things about the Max-9 and this recent door plug incident.


First is that the fuselage is delivered to Boeing with the plug installed, and it is not removed as part of the remaining build.


Second is that when the satellite dome is installed, located very close to the door plug, the plug is removed to provide access for the installation process. It's not clear who does this installation, but that seems like a hot lead in the whole investigation.


Anyone know more about this?

 

[soin2la]

In 2006...
"VANCOUVER (CP) - The absence of a small cotter pin on a B.C. ferry has set off a large lawsuit against two companies that serviced the vessel before it rammed into a Horseshoe Bay marina.
The lawsuit, filed in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver, claims Vancouver Drydock Co. and Prime Mover Controls Inc. failed to properly re-install engine governors connected to the propulsion system.

Because of the missing split pin on the Queen of Oak Bay, the lawsuit says, the speed controls were disconnected.

In June 2005, the ferry plowed into a marina near the Horseshoe Bay terminal, running over several small boats.

No one was injured, either on the ground or on board the ferry.

The lawsuit claims the accident was the direct result of Prime Mover's failure to detect the missing cotter pin."

 

[AlaskaProf]

Can Boeing recover? Ford, FedEx, Apple, Netflix and a dozen other globally recognized brands did.

Boeing has been down this road at least twice; seems to not influence sales, though stock price takes a beating occasionally.



In 1965 and for a couple years after, people were very publicly avoiding the Boeing 727 because of three fatal "events" in quick succession. (hard to call them "accidents", they were the result of incompetent airmanship)



And, of course, there were the recent Max disasters.

 

[Barking Sands]

I heard two interesting and related things about the Max-9 and this recent door plug incident.


First is that the fuselage is delivered to Boeing with the plug installed, and it is not removed as part of the remaining build.


Second is that when the satellite dome is installed, located very close to the door plug, the plug is removed to provide access for the installation process. It's not clear who does this installation, but that seems like a hot lead in the whole investigation.


Anyone know more about this?

Yes. AAR apparently did the WIFI install in OKC. AAR recently stated the plug was not removed for their WIFI install. In the video below there is a couple of photos of Alaska Air aircraft that someone is accessing the rear plug but its not certain who and probably not this aircraft. But it does appear to be accessed by someone.

The fact that AAR states they did not use the plug door for access IMO is only 90% solid. Many things go on during aircraft Mx and depending on circumstances not everything is documented. ESPECIALLY on an avionics install by a contractor. Many of those workers are not even A&P licensed techs. They usually hire a dozen workers for every A&P that is supposed to provide oversight. As a matter of fact I find Avionics installs by contractors to be some of the the most undisciplined events that probably happens on aircraft. Obviously some are worse than others. Probably only painters are worse.

Whatever happened here will be a process escape. Too many anomalies on various recently delivered aircraft.

Also in the video below Juan states that no matter who did the install of the WIFI and even if they had the plug out that Boeing would still be responsible to sign the work off. IMO that is actually not true. Each Mx provider has their own internal processes and "Return to Service" criteria.

When the aircraft leaves the Boeing facility it is approved for Airworthiness under its "Type Certificate" that includes the equipment list. The aircraft is Airworthy at that time. if an additional add on is complied with by an aftermarket MRO it is usually at the request of the purchaser. That MRO providing the install will have the STC (Supplemental Type Certificate) documentation for the installation which includes all engineering and installation criteria for the job and usually this is not a product of Boeing. All the internal processes to comply with the STC (Wifi) and return the aircraft to service will be carried out under the Repair Station manual procedures, which for the WIFI install, would be AAR's own procedures. Procedures and processes at contractor facilities IMO are notoriously lax.

It could be Boeing, it could be Spirit Aero Systems, or it could be a contractor/installer. But no matter what entity is the culprit, procedures and processes were skipped or bypasses.

My background has been in Aviation since 1987. For the last 28 years I have worked for a major aircraft manufacturer where I ran the nightshift for 23 years in the Mx department. For the last 5 years I have been a Quality Inspector.

 

[Invincible Summer]

Whenever you have a government agency willing to give it's stakeholders the ability to "self-certify" the quality of the work, this will be the end result. Giving Boeing the ability to appoint it's own employees to act as FAA Inspectors was a flawed program from the start. In February of 2022, FAA stated they would give "final inspection" of 787-9s. Please. That is like fully building a house and subsequently having the inspections certified on the quality of the plumbing and electrical.