24left

and

CZAMFlyer

Clearly, the Palm Springs passengers had the good sense to reject a flight in a 737 Max.

Stranger

Rejecting takeoff for an entry door issue seems odd. Why not complete the takeoff and then land? Shouldn't be an issue until higher elevation.

CZAMFlyer

Disclaimer: not a 737 pilot, so can't profess to be an expert.

Becoming airborne with a critical item such as an exterior door potentially not correctly latched seems to be a highly risky manoeuvre. The terrain surrounding Palm Springs rapidly rises to above 10,000 feet; if the airplane had to climb higher - depending on the SID used, etc - you could be faced with a serious pressure imbalance, endangering airplane and occupants. Given that the airplane had not yet reached V1 (the speed beyond which it's unsafe to stop on the remaining runway surface), it's infinitely less risky to stop on the ground. The worst-case designed outcome is some burst tires if the tire plugs exceed their temp limits from exposure to hot brakes. I'm unfamiliar with what the aircraft manual states in terms of which fault indications require an aborted takeoff below V1 - 'unsafe door' may be one of them. If not, it required some pretty fast decision-making.
The plane could technically lift off and do a low-level VFR circuit around the valley and come in for a landing. Doing so is contrary to the pilots' pre-departure briefing and exposes them to more risk due to non-standard procedures than by simply stopping and fixing the problem before it actually becomes a problem.

No second-guessing from me on this one - it seems like the correct call to this armchair flyer.

FlyerTalker70

Oh I don't know, having a dozen of so passengers get sucked out of the cabin? I would hazard to guess that a small percentage of passengers would not have their seatbelt fastened. It's also likely that a small number of passengers would have unsecured items to say nothing of the cabin crew that may have unsecured service items (again in theory none of that should happen but in practice how can we be so sure?)

Need I remind everyone of the disastrous WN flight last year where a small break in the fuselage caused by a minor engine failure literally sucked a passenger out of the cabin and killed them?

From the standpoint of the pilots, they are free and are instructed to stomp on those breaks at any point up to V1 speed when cruising down the runway. I suspect this indicator came on somewhere between taxiing from the gate to getting to V1. Clearly they made the right choice here, the aircraft stopped safely and no one on board is injured. I'm unsure what else the pilots could have done to make the experience better other than perhaps handing out Krug or DOM in the cabin The important question to ask is: "Was the door unlocked indicator overlooked by the pilots?" If yes, then there's clear a training/fatigue issue to deal with. If no, then that points to a potentially faulty piece of hardware. Neither of which are particularly confidence inspiring.

The key question here is: will the NTSB be investigating this incident or is this considered a minor glitch?

Safe Travels,

James

Stranger

FlyerTalker70

It may be **scary** but so long as it is at or below V1 it's 100% safe. The airlines and aircraft manufacturers have built so many redundant systems and margin of error into error that pilots can be confident that anything before or at V1 is safe to stomp the brakes on. As others have pointed, if you give the pilot the choice of being safe on the ground or not so safe in the sky, they'll choose the ground 10 times out of 8!

-James

Stranger

FlyerTalker70

How do we know that? It may have been way more than leaky! From the standpoint of the crew revving the engines and seeing that fault light come on it could also mean any number of things including up to and including the door is ajar! Think about it from their standpoint: they taxi from the gate, no lights come on, everything is a-ok then all of a sudden as they are surging down the runway a door light comes on. At that split second will they be able to open the cockpit door and inspect or ask the FA is everything is ok? We are talking about split second decisions where the crew doesn't have complete information. It could be something minor like a latch, heck it could be a sensor malfunction making this whole thing a real nothing burger, but you won't know till after the fact!

-James

5mm

It would be impossible for anyone or anything to be sucked out at any altitude. With a door opened before the cabin was pressurized, the aircraft would not pressurize, simple math says that there can be no decompression.

FlyerTalker70

Fair enough, but you can't tell me that it's safe and given the other option is to safely (albeit **scarily**) come to a screeching halt on the runway, I would still choose the latter. If the circumstances were different (i.e. VR) and we don't know the full circumstances yet - we're just speculating then yes, the correct thing is to take off and quickly turn around and land. Again it's completely unclear whether an NTSB investigation will occur surrounding this. Even if one is warranted it may be months or even years before we find out more given the current US shutdown.

-James

canadiancow

I can't believe how many posts it took before someone pointed this out

Stranger

28isGreat

I'd be curious if the cockpit systems clearly separate between "things for which you should stop now [if before V1]" vs. "things for which you should continue". Presuming the warning popped up only during takeoff roll... if you're anywhere close to V1, there's no time for any actual analysis. Stop now and deal with known variables on the ground (hot brakes with a fire department ready to help) vs. continuing takeoff with unknown variables.

An emergency stop is jarring to the passengers, I'm sure (to be fair, I haven't experienced one), but it's a safe, well-known, rehearsed thing. Kinda like (er, most) go-arounds -- noisy, surprising, but a perfectly safe thing to do.

Stranger