Plugged “door” on MAX
Jan 9, 2024, 7:27 am
#16
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Nashville -Past DL Plat, FO, WN-CP, various hotel programs
Programs: DL-MM, AA, SW w/companion,HiltonDiamond, Hyatt PLat, IHF Plat, Miles and Points Seeker
Posts: 11,074
Not sure if everyone agrees there is good reason. I tend to think the MAX is safer because of all the extra attention it has gotten. Will fly the MAX any day myself.
Jan 9, 2024, 8:14 am
#17
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: TOL
Posts: 749
I wondered about this, too.
"The air pressurization warning light went off on December 7, January 3 and January 4. Homendy said the crews reported it each time, the system was tested and reset."“We have record they were tested and then reset by maintenance personnel,” Homendy said.
Alaska Airlines decided to restrict the aircraft from long flights over water so the plane “could return very quickly to an airport” if the warning light reappeared, Homendy said.
https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/nts...door-01072024/
Hmmm. I was wondering if any of the other grounded 737 max 9's flight wide might have also experienced faults on the air pressurization?
It said Alaska decided to restrict the aircraft from long flights over the water due to the faults, but I was wondering if this is discretionary to the airlines? I thought ETOPS had pretty stringent rules?
"The air pressurization warning light went off on December 7, January 3 and January 4. Homendy said the crews reported it each time, the system was tested and reset."“We have record they were tested and then reset by maintenance personnel,” Homendy said.
Alaska Airlines decided to restrict the aircraft from long flights over water so the plane “could return very quickly to an airport” if the warning light reappeared, Homendy said.
https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/nts...door-01072024/
Hmmm. I was wondering if any of the other grounded 737 max 9's flight wide might have also experienced faults on the air pressurization?
It said Alaska decided to restrict the aircraft from long flights over the water due to the faults, but I was wondering if this is discretionary to the airlines? I thought ETOPS had pretty stringent rules?
Pressurization issues can be hard to reproduce on the ground (where the outside ambient air pressure is higher). So the flight crew reports the issue, the mechanics check the aircraft on the ground, check common causes of pressurization faults like bad door seals, and return the aircraft to service after conducting a pressurization check. Sometimes this process repeats itself until you find the real root cause.
Jan 9, 2024, 8:20 am
#18
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 5,513
Pressurization issues can be hard to reproduce on the ground (where the outside ambient air pressure is higher). So the flight crew reports the issue, the mechanics check the aircraft on the ground, check common causes of pressurization faults like bad door seals, and return the aircraft to service after conducting a pressurization check. Sometimes this process repeats itself until you find the real root cause.
If you were flying on a plane, say from PDX to ONT, and you found out that the airline wasn't using it in ETOPS applications because they thought there was some increased risk of depressurization, and they were flying it on your route because it was easy to find a diversion airport... would you feel comfortable?
Jan 9, 2024, 11:34 am
#19
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: California
Posts: 1,129
I used to think the same thing too. But this accident occurred anyway despite the extra attention in the last few years with the Max and Dreamliner issues.
Jan 9, 2024, 5:37 pm
#20
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SAT
Programs: Marriott Titanium, Hilton and Wyndham Diamond, Hyatt Globalist, Delta Plat, United Silver, Hertz PC
Posts: 724
Yes you can tell, as there is more space between the windows in these rows and the rows in front of and behind this row.
Jan 9, 2024, 5:54 pm
#21
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: TOL
Posts: 749
The process did repeat itself.
If you were flying on a plane, say from PDX to ONT, and you found out that the airline wasn't using it in ETOPS applications because they thought there was some increased risk of depressurization, and they were flying it on your route because it was easy to find a diversion airport... would you feel comfortable?
If you were flying on a plane, say from PDX to ONT, and you found out that the airline wasn't using it in ETOPS applications because they thought there was some increased risk of depressurization, and they were flying it on your route because it was easy to find a diversion airport... would you feel comfortable?
Jan 9, 2024, 8:11 pm
#22
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 5,513
Rapid depressurization can never be a "non-event." Boeing never revealed that MAX has a special vulnerability.
No one wants the door open on the descent into the airport.
Too bad they can't replace the "plugs" with a proper, already certified door at this position, like the high density users who are carrying on unrestricted, and doing without a few seats in the interim. Of course, there probably aren't 250 fully-certified doors just laying around.
"We found today that the cockpit door is designed to open during rapid decompression,” NTSB chair Jennifer Homendy said. “However, none among the crew knew that. Boeing will now include the information in the flight manual. They [the pilot and copilot] had trouble hearing each other, they had trouble hearing air-traffic control and they had trouble communicating during the event.”
Too bad they can't replace the "plugs" with a proper, already certified door at this position, like the high density users who are carrying on unrestricted, and doing without a few seats in the interim. Of course, there probably aren't 250 fully-certified doors just laying around.
Jan 16, 2024, 5:22 pm
#23
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 866
The process did repeat itself.
If you were flying on a plane, say from PDX to ONT, and you found out that the airline wasn't using it in ETOPS applications because they thought there was some increased risk of depressurization, and they were flying it on your route because it was easy to find a diversion airport... would you feel comfortable?
If you were flying on a plane, say from PDX to ONT, and you found out that the airline wasn't using it in ETOPS applications because they thought there was some increased risk of depressurization, and they were flying it on your route because it was easy to find a diversion airport... would you feel comfortable?
Jan 16, 2024, 5:36 pm
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Danville, CA, USA;
Programs: UA 1MM, WN CP, Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Gold, IC Plat
Posts: 15,722
Rapid depressurization can never be a "non-event." Boeing never revealed that MAX has a special vulnerability.
No one wants the door open on the descent into the airport.
Too bad they can't replace the "plugs" with a proper, already certified door at this position, like the high density users who are carrying on unrestricted, and doing without a few seats in the interim. Of course, there probably aren't 250 fully-certified doors just laying around.
No one wants the door open on the descent into the airport.
Too bad they can't replace the "plugs" with a proper, already certified door at this position, like the high density users who are carrying on unrestricted, and doing without a few seats in the interim. Of course, there probably aren't 250 fully-certified doors just laying around.
Jan 16, 2024, 11:17 pm
#25
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,626
Here's a detailed discussion of the design: http://www.gregorytravis.com/Aviation/737DoorPlug2.pdf
The author argues that this must have been an installation an inspection error, and that the design is proven and sound if installed correctly. The article is thorough and persuasive.
The author argues that this must have been an installation an inspection error, and that the design is proven and sound if installed correctly. The article is thorough and persuasive.
Jan 17, 2024, 12:31 am
#26
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Danville, CA, USA;
Programs: UA 1MM, WN CP, Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Gold, IC Plat
Posts: 15,722
Here's a detailed discussion of the design: http://www.gregorytravis.com/Aviation/737DoorPlug2.pdf
The author argues that this must have been an installation an inspection error, and that the design is proven and sound if installed correctly. The article is thorough and persuasive.
The author argues that this must have been an installation an inspection error, and that the design is proven and sound if installed correctly. The article is thorough and persuasive.
Feb 12, 2024, 10:39 am
#27
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New England
Programs: American Gold, Marriott Gold, Hilton Silver
Posts: 5,645
Delta has a few -900ERs with the exits in the back because they bought some used planes which previously operated for Lionair and Malindo Air and haven't had a full cabin change out yet.
Feb 13, 2024, 3:37 am
#28
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
The current WN fleet plan calls for the -8 and -7, neither of which have the plug door. (The design as noted pre-dates the max with the introduction on the 900ER)
Preliminary NTSB report notes that when Spirit Aerosystems repaired some rivets in the adjacent structure, they failed to re-install the four bolts that secured the plug to the fuselage. This was all done at the Boeing factory in Renton.
Preliminary NTSB report notes that when Spirit Aerosystems repaired some rivets in the adjacent structure, they failed to re-install the four bolts that secured the plug to the fuselage. This was all done at the Boeing factory in Renton.