Keep your seatbelt low and tight in flight, especially when seated next to a plugged door

In summary, it is important to keep your seatbelt low and tight during flights, particularly when seated next to a door that is plugged, to ensure safety and security.
  • #36
Greg Bernhardt said:
I'd feel better if they'd take it out of service and get it air worthy.
How is this possible?

One can say "We want 500 hours (or whatever) of overland flying before we take it over the ocean." I think that may even be reasonable. But you can't say "We want 500 hours of overland flying before we take it over the land."

Every US aircraft with that plug is out of service pending inspection. What more do you want?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Alaska and United Airlines found loose bolts on the door plugs on several of its grounded 737 Max 9 planes days after a door plug blew out of an Alaska Airlines plane while it was in-flight.

https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...olts-on-door-plug-when-inspecting-its-max-9s/

Also, Juan Browne reported that Boeing removes and reinstalls the door plug after they receive the fuselage from Spirit to install the aircraft interior.

 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes berkeman
  • #38
Sounds like a case of RTFM.

"Read the fuc**ng err, fine, manual!"
 
  • #39
Vanadium 50 said:
How is this possible?

One can say "We want 500 hours (or whatever) of overland flying before we take it over the ocean." I think that may even be reasonable. But you can't say "We want 500 hours of overland flying before we take it over the land."

Every US aircraft with that plug is out of service pending inspection. What more do you want?
Passengers. It's about the passengers.
 
  • #40



Bob has his 15 min of fame.
 
  • Like
Likes mfb and DrClaude
  • #41
Vanadium 50 said:
Every US aircraft with that plug is out of service pending inspection. What more do you want?
How about inspected before the door blows off in flight if they were so nervous?
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #42
It's like opportunity.

OneDoorCloses_AnotherOneOpens.JPG
 
  • Haha
Likes russ_watters and Greg Bernhardt
  • #43
Greg Bernhardt said:
How about inspected before the door blows off in flight if they were so nervous?
It's not a door. It's a plug.

It surely was inspected. Somewhere there is some paperwork which states how tight the fasteners. Clearly that wasn't enough.

Would more inspections help? Maybe, ,maybe not. Depends on what the problem was - were the bolts too loose? Or were they too fragile? Or is there something else: say a resonance issue causing them to work their way loose. I am unsure that doing more of what didn't work in this case is the solution.

It's also worth pointing out that taking these planes out of service is causing passengers to seek alternatives. Alaska flies about 40 billion passenger-miles per year, and driving kills about 5 people per billion passenger miles. So while they are flying, they save about 200 lives a year. If they lose 40% of their capacity for a week, the expectation value of fatalities due to alternative transportation approaches 1. And that's just Alaska.

I'm not suggesting ignoring the issue. But I am pointing out that overreacting also has its costs.
 
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt
  • #44
Bolting a plug? With all that wind pressure and vibration?! Think of bridges.
1704816284232.png
 
  • Haha
Likes nsaspook and dlgoff
  • #45
DaveE said:
"Since we began preliminary inspections on Saturday, we have found instances that appear to relate to installation issues in the door plug – for example, bolts that needed additional tightening," United said in a statement..."
bolt.jpg


The bolt physically traps the guide roller, preventing it from moving "down" in the track. Looks like it will perform this function regardless of how "tight" it is -- as long as it is present. Were they even present? Or maybe the cotter pins were missing and the castle nut vibrated off, and then the bolt escaped. All four of them.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes russ_watters, berkeman and dlgoff
  • #46
DaveE said:
Alaska and United Airlines found loose bolts on the door plugs on several of its grounded 737 Max 9 planes days after a door plug blew out of an Alaska Airlines plane while it was in-flight.

https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...olts-on-door-plug-when-inspecting-its-max-9s/

Also, Juan Browne reported that Boeing removes and reinstalls the door plug after they receive the fuselage from Spirit to install the aircraft interior.


Great video, thanks @DaveE

And "loose bolts"? The Cotter pins would have to have been missing for that to happen, no? I suppose if Boeing reused the Cotter pins after the reinstallation, they could have failed and allowed the nuts to back off, but I can't imagine the technicians reusing Cotter pins.

@Flyboy -- You aren't allowed to reuse Cotter pins during maintenance, right?
 
  • #47
berkeman said:
Great video, thanks @DaveE

And "loose bolts"? The Cotter pins would have to have been missing for that to happen, no? I suppose if Boeing reused the Cotter pins after the reinstallation, they could have failed and allowed the nuts to back off, but I can't imagine the technicians reusing Cotter pins.

@Flyboy -- You aren't allowed to reuse Cotter pins during maintenance, right?

No, never.
1704841011108.png

You use a bent nail instead.
 
  • Haha
Likes russ_watters, dlgoff, berkeman and 1 other person
  • #48
gmax137 said:
Or maybe the cotter pins were missing
When they replace them, it will be "Welcome back, Cotter."
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes nsaspook and dlgoff
  • #49
berkeman said:
And "loose bolts"? The Cotter pins would have to have been missing for that to happen, no? I suppose if Boeing reused the Cotter pins after the reinstallation, they could have failed and allowed the nuts to back off....
This is what caused my in-flight incident...
 
  • #50
russ_watters said:
This is what caused my in-flight incident...
I missed the memo, but am glad you are still with us...
 
  • #51
berkeman said:
Great video, thanks @DaveE

And "loose bolts"? The Cotter pins would have to have been missing for that to happen, no? I suppose if Boeing reused the Cotter pins after the reinstallation, they could have failed and allowed the nuts to back off, but I can't imagine the technicians reusing Cotter pins.

@Flyboy -- You aren't allowed to reuse Cotter pins during maintenance, right?
You are correct on both fronts. You never, EVER reuse cotter pins because of the risk of fatigue failures. They're like a penny a piece, why not get a fresh one?
That said, I've seen cotter pins fail from other, non-reuse causes, too. Had one let go on a throttle linkage on a business jet a few months back. We knew it had been installed because two separate people looked at it before we cowled it up and sent it, and when it came back it was gone. Best we could figure was that it was just a bad pin and it cracked loose, but we could never prove it.

We scrapped that entire batch of cotter pins out of an abundance of caution after that.
nsaspook said:
No, never.
View attachment 338346
You use a bent nail instead.
... I swear to god I will murder someone if I caught them doing stuff like that.
 
  • Informative
Likes berkeman
  • #53
Vanadium 50 said:
As far as being restricted from flying over water, would you feel better if it weren't so restricted?
Greg Bernhardt said:
I'd feel better if they'd take it out of service and get it air worthy. If they are so nervous about getting to an airport in time, it aint air worthy.
Vanadium 50 said:
One can say "We want 500 hours (or whatever) of overland flying before we take it over the ocean." I think that may even be reasonable. But you can't say "We want 500 hours of overland flying before we take it over the land." ...What more do you want?
russ_watters said:
Passengers. It's about the passengers.
We'll see if this failure was related to the pressurization system errors, but if so, the plane was in service for a little less than a month or perhaps 250 flight hours before the problem manifested that eventually resulted in this incident. There's a set of flight tests performed that lasts a certain number of hours, in a "shakedown" period before a plane is accepted and allowed to carry passengers. How many hours is that? 100? 500? Is there a probationary period after?

Airliners are safe in large part because they have redundant systems, and allowing a plane to fly with a redundant system disabled/malfunctioning is a conscious choice to accept a higher safety risk. No doubt this has been calculated in a risk assessment to be an acceptable risk.

But yeah, maybe the standard isn't stringent enough for an early-manifesting failure. We're in the "infant mortality" section of the Bathtub Curve just like the MCAS failure was. Yes, maybe an unexplained failure of a critical passenger safety system in a low hours plane should trigger grounding of that plane until the cause of the failure is figured out and the failure is rectified.

[edit]
I've lost a lot of confidence in Boeing since the MCAS debacle, but I'm cognizant of the...risk.... in this being overblown. Airliners are safe, but nothing is completely safe. I don't want airliners to become the new nuclear power where they are so safe that a single accident is held up as evidence they are unacceptably, irredeemably unsafe.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Nugatory, Vanadium 50 and Flyboy
  • #55
Borg said:
That link gives a permission error for non-Mentors.
Yea. I'd really like to be able to view that post.
 
  • #59
russ_watters said:
There's a set of flight tests performed that lasts a certain number of hours, in a "shakedown" period before a plane is accepted and allowed to carry passengers. How many hours is that? 100? 500? Is there a probationary period after?
Who does that?
The airplane operator, or some other agency?

If one leases or buys a plane from a manufacturer, should not the manufacturer already have the plane designated as being air worthy and transfer the certificate to the buyer upon possession of the airplane.
 
  • #60
256bits said:
Who does that?
The airplane operator, or some other agency?

If one leases or buys a plane from a manufacturer, should not the manufacturer already have the plane designated as being air worthy and transfer the certificate to the buyer upon possession of the airplane.
I'm not sure of the specifics, but at least the manufacturer will do a set of acceptance tests, and the airline will do their own. I don't think it's directly supervised by the FAA, just reported to the FAA. There was a crash once in Europe where the pilot's crashed the plane during such a check for an airline(no passengers). I'll see if I can find it.
 
  • Like
Likes 256bits
  • #62
Borg said:
This one?

XL Airways Germany Flight 888T​

Yep, that's the one I was thinking of. It was an "acceptance flight" of a plane that had been overhauled and was changing lessees, as opposed to a new plane delivery. It was attended by the CAA (Kiwi equivalent of FAA). I'm not sure how that would compare to a new airplane delivery (if anything, it was probably a lighter test, and it was just one flight).
 
  • #63
LOL, from Facebook today:

1704987491728.png
 
  • Haha
Likes Borg
  • #64
NTSB update and a surprising fact about the cockpit door...

1704991232356.png

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/...fWKojFotjw36qNJzw74bjPBCqsqg9RVEQXToDa0IFZfzo

Boeing to make changes in manual ​

Homendy said the board found that the cockpit door of the B737-9 MAX was designed to open during rapid decompression and that the flight crew was not made aware of this feature. She added that Boeing will need to update its B737-9 MAX manual.

During the January 5, 2024 incident, the aircraft’s cockpit door opened violently mid-flight due to the decompression, and a flight attendant made three attempts to close the door. A laminated quick reference checklist used in emergencies flew out while the door was open.

“We found today that the cockpit door is designed to open during rapid decompression. However, no one among the flight crew knew that. They were not informed. So Boeing is going to make some changes to the manual which then hopefully will translate to procedures and information for the flight attendants and crew in the cockpit,” Homendy said.
 
  • #65
...checklist used in emergencies flew out while the door was open.

Checklist? They don't need no stinking Check List when they be tryin' to stay alive!
:cry:
 
  • Haha
Likes mfb and berkeman
  • #67
I was talking to someone who works for, um, a Major US Air Carrier that operates the 737 Max-9 And In Not Alaska. I realize this is not an approved PF source, but what they're saying (or rather, being told by their management) makes some sense.

It seems that the working theory is not the simultaneous failure of four bolts. The working theory is that two bolts failed, allowing the plug to slightly disengage from the fuselage and move out into the aistream. Now the forces on the plug are very large, which caused the other two bolts to fail and send the plug on its merry way.

More speculative is the question of how the first two failed. It is possible that one failed a long time ago and the second held it in place. Thus far, inspections have found loose bolts but no damaged or defective bolts. Another (IMHO more likely) possibility is that one of the failed, transferring the load to the other, causing it to fail as well.

I also learned that the "16000 feet" you read about is the maximum altitude the plane reached. The incident occurred at 14800 feet. (This is published, just no very widely) The aircraft is normally pressurized to about 8000 feet, but of course this is not reached instantaneously. So the failure occurred in minutes and at much lower pressure differential than the last successful flight. We knew this qualitatively. Now we have some numbers. It is odd that it failed, essentially, as soon as it could.
 
  • Like
Likes Borg and berkeman
  • #68
New slogan for Alaska Airlines from Saturday Night Live.

Alaska_Airlines.jpg
 
  • Haha
  • Love
Likes nsaspook and berkeman
  • #69
Yeah, that's pretty much my slogan.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman, Vanadium 50, gmax137 and 1 other person
  • #70
Borg said:
New slogan for Alaska Airlines from Saturday Night Live.

View attachment 338926
"This is now their second coolest story" o0)
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ight-taking-magic-mushrooms-questi-rcna124745
The off-duty Alaska Airlines pilot accused of trying to shut down the engines of an airborne plane last month after taking magic mushrooms thought he was dreaming and had questioned if he was in hell, he said in an interview published Saturday.

Joseph Emerson, 44, told The New York Times in a jailhouse interview in Portland, Oregon, that when he took the psychedelics around a campfire — which he had never taken before — on Oct. 20, two days before the incident, he dwelled on events in his past.
 
  • Like
Likes Borg

Similar threads

Why is the U-2 nicknamed the Dragon Lady?
Replies
4
Views
7K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 266)
Replies
1
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top