737 Max 9 loses door in flight

[red750]

A Boeing 737 MAX 9 operated by Alaska Airlines diverted to Portland International Airport (PDX) on Friday after losing the mid-aft door, window, and an unoccupied seat during takeoff. According to multiple reports, the aircraft suffered a rapid decompression, prompting the crew to make an emergency landing.

 

Video capturing the terrifying occurrence shows the emergency exit was fully torn off from the plane's fuselage with oxygen masks hanging from the cabin ceiling. Alaska is investigating the cause of the incident.

Details of the incident.

The aircraft, registered as N704AL, was operating as AS1282 from PDX to Ontario International Airport (ONT) with more than 170 passengers onboard. It departed from Runway 28L at 17:07 and quickly gained altitude, reaching more than 3,000 feet one minute after take off. Two minutes into the flight, the aircraft was climbing through 5,000 feet over the Columbia River and turned southeast.

 

The aircraft is new to Alaska, having been in service for less than three months. Decompression tore the shirt off a toddler onboard.

[onetrack]

That little exercise must have been a heart-stopper for any pax near to the door.

 

However, it wasn't actually an operational door, it is apparently a plug where a door can be fitted.

 

Alaska Airlines have now grounded every B737 MAX 9 in their fleet.

 

[kgwilson]

This doesn't add to the reputation of the 787 Max. Apart from the failure of the trim system that they didn't tell anyone about, Boeing was having problems with contracted suppliers though this was over 10 years ago. Parts were supplied out of spec and had to be modified before assembly. That was when the bean counters over ruled the engineers. This panel certainly didn't make the grade though.

[Garfly]

This is a tech explanation of the various 737 mid-cabin doors/plugs configs.

The Alaskan incident is referred to near the end (21:45).

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Seems like it would be held well enough if the required bolts are in place.     Would have been worse if the Plane was at a higher level. Colder and more differential pressure.  Almost new aircraft.  Nev

[Litespeed]

Yet more reasons for my mantra, " ifs it's Boeing, I am not going".

 

I would expect not all the fasteners were tight or even fitted, forget about any quality control.

 

After the missing nut on a tail surface, it keeps getting worse. It's not a one off but seems systemic.

 

How can a simple 4-8 hr check as per the FAA expect to find all these issues?

 

These are all new aircraft, the door loss is on a plane in service only 8 weeks.

 

After the max 8 disaster, this shows they have not improved at all, their ability to self certify should be completely revoked.

 

 

Why have the entire fleet not been grounded for heavy maintenance inspection?

 

If they where Airbus, the FAA would have acted far faster and with intent.

 

No confidence can be had flying in any recent Boeing, they consistently prove profit is the only motive and safety is a afterthought.

 

Edited January 7 by Litespeed

[facthunter]

They once had the best of reputations. You could see the change coming by the way they organised the way they DO things. Subbing out with no cross communication or feedback at the floor level.  Nev

[kgwilson]

A lot of us followed the Max 8 debacle at the time & while it cost Boeing billions and had their share values plummet as well as the embarrassment, Calhoun, one of the main perpetrators kept his job. Even the CEO at the time who was their fall guy got a multi million dollar golden parachute. This is corporate America closing ranks and protecting its own. Who cares about the travelling public. They don't have much choice especially in the US.

[facthunter]

It started long before then but you had to be following what was going on. Not easy unless you know people who GET the facts but are pursued and discredited.  MONEY wins out. Nev

[RFguy]

so the guy in the seat had their seatbelt on eh ?

[Litespeed]

Yet more reasons for my mantra, " ifs it's Boeing, I am not going".

 

Now I bet if I go to a US based AV site they will be shooting anyone who is anti Boeing.

 

They get overprotective, they hate that the USA could make a mistake.

 

In reality the 737 max should lose its certificate of airworthiness, no aircraft they have produced could reasonably said to be made to the "certificate".

 

None have the level of safety in assembly nor of the actual parts as expected in the certificates.

 

History has proven this.

If one has a missing critical bolt and you inspect a second new aircraft and it's missing as well, what does that say?

 

If one has a plug/door/death hole blow open in flight at low altitude, would we expect it's siblings to be safe?

 

No longer do you need a rough landing for a Boeing to break in half, ala 767 they now build them to break in the air.

 

Would you guys be happy piloting or been a passenger in a Boeing now?

 

Not this black duck.

 

 

 

[Litespeed]

Just now, RFguy said:

so the guy in the seat had their seatbelt on eh ?

The seats next to the plug were empty, as it was in intial climb, they make have had their belts still on.

 

No belts, a higher altitude and it could have been passengers sucked out.

 

Nasty

[spenaroo]

Is it sad that the first thoughts I had were to buy shares in Boeing and wait for the rebound?
I think in the USA's eyes it's too big to fail. government will make sure it's supported

[Litespeed]

The sheer size of defence contracts means they will be supported no matter what happens.

 

And that is the essence of the problem, no problem is too big to coverup or allow to happen.

 

They lost the huge air tanker contract for all the correct reasons, then got Congress to reverse the decision. Boeing's airtanker is massive dud and actually still unsafe for use.

 

Meanwhile the Airbus version is great 👍, in use and only suffers from USA based issues.

 

I see a theme here.

[Bosi72]

1 hour ago, Litespeed said:

 

 

Meanwhile the Airbus version is great 👍, in use and only suffers from USA based issues.

 

Meanwhile Airbus a350 burns to ashes within 20mins on the ground whilst several firetrucks are trying to extinguish it.

 

What Rate of Descent a pilot need to set  from 39000ft in case some bad lithium battery decide to burn? 

[pmccarthy]

Apparently it burnt slower than a metal aircraft would.

[kgwilson]

Aluminium is highly flammable and burns with intense heat, much worse than carbon fibre composite.

During the Falklands war HMS Sheffield was hit by an Execet missile and its superstructure was aluminium as a weight saving measure and very thick. The ship burned fiercely till it was just a floating hulk. That was the end of aluminium in warships.

 

Lithium batteries are no different from other batteries in that they store energy. An internal short circuit, incorrect charging or heat from an external source can cause thermal runaway which releases this energy as heat very quickly. The main difference from other batteries is the energy density, so the heat is much more intense. Note that the original Boeing 787 Dreamliner had a lithium battery thermal runaway issue that grounded the entire fleet until they sorted the problem out.

 

Boeing still has a cost saving above engineering attitude in my opinion.

[facthunter]

Aluminium gets weak when it gets hot. That A 350 hit an object of around 14 tonnes minimum at about 140 knots and stayed intact. The nosewheel was knocked off and other damage but EVERYONE on it got out safely because it remained intact until it was all white hot and flames were inside it.  Nev

[onetrack]

The stuff-ups continue, unabated. There's no CVR recording available as a result of the tape being overwritten.

 

News article:

 

WASHINGTON, Jan 7 (Reuters) - The cockpit voice recorder from the Boeing 737 MAX 9 jet that suffered a plug door blowout during an Alaska Airlines flight and carried out an emergency landing on Friday was overwritten by the time it was recovered, the National Transportation Safety Board chair said Sunday.

NTSB chair Jennifer Homendy said the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder were sent to NTSB labs on Sunday to be read, but no data was available on the cockpit voice recorder because it was not retrieved by the two-hour mark, when recording restarts and previous data is erased.

 

"It's a very chaotic event. The circuit breaker for the CVR (voice recorder) was not pulled. The maintenance team went out to get it, but it was right at about the two-hour mark," Homendy said.

The NTSB has pushed to extend the cockpit voice-recording requirement to 25 hours. The Federal Aviation Administration issued a proposed rule in November that would increase the requirement, but it would only apply to newly manufactured aircraft, Homendy said.

 

"If that communication is not recorded, that is unfortunately a loss for us and a loss for the FAA and a loss for safety, because that information is key not just for our investigation but for improving aviation safety," she said.

[facthunter]

Finding the missing Panel will be more important. The CVR is a side issue  in this matter. The  Flight DATA   Recorder is intact. The rest of the A/C is unaffected...  Nev

[Rotorwork]

Door plug found

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-08/alaska-airlines-boeing-737-max-9-door-plug-search-blowout/103292708

[pmccarthy]

Memory is cheap and easy these days. A CVR could record ten or twenty hours, or a thousand, on a cheap memory stick!

[Litespeed]

I expect it's in Boeing's best interest to ensure the recorder deletes after two hours.

 

Help cover shit up.

 

[red750]

A Max 9 door plug undergoing checking.

 

[Garfly]

10 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

Memory is cheap and easy these days. A CVR could record ten or twenty hours, or a thousand, on a cheap memory stick!

 I think that the time limit has, historically, been more about pilots' privacy concerns than about technical constraints.

 

EASA already mandates 24 hours at least and the FAA is trying to match it, at least for new aircraft. 

 

 

https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/media/25-Hr-CVR_NPRM_Issuance.pdf

 

EXCERPT:

 

"C. Privacy Concerns

The FAA acknowledges that pilot-focused organizations may have concerns regarding how the NTSB or the FAA would use the CVR data collected for investigative purposes. This issue previously arose when the FAA increased the CVR recording duration from 30 minutes to 2 hours. At that time, the FAA determined that the investigative need and benefit of this information outweighed these privacy concerns. The FAA maintains this stance. The proposed increase to a 25-hour CVR recording duration would further improve current investigative capabilities. It would also provide investigating bodies, such as the NTSB, with more complete context surrounding the accidents and incidents under investigation and support their safety analyses. Importantly, this proposed increase is designed to provide more context for any flight deck activity that might be pertinent to an investigation. Specifically, this increase expands the possible range of data available to investigators. This proposal does not alter or modify the existing processes for requesting or use of this data. Sections 91.609(g), 121.359(h), 121.227(f), and 135.151(c) specify that the information obtained from the CVR recording is to be used for investigation purposes and that the FAA will not use the CVR record in any civil penalty or certificate action. This proposal does not modify these regulations."

 

 

 

 

Edited January 8 by Garfly