Alaska Airlines flight forced to make an emergency landing (Part II)... 26

[Alistair_Heaton]

I was more on about the systems and logic.

Although it is pressurised to a lower level like the 787.

 

[drwebb]

Was looking for RCA discussion to determine if this is new info, but looks like Part II has little treatment of the Alaska Airlines incident specifically. Apparently the FAA is upset Boeing seems to have discussed early findings with plant personnel. Sounds like signs point to an assembly nonconformance rather than a design flaw:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/27/business/boeing-cause-alaska-air-door-plug/index.html

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Another high decent rate incident

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...d-airport-landing-investigation-b1167274.html

For all of the customer stuff negative at ryanair. They have a reputation of running an extremely tight flight ops and training department. And they are likely to be the most knowledgeable 737 operation outside the USA with the highest training standards and experience.

There just seems to be above normal number of events of this type happening with the max.

 

[3DDave]

There is an abnormal number of reporters with the search term "737" in their Google alerts.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

It's not just reporters which the AI do it for.

It does though seem higher incidents than normal.

It it's still a low volume type.

And some of us get alerted for other types in a fleet type ie short haul single isle. Plus it's safety officers feeding the incidents not reporters. But you can't publish what they send. You then search for it and post what you find.

This one is more alarming for me, something else is a miss because of the operator being ivy league in operating the family, plus the reputation of it's training department and SOP's.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Major inspection required due to incorrectly fitted Oxygen generators for drop down masks for Max and NG some 2000 aircraft on the list.

It's a mounting issue apparently.

These units get to over 400 Deg C if triggered. They are triggering without being deployed.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Seems the Alaskan airframe has been bought by Boeing.

Be interesting to see if it ever flies again or is recycled.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/ntsb-boeing-not-able-identify-192357641.html

Looks like they are going for the do not remove sticker for closing the hole in the swiss cheese.

And we all know how effective those stickers are.

 

[Sym P. le]

Because [sub]we were boneheads,[/sub] we will no longer utilize this functionality! Now, where's my nose?

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

It was a bit silly leaving it in anyway and using a plug.

The weight of them must cost a fortune in fuel over the airframe life.

 

[LionelHutz]

They are/were treating them the same as normal doors in that they could be opened and closed without any sign-off. Except they aren't normal doors, they need the sign-off second check to ensure the bolts are re-installed.

 

[MintJulep]

It was a bit silly leaving it in anyway and using a plug.

The weight of them must cost a fortune in fuel over the airframe life.

Boeing doesn't pay for fuel, so they don't care.

 

[LittleInch]

Those plugs were the totally stripped down ones and really didn't weight much even with the extra framing around the door plug - 30-40kg if I recall right. The other ones with the smaller porthole, but still with a level were 70-80kg.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

It's crazy, well not really how much fuel stacks up for a weight gain over an aircraft life time.

The cost of carrying a defibrillator due weight is way more than capital cost of the unit over its life time.

 

[waross]

Boeing doesn't pay for fuel, so they don't care.

But the customers care when deciding who to buy their next aircraft from.

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

 

[LittleInch]

They can though only make one design of airframe with all the door holes in it and get it certified etc, not some with 6 doors, some with 8 and others with 10, or whatever. And If needed a defibrillator is life saving. I guess all those life jackets add up as well but would you fly over water without one?



Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[LionelHutz]

How many times have life jackets actually been useful?

I can recall one crash near a beach where people drowned because they panicked and deployed the jackets while still inside the fuselage. I can't recall any cases where a plane crashed and they were useful.

 

[LittleInch]

That flight that landed on the Potomac?

And the Hudson?

But yes, not many

Don't you love wiki sometimes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_landing

No real idea how many lives saved by having life jackets though.


Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[AZPete]

How many times have life jackets actually been useful?

Music to the MBAs' ears.

 

[waross]

Life jackets may be marginally more useful than parachutes for flights over (and into?) land.

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!