WHAT Is going ON with Boeing?! MAX-9 Door blowout
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 01. 2024
- Go to ground.news/mentournow to stay fully informed. Subscribe to the Pro plan for less than $1 a month or get 30% off the Vantage subscription this month only.
---------------------------------------------------
The passengers of this Alaska Airlines 737 MAX-9 suddenly saw a section of wall in their cabin fall OUT of the aircraft, just minutes after their flight took off. HOW can such a thing be possible? Is this another problem in the 737 MAX family?
Stay tuned!
-----------------------------------------------------
If you want to support the work I do on the channel, join my Patreon crew and get awesome perks and help me move the channel forward!
👉🏻 / mentourpilot
Our Connections:
👉🏻 Exclusive Mentour Merch: mentour-crew.creator-spring.c...
👉🏻 Our other channel: / mentourpilotaviation
👉🏻 Amazon: www.amazon.com/shop/mentourpilot
👉🏻 BOSE Aviation: boseaviation-emea.aero/headsets
Social:
👉🏻 Facebook: / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Instagram: / mentour_pilot
👉🏻 Twitter: / mentourpilot
👉🏻 Discord server: / discord
Download the FREE Mentour Aviation app for all the lastest aviation content
👉🏻 www.mentourpilot.com/apps/
-----------------------------------------------------
Below you will find the links to videos and sources used in this episode.
www.b737.org.uk/
• Cockpit voice recorder...
• Official asked whether...
czcams.com/users/livekGWLBLb9...
• Door plug from Boeing ...
• Missing door plug from...
• Two airlines find loos...
• Grounding of 737 Max 9...
• Alaska Airlines plane ...
• NTSB B-Roll - Alaska A...
• United finds loose bol...
• US grounds Boeing 737 ...
• Phones, headrest and d...
• Japan Airlines pilots ...
• Inside the burning Jap...
• Pilot talks about how ...
• Alaska Airlines passen...
• Air Canada: 737 Air-to...
• Alaska Airlines: Passe...
• Flying Over the Hawaii...
• Building A Boeing 737-...
• Passenger Door Emergen...
• Boeing acknowledges mi...
• Profit Over Safety: Bo...
• Spirit Offers IAM-Repr...
• 737 Mid-Cabin Emergenc... - Zábava
Go to ground.news/mentournow to stay fully informed. Subscribe to the Pro plan for less than $1 a month or get 30% off the Vantage subscription this month only.
We completely inderstand that you don't want to comment before final report is released but we really appreciate any of your thoughts ASAP even as speculations if you openly admit that these are only your speculations.
Thank you for your content and we look forward for updated video about persisting long term Boeing company problems and what can be done about it.
The contractor which made the fuselage, retired most of their experianced workers early during Covid to save money on labor costs, leaving people who couldn't hammer a nail, much less operate a wrench/spanner. The plane in question was manufactured by children.
BOEING Quick Fix = DUCK TAPE and Chicken Wire the Whole Fuselage. Should bring it back into Service Super Fast !
The cockpit door was actually fully opened by the explosive depressurization as is designed to do, but there weren't mention of this in the documentation (as far as I understand), not just the panel which opens for a slower pressure loss.
Thanks for the quick video, I do appreciate and want to see more like this, it's ok some details like this can scape QC 😅 in a video.
Back to the cockpit door, the big issue here is the lack of information for the pilots and documentation, this ties with the previous MAX issues, like the lack of documentation regarding MCAS, now the question is, what else is there to uncover. At this point I do believe MAX should be taken out of the type rating of the 737 family and require new training, to remove any incentive from Boeing to keep hiding relevant information.
A diversity hire didn't think to bolt the door in properly.
178 seats capacity, 171 seats full, and the two seats closest were empty. Incredible luck.
Plus all lap passengers were far enough away.
I'm wondering if some couple that was supposed to sit there didn't make the plane on time
Or no luck at all. To big of a coincidence....
@@teddyboragina6437 There's a video of an overweight lady fighting at the customer service counter demanding a free second seat... it didn't happen and she missed the flight. They oppressed her and herself
The fact they were empty perhaps means they were aware of problem already
“When one door closes, another one opens.”
-Boeing
#truth #bestmeme
Captain gets on the horn, “ladies and gentleman there has been some ongoing debate regarding which company makes the most durable smart phone and we will be putting that to a rest today. Please throw all your phones where ever you want and the vacuum will take care of the rest. And again, thank you for flying Alaskan airlines”.
Gallows humor
Ohh that’s a good one!🤣👍
That’s what the Chinese at Comac are thinking right now.
I'm not a mechanic, but when my car blew it's head gasket, I decided to fix it myself. I was successful. I had like 13 bolts left over, and many warning messages. It's nice to know I can still get a job working for Boeing
Seems legit!
You can be VP of quality control as long as you're a DEI hire
How exactly do you consider your effort as successful?
@@alanevery215 Successful as in meeting minimum bar required to build Boeing airplanes.
You sound too competent, over qualified.
I always thought that the helicopter drop tests for phone cases didn't matter because such a situation would never happen anyway. I guess I was wrong.
excellent pr for the phones
Won't matter here. They tested a drop from a helicopter, never tested it for air planes...
@@mattstorm360 Typical max hover altitude for a decent helicopter is around 10-13,000 feet. This happened at 15,000, so assuming the engineers padded it a bit more as they would likely want to, this actually might be exactly what it was tested for. Though if they wanted to go the extra mile, turbine powered helicopters can get up to 25,000 feet, which while not as high as a 737's cruising altitude would give them a general idea of what to aim for to insure it survives that.
@@ChakatBlackstar The joke is they test drop the phone case out of helicopters. They didn't drop it out of planes.
@@mattstorm360 It's not the vehicle that's important in such a test, it would be the altitude, which honestly wouldn't even need to be THAT high to reach terminal velocity I would expect.
“”A Boeing aerospace engineer presented a controversial white paper in 2001 at an internal technical symposium. The engineer, John Hart-Smith, warned colleagues of the risks of the subcontracting strategy, especially if Boeing outsourced too much work and didn’t provide sufficient on-site quality and technical support to its suppliers.
“The performance of the prime manufacturer can never exceed the capabilities of the least proficient of the suppliers,” Hart-Smith wrote. “These costs do not vanish merely because the work itself is out-of-sight.””
Very true!!
and that's why manufacturers of planes and cars should be sued for all their profits. Otherwise it will always be a 'calculated risk' (just read about Ford Pinto) they will be willing to take (at your expense).
And nobody listened, as usual. It's cheaper to pay off the lawsuits than to fix the system.
Amen
And yet, not applicable here. When the fuselage is delivered to Boeing, the door plugs are removed as the emergency exit is one of the entry points used when installing the interior of the aircraft during manufacturing. It is Boeing that installs the plug again and even if they did not remove it, it is still up to Boeing to do the final inspection of those doorplugs. The doorplugs used on the Max series are also not new but are identical to the ones used on the NG series which in itself is a design from before the often cited merger with Lockheed
From “If it's not Boeing, I'm not going” to "If it's Boeing, I'm not going"... Boeing really fallen since the 90's...
The merger was a disaster.
I don't want to disagree with you, obviously Boeing has been in the news a lot lately. Do you think this could be the fault of the airline/ maybe Alaska airline maintenance crew isn't the best? cancelling the flight suggests the airline is trying to be responsible at least... maybe the engineers were lazy? but maybe it's just a faulty design.
@@matthewklassen7457No. McDonnell Douglas had major quality control problems which caused its reputation and market share to tank. Their corporate culture was to focus on maximizing share prices and dividends. Boeing from its founding was always an engineering led corporate culture. This led to their reputation for quality and dominance of the commercial aviation sector but it actually hurt their stock dividends. Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas when they were on the brink of bankruptcy, then promptly replaced Boeing's leadership with that of McDonnell Douglas. They moved their corporate headquarters from their primary manufacturing plant to Chicago and started subcontracting everything.
@@matthewklassen7457 damn, why do you bother even commenting when you're so badly misinformed and have zero knowledge on this topic?
@@derser541 I asked a question. Looking for the information. I didn't realize you can be triggered so easily snowflake. Do you know the answer? inform the misinformed, genius. use the 2 brain cells you have left to share your vast knowledge on this subject. or... are you just a snowflake bully?
My dad used to work in engineering, including air and spacecraft parts. The quality control in his workplace was insanely tight. There's parts that got rejected because a hole was less than 0.1mm out of place. I asked why when I was a kid (because that seemed ridiculous and over-zealous at my young age) and got told that if they didn't hold work to that standard, people died.
0.1mm to our American friends is about four thousandths. NO spacecraft (or aircraft) needs to be designed and built to that kind of general tolerance. That's just not cost effective. It's entirely possible that some, limited number of holes need to be drilled that close because of the disporportionate effect that even slight degrees of hole misalignment might have on clearances of adjacent/interlinking components.
Permissible tolerances aren't absolute - they depend on relations with other tolerances. It was misunderstandings about this that caused to be rejected the bulk of manufacturing subcontracted to the US for WW1 European military orders (at one stage) by the Russian, British and French customers. Pretty much everybody was in the wrong there. BTW, this is WW1 (one) where American industry grew insanely rich providing only moderately good customer care to the the European belligerents, prior to 1917.
@alastairbarkley6572 Low tolerances and engineering for extreme conditions were my dad's specialities.
Sometimes it's better to err on the side of caution. Parking on a conveniently placed cloud and waiting for the airline equivalent of roadside assistance usually isn't a practical option.
@@alastairbarkley6572 It really depends on the part. Many aerospace parts have tolerances like that or tighter. Obviously not the entire plane will need that but many parts are held to tolerances like that.
Cost cutting always wins over lives.
If I remember correctly, after the merger of Boeing and McDonnell Douglas and the MDD board taking over, someone said it was a matter of time that DC10 issues will repeat at Boeing. That quote always comes to my mind when 737MAX has issues...
How did they even let the MD board take over in the first place, that would be my question?
@@tomsmith6513 with Boeing taking over McDonnell Douglas, I always wondered how that could happen. However, I'm not an expert so maybe someone can shed a light on the subject, if it is correct and if so, how that could happen.
@@tujueinternational1521 Someone told me (which means I am talking out my ass here, so take this with a grain of salt) that MDD was the larger, senior partner, and took over Boeing, but decided to keep the Boeing name, logo, and so on for marketing purposes, since Boeing's commercial aircraft were more highly regarded than legacy MDD.
@@RCAvhstapeI think Boeing was bigger and more successful. McDonnell Douglas had quite a tiny share of the commercial aviation market by the point the merger had occurred.
@@martinduran9523 The commercial market is smaller than the defense market, and MDD was a huge defense contractor, so maybe.
Re. the iPhones, I suspect they just reach terminal velocity quite quickly, so whether they drop from 2m or 2km doesn’t make a difference. The kind of surface they land on is probably key in their survival.
Agreed. And it would not be stable so it would tumble the whole way down, it very likely would be going about the same speed as if you really did drop it from 2 meters.
And finding the smartphones, an intact smartphone that is not found is not a smartphone that can be used further.
@@frankklemm1471not sure I understand what you’re getting at. Is this supposed to be like if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it then it doesn’t make noise?
@@mikezappulla4092 - you really don't understand physics at all...
I'm imagining the iPhone calling to Siri for help on the way down...
The phone case was confirmed to be a Spigen cryo armour case. It's worth mentioning that the phone likely hit branches on its way down then landed in grass, breaking the fall.
watch them use it as part of their advertising regardless of what broke the fall
So, basically any silicon or TPU case which covers all the edges of the phone should be equally good for this use case? If you don't mind the usability issues, something like Otterbox where the protective edge comes off the screen quite a lot would guard the glass pretty well. Of course, that also makes all the touch gestures starting or ending at the edge of the screen next to impossible to execute.
So this all was a stunt to sell more phone cases. I see.
I sense a conspiracy between Boeing and phone case manufacturers...it's becoming very clear now as to why those two seats were empty.
There have been cases of people surviving falls from great heights, like 20 floors, sometimes with barely a few scratches, because they hit some bushes on the way down or whatever. And then someone dies by falling in the bathtub. It's all about how and where you fall. Same for a phone. Even the most rugged phone case is, what... 3 mm thick, at most? It wouldn't make any difference if it hit something hard at terminal velocity.
My father-in-law was a machinist for Boeing his whole life, living & working in Wichita, KS, Air Capital of the World. It absolutely breaks his heart to see the company that Boeing has become.
They should get Donald Trump to run Boeing. I don't know what some people here think of Trump today, which I know will vary depending on your politics, but back in the days of his TV show, The Apprentice, it was fun watching what happened at the end: SOMEONE WILL BE FIRED.
Find out who was driving the design of compromised parts, which should not always be the engineers, but the people who influence the engineers to compromise on quality -- like the accountants, managers, salespeople, businesspeople and other bean counters (the money people) who want to cut costs.
@@tomsmith6513Um...no. Leave it at that and don't bring up that name again unless you want to start a political war here.
@@tomsmith6513 Are any of the subcontracted parts coming from China?
@@budbuddybuddestbuddy. Your iPhone is made in China. Chinese made airplanes arent losing doors mid flight. C919.
Maybe you should ask yourself why American made products are junk.
@budbuddybuddest Sadly not. Unlike Spirit, the Chinese know how to copy parts professionally.
🤔😉
Thanks Petter, great video as always. As to the cockpit door blowing open (min. 2:30 - with your correct caption “the door actually blew open”), I just read a declaration by the NTSB chair, Jennifer Homendy, saying that “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”. The door opened so violently that it got stuck and it took a flight attendant three attempts to close it, and a laminated quick reference checklist used in emergencies flew out. Homendy added “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”. But… why on earth (and in the skies) does Boeing insist on hiding information to the crew? Wasn’t the MCAS lesson not enough?
THIS. And why the fuck the door opens anyway? To ensure crash? Massive distraction and potential damage to the crew in emergency is the LAST thing airplane needs...
@@KuK137 agree. If it’s to balance the sudden gap in pressure and make sure that the whole aircraft has the same, there could be panels, vents, valves, whatever. My personal feeling is that it was probably cheaper to release the whole door instead of designing a type of (safe) door with such systems. And then, of course, not telling anyone because it’s probably deemed superfluous or redundant or requiring some extra certification… hm, again, it rings a bell
Boeing clearly doesn’t care about lose of life as we all learnt from what happened in the past
@@KuK137why would de want to ensure a crash?
to balance pressure, you don't need a huge opening.
NTSB media briefing on January 7, 2024 reported that the cockpit door was blasted open upon the decompression event and smashed into the lavatory door and initially became stuck. NTSB further reported that the first officer's headset was pulled off, the captain's headset was dislodged, and the laminated Quick Reference Checklist stowed below the cockpit windows was blown out into the cabin. NTSB reported that, according to Boeing, the cockpit door was designed to open during a decompression event but the manual did not say so. This was apparently not merely an opening of vents but an opening of the entire door. The flight attendant, after several attempts, was finally able to get the cockpit door closed.
The cockpit door opening, I feel like they might of switched to a cheaper way of producing these doors but they would not comply with regulations added after 9/11, so they decided to hide this yet again.
Should this have happened…absolutely not. However, the planes and crew training were robust enough to safely land.
Still the safest form of travel.
The 737 post-911 cockpit door lock mechanism is designed to unlock in case of rapid depressurization. Airbus has a similar system. The blow out panels in the door will open towards the flight deck only, in case the depress occurs in the flight deck (allows the large air volume of the cabin to escape through the flight deck). I understand the consequences of not having the MCAS documented in the flight manual but not everything has to be documented and pilots don't know everything and they don't have to know everything about the aircraft they fly. I certainly don't know about a lot of design features of the aircraft I fly.
Seems kind of a bad design if that's the case.
@@carlveilleux5744 I don't know. Having an entire heavy door violently blast open during a sudden depressurization could cause serious injury if someone is standing near there. And as reported, the door jammed a lavatory shut. If anyone was inside, they might be trapped and not being able to escape during an evacuation. Seem like a very bad design.
There's an ongoing lawsuit filed a couple months ago where former employees said that reported problems that came up during manufacturing inspections were suppressed, and inspectors that reported too many problems were rotated out or dismissed (hence the lawsuit).
Boeing ignoring manufacturing defects instead of addressing them properly seems to be a major problem.
The lawsuit also said the production workers didn’t want to fix the problems found and expected the quality guy to do the rework. If he pushed for it to be corrected the production team lead would complain about it. Unions politics. It all starts with employees. Blaming managers isn’t going to fix this problem when people doing the work are trying to cut corners and can’t be forced to do a good job.
The inspections should go back to be independent of Boeing.
That's genuinely terrifying to hear, but not even really surprising at this point.
Edit: f***ing YT duplicated my comment.
Will we ever going to see Boeing CEO and the rest of the executives imprisoned for this? Never! Because America protects its big corpos. The people be damned. The most they would do is a big fat fine that is meaningless, because the big corpos can always pay that off. America is a lost cause!
Fair to say, we can't safely rely on the notion that the aviation industry makes all necessary effort to make flying as safe as possible and therefore letting employees address problems openly. It might be better than average depending on country / company etc. but it's still bullying and lying like anywhere else.
I am a sheetmetal mech lead on the 737-800 NG and our facility also works on the max. I LOVE your post and have binge watched most of them in the past couple weeks. All our 737 are operated by either delta or American. Watching your show makes me more aware of the maintenance we are preforming on these aircrafts. Please keep doing what you do and always keep yourself and everyone you fly safe. 😊
This isn’t likely to be what holds up the MAX7 certification, it’ll be the fact they want a safety exemption from the current LEAP engine issue with using anti ice in dry air which can cause the engine cowling to fall apart and can cause “flight control issues” if it impacts the plane
God they're determined to turned the MAX into an expensive lawn dart
I read about that! Isn't that just nuts???? Profits over lives, the new Boeing mantra.
I will not get on a Max. And I won't have to...
It will be an Airbus or a Comac.
@@yuglesstubeAnd you are aware that the COMAC aircraft haven’t been certified by Western regulators and Airbus has about as many safety issues as Boeing has had and then some, no?
@aycc-nbh7289 The C919 is based on Western systems, and will probably get certification, even once the systems have been indigence.
As with Auto, the Chinese will have a huge impact in aviation. And it's not tha far off.
Airbus narrowbodies have a superb record. Their wider fleet has had a few issues, but nothing on the scale of their main competitor.
Boeing used to be the coolest company ever. As a kid I was totally awestruck when I saw the 747 for the first time; it was totally out of this world, and it was 30 years before Airbus became a reality. Now Airbus is the world's largest manufacturer of airliners, and Boeing can't update a 50-year old plane design without screwing up. So much for "maximising shareholder value."
Is Airbus the largest? I thought they were still not as big as Boeing.
Yes, very sad situation. I used to admire the earlier Boeings.
@@Adam_U Airbus overtook Boeing in 2019 as the grounding of the MAX took effect. There's an article on Wikipedia, search for "Competition between Airbus and Boeing" (if I post a URL it will probably be deleted). The really sad thing for Boeing is that they had everything going for them; Airbus is a post-fact integration of a group of divergent European manufacturers with little in common, whereas Boeing was a single and highly functional company 30 years earlier. Now Airbus, after only 20 years, is a unified company that's ahead in technology and most other aspects, whereas Boeing is increasingly dependent on subcontractors, and their biggest seller is an update of a 50-year old design. This door issue reminds me of a saying, "If you buy a replacement door for an Airbus, it fits; if you buy one for a Boeing, you make it fit."
Poor management.
Stay off Boeing!!!!
As an airline technician who has worked on the 900ER and the 9MAX, those doors are exactly the same. I have also opened and closed those doors on both models. They are opened periodically for inspection to check for cracks and corrosion. I highly suspect that someone didn't install the retaining hardware during assembly at Boeing. The 900ER has been in service for over 15 years, and I have never heard of any problems with those doors
When we check for pressure leaks we do it from the outside. 2 techs will pressurize the aircraft on the ground while other techs go around the fuselage, checking all the doors and accessory hatches for leaks.
Everything points to it being a QA problem during assembly, and not a design or maintenance issue. The worrying thing, is if it would happen on this part of the fuselage, then there could be a QA failure on other parts.
If it's not a design flaw and just a QA problem, it would be an even bigger problem for Boeing, as they would have to recheck _every_ plane, not just the MAX.
So basically would it mean a lack of inspection? Or higher ups rushing technicians to get the plane up and running?
Another side question what does QA stands for? (Aviation acronyms are quite interesting to learn, not gonna lie)
@himeyukimatsumoto994 I can't speak for what's going on at Boeing since I don't work there. Where I work, we go by the book.
QA is Quality Assurance. My airline QA oversees all of the airline operations. In aircraft maintenance, we have QC, Quality Control or inspectors.
@@himeyukimatsumoto994 QA is a standard abbreviation for Quality Assurance in any manufacturing process. QC is often used as well, but that stands for quality control, and that might allow for a certain number of faults (which might be tolerable in some products). QA goes beyond that as it is meant to assure that the required quality is always reached. That is assured.
Note that QA is a lot more than just an inspection process. It is meant to run from the product design process onwards, as well as testing prototypes, making sure that what is designed can be produced reliably and to the required standard, the details of the manufacturing, management of supplier quality all the way up to final assembly and acceptance testing.
Clearly an airliner has got many tens, if not hundreds of thousands of parts, so it's a tall order to perform a comprehensive check on everything in a delivered airliner. The quality has to be built in.
I think it's insane how safe airplanes are considering their complexity. Thousands of moving parts, miles of wiring, tons of flammable fuel, adverse weather, and a list of other things that could fill a book. Yet these planes go place to place tens of thousand a times a day without incident.
There needs to be jail time and real accountability for this kind of absolutely inexcusable situation. This negligence and incompetence and recklessness must stop.
Boeing has a new marketing excuse here. DEI initiatives. It's always the minorities fault in USA.
I used to work for a company (overhauling gas turbine engines for industrial use) that emphasized speed over quality. I complained a lot about poor decisions made by the shop supervisor.
They fired me in 2015, because I "was a complainer". They currently have about a 50% rate of failure in service, requiring unscheduled shut downs and repairs.
I started my own company, building aviation jet engines. Since the beginning of Jet City Turbines, we have enjoyed a zero % failure in service rate.
Being qualified and motivated, making good decisions, and paying attention to detail really does show up in the quality of the end product.
Gotta love those speed over quality business models.
Wow! that is shocking. It might be fine in a fast food business, but it's just not going to work on critical machinery with tight tolerances. As a past engineering employer would say "a short cut is the most difficult path between two points"
Is that the same "AgentJayZ" Jet City? I watch his channel and always got the feeling that things are done the way they are "supposed to be done" and not "just be done with". There are times and places where questioning "the right way" is fine, but when dealing with million dollar equipment or anything safety related that isn't one.
@@superdau Just proving that anyone can say anything and people will thumbs up it. Lol
It's worth noting that the NTSB have stated that the earlier pressurisation warnings are not related to the door plug incident. The warnings occurred while on the ground so they were determined to be a glitch and they decided to switch to the redundant secondary system until they could get it inspected. This is important because there's no indication that anyone could have been pre-warned about the blow-out incident.
Edit: Since people seem to find it hard to trust the NTSB right now, I want to add more details. According to the 737 Technical Channel (as recommended by Petter), there are 7 failure modes for the Auto Pressurisation warning which came on during those three incidents:
1. Cabin altitude rate of change is too high
2. Cabin altitude is too high
3. Cabin differential pressure is too high
4. Power loss
5. Wiring failures
6. Outflow valve component failures
7. Cabin Pressure Controller failures
The first 3 only make sense if the plane is airborne. If the warning light illuminated due to triggers 1 - 3 while on the ground, then it clearly indicates a fault with the sensor, not with the integrity of the cabin. Similarly if the warning light illuminated due to triggers 4 - 7 at any time that would also indicate a failure of the pressurisation system, not the cabin. In this case, it's standard procedure to switch to the separate alternate system which is what the crew did.
When the NTSB assert there is no link between this warning and the failure of the door-plug, it suggests to me that the data log recordings have indicated to them that the triggers were 4-7 or 1-3 while the plane was on the ground. We don't know if this is actually the case, but it's at least plausible scenario that would explain all the facts.
Lastly, the information about those warnings being triggered while the plane was on the ground comes from an article by Al-Jazeera where they interviewed Richard Aboulafia who said "They ignored it because, strangely, the pressure differential came on while it was on the ground, which means it was a glitch. There’s no pressure differential while you’re on the ground," "The cabin pressure can only vary when the aircraft is in the air, which is why it was acceptable to ignore the warning and fly the plane over land". I don't know how reliable this information is as I haven't been able to find any other sources to back it up.
This is definitely good to note
It also means that if someone messes up later in C-checks, there is no way to know it until plug blows out.
Checking the pressurization warning system at ground level with the plane immobile strikes me as insufficient in the absence of simulating the effects of turbulence of a normal flight. If the bolts were missing, the door could be shifting up and down within the track, causing pressurization to fluctuate as the seal would be compromised. In short, a ground system check would only inform you the system could accurately note changes in pressurization, not that such changes actually occurred at altitude.
The sensors are more sensitive the closer the pressure is to ambient. Warnings on the ground are your most reliable warnings.
NTSB was very quick to make such a definitive statement discounting any connection. I find that odd from an organization that prides itself on following the evidence to a conclusion. To be clear, they may be completely correct in there being no correlation, it just seemed absurdly early to make that public statement.
Your analysis of incidents like this is the very best that I’ve found online. Thanks for what you do!
Whenever I want to learn what really happened to a plane incident, all I have to do is come to this channel. Thanks for what you do.
As a Portland resident, I can't help but think about how much worse this incident would have been had the door plug hit a flight control surface on the way out. I live less than a half mile from the crash site of United Airlines Flight 173, and Portland is much more densely populated now than it was 50 years ago. Thank God no one was seriously hurt or sucked out of the plane.
I live in Vancouver, WA, right across the river from Portland, I was shocked that had happened, when I heard about it from Fox 12 Oregon on Instagram, I am glad he is covering it because I would love some insight from a pilot's POV of it.
And that no-one on the ground was injured by the falling door or other debris.
I live over an approach to LaGuardia and honestly it makes me a little nervous.
*Portland is much more densely populated by druggie losers*
Until the 2nd 737-MAX MCAS crash I used to always think people were crazy to not fly after an accident. I'd think it's the safest time to fly because everyone will be paying extra attention to safety.
Now, I just don't know.
Even if cutting a cost makes a part 0.5% less safe - that's hundreds of aircraft for a couple of decades or so. They've all but ensured deaths pushing the quality to the limit with barely any safety margin.
It is never safe to fly a MAX.
What's so damning is that this is a different incident entirely. I flew on a MAX-9 on Alaska a few days before without reservation because the MCAS issues were known and I figured, resolved. Seeing a completely unrelated issue afterwards now brings into question what other aspects of the manufacturing are faulty. Instead of worrying if MCAS is reliable I think it's fair with any modern Boeing to ask if _any_ part of the system is reliable now.
I trust Airbus A220 and A320 over the MAX, they are built at Airbus Alabama with no problems
Covid caused a massive shake up in society. People changed jobs, early retirement etc etc. A lot of know how and experience and old work ethics disappeared. That is why we see so many failings. Not just in aviation. I don't think it's safe to fly at all.
Petter, you’re probably the best to report on this issue. When we watched it land that Friday night and saw the pannel missing on the left side, we knew we were in for another long saga.
Boeing's 737-Max planes are manufactured in the factory in my city. I pass the factory on my way to work every day, it's an enormous complex. They're a major employer in the area. Sometimes you can see a whole fuselage coming down the train tracks. I used to think it was cool that the planes were made here, but after the Max crashes, Boeing's coverup, and now this latest manufacturing problem... I just hope Boeing turns things around.
I’m actually pretty sure that the MAX aircraft are held to a higher standard and are thus safer than other planes.
@@aycc-nbh7289lmao "pretty sure" okay bud enjoy getting sucked out of your beloved boeing when it's door gets blown out again! boeing's planes are the most unsafe aircraft ever made!
Boeing has been on a down hill arc ever since its merger with Mac Donnell Douglas, when Mac's bean counters shoved the Boeing engineers aside and stock price replaced engineering quality as the company's priority. I know. I was there.
Who would have thought merging with a company that made the terrible DC9 was fraught with issue?
It certainly appears to be the case, but how much is it?
Overall, profitability seems to drive corporate culture more these days, across the board! Safety seems to have taken a nose dive. Pun intended re MCAS driving the nose into the ground, actually! 😮
It's very sad how expendable lives are now, that seems obvious, looking at cost reduction measures and approaches involving outsourcing. Unions have also been shut out, yet another opportunity to preserve safety of products andworkers 😢
nah, boeing's first big safetey coverrup was the tail stuff pre MD acquisition
@@zachjordan7608 Ah... Yes, ok! I forgot about that issue... Then there was problems with the B52 wings. There's prolly a lot more we don't know about!
Nope. Boeing went full bore woke a decade ago. This is a result of diversity hires.
Edit
Oh and FAA wants to include mentally unstable inclusivity.
The cockpit door flung open with such a force that the handle on it got stuck in the lavatory wall/door. The pilot's headsets was ripped from their heads, one partially and one fully. The laminated paper checklists got sucked out of the open cockpit door and was retrieved later. It was not only the blowout panels.
Boeing then claimed that this was "by design", despite no one, including trained 737 pilots, having been told beforehand (the pilots thought only the door panels would blow out to save the door itself). Begging the question, and in light of MCAS: what else has Boeing failed to disclose about the MAX aircraft?
Why do the media leave these parts out? These paint a good picture of the gravity of the situation! These sort of details are included for some events, but they decide to omit these details for this one?
@@kas4751 The media is not there to inform, but to weave narratives (for a price / influence).
@@bjmaston Good lord, that's "russian smoking incident" levels of problem denial. Imagine if someone had been trying to use the toilet!
@@bjmaston No one knew about it except Boeing and the maintenance engineers who read the Maintenance Manual. There is a back up system if the small blow out panels don't equalise the air fast enough. Trained pilots don't know everything, nor do they need to know everything.
I have sat in those rows before, I didn't know exactly why the window didn't line up and I was annoyed about not having a window. At the time my guess was that it had to do with possible seat configurations that the airline wasn't using.
Also I was boarding my own flight at SeaTac when this flight had the issue. I got lucky that my flight wasn't disrupted.
I had been waiting for you explanation of this incident. I knew you would do a video on it and that it would be the clearest possible explanation of the technical issues. Thank you!
Boeing safety culture has hit rock bottom... It should have been impossible for even one of those locking bolts to have been missed
Well for the new workforce at Boeing Tik Tok twerking is a far higher priority, expecting them to put bolts in is White Supremacy.
Well this is just the result of the MD and Boeing merger.
Profit > People, Investors > Employee stress, efficient production > safety.
@@incubus_the_manyou have to admit profit overrides everything in the business world. Why do business if you can’t make a profit?
@@sarthakmohanty997 that’s not what I mean. I think the priority is misallocates, for example paying more attention to the crews appearance than safety.
The terminal velocity of a tumbling cell phone is actually pretty low. It's just a matter of luck landing in some soft grass and not on a paved road and most phones could survive.
And if it hits some kind of bush instead of landing directly on grass, there's no need for a case at all.
I was actually wondering from which point any additional fall height wouldn't matter anymore as the phone's terminal velocity can already be reached. 16000 ft sounds impressive but is in that case functionally the same as 10000, 5000 or even 1000 ft.
@@killz4money More like 50 feet, in all likelihood. Phones are pretty light and not very aerodynamic.
@@MikkoRantalainen Then it is so strange that we see cracked phone everywhere. A mystery.
@@razvanlex Not really, it's all about what they land on (and the angle at which they land). As people have pointed out, this phone landed on soft grass, possibly having been decelerated by bushes first. There are a few cases of people having survived falling from an aeroplane, because they were lucky in what they hit.
This is, by far, the most informative report I have heard about this incident. Excellent work, thank you.
I was waiting for Mentour's take on this incident! Thanks for the insight 🙂
I used to work on F-15s so I was around a lot of contractors from Boeing. They told me that Boeing shouldn’t have given all the McDonnell Douglas higher ups jobs at Boeing when McDonell Douglas was acquired by them as they brought a very negative corporate culture with them. Something they said Boeing has never recovered from.
These incidents make me wonder what else is out there that we don’t know about. Thanks for the deep dive on this issue. Appreciate it
Boeing shouldn't give Boeing jobs.
You're blaming management from decades ago but ignore Boeing going woke a decade ago.
Ok...
@@Vicus_of_Utrechtit seems more the issue of QA and management asleep at the wheel. If anything I’d want the people responsible for safe airfare of to be as woke as possible.
Blancolirio's channel has a lot of information about this. It's.. seriously bad news at Spirit, Boeing's subcontractor. Such that there are growing concerns about anything the company has shipped out post-covid.
@@plektosgaming except it wasn't really a subcontractor. it was part of boeing until recently. and shareholders are pretty much the same.
It isn't just problems at Boeing, but also at their main supplier Spirit Aerosystems. And certainly not worker problems alone. Its the whole chain, from workers, to management, to lack over oversight, to no quality assurance. Both companies are summoned to court by investors and multiple former employees of Spirit, including former quality assurance staffers, who filed a class-action lawsuit in December 2023, with the claim that Boeing and Spirit have withheld critical safety related problems. Issues like faulty pressure bulkheads, missing bolts in the rudder steering mechanisms and releasing subpar products and parts. Also claims of falsifying reports and documents, etc. Whistleblowers are silenced by Spirit Aero and Boeing. They both seem to be very much in the wrong. And it seems to be an endemic problem.
Spirit Aero was a Boeing division that got spun off by the accountants.
@@nontonteve2485 Indeed. Spirit is a spin-off and now a fully independent, publicly traded company.
Time for Boeing to bring the 737MAX fuselage production back to Seattle or surrounding areas in the State of Washington.
Boeing needs to go back to 100% vertical integration.
@@icare7151
That won't cure the problem as these door plugs are opened at Boeing in Seatle. The problem is tge management and their bean counter mentality!
Boeing is no longer run by engineers, but by accountants!
@@icare7151 That would probably cost too much.
Thanks! Absolutely fantastic content. I’ve been fly 737 for 17 years and I still learn a thing or two from your channel.
You're awesome, Mr. Mentour! I was hoping for this!
Maybe, just maybe the FAA shouldn't let the aviation companies mark their own homework when it comes to certifying aircraft for service....
And definitely not let the aviation companies to decide if the existing type certification for the older model is usable for next model. This far MAX has had at least features such as MCAS and cockpit door opening by itself on depressurisation that haven't been disclosed to pilots on "no need to know" basis - I would assume to make FAA accept that no additional training is required.
Whaaaaa!? That's crazy talk, you're crazy. 😉
Like the whole DEI pilots and aircraft controllers is not an issue
If you want FAA inspectors in every aircraft factory, tell Congress they have to give the FAA way more $!!
@@MikkoRantalainen The aircraft manufacturer applies to the FAA for common type certification; the FAA decides.
Boeing was a name you knew you could trust for excellent engineering and quality but its now clear that something about their company culture has changed
its been an issue since aviation began, and its a bigger issue in countries where money/profit is the deciding factor.
it should actually be illegal to subcontract work, it should all be under the responsibility of boeng, and everyone should be on top rate boeng pay and benefits.
but shareholders gotta be told to fuck off and eat a bucket of shit first.
That Boeing you’re referring to no longer exist. The Boeing 777 was the last plane made by the former Boeing put together by senior, highly skilled and well paid unionized engineers in Renton. What we have now is McDonnell Douglas using the Boeing logo putting together aircraft parts that are manufactured by the cheapest suppliers scattered around the globe. They even opened a final assembly line for the 787 in South Carolina just to get cheap non-unionized labor. The results of that approach speak for themselves.
Going on 2 decades now
@@Pilot597I don’t see how unionized vs non union should be an issue. They are required to perform the same work at the same quality
It was not the name. It was the logo. I mean it. Check when it was changed to the current version.
Another excellent explanation from Petter. Thanks for telling us how it seems to have all happened.
Excellent video as always Petter. We can always rely on you to not jump onto incidents for the sake of clout and views and will do as much research as possible to get a video out, and sometimes that means getting it out before everything is available because it’s beneficial to have some reliable information than wait weeks or months for all of it! A great asset to the aviation world!
I respect you not wanting to comment on the JAL incident until the final report is published - I've seen so much speculation and misinformation on other aviation channels that just feels disrespectful and presumptive.
Japanese government released transcript 2 days after the accident. DHC-8 was never given permission to take-off or align and wait or any other command that would allow him to cross C5 holding to which he was cleared to and also confirmed on his read back. So nothing to speculate. He shouldn't be on RW32R, problem solved. Pilot after he woke up from coma or whatever reason he was out for said that he believes that he was cleared for take off. This is what he himself said so we know why he was on the RW already. No speculations.
@@JerryTSbe interesting to see what the investigation finds in full tho, like if the pilot truly believed he was cleared/misheard
@@ZombieSazza Yeah we will see.
@@JerryTS while that is correct, it was only cleared to approach C5 and never cleared to enter the runway, it will be important to see what the cockpit voice recorder can reveal. I assume the captain was busy with taxiing and other things while the FO was handling radio communication. I can only imagine that the captain did not hear the tower's instructions and when asking the FO if they were cleared to enter, he mistakenly confirmed they were. But that's just a guess and whle important to learn the correct lessons from this incident, it will be a detail that will be considered as not important by many people.
What I personally find more infuriating is all those reports stating that it took 18 minutes to evacuate the Airbus and how people are commenting that it is such a long time as you are required to be able to evacuate an aircraft in 90 seconds or less and that we should stop praising the crew for a swift evacuation. That's a sad thing because it is estimated that from the moment the actual evaction started till all passengers had evacuated that only 3 to 5 minutes had passed and that the evaction of passengers was completed 8 minutes after the incident started.
As he said there were deaths involved so that would be irresponsible. He could cover the tremendous response of the flight and cabin crew, as well as the discipline of the passengers in disembarking with dispatch.
The plug door has a window, and the window seat was not occupied in an almost full plane. Amazing.
Alaska has saver seats that are a lot cheaper than regular, and you have to upgrade to regular in order to pick what seat you want.
I flew PDX to SAN and back last month and it would have added $70 to my trip if I wanted to pick my seat.
@@AlexandarHullRichterthat makes sense. Thanks for the clarification
Been keenly awaiting your review on this incident!
I’m a prior Air Force Aircraft mechanic. A friend of mine that I served with works for American Airlines now. He showed me photos and gave me a detailed explanation of what happened. Basically, the door plug’s bolts were tightened down then QA’ed and given an okay. Someone else came through, for some reason, and took those same bolts off. Since the job was signed off in the books as being QA’ed, it was sent off to its destination. They’ve since found 5 other aircraft with the exact same issue. Someone definitely lost their job and this is definitely not Spirit’s doing. This is an issue with Boeing mechanics.
Interesting, Thankyou for your service. And this is scary too think about, I wonder how many other aircraft’s out there have this unknown issue.
@@johnnylego807 thank you for your support! From what I’ve heard, they’ve found at least 5 so far. I’m honestly thinking it was the same person and done during assembly. Hopefully it was a one-off issue and this is the last incident of this caliber that we hear about. 😬
@@E4_MAFIA Of course, always gotta give support to those who served. Major respect. And I am hoping the same. Definitely don’t want to be hearing of any reoccurrences with this. It was lucky enough that the people who were supposed to be in those seats missed there flight 😬
@@johnnylego807 that’s great!! It’s honestly a really good gig. Good benefits and steady pay. It’s also fairly easy rank up and make more. I sometimes wish I never would have separated and I’ve considered reenlisting in the Guard and working in cyber security. I would go back active duty, but I’d have to go back and take my same job, and they usually only take 100 candidates with significant separation time every year. Good luck and I hope it all works out for you. 😊
@@E4_MAFIA Hey, I’ll put it like this. Always chase your dreams. Coast guard is AWESOME. I’ve had many family members serve in the coast guard, and I deem them as an extremely important asset to this country. They save so many lives during disasters. And don’t nearly get enough credit.and if you love the water it’s definitely a go too. I hope whatever endeavors you choose , you are successful and most importantly happy 😊. Blessings too you. It’s always wonderful too find kind people on the internet. It’s rare too come-bye nowadays.
The problem with Boeing is that engineers don’t make decisions anymore. Shareholders do. And all they want is to make the planes as cheap as possible to make as much money as possible. Money first, safety second.
Shareholders don't decide much in any corporation. I suspect that what you mean to say is that decisions are being made to increase profitability at the expense of safety. Boeing made a very considered decision(which has been discussed repeatedly) when McDonnell Douglas merged with them to fundamentally refocus their attention on profits. Boeing benefits immensely from being seen as a domestic product rather than as an international product. I would argue that this is an illusion but intelligence is not a hallmark of human behavior.
Cheers
I used to know a number of Boeing workers back in the 1980's that had worked there for many years. They all said Boeing used to make airplanes but they switched to making money.
Close but not accurate. Not shareholders, but executives who earn bonuses from quarterly targets, i.e. short term benefits, make decisions.
But there is a fundamental problem with this approach.
Short term benefits of the company does not necessarily mean good for the company, i.e. in long term which is beneficial for the shareholders.
For example not designing a new aircraft means good for short term profits because there are no R&D costs for several years, but it will the make company lose market share, very bad in long term.
And guess what current management did?
Really? There's not one engineer at Boeing that makes decisions? Get a grip dude, you're just kicking while they're down.
Dude must be an engineer to post such a comment 😂
It is important to note that although the top pair of bolts block the movement of the roller pin within the guide track, the lower pair are drilled through the hinges. Considering that everything on an airplane is built with contigency in mind, a substantial percentage of these bolts must have been either left loose or totally absent from the factory for this incident to occur.
"Bolts too expensive. Nobody is going to see that they're missing. Mark it up as good to go." - Boeing inspector
"Bolts too expensive. Nobody is going to see that they're missing. Mark it up as good to go." - Boeing inspector
"Bolts too expensive. Nobody is going to see that they're missing. Mark it up as good to go." - Boeing inspector
"Bolts too expensive. Nobody is going to see that they're missing. Mark it up as good to go." - Boeing inspector
"Bolts too expensive. Nobody is going to see that they're missing. Mark it up as good to go." - Boeing inspector
Great video as always! You need to give editor a raise! The editing is sooo good (8:51) ❤
Man I've been ignoring the rest and just waiting for this video. Thanks so much
Best aviation channel out there. NO bias, and always on point and do not speculate without valid data.
Blancolirio channel is also good
I think any resposible person in the industry should have a subscription to Mentour Pilot.
As a passenger it would be nice to see a badge onboard: Mentour subscribers behind this flight.
The quality of this channel makes it safer.
Amazing to get this as first view so quick, but as always reliable quality.
He did limit the reporting to this specific door and did not touch at all on the root cause of this, which is Boeing and its suppliers.
Considering he ALWAYS reports on the root cause and the fact that he is a Boeing pilot, this definitely smells like *bias*.
I am not qualified to discuss or answer you. But this was a first response...not a full report?@@aliancemd
It is pro air industry propaganda channel. Notice how proportionally many Russian crashes, but when you look on statistic it is a tiny percent of all crushes. This channel is a propaganda.
The cockpit door details was discussed on another channel. Apparently the door did blow open (by design). It something Boeing has introduced on the Max, the pilots weren't made aware of this though.
No, we weren’t 😖
blancolirio has a lot to say about this and he's quite upset about the fact that pilots weren't made aware of that fact. They lost their checklists during the depressurization among other things. You should check it out if you haven't already.
Thanks for you fine edition to this event. Boeing needs to change their "culture" back to where they started. Enough of this DEI business. Think of the old Alvin Tex Johnson days of pride in product and engineering.
On a little personal note, I owned a Cessna with a tail number N7*4AL. Spooky.
The Flightdeck door blow out panels appear to vent and open forward only. This would cope with an explosive decompression in the flight deck but since the explosive decompression occurred in the passenger cabin the blow out panels in the door won't work. So the entire door needed to blow open towards the passenger cabin. Question is: is the door unlocked electronically by a pressure differential sensor as some posters have stated, or is it a simple force overload condition that allows the lock to release at a pressure overload? That no one was told that this occurs pilots or maintenance or NTSB, may have been an anti hijack initative. Now terrorists know that under certain conditions they can get these hardened flight deck doors to open.
@@planespotter4494 Highjacking was one of the first things that came to mind with that revelation as I'm sure it was to many. What a poor idea! Put a hole in the vessel and now you're in! That plug door isn't the only thing they're going to have to fix now, is it?
@@planespotter4494better hope it isn't the mechanical overload 'cos they will have already put together a slide hammer, disguised as a walking stick to give that a sharp pull.
Amazing video analysis! I learned so much about the incident watching this single video than I did from all of the media outlets.
Really well done. Your explanation along with exceptional graphics clearly described this event. Thanx for your time and effort. 👍
The cell phones surviving was probably more because of what they landed on than it was because of what cases they had.
True
Yes, I had the same thought. If they landed on long grass or soft dirt or similar, they would be more likely to survive intact.
@@sushimamba4281yes, even hardwood floor vs carpet is significant in a short fall. Time until stop is very relevant to impact damage. In the I Shouldn't Be Alive episode Killer Crevasse, a man survived an 80 foot fall down an ice crevasse because his climbing buddy to whom he was tied broke his fall, landing on a snowbridge.
The makers of The $65 Spigen Cryo Armor case claimed it to be their product. I dropped a comment of my own with a question that has a link to the article about the case.
@@sethrice9939It may not be seen by others -- CZcams has a tendency to put those comments into a spam folder. Usually I write the title and website and say to Google it, or at least remove the dot com.
I am not sure if i would actively avoid a 737 Max by now but I'm quite happy that my usual routes with Swiss and Eurowings don't have any Boeing aircraft anyway.
same here...
It would be difficult though. Just because your flight is scheduled with one plane. They might change the airplane at any time. Still, I don’t feel comfortable in any Boeing as it’s not a Type thing. It’s a problem about the mindset of the company. And it seems they have other priorities than security.
@@MathieuDeVinois I see that's more difficult in the US. Here in Europe many airlines don't have any 737 Max in the fleet.
Yeah, Airbus never have maintenance or design issues 🙄
Congress has to step up and put measures in place to audit Boeing and put certain measures to ensure that it adheres to strict regulations.
Even better, let's just ban Boeing airplanes from US airspace. Effective Instantly. And Effective Forever.
Oh my! Petter, I'm staying tuned to this. It's been 24 years, but had an aircraft course in Little Rock, (Dassalt, and Hawker) Arkansas. Just enough knowledge to...
Thanks !
I've been looking forward to this video for over a week, but didnt expect to be part of it 😅 Thanks for providing the context that the news media does not usually provide.
(Also the phone was in a Spigen Cryo Armor in case anyone is still asking 😉)
Hello Peter,two things to note. The lock bolts are secured in place with a castellated nut and cotterpin, not lock wired as you said. You can see that in the still picture in the video just as you said it. Also after reading many comments on this video and some other very popular CZcams channels there is much confusion on the locking of these bolts. For example in this instance the castellated nut WITHOUT the cotterpin is self locking as well. When installing this nut you can thread the nut on by hand only about two threads before you have use a wrench or other tools to tighten the nut. THEN the cotterpin is installed, essentially making the assembly double locked. A normal nut an average person would know can be screwed down with your fingers quite easily. So even if the cotterpin was left out the nut would not back off on its own. This leads me to believe the bolts were not installed.
I tend to agree with your fixings analysis, but I struggle to believe that the door would stay in place for 3 months of regular flights without them...
Maybe it is normally extremely sturdy even without the bolts and the airframe took a really heavy landing in a previous flight that moved everything 1-2mm and started the process...
We will learn soon I suspect.
@@alan_davis Kinda. The door is designed not to open by itself, even without being properly secured (as it should), but whatever force it has experienced was just enough to open it only on this flight, and not on previous ones.
A nylock nut, also referred to as a nylon-insert lock nut, polymer-insert lock nut, or elastic stop nut, is a kind of locknut with a nylon collar that increases friction on the screw thread.
If this is what was used, the cotter pin or wiring is a redundancy we want to see. You would never be able to put in the cotter pin, until the nut is fully set, exposing the hole in the bolt.
The nut can not be fully set by hand. IT MUST be done with a wrench, and not a high speed tool. Air wrench must be below the specification for the nylon to not melt, roughly 150 rPM.
I am not sure, but I was always taught NEVER TO REUSE a nyloc fastener... always REPLACE.... iI know it to be a one-time faster, or it will be out of specification. ( For mission critical applications ) on a go-cart, you can reuse it 100 times.... what is the WCS ?
The Swiss Cheese model seems to have too many holes, and not enough solids.
I am concerned about workmanship at Boeing as some photos show that the nuts' castleations are not aligned with the split pin holes. The bolt head or nut face should be shimmed with washers to ensure that the split pin / cotter pin hole in the bolt lines up with the nut castleations. Several different photos show various standards of good and poor aircraft engineering practice.
@@alexturnbackthearmy1907No, it is not. Without those bolts, the only thing holding it closed is part of gravity. I say "part of" because those springs work against gravity and try to push the door into a position where it can open freely. The 12 pads also have no kind of locking, so while they hold it shut, they do nothing to prevent it from moving into a position where it can open. The roller guides are also angled in a way where they translate a pushing force on the door into a lifting force once it has moved a tiny bit.
It is very much designed in so many ways to open by itself...
I've been waiting for you to do a vid on this Mentour Pilot! :)
I find it astounding that there were only seven empty seats on the flight and that two of them were in the row where the panel blew out. Having been on flights where virtually every empty seat was a centre seat and all window and aisle seats were occupied, I wonder if Alaska didn't book or allow use of those seats because of passenger raised concerns on previous flights...
It's more likely that those seats cost extra because of increased leg room.
I thought that. If it was free, I would have definitely moved to that window seat from the aisle seat.
It wasn’t a long flight so it’s likely people didn’t care much about extra legroom on this flight. It’s a very lucky coincidence.
They had some pressurisation issues so they may have done that. If the other door plug also didn't have the window seat occupied then the airline kept the seats empty as a precaution, if it was just the door that blew out, it was a coincidence, no one paying extra on those seats.
Thanks for such a clear, concise, and rational explanation for what probably happened. A rare thing nowadays.
Glad it was helpful!
@@MentourNow I'll be watching for followup reports with great interest. Many think corporate culture at Boeing is at issue. They used to be an engineering driven corporation. That changed with the MD merger.
I was surprised how calm the passengers were to be honest.
Well....yeah. Screaming won't replace the missing door haha Plus QUIET PRAYER is best in these situations...!
Other than the door blowing out, the plane was flying smoothly. After the initial shock/horror, you realize that the plane is still stable. Compare to planes that are perfectly intact but flying through heavy turbulence: lots of cries and screams because of all that unexpected movement that (in some passengers' minds) could be the plane falling out of the sky at any minute, whereas here the plane is otherwise doing what it's supposed to do. I've been in a plane that suffered an engine blow out upon takeoff and after the initial burst of surprised screams/cries/gasps, everyone remained very quiet as the plane was otherwise undamaged and the pilots handled it perfectly to bring us back down safely.
No karens onboard
Less oxygen means less brain activity means less complex matters to worry about.
@@hakanevin8545 yes but also they topped out at 16k feet, not the sam as 30+
Sees bolts laying about aft installing the plug: "huh...prolly spares ^^".
I appreciate how considerate and careful Mentour is when dealing with this kind of mistakes from people. Not rushing to blame. He's an active pilot himself after all, and it's good the crew are cool headed people.
This was not a Design Fault - it was a Production Fault! - It is very important to recognize the difference! Unfortunately it was not the first Production Fault of Boeing in the last time and therefore the FAA reacted now appropriately.
Thank you very much for picking this Incident up! I´m waiting for the Video about the Haneda Accident, too.
What ever it is or we call it or see it. It is a absolute fasco and shouldn't be happening. How much more embarresing situation must we need before another plane comes out sky and 100s more die and everyone shrugs shoulders and say "Doesn't suprise me this piece of shit of plane etc"
Ref 16.21; Designed as sprung open but safety bolted closed seems a glaring design flaw to me. I'd prefer sprung closed + safety bolted closed.
@@The007Weasel I see where you're coming from, but I would wager that all 4 bolts need to fail (if installed correctly) for the door to come open. So they already had 3 backups. You're right though, because it isn't really 3 backups if all 4 bolts are not installed correctly by the one installer. Then they only have 1 backup, which is whoever should have inspected that the installation was done correctly.
@@MrGundawindy Typically, the entire point of design redundancies, is that your redundancies should not just be duplicates of the other redundancies. There should be multiple, independent systems that prevent things, in case the others completely fail. As, in this case, if somebody is going to be lazy enough to not install one bolt right, they aren't going to install the other 3 right either.
@@jijonbreaker yeh, it didn't have redundancies. It only had bolts. But it also should have have an inspection process to assure those bolts are fitted correctly.
Thanks for the update, many of us have been waiting for your video
I hope it was up to your expectations.
Yep was great 😀
Thank you for your analysis. Looking forward to your video after the final report
Amazing description - thank you.
Root cause of this fiasco is simple: quality does not appear on the balance sheet. Boeing CEO (accountant by profession) sees only the balance sheet in Virginia HQ. His salary depends on the balance sheet, not quality. Quality matters only in the Seattle factory. To fix this problem 1) Replace CEO with VP with aerospace engineering degree and technical background 2) Move HQ back to Seattle 3) Publish quality metric measured by independent inspection entity each year and set CEO salary according to the reported quality metric.
Previous CEO was an engineer by profession and board forced him to resign (by paying shits of loads of compensation) because there were technical problems in the newly designed aircraft. Then the board assigned an accountant, someone from the board itself, as CEO to fix the technical issue.
It sounds to me that board is incompetent too. They don't even know how to assign a suitable person to the job.
Nice ideological position.
Unfortunately you will then end up with a company that makes great planes for a very short time before going bankrupt.
The CEO's bonuses are paid on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion rates not actual performance 🤷🏼♂
@@alan_davis better than making crappy planes for a short time before being sued into bankruptcy (and taking a few lifes on the way)
@@alan_davisWrong. Boeing was run by engineers until they merged with McDonnel-Douglas, and it was only after the non-engineers from the McDonnel-Douglas board got onto Boeing's board that they started having these quality control issues, along with losses to their sales and reputation.
An Air Canada plane was shown when saying foreign carriers fly into the US using MAX 9s. Air Canada does not operate any MAX 9s. It has 40 MAX 8s in its fleet.
Thanks for this well documented video allowing us to better know the storyu around this serious incident
Once again your have created a thorough and educational video, helping us to understand the details of this incident. Thank you
The lucky and scary thing is - they blow at 16000 ft! The inside pressure is about same as on 8000 ft, so it was only about 8000 ft pressure difference and still panel gave up. If that happened on cruising altitude it would be much much worse for anyone onboard
The luckiest person was probably the individual who was sitting next to the door plug on one of the previous flights.
From the condition of the seat after the accident, it looks like there was a good chance they would have been sucked out of the plane.
@@catinthehat906 without the seatbelt you wouldn't stand a chance.
No triple redundancy in quality control. I think this is the first of many problems coming. Great Show! Well Done!
I suspect you are correct, interesting times coming, yay Diversity 😳
Actually if ANY of the four bolts were present the door couldn’t be dislodged - so quadruple redundancy but a common cause failure mode (the nut behind the spanner).
Thank you for an excellent description.
Thanks for this video, Petter. The quality of your (and your team’s) work is something to rely on… Cheers -- Martin
I've been watching your colleague blancoliro's running coverage of this FAA investigation; every fact I've learned about it has been both enraging and broadly terrifying, progressively.
I was looking forward to learning your perspective on this matter and, as ever, you fail to disappoint--only impress me.
Thanks for every one of your videos, despite the difficulty of examining certain subjects! They provide a trenchant education with engaging production.
"Who would notice such a thing? Maybe you guys." Well, I sure as heck will notice from now on!
From my experience the most disliked seats are the middle ones.
This was an almost full plane and the empty seats where right next to the plug. Coincidence?
Did Alaska know this plug was the pressurization issue before hand?
Was waiting for this video ever since I heard this flight
About the cockpit door, from AVHerald: "During the explosive decompression the cockpit door flew open as designed and impacted the forward lavatory door shutting it jammed..." and "No one amongst the flight crew knew that the cockpit door was designed to open in case of a rapid decompression, Boeing is going to make changes to the manuals."
Wow, Boeing not adding details to the manual. Shocker.
Never the first to put out content, but almost always the most thorough. I'm an engineer and you're're a pilot, yet this is by far the best analysis I've read so far. Well done.
I'm an ATPL FAA pilot, with an Engineering Degree, who has done certification work, and also done technical writing for an aircraft manufacturer (not Boeing). This is one of the best presentations I have ever seen! Bravo! Fantastic! Just the facts, and very detailed!
I absolutely LOVE your videos sir! My wife would never sit long enough to watch a video, but now we look forward to watching your videos TOGETHER - THANKS TO YOU and YOUR VIDEOS! (I think its your voice ;)
My guess would be that a cell phone, particularly with some forward motion and maybe some initial spin, would tend to flutter around as it falls, which would make its terminal velocity less than one might think. If ianding on a soft surface like grass or a field it doesn't surprise me all that much that some could survive.
The latest rumor mill has it that the plug door was removed during the installation of the satellite antenna for the entertainment system. So the last people to touch it might not have been from Boeing or Spirit. But who knows.
The company has denied opening the door for their work. If you look at satellite pics of the aircraft during wifi antenna installation, the access steps to the roof cover the door completely.
If so, then it had to be inspected. Who did it?
@@ImperrfectStranger Ok. So it's just part of the rumor mill then.
I've been looking forward to your take on this, Petter. And, now it's here, it's top quality as usual! Thanks for the measured presentation.
Great job, Petter! 👏
Imagine how epic it had to be to hear the reverse thrust from inside when they landed
Boeing Board of Directors should immediately FIRE the CEO and anyone that pushed a culture of muzzling employees of Boeing or subcontractors from reporting safety issues.
The Board is pushing DEI and LGBTQ at Boeing. They will reap what they sow.
And the board should be replaced by aviation professionals and not other fat cats and buddies of the top 10 Boeing executives. The board is as guilty as the daily managers.
@@stuartfeen9236 agreed 200%
You mean a CEO that has been with the company for only a few months, the third CEO in just a handfull of years? Yeah, as if that's going to restore any confidence in the company ...
For me such management problems are not due to only one person.
So - fire more responsible people.
Thank you Petter. I finally understand the mechanism of the door plug and what the bolts are supposed to do. Excellent presentation, as always.
Thanks for your always great analysis
Great start for this new year
I have been waiting for your opinion on this for almost a week!!! Keep up the good work!
I hope it rose to your expectations?
Thank you, Captain. Yours is some of the very best aviation coverage that can be found anywhere.
I totally agree and was about to post the same. Thank you Mr Pilot!! Great clear information video. Im saddened about Boeing's corporraaate decay.
It's the trend: Profits before safety