Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 MAX Door Separation Update | What Happened?
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 09. 2024
- An Alaska Airlines Boeing 737-9 MAX, registration N704AL performing flight AS-1282 from Portland,OR to Ontario,CA (USA) with 171 passengers and 6 crew, was climbing out of Portland's runway 28L when one of the cabin windows/emergency exits and its holding panel as well as parts of one un-occupied seat (seat row 26) separated from the aircraft, the passenger oxygen masks were released. The crew donned their oxygen masks, stopped the climb at about 16,000 feet, declared emergency reporting depressurization of the aircraft in a very noisy transmission, initiated an emergency descent to 10,000 feet and returned to Portland for a safe landing on runway 28L about 20 minutes after departure. No injuries are being reported. An emergency exit and whole panel at the left hand side of the aircraft was missing.
There’s a lot to learn from this as passengers. 1: Keep your seatbelt on unless you have some short reason to have it off. 2: Pay attention to the safety demonstration. One thing they often say is to put on your own mask first, then help others.
Thanks for the update, Denys.
I do agree with the seatbelts on because I always keep mine on but I don't think the passengers expected the door to blow off lol
And do not fly on a Max 737. Ever.
or fly Airbus.
@@jquint57my thoughts too👍
> What happened?
- The Door Fell Off
Why ?
- A bolt was loose.
Is that unusual ?
- Oh Yeah. In A Boeing? Chance in a million.
Where is this door now?
- It is out of the Environment...
What happened then ?
- The Boeing Stock Fell off
Is that unusual ?
- I want to make the point that that is not supposed to happen.
It is miraculous that the seats were unoccupied given that the flight was relatively full .
Nevertheless, some good spirits worked overtime.
😉
Yes, indeed.
They’ll just line some pockets and continue the show
That’s some final destination shit. Those passengers missed their flight because they were in an Uber accident
BBC reported today that that particular aircraft had already had TWO recent reported problems related to cabin pressurisation, and had been banned from flying over water. Also that the cockpit voice recording ‘was not retrieved’ within the two hour deadline before it’s deleted. That seems very suspicious, given it was an emergency landing.
this is apparently true news. It has been reproduced in most non US press around the world. Dont know it has not had more coverage in the US.
And the NTSB said to date there is NOTHING to indicate the previous pressurization alarms had anything to do with the plug failure. In all 3 instances when they switched to the backup pressurization system the alarm went away. This would indicate a problem with the primary pressurization system.
If the pilots don't pull the CVR circuit breaker right after landing, it'll keep recording and overwrite. The techs didn't get into the plane to retrieve the CVR until 2 hours after the accident, so the recording was gone. Nothing suspicious about it. It happens quite often. It is ridiculous to have only a 2 hour max record time.
"Factory defect".
That's supported as well by the detail, that this plane has been idle for most of the time since delivery.
So this was really one of the very first times this "door plug" had to withstand the compression.
Taking that, it makes sense that they didn't include the -900s.
But still:
That, not telling pilots about the operation of the MCAS, bypassing FAA in test and certification, leaving tools in 787 fuselages, self igniting 787 batteries, huge losses in Air-Force one and 777-X programs, knowing the management attitudes behind all that, the miracle seems to be, not that this incident ended safe, but that there are not much more of them...
This plane had flown nearly 150 flights before the accident.
According to the NTSB Chair.. "The force from the loss of the plug door was strong enough to blow open the cockpit door during flight"
Of course it was. When you suddenly drop the cabin air pressure by 5 psi the air trapped in the cockpit will place about 12,000 pounds of force on the cockpit door to get out.
Wrap up warm if you want a MAX 9 window seat.
And don't forget your parachute.
At least you get a great open view :)
Big thanks for this update Denys.
As others have said, the clean removal of that 'plug' (installed in place of a real door) almost certainly suggests an issue with its installation and/or the surrounding fuselage fixing points (this plane was almost brand new). Cost saving cut backs in component quality/install/sign-off check? Also incredibly fortunate this didn't happen at a much higher altitude. Thankfully, this king of breach is an extremely rare occurrence.
Adhesive failure.. Maybe wrong adhesive, not cured correctly etc etc..
Bob: I'm going to take the trash outside
Bob's wife: Don't let the door hit you on your way out
What a stupid joke
Hullo Captain, Thank you for thus information, very interesting. I do hope you are able to get your job back as soon as possible and are able to resume your career once again. Best wishes from Wellington New Zealand. ✈️👍
No one sells more Airbuses than Boeing. Hopefully Airbus cut them that bonus check.
Every time an airline is unsure which narrowbody they should buy, the Airbus salesperson loans them a Max for free for a month.
Always tighten bolts until strip the thread, then turn them back 1/4 turn.
FYI, local TV here in Portland is reporting that both Alaska and United have found loose nuts and bolts on other 737-9 aircraft.
Wow, this happened in the 2019 crash, too? I wasn't aware of that. It speaks volumes about the current state of both Boeing and FAA that it needs to happen in America before they figure this out.
No, in those crashes, it was an automatic pilot problem.
@@AngelinaJolie734 My bad, you re right. I was reading the report wrong, it''s just a missing parenthesis in the text.
What is going on with the MAX series? Does the MAX stand for MAX profit at the expense of safety?
737 MAX
max=max deaths
If it's a Boeing, I'm not going.
Going Boeing-😊😊@@iactiv6274
@@iactiv6274 Nah, the Boeing 747 "Jumbo Jet" is my favourite plane, so I have no issue with Boeing. Specifically the MAX series variants seem to have an unreasonable amount of issues.
What if people says Airbus is to be blamed for the recent a350 incident in Japan?
That would sound dumb right? Same as anyone blaming Boeing for this incident
Think how many people sat at that door at cruising altitude, just a hairs breadth from death.
Was on a flight last night against the window and pretty much had a panic attack thinking about that very scenario.
This could've been a total hull loss with all souls if the door hit the horizontal stabiliser. Boeing has questions to answer, I'd say.
At what relative speed do you think the door would have hit the horizontal stabiliser?
@@ImperrfectStrangerThat isn't my field, so I have no idea. Do you?
@@ImperrfectStrangercurrent Indicated Air Speed
Possible, but unlikely. The plane will still fly with one missing/damaged horizontal stabilizer.
No, if one side of the stabiliser is damaged - or even removed- you can still have some limited control by using the engine thrust of each engine to vector the aircraft in which ever direction. You'd have to react fast to figure the problem out though but given the power of those engines and the uplift they can produce on each wing, it can be done. As a sidenote , I can comfortably land a Piper Cherokee on rudder and throttle alone - obviously its not preferable but it can be done.
Lucky - history is littered with examples of cabin door and cargo door failures that cause massive structural damage, sometimes bringing the whole plane down. Eg Turkish Airlines flight 981.
In this case, they're lucky the plug / door failed at 16,000 feet rather than 36,000 feet where the forces would have been much greater, and possibly ripped part of the aircraft structure away.
This could have easily been the 3rd Boeing 737 Max crash. Right now, Boeing is incapable of doing quality control properly.
Last week we had bolts missing from the tail rudder of 737 Max planes (could have resulted in a crash.) The month before it was engine cowling not fitted correctly. There are also quality problems with the 787 Dreamliner.
Problems at Boeing started with the McDonnell Douglas merger, the migration of Boeing's corporate office to Chicago (where no planes are made) and the farming off of 737 manufacturer to other companies (eg Spirit Aviation).
With a McDonnell Douglas type of corporate attitude, now the Boeing 737 Max is starting to adopt the reputation of McDonnell Douglas' main aircraft, the DC-10.
Thanks for the update, Denys. There seem to be a quite a few issues with the 737 MAX lately. Fortunately, the basic 737 structure is robust, Aloha Airlines flight 243 being a testament.
I'm wondering why they continued to use this plane when a few instances days prior they had the depressurization light come on. That is not a good sign. That system is there for a reason. After this was reported and maintenance looked at it, what were the conclusions? I bet it's not so easy to come up with a conclusion unless you are actually able to look at the structure of the plane. Hopefully there is nothing wrong there and the depressurization alarm was because of a bad seal around the door or something, which isn't really good either but it's a better scenario than other structural problems. At high altitude and this happens, that causes rigid structures in the plane to become deformed and damaged. That can't be good for the human body, especially for the infants onboard.
The pressurization alarm came on 3 times on 3 different previous flights. In every instance when they switched to the backup pressurization system there were no further problems. The aircraft is allowed by FAA rules to fly with one of the pressurization systems inop (there are 3 different redundant systems). Maintenance tested the system 3 times and didn't find a problem. They had scheduled the aircraft for a more thorough test to find the problem. If the alarm was due to the plug leaking, the secondary system would have alarmed too. It didn't. Pressurization problems do not result in "rigid structures in the plane becoming deformed and damaged." The plane can operate just fine completely unpressurized - just not with passengers. NTSB has said there is no evidence that the pressurization alarms had anything whatsoever to do with the plug failure.
Actually as far as I know the 787-MAX 900 operated by this Airline has only 2 bolted in "plugs" . So there are no hinges, no hidden doors, no slides etc. It would require
quite a substantial refit to add doors in the place of these plugs. There are other variants which include deactivated or hidden doors. These don't have full-size windows
but instead these round small windows. I could be wrong but I think the cause of this incident probably resulted from faulty manufacturing. Wrong bolt size, not properly
torqued etc. Carl 🇦🇺
737 MAX, not 787.
Yes, silly me .....sorry ... @@seanpellegrino2989
Yes my mistake, sorry@@seanpellegrino2989
By the look of things it requires little to change out the system..
There are hinges on the bottom of the plug, just like if it was an emergency door. It can be opened for maintenance, such as servicing the seals. There are 3 configurations for this opening, a plug with no easy way to convert to an emergency exit, a deactivated emergency exit with a small window which can be converted to an emergency exit, and an emergency exit. Currently, only Ryan Air has the MAX-9 with the emergency exit active.
Happy to see you get back to making aviation videos, Denys. Hope you will one day be able to fly passengers planes again.
The manufacturing crew didn’t reinstall the locking bolts on the plug when finished installing interior components. The aircraft gave warning 3 previous flights there was a pressurization problem. Alaska airlines withdrew the aircraft ETOPs rating until problem was fixed but maintenance crews continued reset system.
you have the inside info?
And that is the smoking gun!
I'll never fly with Alaska again !!
Thanks for this. Little is known as yet, but you covered that little very well. It seems likely that the problem had something to do with the extension process. Boeing's reputation has taken another knock, meanwhile.
My thoughts on this accident...someone forgot the bolts or fasteners and the door broke away cleanly with no tearing.
@@mh-ht2fpThere’s no flaw- this exact plug style exit has been around a long time. The question is who didn’t install four lock bolts correctly?
Agree, someone didn't inspect the work on completion of the aircraft. I assume these plugs are considered permanent and not a check item for maintenance.
@@mh-ht2fp well we are talking about Alaska Airlines, but also a new plane
so its ether Alaska has turn back to their old ways or
counterfeit aviation parts have gotten into Boeing supply chain
@@denault3985 There is going to be some interval to open it and check it and the seals and replace the bolts, and probably a shorter one to check that the bolts are still lock-wired. But probably not yet given how recent the airplane is.
@@1BigBen This is not a part that needs maintenance. So it must be a production failure by Boeing.
My bet, cost cutting. That panel should have been alum framed w alum cross pieces to transfer load just like rest if skin. Then it should have been BOLTED in place to enable same & make it impossible for 100% of it to leave in midflight even if a hand grenade blew a hole in the middle. It WAS a weak point, which means it should have been made into a strong point to compensate for that AND add a safety factor.
My bet, all plastic & composites w far less rigidity than aluminum, saved enufcweight 2 men could hand carry it & attach it w 4 no 6 screws, just enuf to hold it on place until at altitude there was tons of pressure holding it in place.
Had alum been bolted to alum wed see SOME shred of panel left. There is NONE.
The lightweight & WEAK panel flexed pulling out the few screws holding it, then folded & exited aircraft.
Using a heavy panel requiring rigging to lift to move & hold for one hour while 2 workers tightened up 8 screws to proper torque reading would take 3 or 4 more than an hour. 2 guys & a few sheet metal screws, 45 min.
Boeing needs to have every design last 20 yrs certified by independent aircraft co even if it means 1000 engineers working for yrs. Including reviewing "installation" instructions / procedures. The $ should come from CEOs & execs who cost cut the best aircraft manufacturer in the world into the ground. The ones in the top 5% of "compensation" inc fully realized stock options, juicy pension pay & health programs, juicy covers everything on earth health ins policies they got free while workers had to pay just for crappy HMO policies...
Thanks for your random internet university input. My bet is you're talking out of your rear orifice.
This same door plug design has been working just fine on several variations of the 737 for over 20 years. Care to blather on a bit more?
Thank you very much for your kind information.
We’ve already had two fatal crashes of the 737 Max due to managerial incompetence and greed. The Boeing Orion space capsule was nearly lost on its maiden flight due to a fault, there were countless other faults too. By all accounts Boeing has a serious culture problem. I’ve worked in engineering companies with a chaotic and uncontrolled environment. This could have had multiple fatalities had they reached cruising altitude, and seatbelts undone. I feel for the poor passengers, it must have been absolutely terrifying. Quite why Boeing aren’t being sued is beyond me. I don’t fly, but if I did, I would choose an Airbus operator.
Clearly the door could only come off from the aircraft without damage to the airframe if the bolts were never installed or were not correctly tightened causing them to come loose and fall out.
czcams.com/video/maLBGFYl9_o/video.htmlsi=jK7LhgQbYNFyM0bE Boeing 737 technical CZcams shows the locking mechanism
Someone call the NTSB! Call off the investigation. They just need to talk to ecomandurban who has all the answers.
It doesn't work that way on these types of doors.
@@stargazer7644, it’s because someone took that “Do Not Disturb” card off the door handle! I think it’s pretty obvious!
Hi!
I'm from Argentina, last week we also had an accident involving a Boeing 373M, luckily there was no one injured
Those are airplanes are cursed
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. There are so many 737s in the sky. They are one of the safest airplanes ever built.
A different mode of failure than the Hawaiian aircraft that lost fuselage part from short hop cycles between islands.
It has now been proven, the pressurization alarm going off, several times, meant that AA should have grounded that plane. But to save money, they flew it, and kept people from sitting by the plug, and did not fly over ocean. Way to go Alaska Airlines!
More like Baked Alaska!
There are a total of four retaining bolts with locknuts that hold the door in position in their tracks so it can sit properly against the stops, that were more than likely missing. The question is how did this happen. ie: who forgot to replace the bolts?
and who signed it off - surely atleast two pairs of eyes should have gone over this
replace what ? This A/C entered into service 3 months ago.... Brand New.
I think he meant they were not installed during manufacturing.@@andreab1604
just got an ad but i just know that this will be an awesome vid!
3:25 regular fuselage and extended fuselage 5:34 door plug assembly way more sophisticated and complicated than just four bolts 6:56 re: factory defect, one news story said Renton likely undid plug for access, then resealed
"resealed" being the operative word. My guess is an assembly technician made a mistake and didnt do something that they were supposed to do. Anxiously waiting to see the recovered plug. For me human errors happen.... that is why everything is supposed to be double-checked and signed-off on.... that is what scares me most... who TF signed off on a door plug without checking the anchor bolts? And whomever it is, I guess their career at Boeing is going to be shortened.
@@exploreraa983 My question would be, how many planes are flying around with undetected botched parts?
@@eljanrimsa5843 I think what we will learn is that there is nothing wrong with the part, it is used for years without issue. This is going to come down to someone not doing what they were supposed to, and the person that was supposed to sign them off and check, did not.
@@exploreraa983 And do you think only one person did only once sign off without checking?
@@eljanrimsa5843You can look up the published signoff procedure online if you want.... but if there was an issue with door plugs, every cargo plane built in the past 20 years would have crashed.
Its not the plug itself, theres going to be a human error implement somewhere here..
Hi Dennys,
"Boeing urges Airlines to inspect 737 Max Planes for possible loose bolts in the RUDDER-control system",
from Dec. 28, 2023.
The FAA was aware of loose bolts in the rudder-control system as well?
So, that means there are loose bolts everywhere on that Boeing Max machines.
Also: turns out the cockpit door is designed to blow open in case of rapid depressurization,
causing your headset and your emergency checklist flying out of the "window".
😅
You can't make those things up.
I wonder, have you been aware of that?
gl, and thx for the update.
NBC News reports “the first officer’s headset was sucked out of the aircraft. .. the flight crew struggled with communication “..
Also the NTSB suspects the stop bolts holdong the door in place may have never been installed. (Metallurgy tests going on now)
Everyone in this world who ignores red flags should learn lessons from an industry which is failing at it.
It reminds me of the Comet crash due to window fatigue
Other than it wasn't a window and metal fatigue and bad engineering had nothing to do with this accident, sure.
Thank you very much for the Update!🙂
The real issue is why is the door plug designed to open during rapid decompression, why would any airline have seats in that area? I would not want to be seating there at 30,000ft. That is a major design and safety issue.
Fasteners holding the door plug in place needs to be safety wired to prevent coming apart. Secondly the fasteners might have stretched causing a leak from the inside to side.
Going further, for cost reduction Boeing installed door plug in the spot for regular door as no door was required if the number of seats are less than 175 or so. In the USA where the number of seats are less than 175 , door plug has been provided but for other parts of the world where the number of seats is more than 175 or whatever, there is a full fledged door with emergency pneumatic slides and appropriate electric interlocks to arm and disarm the emergency features at take off and landing. This door costs tons of money and door plug is probably offered free by Boeing, consequently its failure modes are not modeled and consequent effects are not analysed which is why this Alaska airplane got into close to fatal trouble.
My recommendation is kiss good bye to door plug and install regular door in its place like full seater models.
@@padmahariharan6327 That will not happen, as these exits are mandated to be covered by flight attendants, which would mean +2 crew on every flight.
@@csgergo80
Unreliable door plug is not an option.
I can redesign the closure which will open inwards so that higher sir pressure inside the plane will maintain it closed.
The seat adjacent to the door will need to be eliminated to provide maintenance space near the door
@@padmahariharan6327 It's perfectly reliable, as long as Boeing puts it together the way it was designed. At the moment it looks like the 4 bolts that secure the plug were MIA. Any one of them would have prevented this accident, and be fixed at the first B check.
I will give a speculation. There were three previous warnings of partial loss of pressurization. It is not unusual for planes to have wiring go defective or need replacement. You still fly if the mechanics and pilots believe it safe to do so. It is only in retrospect that a probable cause can be determined. The cause was most likely a bolt. It could be that a bolt was not tightened, that a bolt was not an approved bolt or was defective. You can open panels and determine that they are tightened bolts. It won't tell you whether the bolts were approved bolts. Now Boeing has to go through its records and that of the subcontractor who did the frame. It happens.
I had my car tires rotated at the big box store. The mechanic failed to tighten 3 bolts on one of the tire assemblies. Fortunately, I stopped and had AAA service and was good to go. Things happen.
Right now, there is a lot of investigation being done that will never see the newsprint.
7 minutes is a long time to say not very much at all. On the other hand your eyes are surprisingly entertaining.
Денис советую посмотреть видео: Cris Brady: the Boeing 737 Technical Guide- автор профессионально рассказывает и на снимках рассказывает как устанавливается дверь- заглушка и как крепится болтами. Похоже это « человеческий фактор»: сборщик установил крепежные болты с отклонением от Тех. Требований чертежа и принимающий работу инспектор качества просмотрел это.
Проработал 18 лет в компании производящей детали и сборки для двигателей самолетов , видел людей не способных читать чертежи, не знающие и не говорящие по- английски- at all. Начальники привлекают переводчиков.
В ссср на подобные работы брали людей после техникума - 4 года обучения.
Good Morning Denys!!!!! Many thanks for your effort ❤✈!!!!!!! Xx.........
FAA in Boeings pocket, they should be a totally separate entity.
Workers speaking up about conserns and issues getting sacked.
Whole assembly plants being relocated, so no unions in that area.
Subcontractors carrying out work.
Managers overrule engineers.
Bad working practices
Profit before safety.
Burger flippers brought in off the street and straight onto making aircraft.
Most of these guys wouldn't fly on the aircraft they build, what does that tell you !
After working with the FAA on the agency's investigation of O'Hare International Airport workplace safety, may I suggest that the FAA issue a directive that would direct Boeing to install standard doors to encapsulate this opening or forbid the commercial airlines from seating passengers adjacent to this plug door. Manufacturing procedures should be further scrutinized.
Why in the world would they do that? These plugs have been installed a thousand times in multiple different versions of the 737 over the last twenty years with zero problems.
BBC News just reported "bolts requiring tightening" (eg loose) have been found on other planes.
Which is utterly ridiculous. The common person says, "Oh, a loose bolt, that means it's about to fall off." Even if installed loose, aircraft bolts cannot loosen more. The nuts are captive to the bolt. They can't turn to loosen.
this remids me of that BA flight with the captain almost sucked out inflight because the window has come off due to improper bolt size.
sorry for my bad english.
This door plug is more like a bottle cap. 12 pins latch into the fuselage with 4 bolts holding it in place.
Serious and professional video, thx !
Man, at 0:16 you stated that an emergency door separated from the fuselage. This is not true, it is an under 200 passenger plug that covers a hole where an emergency exit can be configured.. Just wanted to point out that.
...do anyone know where that door landed? ...
It has been found.
in Bob's back yard
love ur vids 👍👍
NO, but Alaska Air is! Investigate what "maintenance" was done on that plane. Even a "loose" bolt will not "fall out" it is a castle nut with a cotter pin through it. More like missing hardware.
Horrifying for the passengers, especially the children.
Thankfully everyone was fine, ...kudos to the pilots,.... and this breakdown was fascinating, thanks Denys🫡
In response, the FAA moved its headquarters underground.
They just found the door in someones backyard.
Imagine the reaction of the people who found it
Bob found it. We're quite thankful for Bob.
I believe some emergency doors on some aircraft are not plug type doors.
I don't know about the 737, but it looks from the photos that it wasn't a plug door.
Basically 737max has become the dc-10 of 21st century🤔
As it is now the same company!
@@gottfriedheumesser1994 yeah
Or, the more likely explanation is you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The 737 is one of the most popular and safest aircraft in the skies.
@@stargazer7644 It was that before introducing the MAX.
@@gottfriedheumesser1994Boeing has orders for over 6200 MAX aircraft right now. The MAX is outselling all previous versions of the 737.
The interesting thing is the mounting lugs appear intact or at least not badly damaged? Almost as if the plug was designed to fit from the outside rather than inside. Will be interesting to see a photo of the plug.
The plug does fit from the outside. That's the direction it opens.
Obviously, there are versions with that panel containing a door (for Ryanair) and without a door. Why have the one to be checked, and the other ones not. The mounting of the panels should be the same.
As the panel has now been found it should be possible to know the exact reason for the failure. I have read the FAA airworthiness paper which contains everything but what has to be checked exactly. I think that is written in advice from Boeing.
I would rather fly Aeroflot....
Thanks Denys
Thanks for the info, great video!!
Good analysis
Thank you, Denys, for your reporting on this incident! It is quite thorough. As for the incident itself, this really does seem to be quite surprising. Having never worked on a B737 of any type, I can't say that I am familiar with that particular type of door, but I am guessing that the old 727's had doors similar to the one that failed on the Alaska flight. In either case, it seems very unusual for such a problem to have come up. Also, I would assume that there would be some sort of light on the fight decd indicating a problem with the door if the seal was not sound. As a pilot, I would ask you whether you think the crew had to prepare the cabin for an emergency landing, or not, given that the AC didn't seem to have any other issues. This happens, of curse, based on what the actual issue is with the AC and what the Captain considers the riss to be to a safe landing. I can easily see where the Captain might request emergency priority to and, but that the Captain might now request the FA's to ready the cabin for an emergency landing. What are your thoughts on this particular issue Denys?
Lee
This is not a door. It's a plug where a door can optionally be installed. There is no light in the cockpit because it doesn't have a latching mechanism so there is nothing to monitor. It isn't a door. The pilots declared an emergency as soon as pressurization was lost and they landed as an emergency aircraft.
Hello and thank you or the information. S, you are saying that it is not a floor level exit? I have seen many different doors as an FA for 10 years, and that certainly looks like a floor level exit to me from the photos. If it is a floor level exit, I would think the pilots would get some sort of indication if there were an issue with the door that was noticeable prior to the explosive loss of the seal and door. Given the speed at which this accident seems to have occured, I can imagine that the pilots' first warning was when they lost the door itself and the AC depressurized.
As or your comments regarding an emergency landing, there are different types of emergency landings, as you should know if you claim any sort f experience as a pilot of FA. Some emergency landings happen suddenly, like the A flight recently. There was obviously no time to prepare the cabin for a specific and planned emergency landing since it occurred on landing itself and was certainly unexpected. The way the FA's prepare the cablin for such emergency landings is by the routine process we go through every landing.
Then there are the emergency landing where the pilots decide there is very little chance that the AC will need to be evacuated upon landing. Thus, the FA's do not prepare the cabin for a possible evacuation. And, again there are those where the cabin is prepared for a possible evacuation, but it may not be necessary. In such cases, the A's prepare the passengers for a possible evacuation, but they await the pilots given the signal to evacuate once the AC comes to a complete stop (in such cases, depending on the time available for preparing the cabin for a possible evacuation, passengers at each exit are briefed and given responsibilities if an actual evacuation is called for. Depending on the time available prior to landing, this is done either from the FA's jmpseats, or in the aisles. And, then there is the kind of emergency landing where the pilots are expecting that an evacuation will be necessary, and the FA's do a briefing, again, either from their umpseats, or in the aisles.
Aslo, regarding the door, it reminds me of a 727 rear galley door, or the one just opposite it on AC RT. Both of those are Floor Level exits. So, I am guessing that since this was a Boeing AC, then the door that blew out was similar to the ones on the 727, which I am very familiar with. Also, the doors must be sealed properly prior to [ush back, and if there is any problem, a light DOES appear on the cockpit to alert the pilots. After all, the pilots need to know if a door seal is weak when it is detectable. I have been is such situations before where a door is not sealed properly. As long as there is maintenance as the Airfield, then they will get it resolved there prior to push back. I the door seems to be sealing alright, but there is some issue that can be resolved alter, then maintenance can be delayed depending on what the actual problem is and whether it poses a threat to the AC prior to arriving at a station where maintenance is available. I know this from first hand experience, and it is not theoretical:).
I hope this makes it clear what my questions were designed to address and hopefully be answered by Denys:). Thank you again for your comments:)!
Lee @@stargazer7644
@@LeeColes100It isn't an exit at all. It's a hole in the wall with a permanent plug bolted in it that an exit CAN be installed into in the future. If they were to put a door in that hole, then that would be monitored.
Hmm, well, then that helps explain some of what happened. My only confusion was them talking about it as if it were a door, if in fact it was not a door. lol Even just reading the title of this video, they refer to a "door" separation. i d understand why there would be such a "plug", but I don't understand at all how such a "plug' could be designed in such way that it COULD blowout. That strikes me as particularly odd. However, knowing bit about how "doors" on AC work, I do understand that i a "plug' is designed to mimic a "door", then I can see where if the "plug' were relying upon the same basic systems in pace for a "door", then I can see where such a problem might occur. The bolting system and pins they describe in Denys' most recent video regarding this incident are familiar to me, and I can see where a failure might happen because the locking system is similar, if not exactly like that of a regular door, but designed not to be opened as a regular "door" would. It seems designed to only be secured in a way similar, if not exactly like that of a functioning "door."
in either case, stargazer, i appreciate your patience in getting me to understand that this was not a door, as your first reply stated. And, I apologize that it took me so long to understand the difference between a "door" and a "plug hatch.'
Lee @@stargazer7644
@@LeeColes100This plug is not like a door. There is no latch mechanism to open it. It becomes a permanent part of the outer fuselage. It has 12 fingers that slip behind 12 tabs attached to the sides of the aircraft frame. The plug pushes in from the outside and slides down to interface with those tabs. Once down, there are 2 bolts that stop the plug from lifting up so it can't come out. Then they put regular interior panels over the inside. It just looks like a regular window. The plug in this case did lift up, and blew out and separated from the aircraft. That would imply that the two bolts holding it in either failed, or more likely were never installed in the first place. There are other channels including the NTSB briefings and Blancolirio that go into much greater detail about what happened.
Why are they saying the Voice recorder was erased.. hardly into its flight....
The CVR only keeps the last 2 hours. Nobody stopped it when they landed, so it was still recording after it landed. By the time the guys arrived to retrieve it, more than 2 hours had elapsed so it had been recording silence for 2 hours overwriting the flight recording.
@@stargazer7644 Now that makes a lot of sense . Thank you for clearing that up.
the cockpit door was also opened by the de-compression
Love the content keep it up
it was a plug not an emergency door. It looked like any other panel with a window.
Correct. The plug is a provision for emergency door option should airline customer select the option to accommodate their LOPA or airplane interior configuration.
So some of the fleet have been inspected, but does that satisfy the AD? Are these planes back in service?
Why were the two seats near the door plug not occupied? Coincidence?
When a door closes, another could open / Boeing
AS ignored the warming on 3 previous flights.
They certainly didn't ignore the warning. They investigated it per the maintenance manual and everything tested ok. They scheduled it for more in depth testing since it happened multiple times. They restricted the plane from flying over water which they weren't required to do. There's currently absolutely no indication that the pressurization warnings had anything to do with the door plug. The warnings went away when they switched to the backup pressurization system every one of the 3 times.
Yes they did.
I think all doors in the max9 are plug-type…..except the emergency escape doors, just aft f the wings are non-plug type and are held in by electrically operated latches? Probably have to confirm with the aircraft’s manual.
These are not doors, they're plugs. No doors were installed in these locations on this aircraft.
@@stargazer7644…..no, they’re not plugs…..it says plugs….but, they re not plugs….notice how these doors simply falls off the planes. Unlike te doors and the over wing exits, these are real plugs. Have you ever heard of crazy passengers trying to open doors during cruise?….im not fazed by these pax…..unless he/she is Hercules and can lift 900 kegs…..they can’t opened a pressurized cabin door.
Do you know how to use the B737 over wing emergency exit?…..you have to pull these over wing emergency doors INWARD, FIRST….then can’t them sideways to throw them outside the plane.
Notice the this aft emergency door doesn’t first pop inwards, then, outwards, for the slides to deploy…..they simply fall outward….so, if they’re plug type (ie, doors BIGGER than the opening, how can they just fall outward?….so, can any pax just open these doors in flight!, no, that’s because after a certain speed there’s electrical lock. They have solenoids that held them in place. Do overwing emergency exits or main doors have solenoid?…..no, because they’re plug-types!!!
In this Aircraft that piece of fuselage was NOT configured neither as a door nor emergency exit.
and he flies these aircraft? if i saw this bloke heading toward the pointy end id get off😉
@@georgeoverton8267 not sure I understand what you mean dude
Yes, I always keep my seat belt fastened during the flight, except when I go to the toilet, at which time I feel a bit nervous. Should I ever again trust a Boeing 737, even if it's passed all sorts of safety checks?
If you're a reasonable person with a firm grasp of logic and statistics, then yes.
This happened near where I live
Is 737 MAXA safe to fly?! I’m concerned!🙁
There is a detail that I head in some video which I wonder if it is correct. IIIUC, an ariline door usually opens inwards, so the cabin pressure pushes them against the door frame and prevents the door from opening in flight. But that emergency door (all 737max doors?), when used, opens outwards and his held closed only by the latches. The plug likewise is held shut only by 4 bolts at the corners. Is that correct?
Not exactly. The door/plug is held in place by two vertical columns attached to the hinge at the bottom and two horizontal lugs at the top that engage into short tracks in the door.
The four bolts everyone is referring to lock the hinge columns and lugs to prevent the upward movement that allows the tracks in the plug to disengage from the lugs in the fuselage.
For a door those bolts are not needed and it has six pins preventing upward movement that retract when the door is opened.
yoo pilot vlog!
Seems stupid to have a “door plug”? Either it’s a door, or it’s a fuselage. Why invite catastrophe?
Exactly. How many planes do they build each year....Can't be so many they need such mass production.
Because it is not cost effective to retrofit a door into an aircraft later, and it is not cost effective to make a dozen different designs for the same plane. They could have made it a door, but then there's extra cost for something that isn't required. So they make a plug and everybody is happy. They've been using these identical plugs in various generations of 737 for over 20 years with zero problems before now. How exactly is that inviting catastrophe?
@@Dubinski2382They build thousands of these every year. They have an order backlog of nearly 6,000 planes.
@@stargazer7644 Around 1,100-1,200 planes are built globally each year. Boeing builds about 30 737s per month.
@@Dubinski2382 Yeah I guess you're right. The numbers I was looking at were cumulative. They delivered 387 MAX aircraft in 2023, 1420 to date. They had orders for 883 more in 2023, bringing the total to 6,203.
The reason for this event is not known. All opinions about it are speculation at this point. The fact that there is not much to say about it does not stop the internet mob from saying everything from A to Z. Nothing attracts commentary from people with no clue what they are talking about, faster than aviation videos on YT. I have held a Commercial Pilot certificate since 1966 and have studied uncountable hundreds of accidents and investigations ... and AFAIK there is nothing to speculate about in this case until more is known. Plenty of other people will jump to conclusions, so I will leave that exercise to them. When we know, then we will know.
You'd be right except a number of facts have been released to the public by the NTSB in multiple news conferences which make it more and more possible to draw an educated conclusion.
@@stargazer7644 Yeah I have seen the releases and "confrences" and as of now, we don't know exactly what happened here and therefore we are not prepared to respond.... until we know.
Well I’m never flying again
Not an emergency exit.
Anyone who gets on a plane like that is tired of life. The quality of Boeing aircraft has reached a low point in the company's history.
And yet the 737 is one of the most successful and popular aircraft, and has one of the best safety records in the sky.
Ja das war einmal. Seit dem der Umbau mit den großen Triebwerken statt gefunden hat gab es nur Probleme. Mit der alten Software 2 Total Verluste! @@stargazer7644
So what was the point of your video? We expected you to suggest what happened. But you just repeated what we know what news says. No point.
interesting video
If they don't yet know the reason the plug failed, what do they actually inspect? What if it's a design flaw and all they can check is that the plugs were installed as they were designed?
They don't anticipate a design flaw. This same door plug has been used on multiple variations of the 737 for over 20 years with zero problems. They've already determined the reason the plug came off the aircraft is because it lifted up and released. There are two bolts that are supposed to prevent that. So that means either the bolts somehow failed, or more likely they were never there. They're looking at the door plug for witness marks that would indicate if bolts were ever installed. Those bolts were not found with the recovered door plug.
@@stargazer7644 Right, the more I look into and understand the mechanism, the more I am convinced that the bolts were likely not installed. The looseness of the bolts should have no effect since the castle nut with a cotter pin should keep the bolts there to prevent the door from sliding up.
@@gang208Yep
Hostly either Alaska Airlines did something stupid or more likley Boeing all Boeing 737 max should be grounded indefinitely.
Boeing 737 max again🙄.... I wont be flying on one again thats for sure!
Boeing will be changing its name to Boing!
How close did it come to hitting the tail?
they found the panel in a local teachers back yard
That was Bob. Bob's a good man.
whats up with boeing. they had quite a lot of technical problems in the past years.
Confirmation bias.
This aircraft is the Chernobyl of USA (R.I.P).
I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather, not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Bob Monkhouse
It's a clean removal!! Looks like the adhesive failed, which if so is a serious serious issues as many items are bonded these days..
Was it the correct adhesive, applied correctly, fixed and cured correctly.. Obviously not..
Boeing really seems to have serious safety issues.
Adhesive? They don't glue door plugs in place.
@@stargazer7644 Maybe Boeing do! 😂
@@ShinyHelmet yeah, when they run out of duct-tape, they run over to the supermarket and get some glue :)
Door plug and two phones have been found