Vry treu - albeit different from the software / hardware issesu for the Max 8.
Hard hats to become mandatory for everyone under the flight path of a 737 Max.
Clearly the “Max” is short for “MAXIMUM DAMAGE”
And 2(?) of the 'phones that went for their own flight!
I’ve been trying to find the engineering spec for securing the door - I think that it should be 4 bolts to fix it in place.
Same worrying [allegations here](Mike Jenvey 35kg for manual handling? That’s heavy… Industries I’ve worked in use 12kg or 7kg at full reach, but I guess the consequences are far more severe… Oh, an interesting interview here, your thoughts on the allegations made? https://truthout.org/video/workers-at-boeing-subcontractor-told-to-falsify-records-new-investigation-finds).
The gift that just keeps giving!
1 Like
Chatting with a certified aircraft techie today.
Seem likely that the plug door (if “isolated” - not needed for aircraft configuration) is actually not secured, the door / operating mechanisms remain live, but are merely covered over by the cabin fittings.
This allows speedy change to a different configuration (more pax = additional emergency exit).
Isn’t the simplest and quickest solution here just to change the plugs for actual doors, with a quick move around of the seats to accommodate the extra exit?
I’d assume yes, but that costs you seats. Very expensive.
Probably cheaper than paying compensation if someone were to be sucked out of an open hole in the fuselage though.
Commercially, it’s a loss either way - & if my source is correct (don’t think that they are wrong), the “plugs” are actually doors in situ anyway, so no new plug needed (which most probably would require certification = very expensive).
Activate the door = lose at least 3 seats?
The only real reason to activate the door is if the seat pitch is changed to allow more seats (current seating plan for Air Alaska = 188 seats overall - first, premium & economy in this fit). If it goes over 200 seats total, then another flight attendant would be needed, in simple terms it’s one FA per 50 pax. Not up to speed on the FAA requirements for number of exits versus number of pax.
The A380, like a lot of Emirates aircraft, you can always use the forward facing camera.
It gets better again for Boeing!
To be fair, that is an operational hazard for all aircraft, so I wouldn’t want to pin that down on a Boeing fault. Depending on which layer of laminate has failed, then the severity will change - do nothing, reduce pressurisation differential, etc.
However, if it was subsequently found for example that the aircraft electrical system wasn’t heating up the gold film layer(s) without giving any associated warning to crew, that would be a different matter!
EDIT - this, however, is a huge commercial embarrassment.
US authorities are stepping up oversight of Boeing’s manufacturing line a week after a door plug broke off one of its planes mid-flight.
The head of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said he believed there were “significant problems” with the 737-9 Max jet as well as “other manufacturing problems”.
Boeing to increase quality inspections of 737 Max production Boeing to increase quality inspections of 737 Max production - BBC News