Door blew our midair Alaskan airlines.

a reply to: Scratchpost

At least one was after the aircraft was on the ground and taxiing to parking. The aircraft was removed from ETOPS, as it should have been, and checked over. The times it happened in flight they switched to manual pressurization and the problem resolved itself and the warning stopped.

The flight wasn’t full, so there happened to be no one in that seat. Even if they had been, with their belt on, they almost certainly would have stayed in their seat.

Boeing sent out the inspection process today, and so far United has found five aircraft with loose bolts.

The aircraft involved in this incident spent 10 days in Oklahoma City having a Wifi antenna installed. The pressure warnings began after installation. The United aircraft apparently have the same antenna, I believe by the same company. There's conflicting information as to whether the plug was removed for the installation, but it seems pretty coincidental that after having the work done, the aircraft develops pressurization problems.

originally posted by: Cavemannick
An alaskan airlines Boeing 737 max 8 had a door blowout, there were luckily minor injuries, loss f personal effects.

www.msn.com...


www.msn.com...

The aircraft was very new only several weeks old.

Apparently it was because of loose bolts and when other 737's bolts were checked, they too are loose, so it may be a system-wide product failure and a safety call will need to be issued. But really, the bolts holding the doors in place should be a top priority IMO. Sheesh.

Another reason I'll opt out of flying if at all possible.

a reply to: quintessentone

And if you read the post above yours, this aircraft, and possibly the United aircraft that have the loose bolts were worked on to install a WiFi antenna. I'm working to confirm that the plug was removed to do it, but the aircraft involved started having pressurization warnings after the antenna was installed. The United aircraft use the same company for their WiFi. The airlines would have no reason to check the plugs until a C check is performed.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: quintessentone

And if you read the post above yours, this aircraft, and possibly the United aircraft that have the loose bolts were worked on to install a WiFi antenna. I'm working to confirm that the plug was removed to do it, but the aircraft involved started having pressurization warnings after the antenna was installed. The United aircraft use the same company for their WiFi. The airlines would have no reason to check the plugs until a C check is performed.

Fair enough, but subsequently other 737's were checked and loose bolts were found with no mention of the installation of a WiFi antenna. Of course, this is under investigation so it may well turn out that the outcome could very well be attributed to the installation of that antennae, but what's going on with the others? Rather, it may be that the loose bolts attributed to the outcome in addition to the installation of the antennae. We will see.

a reply to: quintessentone

The United aircraft have the same antenna as the Alaska aircraft. That antenna is installed post delivery, and not by Boeing. It's one of several additions to the aircraft that are installed after. A lot of aircraft are delivered, and then go to a shop somewhere (fun note, Airbus are frequently delivered at Toulouse in France, and flown to Paine Field where Boeing is to have interiors installed) to have anything installed that Boeing doesn't do. In this case, the antennas were installed in OKC.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: quintessentone

The United aircraft have the same antenna as the Alaska aircraft. That antenna is installed post delivery, and not by Boeing. It's one of several additions to the aircraft that are installed after. A lot of aircraft are delivered, and then go to a shop somewhere (fun note, Airbus are frequently delivered at Toulouse in France, and flown to Paine Field where Boeing is to have interiors installed) to have anything installed that Boeing doesn't do. In this case, the antennas were installed in OKC.

I guess my point is no matter what else will be installed or not, shouldn't the bolts still hold the door on?

a reply to: quintessentone

Yes, but my point is jumping straight to blaming Boeing should wait until the investigation is complete. Yes, the bolts were definitely loose, but the question is at what point did it happen.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: quintessentone

Yes, but my point is jumping straight to blaming Boeing should wait until the investigation is complete. Yes, the bolts were definitely loose, but the question is at what point did it happen.

My point is it should never happen, no matter what. Anyway, we will see.

a reply to: quintessentone

Planes shouldn't crash due to human error. They do. As long as people are involved, things like this will happen.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: quintessentone

Planes shouldn't crash due to human error. They do. As long as people are involved, things like this will happen.

I don't dispute that, what I dispute is using products, such as faulty bolts, that don't do what they are suppose to do. Although rethinking the human error part, it is human error to select inferior products or adopt a system of securing the door that lends itself to fail.

a reply to: quintessentone

They weren't faulty. They're the same bolts that have been used for decades on other types that have the same plugs installed. They weren't tightened properly when the plug was reinstalled. Huge difference.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: quintessentone

They weren't faulty. They're the same bolts that have been used for decades on other types that have the same plugs installed. They weren't tightened properly when the plug was reinstalled. Huge difference.

That my point, using a bolt system which lends itself to failure on many levels. Why us the archaic bolt system on any aircraft where the chances of survival of potential system/manufacturing design failures will end up being zero? To keep costs down for the manufacturer?

"The plug is in my opinion a bad design, because it can blow out and did blow out in this case," Ditchey said, since it appears to have been bolted on from the outside, rather than wedged against the frame from within. "That troubles me greatly."

Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems said that they could not comment on the specifics of the door plug assembly given the ongoing NTSB investigation into the failure.

finance.yahoo.com...

Subject matter fact: the iPhone that was sucked out of the plane survived.

Here's a 737 door adjustment guide (not sure about year), anyway all that would be needed would be an inner bar to hold the door to the inside of the aircraft should any bolt fail and from what I'm reading only one plug on one bolt did fail and look what happened. Does the door open outwards? It should open inwards with perimeter lips to keep it in place, just my design idea so the door won't come off. Sheesh.

www.sjap.nl...

a reply to: quintessentone

The bolts have worked just fine for decades. This is the only plug that I, and others, can recall ever failing in this manner. One failure doesn't a faulty system make. And talking heads are going to say what people want to hear.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: quintessentone

The bolts have worked just fine for decades. This is the only plug that I, and others, can recall ever failing in this manner. One failure doesn't a faulty system make. And talking heads are going to say what people want to hear.

Well the design is faulty IMO and safety of passengers need to be priority one, not the company's bottom line.

a reply to: quintessentone

Yes, because one failure in 17+ years, across multiple types of aircraft (both Boeing and Airbus) is a faulty design. There is no such thing as a perfect design.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: quintessentone

Yes, because one failure in 17+ years, across multiple types of aircraft (both Boeing and Airbus) is a faulty design. There is no such thing as a perfect design.

On the news, quite a few other aircraft's inspections also show faulty/loose bolts. Tragedies waiting to happen IMO.

a reply to: quintessentone

"Quite a few others" according to the news could be anything from one to three. The problem has been found, and will be resolved.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: quintessentone

"Quite a few others" according to the news could be anything from one to three. The problem has been found, and will be resolved.

There 's more to this than this one incident.



If the force was enough to rip off the teen's shirt could that amount of force suck out a small baby/child not buckled up?