Image Source: Unsplash
 

In the wake of yet another cost-cutting Boeing (BA) fiasco, one must wonder what the top priority is at Boeing.
 

Boeing 737 MAX 9s Grounded

The Seattle Times reports Boeing 737 MAX 9s Grounded After Alaska Airlines In-Flight Blowout.

Following the serious incident Friday when a part of a Boeing 737 MAX 9 fuselage blew out at 16,000 feet on an Alaska Airlines flight out of Portland, the authorities on Saturday ordered the grounding of all similar aircraft operated by U.S. airlines.

Depressurization followed after a section of fuselage meant to plug a gap where an emergency exit could be installed fell away from the aircraft in the air, leaving a gaping hole in the plane’s main cabin.

This was an almost new MAX 9. Boeing delivered the jet to Alaska less than 10 weeks earlier, on Oct. 31.

On Saturday, Alaska Airlines said that in the days before Friday’s in-flight incident pilots had filed several reports of intermittent warning lights that indicated some loss of cabin pressure on the jet.

Jason Lai, Alaska’s managing director of engineering, said these pressurization warnings were written up and “resolved per approved maintenance procedures.” As a result of those write-ups, the plane was then restricted from long-distance flying out over water, he said, but otherwise allowed to fly.

A door cutout, though there is no door

The rectangular hole, almost 2 feet wide and 4 feet high, that appeared in the fuselage was located at the position where Boeing fits a plug to seal a door opening that is not used as a door by most airlines and by no U.S. carriers.

Only jets going to low-cost carriers like Ryanair have an emergency door installed in that location. Because such airlines cram in additional seats, regulations require an extra emergency exit.

But for production efficiency, this door hole is cut out on all the MAX 9s. For most airlines it is then sealed with a plug.

It appears that’s the moment when the plug blew out and passengers saw a gaping hole, felt a rush of air leaving the cabin, and saw the oxygen masks drop from the ceiling as the passenger cabin depressurized.

Alaska said Saturday that there was no one seated in the window seat by the hole, nor in the middle seat. A male passenger was in the aisle seat and across the aisle from him were a young adult and a teenager.

Photos taken by passengers show that the leather padding around the window seat by the hole was gone, sucked out with the air.

Passenger Nicholas Hoch, a 33-year-old architect, told Bloomberg News the decompression sucked the shirt off a teenage boy in the row ahead of the fuselage hole, leaving him with some abrasions.

In an interview Saturday, independent airline industry consultant Bob Mann said, “that makes me wonder if it was ever properly fastened.” Mann said the lack of any deformation around the hole in the fuselage makes it look like the initial cause may be “a Spirit quality control issue.”

MAX fuselages supplied by Spirit last year featured a stream of various defects, including improperly drilled holes in the aft pressure bulkhead and fittings that attach the vertical fin to the fuselage that didn’t conform to the specification. However Boeing has ultimate responsibility for the aircraft. The plug should have been inspected in Renton before the sidewall was installed to cover it.

Lai, Alaska’s managing director of engineering, said via email that “these types of aircraft pressurization system write ups are typical in large aircraft commercial aviation operations. In every case, the write up was fully evaluated and resolved per approved maintenance procedures and in full compliance with all applicable FAA regulations,” he added.

“Safety is our top priority,” Boeing said in a statement Saturday. “We deeply regret the impact this event has had on our customers and their passengers.”

Major Design Flaws

On March 17, 2019, I commented Boeing 737 Max Major Design Flaws, Not a Software Failure

Short Synopsis

1. Boeing 737 Max aircraft have aerodynamic and engineering design flaws
2. The sensors that can detect potential problems were not reliable. There are two sensors but the Boeing design only used one of them.
3. Boeing cut corners to save money
4. To save even more money, Boeing allowed customers to order the planes without warning lights. The planes that crashed didn’t have those warning lights.
5. There were pilot training and maintenance log issues.
6. Finally, the regulators got into bed with companies they were supposed to regulate

Airline Pilots Respond

Also, please consider my April 25, 2019 post Airline Pilots Respond to “Boeing 737 Max Unsafe to Fly”: It’s Not Just Boeing

Hello Mish,

I was the Captain of QF72 in October, 2008. The Air Data and Flight Control Computers teamed up to generate automation confusion and then maneuvered my Airbus A330 in similar fashion to the MAX accidents. 119 passengers and crew were injured and a Mayday declared for emergency divert to Learmonth airfield in Western Australia.

This article you have posted is the best so far on the MAX accidents.

I have written a book about my accident flight entitled, “No Man’s Land: The Untold Story of Automation and QF72“. It will be released next month through Harper Collins publishers, and I see Amazon will have it too.

I lay it on the line, with a few stories from my US Navy days and the training I received there that helped me save the day. I am lucky to be a survivor of this colossal failure of technology.

There is more to come from all of this.

Cheers,

Kevin Sullivan

Several other pilots and airline experts responded to my article. 

Safety Clearly Not the Top Priority

If safety was the top priority, the Boeing Max would not exist at all.

More By This Author:

Government + Social Assistance Accounted For Nearly 60% Of All Jobs In 2023
Jobs Up 216,000 But Employment Down 683,000 Job Revisions -71,000
Debt Jumps Past $34 Trillion, $1 Trillion Interest, Another Budget Showdown Looms