Non-Military Aviation

[Shyster]

I don't think it was quite that long, but people who have looked at the extended video say it was at least 40 seconds. It certainly looks like the Coast Guard aircraft entered the active without clearance, but there was likely time for ATC to catch the mistake and have JAL go around.

Another potential hole in the Swiss cheese is that I've seen reports that the C5 intersection had "stop bar" lights, but a NOTAM that was first posted on December 25, 2023 says they are out of service at multiple intersections including C5.

So it looks like we might have these holes line up:

- The Coast Guard crew mistakenly enters 34R without clearance.

- This is not detected by ATC.

- The stop-bar lights at C5 were inop, which would have shown a red "do not enter" signal if they were working.

- The incident was at night, and tests done as part of the investigation of the 1991 collision between a USAir 737 and a SkyWest Fairchild Metroliner at LAX showed that it's extremely difficult for a landing aircraft to see an aircraft on the runway at night because the nav lights on the aircraft just blend into all of the other lights. This was described in the Mayday episode on that accident (cued up below).

[shoeshine boy]

Imagine if that happened in the US. 300+ would be in hospitals with their PI attorney on speed dial.

the PI attorneys would've met them at the hospital.

[shafnutz05]

Holy ****

[tifosi77]

737 MAX9

[Shyster]

This particular aircraft was only delivered at the beginning of November and has been in service for maybe six weeks. This appears to be a case where a plugged exit door blew out.

The MAX 9 by default has two sets of doors at the front and rear of the cabin, two over-wing emergency exits on each side, and a third set of "mid" exit doors that's roughly 3/4 of the way down the cabin. The number of exits that an aircraft legally needs to have depends on the number of passengers carried, and that third set of doors is only needed if the MAX9 is in a "high density" configuration with a lot of seats. Many airlines (Alaska included) don't install that many seats, so it's typical for those airlines to have a plug installed into that door opening so that it is just another standard row of seats on the inside. Airbus does the same thing with the "cabin flex" versions of the A321neo; an airline can choose to have more seats and five sets of doors on their A321s, or fewer seats and four sets of doors, with the fifth set of doors plugged. Using a plug means that a future owner/operator could choose a different configuration.

Here, my bet would be some sort of manufacturing or installation defect on the plug. I don't think the plug design has changed from the 737-900ER, which also has a third set of "mid" exit doors that's very often plugged.

[tifosi77]

Well, they grounded the MAX9s not the ERs. (At least not yet, that I know of)

[Shyster]

I think the ERs have demonstrated that it's not a design defect. So they need to check the MAXes for installation or manufacturing defects.

From this post, it sure looks like the plug just cleanly popped out. I wonder if this is going to be something like there was a shift change in the middle of the plug being installed and like half the bolts weren't installed.

[Shyster]

A comprehensive description of all things 737 mid exit door.

[Shyster]

The door plug from the Alaskan flight has been recovered from a school teacher's garden outside Portland. People on the ground have also found a couple cell phones that were sucked out the opening. If I were Apple, I'd find this iPhone's owner so that I could use it in ads. Fell 16,000 ft and still working.

[dodint]

There is a discussion on another board I go to about how much horizontal velocity that phone had at impact. The idea is that the only way it survives is if it scrubs speed on soft ground by not impacting straight down.

[Shyster]

Well, at least it's not sounding like a design defect. I'm thinking whoever has the job to install and torque those bolts (and anyone whose job is to inspect the first person's work) has some explaining to do.

[dodint]

Let down by a pro nut tugger. Shame.

[NTP66]

This is just **** scary.

[dodint]

Yeah, we know.

[Ad@m]

[shoeshine boy]

I'm surprised that it took this long......

[dodint]

That was the first lawsuit filed against Alaska Airlines. There was an earlier lawsuit filed against Boeing.

[Ad@m]

[tifosi77]

A 'softball sized hole' in the #2 engine.

[Shyster]

[dodint]

Not sure what the big deal is, I go to Wendy's all the time.

[dodint]

The Federal Aviation Administration is recommending that airlines visually inspect the door plugs of more Boeing planes after a similar panel blew off a jet in midair earlier this month.

The safety alert issued late Sunday recommends that airlines operating Boeing's 737-900ER jets inspect the door plugs "as soon as possible" to make sure they're properly secured after some airlines reported unspecified issues with the bolts.

The 737-900ER is not part of Boeing's newer Max series, but it has the same optional door plug design as the Boeing 737 Max 9, according to the FAA.

Sucks to suck, Boeing.

[NTP66]

Source of the post some airlines reported unspecified issues with the bolts

Unspecified my balls. Specify the precise issue, losers.

[tifosi77]

This is a systemic fault. Whether that's anything inherent to the design or process (or both) is not yet clear.

[dodint]

They're going to blame Malaysia is my guess. The panels were made there but somehow the torque setting is their fault.