AS Flight1282: Another Boeing 737 MAX crisis

Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Devil's Advocate

⠀⠀⠀
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
14,128
Location
⠀⠀⠀TX
This video omits most of the regulator statements and some of the in-flight video but does a decent job of covering what we know.



I'm glad they're insisting on more inspections instead of waiting for things to snowball but I would much prefer that the NTSB spoke in concise technical terms and let the journalists dumb it down with clumsy metaphors. I find it disconcerting when the NTSB gives meandering kindergarten descriptions that rely on journalists to fill in the technical details. That approach just makes no sense to me.
 
Last edited:
Devil's Advocate said:
This video omits most of the regulator statements and some of the in-flight video but does a decent job of covering what we know.



I'm glad they're insisting on more inspections instead of waiting for things to snowball but I would much prefer that the NTSB spoke in concise technical terms and let the journalists dumb it down with clumsy metaphors. I find it disconcerting when the NTSB gives meandering kindergarten descriptions that rely on journalists to fill in the technical details. That approach just makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

Ummmm, that's the problem with citizen journalists. The story is developing beyond press conferences. Admmitedly, I only watched bits and pieces of the video, but I think I got the idea. No offense, I'm just crusading for journalism. 🤠

Much information has been reported from public and confidential sources. The NY Times seems to leading, though I expect the Seattle Times to be right there with Dominic Gates. The Washington Post long ago lost its ace avaiation reporter. The NYT reports that the same pressurization warning light flashed on previous flights of the same plane, leading Alaska to restrict it to flights over land, and that Alaska was working with the FAA on it before the mishap. Other information roiling out of reddit comes from whose knows where, about the manufacturing chain, and recent maintenance. The black boxes are toast, because no one could switch them off before the tape recycled. Etc.
 
So I am starting to go in a conspiracy mode on this event.

The flight recorder was a 2 hour one, that was overwritten when the NTSB arrived.

The seats next to this plug were empty.

Is it possible that Alaska knew where the problem was?

Is it possible that during taxi the airplane did not pressurize, or the warning lamp came on indicating a problem. The flight crew saw it and been aware of the previous issue just when for it. Thinking it was a fault? The overwritten black box is my concern here. What happened that the flight crew, or airlines felt need to hide it from the investigators.

Just-Thinking-51 said:
Delay, confuse, obstruct the information. Seem be SOP of our society.
Click to expand...

A member like this statement this morning, and it just cemented the idea that airline and the flight crew knew or did something really wrong and stupid.
 
Just-Thinking-51 said:
So I am starting to go in a conspiracy mode on this event.

The flight recorder was a 2 hour one, that was overwritten when the NTSB arrived.

The seats next to this plug were empty.

Is it possible that Alaska knew where the problem was?
Click to expand...
Perhaps not conspiracy mode, however the possibility of improper investigation of a "faulty" indicator light on more than one prior occasion was raised by an "aviation expert" on last night's news. It sounds like the indicator light might have been reporting an actual fault. Apparently there was enough concern to remove this particular plane from its normal overwater route (Hawaii). If either of these things are true it does suggest a flawed process by the airline when they had some concern but did not dig deep enough.

OTOH this latest episode does nothing to enhance the reputation of this family of aircraft. I did have to chuckle when both major Canadian airlines issued public statements that they did not have any of this model in their fleets, when in fact they both fly the Max8 which has had its share of attention.
 
Last edited:
Just-Thinking-51 said:
The flight recorder was a 2 hour one, that was overwritten when the NTSB arrived.
Click to expand...
Because flight recorders record continuously, until electrically plugged off. The priority was the safety of those on board, maintenance accessed the aircraft about 2 hours after the incident occured.
EU/EASA require a 25 hours recording capacity (decided in 2015 for aircraft built from 2021 onwards), FAA proposed the same a few weeks ago.
Just-Thinking-51 said:
The seats next to this plug were empty.
Click to expand...
Pure luck to me
Just-Thinking-51 said:
Is it possible that Alaska knew where the problem was?
Click to expand...
No. Such incident is already a PR nightmare for an airline, and had the accident occured at a higher altitude, the plane would have litterally exploded. There's no way they were flying the aircraft knowing this was the problem.
Just-Thinking-51 said:
Is it possible that during taxi the airplane did not pressurize, or the warning lamp came on indicating a problem. The flight crew saw it and been aware of the previous issue just when for it. Thinking it was a fault?
Click to expand...
No, pressurization only begins at a few thousand feets of altitude, not on the ground (which is why a passenger could open the door while in-flight on an Asiana flight in May 2023: the cabin wasn't pressurized at the altitude at which the aircraft was).
Just-Thinking-51 said:
The overwritten black box is my concern here. What happened that the flight crew, or airlines felt need to hide it from the investigators.
Click to expand...
Nothing.
 
One of the big picture issues for me, is whether this is a sign that the real cost of maintaining flight services is more than is accounted for. Basically, whether there is a big backlog of maintenance problems that are slowly creeping forward, much companies feel economic pressure to keep costs to the minimum. If maintenance was really being carried out to a sustainable standard, what would that do the visible cost of flying.
It is hard to know, because the finances of how airlines work can be pretty opaque. My own feeling is that air travel has many hidden costs, but that many of these costs will become apparent, both financially, and in terms of accidents like this.
 
Matthew H Fish said:
One of the big picture issues for me, is whether this is a sign that the real cost of maintaining flight services is more than is accounted for. Basically, whether there is a big backlog of maintenance problems that are slowly creeping forward, much companies feel economic pressure to keep costs to the minimum. If maintenance was really being carried out to a sustainable standard, what would that do the visible cost of flying.
It is hard to know, because the finances of how airlines work can be pretty opaque. My own feeling is that air travel has many hidden costs, but that many of these costs will become apparent, both financially, and in terms of accidents like this.
Click to expand...
It's too soon to tell if this was neglect by the airline or a manufacturing defect. Once that is established a massive fine will provide an incentive to the guilty party to do better and set an example for others. Until that time there should be a flurry of due diligence and inspections. Thankfully this isn't being discussed after an accident with fatalities.
 
Boeing has had serious quality control problems in their manufacture of airplanes ever since the Mc Donnell Douglas takeover. The history of the 787 was one screw-up after another in manufacturing, leading at least one airline to refuse delivery on any 787s from South Carolina and insisting instead on ones out of Everett. And the 737 Max? Well, the history there speaks for itself, sadly.

This particular case is almost certainly not a maintenance issue--the aircraft was virtually brand-new--but rather a quality control issue in manufacturing and assembly. The fact that Alaska and United both found other aircraft with loose bolts on the emergency door plug is pretty strong evidence of an assembly defect. My husband worked at Boeing for more than thirty years, and would have likely worked there still were it not for the frustrating current emphasis on cost-cutting from the top. He meets every few weeks with a group of retired and soon-to-retire engineers, and one of them--who relocated to the Wichita Spirit plant a few years back--retired in disgust at what he felt were slip-shod quality control issues there.

In an ironic sidenote, a few days before this incident, Boeing was petitioning the FAA to exempt the Max 7 from safety inspections and allow it to fly without them. Good luck on that, now!
 
AmtrakMaineiac said:
The NTSB has recommended to the FAA that flight recorders be increased to 25 hours which is the standard in Europe.
Click to expand...
25 hour flight recorders have been in new aircraft for a long time. Now voice recorders is another matter. Voice recorders started out as only 30 minutes but somewhere in the past went to 2 hours. NTSB has recommended the 25 hour voice recorders. The problem of recorders is the storage medium.

The 30 minute recorders were continuous wire recorders. Early flight recorders used a foil based system that lasted 600 - 800 hours but could only record 5 parameters. Digitial storage now records hundreds of items. However there always is the problem of fire resistance and to a lesser extent water damage. The boxes have been improved over the years for fire and water resistance but always there is that problem as noted. Opening any recorder immersed in water especially salt water is a laborious process. It is a special lab that performs that work.

All my airline experience always said to pull CB after landing whenever there was an incident that might require NTSB or FAA access once last pilot leaves cockpit. Why the crew did not pull CB only they can provide!

The flight recorder will certainly give info on what the pressurization system alerts were all about. As well the exact differential pressure of the cabin to outside.
 
Last edited:
flitcraft said:
Boeing has had serious quality control problems in their manufacture of airplanes ever since the Mc Donnell Douglas takeover. The history of the 787 was one screw-up after another in manufacturing, leading at least one airline to refuse delivery on any 787s from South Carolina and insisting instead on ones out of Everett. And the 737 Max? Well, the history there speaks for itself, sadly.

This particular case is almost certainly not a maintenance issue--the aircraft was virtually brand-new--but rather a quality control issue in manufacturing and assembly. The fact that Alaska and United both found other aircraft with loose bolts on the emergency door plug is pretty strong evidence of an assembly defect. My husband worked at Boeing for more than thirty years, and would have likely worked there still were it not for the frustrating current emphasis on cost-cutting from the top. He meets every few weeks with a group of retired and soon-to-retire engineers, and one of them--who relocated to the Wichita Spirit plant a few years back--retired in disgust at what he felt were slip-shod quality control issues there.

In an ironic sidenote, a few days before this incident, Boeing was petitioning the FAA to exempt the Max 7 from safety inspections and allow it to fly without them. Good luck on that, now!
Click to expand...
You described what I have been thinking about this event. I grew up aware of what pride the Boeing people had in their engineering and the final product. My first thought when I heard NPR covering the loose bolts was of how disappointed career Boeing veterans must be. My second thought was of how many companies have suffered after moving their headquarters and/or production. There'd be nothing wrong with that, IF they paid attention to what they were doing.
 
Willbridge said:
You described what I have been thinking about this event. I grew up aware of what pride the Boeing people had in their engineering and the final product. My first thought when I heard NPR covering the loose bolts was of how disappointed career Boeing veterans must be. My second thought was of how many companies have suffered after moving their headquarters and/or production. There'd be nothing wrong with that, IF they paid attention to what they were doing.
Click to expand...
Indeed, I have suspected that the move of Boeing headquarters to Chicago, and then to Washington DC, was intended to insulate the top corporate folks from the opinions and perspectives of the engineers and machinists and give the executives a freer hand to re-make Boeing in their preferred image. Moving production away from Seattle facilitated the hiring of cheaper workers--less experienced and less inclined to unionize. Outsourcing component manufacturing meant reducing the overhead in manufacturing facilities and taking price advantage of bidding suppliers. None of that had, necessarily, to impact safety, but the culture of cost-containment as the primary consideration, coupled with giving up direct control over much of the manufacturing process, meant that safety problems could more easily occur. And they have, unfortunately.
 
Just-Thinking-51 said:
So I am starting to go in a conspiracy mode on this event.

The flight recorder was a 2 hour one, that was overwritten when the NTSB arrived.

The seats next to this plug were empty.

Is it possible that Alaska knew where the problem was?

Is it possible that during taxi the airplane did not pressurize, or the warning lamp came on indicating a problem. The flight crew saw it and been aware of the previous issue just when for it. Thinking it was a fault? The overwritten black box is my concern here. What happened that the flight crew, or airlines felt need to hide it from the investigators.



A member like this statement this morning, and it just cemented the idea that airline and the flight crew knew or did something really wrong and stupid.
Click to expand...

The pilots had just endured a terrifying experience, where the cockpit door was ripped open, their headsets ripped off, and checklists flew out. After safely landing the plane, they forgot to pull the breakers on the CVR. This is a forgivable mistake.

As for the seat being empty: there were 7 empty seats on the plane, and Alaska uses assigned seating. People sometimes look for different seats at check-in, or what is more likely: a couple seated here got upgraded to premium economy or first.
 
What is very disturbing is UAL found some loose bolts. Cannot believe no one was seriously injured by all the flying parts of the aircraft going out the missing doorway? Neck injuries may show up later. The study of the various parts field that fell to the ground will be a study for months. How far cockpit items v seat parts for example. Wonder how long it took inside pressure to equal outside pressure?

How items are placed in cockpits is one thing. Wonder if pilots had any trouble getting hold of oxygen masks if they were pulled from their access locations? Lot of lessons to be learned here.
 
jiml said:
It's too soon to tell if this was neglect by the airline or a manufacturing defect. Once that is established a massive fine will provide an incentive to the guilty party to do better and set an example for others. Until that time there should be a flurry of due diligence and inspections. Thankfully this isn't being discussed after an accident with fatalities.
Click to expand...

flitcraft said:
My husband worked at Boeing for more than thirty years, and would have likely worked there still were it not for the frustrating current emphasis on cost-cutting from the top.
Click to expand...

If it is a manufacturing problem, it still reflects back to how much people are willing to pay for air travel, because the cost of manufacturing a plane is going to go to the airline that pays for the plane, which is then going to be paid for by customers in ticket prices.
Of course, that is an oversimplification, because it is possible for an equipment manufacturer to do everything by the book, and for their still to be a problem because of employee error, but, ceteris paribus, the more money the manufacturer spends to triple check every aspect of the manufacturing process, the more likely the final product will be closer to perfect, and the more of that cost will be passed along to passengers.
 
Matthew H Fish said:
One of the big picture issues for me, is whether this is a sign that the real cost of maintaining flight services is more than is accounted for. Basically, whether there is a big backlog of maintenance problems that are slowly creeping forward, much companies feel economic pressure to keep costs to the minimum. If maintenance was really being carried out to a sustainable standard, what would that do the visible cost of flying.
It is hard to know, because the finances of how airlines work can be pretty opaque. My own feeling is that air travel has many hidden costs, but that many of these costs will become apparent, both financially, and in terms of accidents like this.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The fact that it is a manufacturing problem means we're seeing it go all the way up the supply chain to airliner manufacturers, it has gotten quite ugly. Its not just maintenance, either: its the design philosophy: the 737 is based on a 70 year old airframe that dates back to the original 707. How many years has Boeing been cashing in on its reputation and milking this ancient design? The 737-NG was definitely the last viable generation; already, issues were coming up. Can you imagine the hue and cry if the original EMD F-T was still the basis of locomotives hauling trains in this country?
 
With just a few empty seats how no one was seated by the plug is unbelievable. I can imagine that the NTSB will want to talk to as many passengers as possible that flew in that airplane near the exit in the past.

Many of my 737 pilot friends do not like the placement of the engines. The MCAS method to prevent nose up stalls is still IMO faulty. Pilots want a stable aircraft with failure of almost everything inop. Boeing could have used the same 737 fuselage design that is on the 757 with its higher wings and landing gear with the engines in the correct position.
 
Last edited:
There's a lot of history behind the various 737 designs, but a major factor is having a standard type rating across airframes. A type rating shows that a pilot has been carefully trained, tested, and kept current on all aspects of flying that particular aircraft. Maintaining pilot type ratings across many airframes is expensive and time consuming. We all remember the days when airlines proudly displayed lists of dozens of types of planes, now it is common to have very few. To the best of my knowledge, Southwest only flies a single type rating.

Boeing and the airlines worked together to make planes as similar as possible, so both share responsibility for the decision to milk the 737 for so long. The size and range of a 737 is just about perfect for many regional airlines, and there is little incentive to change it. I don't think we'll see a major new midsize aircraft until the economics of something like a flying wing make the change essential.
 
AFriendly said:
Agreed. The fact that it is a manufacturing problem means we're seeing it go all the way up the supply chain to airliner manufacturers, it has gotten quite ugly. Its not just maintenance, either: its the design philosophy: the 737 is based on a 70 year old airframe that dates back to the original 707.
Click to expand...

I think the rise of LCC and ULCC also has a lot to do with it, as well as Google Flights.
Back when the big airlines were big and institutional, they could basically afford to enforce standards, because people had high loyalty to established carriers, and also bought their tickets through travel agents (remember travel agents?). But now, when people can pop on Google Flights and pick the cheapest flight price, there is pressure to keep costs down. Because the average passenger is not going to be asking questions about what type of airplane is flying, or whether the company has a good maintenance department---they are going to see whether there flight from Minneapolis to Atlanta saves them an extra $20. (And of course, I am guilty of this too).
(This is one line of reasoning---of course, an obvious counterargument is that when airlines did have more control, large scale accidents were more common! So there might be more to think about here!)
 
Large scale accidents, especially in the US, are extremely rare because, against all corporate odds and political shenanigans, the FAA actually does a pretty decent job of enforcing safety standards. Together with the NTSB, we've wrung just about all risk out of flying. There are always going to be exceptions, news stories and scandals but they are noteworthy largely because they are so rare. Your drive to the airport is many times more dangerous than your flight.
 
Matthew H Fish said:
I think the rise of LCC and ULCC also has a lot to do with it, as well as Google Flights.
Click to expand...
Neither airlines nor search engines manufacture aircraft. If there are manufacturing defects, that's the fault of the... manufacturer.

Maintenance and reliability is of a major importance for LC airlines: they fly their aircrafts on a tight schedule, and any delay caused by poor maintenance costs way more in passenger rerouting / refunds that what has been saved on not doing the maintenance correctly.
 
slasher-fun said:
Neither airlines nor search engines manufacture aircraft. If there are manufacturing defects, that's the fault of the... manufacturer.

Maintenance and reliability is of a major importance for LC airlines: they fly their aircrafts on a tight schedule, and any delay caused by poor maintenance costs way more in passenger rerouting / refunds that what has been saved on not doing the maintenance correctly.
Click to expand...
About an hour ago, I bought ten eggs from a convenience store. I didn't ask the cashier, but I assume they weren't produced on site.
But seriously, I think what I was saying was a pretty obvious Econ 101 idea--- consumers put pressure on retailers, retailers put pressure on wholesalers, wholesalers put pressure on raw material suppliers. When a customer in a supermarket chooses between two brands of spaghetti, and chooses the one that costs 10 cents less, the other brand is going to find a way to cut costs, and that is going to go down the supply chain to the mills and eventually the farmers. It is not as cut and dried as in a textbook, but it is an obvious economic fact.
It is a lot less obvious in an environment like air travel, where there is a decades long development process, and the items being sold (airplanes) are not as easy to increment, but it is still true that consumers exert price pressure on airlines, and airlines exert price pressure on manufacturers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top