Alaska Airlines grounding fleet of Boeing 737 Max jets for inspection after emergency landing

[billymach4]

Dan Gryder another YouTube Pilot.... Very interesting character...

 

[JIMinNC]

Anyone in aviation will tell you stories about Dan Gryder. He is a notorious figure - a former Delta pilot who has had multiple run ins with the FAA and general law enforcement. He spent time in jail for trying to run over law enforcement with his vintage DC-3 airliner and has been found liable for defamation. Since "leaving" Delta and having his license suspended by the FAA, he has made a new career of "instant" analysis of aviation accidents on his YouTube channel. He seems to have a vendetta against the aviation establishment - FAA, airlines, general aviation safety organizations, etc. - and you can bet he will find a way to blame every accident or incident on failings of the FAA, airlines, etc.

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/delta-suspends-jailed-pilot/kNz1A9uDMWVK106R6xOPnL/

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...s-court-orders-youtuber-to-pay-for-defamation

Interesting sidebar...back in 2008, before he became infamous, I had the opportunity at an airshow to fly in a multi-plane formation with Dan Gryder flying his DC-3. In the pictures below, Gryder is flying the silver and red twin engine DC-3 that is leading the formation and I am in the back seat of one of several Yak-52s and Nanchang CJ-6s that were flying on his wing. I believe the DC-3 he was flying that day may be the same one in which he tried to run over law enforcement in Georgia about 18 months later.

 

[TheHolleys87]

We do the same with cases. This last case has a lever on the back that folds out. I guess it's a kick stand. I don't like it. Too bulky.

Bill

Because I know from experience that I'll drop my phone, for my iPhone 14 last year I bought an Otterbox case with an integrated PopSocket. It provides a pretty secure grip - I've never dropped the phone when I was clutching it with the PopSocket, but I have had it flip out of my hand and onto the floor when I was picking it up without using the PopSocket. The disadvantage is that it can't be used with a Qi charger - it's too thick. Otterbox apparently ended its partnership with PopSocket and now for the iPhone 15s has a pop-out grip of a different design that can be used with a mag-safe charger.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

While they build them, Spirit does not complete the final assembly and mounting of these plugs in the sealed position. This is because Boeing utilizes these access points during final assembly of the aircraft. The final installation (and confirmation) of the plugs' mounted upper and lower locking bolts would be done by Boeing prior to delivery.

Information coming out now indicates that the plugs are installed by Spirit in Wichita. Apparently, Spirit ships the completely assembled fuselage by train to Boeing from the Wichita plant.

 

[x3 skier]

Dan Gryder is at best a buffoon and at worst, well, I’d rather not say lest he sue me.

 

[davidvel]

Information coming out now indicates that the plugs are installed by Spirit in Wichita. Apparently, Spirit ships the completely assembled fuselage by train to Boeing from the Wichita plant.

Yes, it seems the current posture of Boeing is that Spirit messed something up and Boeing didn't catch it. There is still some debate as to whether Boeing would open the plug, which requires the 4 lock bolts to be removed (and obviously should be later replaced when closed.)

Some people are arguing that the doors and plugs need to be opened after painting so that the paint doesn't form a seal or bridge across the adjoining surfaces. Others have adamantly said, no, Boeing does not open the plug.

What seems clear is that either way, Boeing is tasked with checking that everything is in place. A recent story says that 3 of the 4 bolts securing a roller guide on the RIGHT SIDE plug had to be tightened by Boeing in Renton, when they should have been tight from Spirit. There are obviously serious QC issues with Spirit and Boeing. The NTSB conclusions will be a good (or bad depending on perspective) read.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

What seems clear is that either way, Boeing is tasked with checking that everything is in place.

Bingo! In my 40+ years of contracting for professional services, it's always been clear that a prime still bears responsibility for the performance of subs.

To return to one of my prior posts, IMNSHO, this is another example of the damage that was done by Harry Stonecipher and his McD cohorts when they proceeded to wreak the same havoc at Boeing that they did at McD. A sarcastic summation of Boeing's acquisition of McD is that McD, aided by incompetent Boeing management, was able to engineer a buyout of Boeing by McD using Boeing money. It has always been baffling why a bunch of suits who drove one aerospace company into the ground, to the point where their company needed to be rescued, would be given similar management control of another, much larger, aerospace company. How did that pass muster?? What was going in the Board of Directors of Boeing to allow that to happen?

There was a time when there was a popular saying by air travelers - "I'm not going if it's not Boeing." Who would ever make that statement now????

 

[billymach4]

Now it's more like "If it Boeing I ain't going". Agree that it's truly deplorable how Boeing has lost it's way. Both in market share to Airbus and loss of Quality Control.

 

[billymach4]

Dan Gryder is at best a buffoon and at worst, well, I’d rather not say lest he sue me.

I can say it. JackAss!

 

[kiko412]

This is what it looks like from inside (note distance of windows in front and rear).

 

[x3 skier]

The sky is not falling (just a door )

Flying in America Has Actually Never Been Safer

U.S. airlines have gone nearly 15 years without a fatal crash—and it’s not just luck. The revolution in the skies began with an innovative program that has become a model for the rest of the world.

www.wsj.com

 

[davidvel]

This is what it looks like from inside (note distance of windows in front and rear).View attachment 86995

Also look for the "Rapid Plug Ejection Button" on the center armrest.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Boeing and U.S. aerospace set back by Alaska Airlines fuselage blowout

When a door-sized section of a 737 MAX 9 fuselage exploded out into the sky over Portland, Boeing's once-solid reputation took another heavy blow.

www.seattletimes.com

Sadly, the individuals who were responsible for eviscerating Boeing's safety and engineering culture are now retired and living comfortably on their pensions, retirement bonuses, and the cashed-in stock perks for their short-term inflation of stock prices, while steering the company into an abyss from which it may not recover.

 

[davidvel]

Boeing and U.S. aerospace set back by Alaska Airlines fuselage blowout

When a door-sized section of a 737 MAX 9 fuselage exploded out into the sky over Portland, Boeing's once-solid reputation took another heavy blow.

www.seattletimes.com

Sadly, the individuals who were responsible for eviscerating Boeing's safety and engineering culture are now retired and living comfortably on their pensions, retirement bonuses, and the cashed-in stock perks for their short-term inflation of stock prices, while steering the company into an abyss from which it may not recover.

Caution: PAYWALL

There are lots of Boeing hit pieces from longstanding Boeing critics. Not that criticism isn't warranted, but if you read the news, a broken cockpit window, birdstrike, or flat tire on any Boeing aircraft that isn't the Max will then lead into a Max discussion.

This is simply the reality of media today, where social influencers being paid by the company can revive a 14 year old Stanley mug as some miraculous new-fangled hydroflask that makes Karens fight in the aisles at target for the long forgotten product.

I sincerely hope that one of the best selling and efficient aircraft can be an aircraft that is safe and meets all regulatory requirements and is as safe as possible. I think this can and will occur. If not, Boeing will need a takeover.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Caution: PAYWALL

There are lots of Boeing hit pieces from longstanding Boeing critics. Not that criticism isn't warranted, but if you read the news, a broken cockpit window, birdstrike, or flat tire on any Boeing aircraft that isn't the Max will then lead into a Max discussion.

This is simply the reality of media today, where social influencers being paid by the company can revive a 14 year old Stanley mug as some miraculous new-fangled hydroflask that makes Karens fight in the aisles at target for the long forgotten product.

I sincerely hope that one of the best selling and efficient aircraft can be an aircraft that is safe and meets all regulatory requirements and is as safe as possible. I think this can and will occur. If not, Boeing will need a takeover.

But that's not what I'm talking about. "A broken cockpit window, birdstrike, or flat tire" is just random stuff that happens.

The bigger issue is the engineering culture changes that were wrought inside Boeing after the McDonnell-Douglas acquisition. Using a broad brush (which means looking at large scale picture and not individual details), Boeing historically had been known and recognized as an engineering driven organization, where the focus was on making sure things were done right, even if it cost more money or might be less efficient.

When the McD suits came in, the initial alternatives filter was no longer the best ways to address the problem, but what are the cheapest options to address the option. Then once those cheapest options are identifed, how do we manage the residual risks. The big difference with the McD approach is that you never ask the question of whether the proposed cost-cutting strategy is the overall wiser decision. The cost-cutting decision starts as a given, and the impacts of having made that decision is ignored.

Two specific examples of that.

• As I have discussed upthread, the problem with the MCAS on the MAX series is a direct result of allowing a cost-cutting decision to override basic safety engineering principles. I have done a bit of work professionally on auditing process safety management systems at chemical management facilities, and a similar decision made at a chemical processing facility would have produced an audit finding tagged with a high level of importance for followup.
• The decision to use carbon fiber composite instead of metals in constructing the MAX, while simultaneously deciding to outsource production of components, including the carbon fiber composites. This might have been reasonable if Boeing already had expertize in aircraft production using composites, so that they could work with and review the performance of subcontractors. So, Boeing was coming up the learning curve at the same time that sucontractors were coming up the curve. The failures of this decision led to massive delays in deliveries, along with hits to Boeing's reputation.

This has nothing to do with random incidents. These are systemic issues, reflective of the changes that have occurred in Boeing's internal culture. This kind of stuff doesn't happen in a business that says the most important thing is to get it right.

That difference is key to how Boeing took supremacy in commercial aircraft from McD and other companies in the 1960s. And then, bewilderingly, the people who implemented that failed strategy at McD were allowed to take control of Boeing and do to Boeing what they already done to McD.

IMHO - Boeing has a huge hurdle ahead of them. Thay have managed to go from the aircraft manufacturer of choice to the aircraft manufacturer of chance. At this point, if pricing is close to equal, why would any purchaser choose Boeing over Airbus?

 

[x3 skier]

Harry Stonechipher shoulder roast in the nether regions. If you don't know who he is, look him up. I met him when we in the USAF were trying to recover the C-17 from the disaster it had become. An odious man.

 

[callwill]

and then there is this:

 

[jacknsara]

Boeing and U.S. aerospace set back by Alaska Airlines fuselage blowout

When a door-sized section of a 737 MAX 9 fuselage exploded out into the sky over Portland, Boeing's once-solid reputation took another heavy blow.

www.seattletimes.com

Sadly, the individuals who were responsible for eviscerating Boeing's safety and engineering culture are now retired and living comfortably on their pensions, retirement bonuses, and the cashed-in stock perks for their short-term inflation of stock prices, while steering the company into an abyss from which it may not recover.

A number of articles (some behind paywalls) are referencing the document below which is not behind a paywall.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

I hired into Boeing Commercial in 1985. Soon after starting I arrived at a meeting in the factory early as did many other newbies. The second level manager running the meeting took the time before agenda start to explain to us newbies the process design philosophy behind Boeing's product safety culture (quick summary: structural adversarial relationship among engineering, manufacturing and quality; by the time issues were resolved across all three, it was good). Many factors contributed to eroding of the original system set up by the company founders.

 

[Eggrollcreative]

Note to self: Do not book exit row.

It’s actually the plug side opposite the exit usually…door plugs where an exit could have been but instead they plugged it. No more window seats for me…just in case!

 

[artringwald]

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Alaska Airlines CEO: We found 'many' loose bolts on our Max 9 planes following near-disaster

"I'm angry," Ben Minicucci said. "This happened to Alaska Airlines. It happened to our guests and happened to our people."

www.nbcnews.com

 

[davidvel]

It’s actually the plug side opposite the exit usually…door plugs where an exit could have been but instead they plugged it. No more window seats for me…just in case!

The plugs on these aircraft are on both sides, usually around row 26, depending on exact configuration. It "looks" like a regular row with a window and the same white paneling on the sides with no indication of a door.

Here is a photo showing an Alaska Max9 plug door being inspected, with the side panel removed. Normally, it would have the same type of paneling as seen aft, and just look like a regular window, not an emergency exit or door, but there is some additional spacing between windows you might notice if looking closely.

I added the lines to show the difference in spacing between regular windows (red) and the plug window (blue). The row has a bit more legroom as a result, but note i this photo the row of seats adjacent ot he plug is removed for inspection. It's not as much as you think.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Yes, it seems the current posture of Boeing is that Spirit messed something up and Boeing didn't catch it. There is still some debate as to whether Boeing would open the plug, which requires the 4 lock bolts to be removed (and obviously should be later replaced when closed.)

@davidvel

I would like your perspective on something I was thinking about. The results of the door plug inspections completed so far indicate that loose bolts on the door plug was not an isolated incident for that Flight 1282 airplane, but distressingly is a systemic issue with door plugs on the MAX-9. Moreover, right now there isn't any clear reason I can see to think the problem is limited to the MAX-9. How could a systemic error such as that occur, and how could it apparently not be detected????

I think we can rule out the possibility that this is rogue or negligent employees failing to do their job correctly, with those failures not being detected. Rather, to me this points to an open step in the manufacturing process.

In one of your earlier posts you had indicated that the door plug would be installed by Spirit in Wichita and would be removed by Boeing after fuselage delivery, so that Boeing could use that opening during final assembly. Subsequent information, however, indicates that may not have been the case; the door plugs were installed by Spirit in Wichita and never removed by Boeing.

Piecing together that information, I hypothesize that there was an unfilled and, until now, unrecognized gap between the Spirit and Boeing silo operations. Spirit was assembling fuselages with the understanding that Boeing would be using that opening in the fuselage during final assembly. So Spirit didn't perceive that installing and tightening bolts to final spec was part of their work requirement because Boeing would be removing the door plugs anyway.

Meanwhile, Boeing believed that that the fuselages it was receiving from Spirit included door plugs installed to final spec. Since Boeing never removed the door plug, Boeing never bothered to inspect the door plug installation. Which would also mean that Boeing's inspection of Wichita fuselage assemblies did not include the door plug.

This strikes me as the simplest and most direct explanation to explain a systemic gaffe of this magnitude.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Boeing plans safety ‘stand down’ as United reconsiders 737 MAX orders

Boeing 737 MAX workers in Renton will spend Thursday reflecting and collaborating on ways to improve MAX production as a major airline grows skittish about the plane.

www.seattletimes.com

One day???? If Boeing thinks that a series of one-day stand-downs is a "fix" ... I don't know what to say. A one-day stand-down is just putting lipstick on a pig. If there are fundamental safety and QA management and control issues, a 1-day stand-down isn't going to fix that.

IMHO - Boeing is facing an existential challenge. If management thinks some one-day stand-downs will address the issue, then the problem is management's unwillingness to recognize that management is the problem. They still think that they are not the problem, and that band-aids are all that is needed. A pretty thorough house-cleaning is needed. It's time for the Board of Directors to earn their pay and perks.

 

[Ken555]

For many years, almost every pilot I knew personally told me to only fly Boeing, and stay away from Airbus (Scarebus). All those I knew who used to say this are now retired, I believe, and it was a different time. Yet for years I have preferred Airbus planes for comfort and didn’t really care much one way or the other which I was on. But now it seems Boeing has tarnished their name beyond a simple fix. Given the choice, I will book Airbus (and yeah, I’m on at least one Boeing MAX-8 next month which I don’t think I can change, though I may try).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk