Don't fly on a 737-MAX

stickyfiddle

An emergency exit port that wasn't even in use (ie should've been sealed shut and 100% inoperable even as an emergency exit) blew out on a flight out of Portland TAKING HALF THE SEAT WITH IT.

How the fuck is Boeing still in business?! 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/06/alaska-airlines-grounds-boeing-737-max-9-planes-after-mid-air-window-blowout 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwSLSjrbGXY

TTony

That seat is a £99 extra charge on Ryan Air - "unobstructed view of the scenery as we fly over".

Danny1969

To be fair could have been a mistake with ground maintenance contractors rather than a design issue but I said on here years ago I wouldn't put me or my family on a 737-MAX ... there's just been too many issues from the start caused by putting larger modern engines with a bigger bypass ratio on an airframe not designed for their size. 

vivalacoulter

That plane is cursed.

stickyfiddle

Danny1969 said:

To be fair could have been a mistake with ground maintenance contractors rather than a design issue but I said on here years ago I wouldn't put me or my family on a 737-MAX ... there's just been too many issues from the start caused by putting larger modern engines with a bigger bypass ratio on an airframe not designed for their size. 

Possible, but this is a 3-month old plane apparently.

I don't know but find it hard to imagine there should be any ground maintenance needed on a sealed hatch in that sort of time?!

Danny1969

stickyfiddle said:

Danny1969 said:

To be fair could have been a mistake with ground maintenance contractors rather than a design issue but I said on here years ago I wouldn't put me or my family on a 737-MAX ... there's just been too many issues from the start caused by putting larger modern engines with a bigger bypass ratio on an airframe not designed for their size. 

Possible, but this is a 3-month old plane apparently.

I don't know but find it hard to imagine there should be any ground maintenance needed on a sealed hatch in that sort of time?!

There does seem to be an issue with Boeing build quality. There's been a few whistle blowers pointing out the lack of care in manufacture and posting videos of debris left in the airframe before the plane is fitted internally. 

On a more positive note did you see how well that A350 coped with the fire in Japan .. that plane is half carbon fibre which is stronger, lighter and apparently more resistant to fire than alloy judging by how long the fire was kept out the interior of the plane. 

Kittyfrisk

stickyfiddle said:

Danny1969 said:

To be fair could have been a mistake with ground maintenance contractors rather than a design issue but I said on here years ago I wouldn't put me or my family on a 737-MAX ... there's just been too many issues from the start caused by putting larger modern engines with a bigger bypass ratio on an airframe not designed for their size. 

Possible, but this is a 3-month old plane apparently.

I don't know but find it hard to imagine there should be any ground maintenance needed on a sealed hatch in that sort of time?!

If I were a passenger, I'd want to be sure that regular routine checks were being carried out. 
There should be a comprehensive risk assessment detailing the maintenance tasks & frequency to be carried out, but I wouldn't know what the detail of that would be.

Danny1969

Kittyfrisk said:

stickyfiddle said:

Danny1969 said:

To be fair could have been a mistake with ground maintenance contractors rather than a design issue but I said on here years ago I wouldn't put me or my family on a 737-MAX ... there's just been too many issues from the start caused by putting larger modern engines with a bigger bypass ratio on an airframe not designed for their size. 

Possible, but this is a 3-month old plane apparently.

I don't know but find it hard to imagine there should be any ground maintenance needed on a sealed hatch in that sort of time?!

If I were a passenger, I'd want to be sure that regular routine checks were being carried out. 
There should be a comprehensive risk assessment detailing the maintenance tasks & frequency to be carried out, but I wouldn't know what the detail of that would be.

There is a list of operators who aren't allowed into the UK airspace because they don't have the required service and maintenance records or there's some other issues related to safety. So if you are abroad and taking a flight then it's worth checking the list before you get on a plane operated by a company you aren't familiar with. 

https://www.caa.co.uk/media/5fwfpd4s/uk-air-safety-list-31-may-2023.pdf


All planes have detailed regular service procedures, many essential after so many flight hours but some optional at the operators discretion. This can be anything from greasing a bearing to completely removing all the engines and replacing all the internal parts of the jet turbine. 

Sometimes operators try to cut corners. One decided to use a forklift to support an engine while the main engine mount was replaced ... this led to the area of the wing where the engine mounts being damaged and the engine falling off not long after takeoff. 
Ground staff in Canada got their litres and gallons mixed up once ... resulting in a plane taking off with only a quarter of the fuel it needed for the journey ... so it ran out and by sheer luck the pilot was a skilled glider operator and managed to keep the thing in the air long enough for a safe landing. 

In Australia ground staff let a plane take off with the pitot tube covers still on (they use them there because insects nest in them otherwise. This led to no airspeed indicators and very nearly the loss of the plane and all it's passengers in the ocean. 

The covers have massive dangling red signs saying "remove before flight"

Flying isn't as safe as people think it is. It is statistically safe but there's a lot more close shaves than people are aware off. 

stickyfiddle

Danny1969 said:

stickyfiddle said:

Danny1969 said:

To be fair could have been a mistake with ground maintenance contractors rather than a design issue but I said on here years ago I wouldn't put me or my family on a 737-MAX ... there's just been too many issues from the start caused by putting larger modern engines with a bigger bypass ratio on an airframe not designed for their size. 

Possible, but this is a 3-month old plane apparently.

I don't know but find it hard to imagine there should be any ground maintenance needed on a sealed hatch in that sort of time?!

There does seem to be an issue with Boeing build quality. There's been a few whistle blowers pointing out the lack of care in manufacture and posting videos of debris left in the airframe before the plane is fitted internally. 

On a more positive note did you see how well that A350 coped with the fire in Japan .. that plane is half carbon fibre which is stronger, lighter and apparently more resistant to fire than alloy judging by how long the fire was kept out the interior of the plane. 

Yep. No major concerns whatsoever with Airbus!! I'm going on my first A350 next month (to Japan, as it happens!) and quite looking forward to it! 

The 787 now appears to be a decent plane but even that had ongoing issues with battery fires for its first couple of years as well. 

Kittyfrisk said:

stickyfiddle said:

Danny1969 said:

To be fair could have been a mistake with ground maintenance contractors rather than a design issue but I said on here years ago I wouldn't put me or my family on a 737-MAX ... there's just been too many issues from the start caused by putting larger modern engines with a bigger bypass ratio on an airframe not designed for their size. 

Possible, but this is a 3-month old plane apparently.

I don't know but find it hard to imagine there should be any ground maintenance needed on a sealed hatch in that sort of time?!

If I were a passenger, I'd want to be sure that regular routine checks were being carried out. 
There should be a comprehensive risk assessment detailing the maintenance tasks & frequency to be carried out, but I wouldn't know what the detail of that would be.

Thing is, as a regular flyer (and former extremely regular flyer) I shouldn't have to think about this. More importantly if the plane is specced without these exits surely they should be implemented in such a way that the replacement panels cannot physically fail under any reasonable circumstances

Emp_Fab

vivalacoulter said:

That plane is cursed.

Sorry, the forum doesn't allow posters who have been reincarnated from the middle-ages.

Here's a new avatar for ya...  

snowblind

Perhaps we should spare a thought for those poor unfortunates who have to fly on russian domestic airlines right now?

Nah. Not worth it. 

The problems at Boeing are symptomatic of a lot of general business practices these days. Everything is measured against the result of next month's balance sheet. When everything is managed in fixed time chunks and ill thought out deadlines are the deciding factor the scope for doing good work is reduced. The goal is get a result to sign off the task, regardless of the quality of the product. Any good project manager knows that setting cost and time as your principal drivers will have a negative effect on quality. Boeing needed the 737-Max available for mass market consumption in order to stave off competition. Corners got cut and the result is evident for all to see. Someone at the top of the food chain will still have got their bonus for meeting the deadline.

JezWynd

Corners got cut and the result is evident for all to see. Someone at the top of the food chain will still have got their bonus for meeting the deadline. 

Added to which the FAA and Boeing got into a too cozy relationship that should never have been allowed to develop.

Kurtis

Emp_Fab said:

vivalacoulter said:

That plane is cursed.

Sorry, the forum doesn't allow posters who have been reincarnated from the middle-ages.

Here's a new avatar for ya...  

A guy being worried by some rogue prs inlays? 

Dominic

Must have been incredibly cold for the people near the opening.....

roberty

I blame Thatcher

strumjoughlamps

roberty said:

I blame Thatcher

William??

Kittyfrisk

Ooops!  https://www.axios.com/2023/12/28/boeing-737-max-planes-bolt-inspections

Kittyfrisk

strumjoughlamps said:

roberty said:

I blame Thatcher

William??

Mark (did they ever find him?).

elstoof

stickyfiddle said:

Yep. No major concerns whatsoever with Airbus!! I'm going on my first A350 next month (to Japan, as it happens!) and quite looking forward to it! 

The 787 now appears to be a decent plane but even that had ongoing issues with battery fires for its first couple of years as well. 

The airframe is cutting edge but the A350 cabin is a bit of a let down really. The 787 has far better pressure and humidity levels, bigger windows, bleedless air, quieter, all makes for a much more comfortable flight. You’d be hard pressed to tell the difference between sitting in a 330 and a 350 tbh. 

anyway, no chance I’d ever get on an Alaska flight. Between the suicidal pilots and bits falling off from poor maintenance, I’d rather take my chances with Spirit

Musical_Mystery_Tour

Generally speaking the 737 MAX is okay. This is probably more of a construction/maintenance issue. The fatal incidents which led to its extended grounding when it was brand new, were a combination of Boeing's short cuts in terms of more robust system redundancy, and some pilot traing not being what it could be. But this is nothing new with aeroplanes, it even has a name - when fatalities occur and changes are made, it is called tombstone technology. This has all now been addressed.

The gist of what happened with the MAX when it was grounded for a long time following those crashes, is that the larger and lower-slung engines on the MAX could cause the lower thrust line to make the aircraft pitch up in certain flight regimes, and in combination with the fact that there was only one AoA indicator and the aggressive pitch down control of the MCAS system following the discovery of this, could lead to a situation where the elevator trim could 'run away' and implement a full nose down trim setting. In order to allow the 737 MAX to get the same certification rating so that airlines would buy it and not require their classic and NG rated 737 pilots to be retrained, Boeing didn't really focus as much on making pilots aware of what might occur and how best to deal with it if it did so.

There are several ways to deal with that potential occurrence, and whilst at the time Boeing didn't make a point of ensuring all pilots knew how to combat such a situation, now that solution is common knowledge for all 737 MAX pilots and the AoA system is more robust too, so it's not a big deal. You can either make regular trim inputs on the yoke, which inhibits MCAS, you can turn off the autotrim entirely and fly it manually, or you can literally grab the trim wheel and stop it from spinning forwards to prevent automatic nose down trim. 

The really annoying thing with the MAX, is the fact that they lengthened the landing gear to allow more clearance for those bigger engines, so now it is harder to reach the GPU socket and the socket for headset when working on them! The split scimitar winglets are also annoying when you have to drive around them. Note the irony of which word the winglet has gone through:

https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/PRC_216565456.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=644%2C338

ICBM

Danny1969 said:

Flying isn't as safe as people think it is. It is statistically safe but there's a lot more close shaves than people are aware off.

It isn't the safest form of transport as popularly believed, because the statistic that apparently shows it to be (deaths per passenger mile) is skewed in favour of longer journeys, which most flights are simply by the nature of air travel. If you compare deaths per passenger *journey* - really the most important, ie are you likely to survive this particular journey or not - then it's actually more dangerous than driving.

The statistics for very rare events can be misleading even within aviation, and very dependent on the precise measure chosen - for example, Concorde went from being the safest aircraft type (by total miles flown with no fatalities) to the most dangerous (by proportion of crashes to number built) in one accident - there just weren't enough of them for its inherently high risk to become obvious earlier.

It *is* a very well-regulated industry with a good safety culture in general and rigorous procedures to try to eliminate repeat failures, but this fell down with the 737MAX - the two crashes had exactly the same cause.