Boeing 737 Max Plug Bolts not tightened to specification
Follow-up to “Why is Boeing such a shitty corporation?” Angry Bear, by Robert Reich
Assebly Issue – Boeing 737 Max Plug Bolts not specifications. No defective parts, just defective assembly. As I said to Ron . . .
“The same with cars. For example, Testing on vehicles such as smashing into a wall (commonly seen on TV) shoulda, woulda, etc. been done. Cabin pressurization? I would think testing was done on this item installed too? Is there a quality system after installation for critical items (which seems to me should include this item) beyond just smashing into a wall with the end product? What was overlooked?”
As reported at Alaska Airlines, quite a few loose bolts found.
Alaska Airlines CEO ‘angry’ amid 737 MAX 9 grounding, kgw.com, KGW Staff.
PORTLAND, Ore. — The Alaska Airlines CEO revealed that “many” of its Boeing 737 MAX 9 aircraft were found to have loose bolts, as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) continues inspecting the model featured in the emergency landing at Portland International Airport (PDX), after a door plug blew out mid-flight.
In the first interview since Flight 1282 with NBC’s Tom Costello, Alaska Airlines CEO Ben Minicucci addressed the company’s findings, saying that they “found some loose bolts on many of our MAX 9s.”
“I’m more than frustrated and disappointed,” Minicucci said. “I am angry. … my demand on Boeing is what are they going to do to improve their quality programs in-house?”
“In addition to the FAA oversight that’s going to come on top of this, we’re now putting our own extra oversight on the production line in Boeing,” he added, referring to the FAA’s order to ground all 737 MAX 9s.
The FAA also launched a safety investigation, as did the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which came to Portland shortly after the incident.
On Jan. 5, the flight departed from PDX at 4:52 p.m., to Ontario, California. It then had to make an emergency landing after a door plug on the plane blew out about 15 minutes into the flight, leaving a gaping hole and causing a rapid decompression of the cabin. Some onboard described a “big bang” and “smoky smell,” and a teenager lost his shirt and some of his personal effects.
“People have said if we were at a higher elevation, it could’ve been so much worse,” Kelly Bartlett, a passenger on the flight, told KGW.
“And it still could’ve been worse if (the teen) hadn’t had his seatbelt on or something. And so, I feel really lucky that it happened the way that it did.”
The rest of the story can be read at KWG8 Portland Oregon.
Alaska Airlines CEO Ben Minicucci is angry and rightfully so. Alaska Airlines is being sued along with Boeing for a failed quality control procedure checking critical parts within the airplane at assembly. Not sure how hard it is to get to those bolts. Boeing will be doing quite a bit of field work to check on the bolts and replacing any loose ones as they may be stressed now. Parts and labor for the bolts and maybe the plug which may have been stressed also.
Did nobody ~ Alaska, United, whoever else has bought that plane ~ check these things before they put the plane in the air? You’ll have to forgive my experience being with helicopters but we didn’t take Bell’s word for it: WE CHECKED EVERYTHING, every day. This strikes me as a bit of deflection, some finger-pointing blame game that doesn’t change what has happened
Someone ~ the purchaser ~ should have checked those bolts before they flew the plane …
My experience is USAF/DoD.
During design: reliability engineers, along with maintenance engineers and logisticians (supply chain, human effects, training maintainers, tools and equipment for repairs, tech manuals, etc) determine “what” (inspections/repairs) should be done to keep an aircraft in safe operating condition then “how” and by “whom/where” the inspection, and repair activity be done.
Sources of imposing maintenance actions include faulty parts, faulty installation/assembly, wear and tear, random failure/faults (we have probabilistic forms), and finally faulty design. Lots of risks!
Years ago I sat through a couple of long tech briefs on Aloha airlines structural failure in 1988. So areas of structure are very difficult/time consuming/expensive to inspect and predict when a repair should be done.
The most important aspect is to avoid the peril of a fatal event! What FAA is doing in the mix for commercial aircaft.
The above engineers work to “minimize life cycle costs”, subject to delivering safe performance. Constrained minimization system engineering models.
Then the programs run short of time and money!
A tall order, and military systems are less stressed by daily use than airliners!
Grant, you don’t inspect every bolt when taking delivery on a new car, though I would if I ever bought another Harley. My point is Alaska, the only one I’ve seen so far though United may follow, is trying to push the responsibility for this off onto Boeing, they didn’t ensure the bolts were secure, but I think it prudent that at least once when you take delivery on a new airplane you’d have your own mechs give it (again, at least) a one over on everything
Boeing built the airplane, Alaska is responsible for its safety …
I do not disagree.
US air carriers must have repairs done in FAA certified repair stations. The plug seems to have been removed and replaced by Boeing after delivery from vendor. Boeing assembly is an FAA certified assembly/repair station/center.
Certified means FAA monitored maintenance/overhaul procedures, engineering processes, A&P licensed techs and compliant parts (new and repaired certified correct) are used.
The incident suggests FAA review station certificates at Boeing and their vendors.
Boeing has had a pretty bad track record in recent years. Going back a while really.
Sort of puts one off flying, no?
(About 25 years ago, my sister was flying off to Hawaii to meet her husband who was reurning from a business trip to Japan, found herself flying over the Pacific with a bunch of guv’mint crash investigators. Turned out they had bumped many HI bound tourists & were heading out to handle that incident were the portion of a roof fell off a plane in flight between Hilo and Honolulu in Hawaii. A Boeing 737-297, 1988.)
Aloha Airlines Flight 243 – Wikipedia
(Ok, make that about 35 years ago.)
(Data from Wikipedia.)
This was a plane in service from 1969-1988. It mainly flew short hops between Hilo & Honolulu. A lot of them.
“While the airframe had accumulated 35,496 flight hours prior to the accident, those hours included nearly 90,000 flight cycles (takeoffs and landings), owing to its use on short flights. This amounted to more than twice the number of flight cycles for which it was designed.” …
Aluminum stress fatigue from takeoffs and landings. Avoid such planes. Boeing not to blame on this one, it seems.
Statistically, since Boing has built most of the airliners in use in the US, they are going to incur the most ‘incidents’.
I can remember my parents taking a flight on a (Vickers) Viscount turboprop, propellers turned by jet engines, back in the day.
That was a plane that had a very troubled record.
List of accidents and incidents involving the Vickers Viscount – Wikipedia
See my note above. USAF studied Aloha event closely. Because USAF is running B-52, KC 135 for another few decades years.
Each “cycle”. pressurization/decompression, pushes the aluminum panels against the fasteners (term for expensive rivet) after a lot of cycles the aluminum of the panel becomes “fatigued” (think mashed potato around fastener).
The challenge is to figure out when the panel becomes unsafe.
USAF used (been a long time since I was doing that) radiography, but surveying a section of wing or fuselage takes a lot of time!!!
B-52, KC 135* (not same airframe as 707) and military B 707 are flying a longer, although military aircraft tend to have fewer cycle per year than airliners!
*I disagree when USAF says KC 135 is too old. Its cycles are far lower than most current airliners! While KC 46 offloads about the same amount of fuel as upgraded KC 135 with CFM 56 era engines.
How Did a Boeing Jet End Up With a Big Hole?
NY Times – Jan 23
The “door plug” that blew off an Alaska Airlines plane most likely had manufacturing or installation flaws. …
The FAA certifies “airworthiness” granting a “certificate” for each aircraft “type” after some regulated regimen of flight tests.
Apparently the “plug” bolts were properly installed in the MAX 9’s used for airworthiness tests!
The problem is in plant adherence to installation process?
While maintenance engineering and repair activities are supposed to assure airworthiness is delivered each time a pilot does his preflight.
Boeing Reinstalled Panel That Later Blew Out of 737 Max Jet
NY Times – an hour ago
Employees at its Washington State factory are said to have removed the door plug for further work before the plane was delivered to Alaska Airlines.