[CamasM3e93]

Originally Posted by KevinC

More problems. Boeing is about as reliable as Stellantis nowadays.

https://www.nprillinois.org/2024-01-...ed-boeing-jets

Yeah no kidding. This MAX project clearly suffers from a leadership vacuum from design through manufacturing in a way that perhaps spells trouble for Boeing’s ability to weather this and survive, at least in the commercial aircraft space.

[ASAP]

It's quite amazing to see what bush league level Boeing has fallen too... I remember when it was engineering company led by engineers and everyone was proud of their products. I spoke with a former pilot and engineer for Boeing and neither want to have anything to do w the company at this time.

This company needs a complete shake up and the Gov sadly should step in and just take part of it over like the EU does with Airbus. You cannot run a critical company like this on share price... it has disastrous consequences. 1/3 of the company's revenues are already coming from the Govt.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by CamasM3e93

Yeah no kidding. This MAX project clearly suffers from a leadership vacuum from design through manufacturing in a way that perhaps spells trouble for Boeing’s ability to weather this and survive, at least in the commercial aircraft space.

Building an aircraft on an airframe that has been reshashed 50 times and is now 60 years old is just absolutely wild lol.

[Joralemon st.]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Two bits of luck there.

1. No one was sitting in that seat.
2. They were still climbing from takeoff, so everyone was still buckled in.

That's not to take anything away from the skill and professional demeanor of the pilot and crew. They handled that nightmare flawlessly, it seems.

Shit, this is why I wear my safety belt the entire flight, unless I need to get up.

[Joralemon st.]

Originally Posted by Ric in RVA

I forgot they had ads. Been paying for youtube family for years.

Of course I've recieved way more value than cost over that time.

I'd strongly recommend just paying to do away with the ads. I wouldn't be able to stand it with ads!!!!

There are free extensions that get rid of ads for you without having to pay for youtube.

[///MPhatic]

Originally Posted by Ric in RVA

I forgot they had ads. Been paying for youtube family for years.

Of course I've recieved way more value than cost over that time.

I'd strongly recommend just paying to do away with the ads. I wouldn't be able to stand it with ads!!!!

Not a compelling video, better to just listen to the audio.

TamperMonkey is my ad solution, screw YouTube and their ads.

[flybigjet]

Here’s a NTSB update with a good drawing of the aft door plug:

https://airwaysmag.com/ntsb-as1282-e...-stops-failed/

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by Joralemon st.

Shit, this is why I wear my safety belt the entire flight, unless I need to get up.

...and why I drive everywhere instead of flying.....

[Joralemon st.]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

...and why I drive everywhere instead of flying.....

I do as well, when I can — but can't drive to Hawaii... And Alaska isn't easy to drive to either.

[Alfisti]

Reports sayin there was a pressurisation light noted three times on previous flights and Alaska had deemed the aircraft not fit for travel over water and limited it's altitude.

So..... if this is true... i mean ... jebus.

Speaking at a news conference, Ms Homendy said pilots reported pressurisation warning lights on three previous flights made by the specific Alaska Airlines Max 9 involved in the incident.

The decision to restrict lengthy flights over water was so that the plane "could return very quickly to an airport" in the event the warnings happened again, the NTSB chief added.

It is not clear if there is a link between the issues that led to those warnings, and the issue that caused the blowout on 5 January.

"An additional maintenance look" was requested but "not completed" before the incident, Ms Homendy said.

[TheMidnightNarwhal]

Originally Posted by dradernh

I don't doubt it's a compelling video, but I gave up after realizing YouTube expects me to sit through the ad(s) without surfing away. Sorry, Google, I've got other things I could be doing online.

Oh man you need an Adblock plugin/addon! I haven't seen ads for the past 5 years+ on every website.

That said YouTube is trying to crack down on that but I think they failed once again due to public pressure. I'm still in the clear.

[dradernh]

Originally Posted by TheMidnightNarwhal

Oh man you need an Adblock plugin/addon! I haven't seen ads for the past 5 years+ on every website.

That said YouTube is trying to crack down on that but I think they failed once again due to public pressure. I'm still in the clear.

Oh yeah, longtime AdBlock Plus subscriber here, make no mistake about that!

I don't think it's designed or updated to block ads that are a part of a video, though. It's not a big deal as I watch YouTube videos at most a few times a month. I was just surprised to see that this video required the browser's focus to remain on the YouTube page with the ads running before I could get to the good part. I'd seen the ads-in-the-video once or twice before, but this was a change.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

Reports sayin there was a pressurisation light noted three times on previous flights and Alaska had deemed the aircraft not fit for travel over water and limited it's altitude.

So..... if this is true... i mean ... jebus.

Speaking at a news conference, Ms Homendy said pilots reported pressurisation warning lights on three previous flights made by the specific Alaska Airlines Max 9 involved in the incident.

The decision to restrict lengthy flights over water was so that the plane "could return very quickly to an airport" in the event the warnings happened again, the NTSB chief added.

It is not clear if there is a link between the issues that led to those warnings, and the issue that caused the blowout on 5 January.

"An additional maintenance look" was requested but "not completed" before the incident, Ms Homendy said.

No, no, no.

The light had NOTHING to do with the door.

Literally..... NOTHING.

The door is a plug that's installed at the factory in case the aircraft operator later wants to convert to high-density seating. If they do, the additional seats are added, the plug is popped out and another emergency exit is added.

You literally (there's that word again) can not access any part of the plug from inside the airplane without depanelling it. The plug is supposed to be permanently installed, so there's nothing to check-- at least not until a heavy maintenance visit when they pull the interior of the airplane apart, and these jets were too new for that to have happened yet.

The pressurization system does give warning if a door is open or not indicating closed-- but that's only for the two doors in front, the two or four (depending on model) over the wings, and the two in the rear (there are some other doors like the avionics service door, but we'll ignore them since they're not in the passenger cabin).

But none of that matters here. The light that the NTSB is talking about is the the auto-pressurization controller light. It's COMPLETELY unrelated to the door lights mentioned above. The auto-press light comes on when the pressurization computer decides that the system isn't working properly to pressurize the plane-- so it shifts to a backup computerized system. The usual fix is to replace the pressurization control box, which is located over the First Officer's head-- it's a simple job-- four screws, a couple cannon plugs and you're done...... IF you have a spare auto-press controller handy.

Airlines don't want to randomly replace parts-- the fact that it came on more than once (and you electronically write up anything that goes wrong on the flight so MX can look at it) may mean that it was an intermittent fault in the controller and that the mechanics weren't completely sure that was the problem-- but as the controller was shifting to the backup, it was a non-event (there's a manual backup as well where the First Officer will manually control pressurization-- it's a triple redundancy system). I don't know if the auto-press light came on for flights in a row or within the space of a bunch of flights. It could also have been a fault somewhere in the system, so MX may have wanted the jet to be programmed for a long layover somewhere in Alaska's system (i.e. have the jet layover somewhere where they have the proper mechanics) so they could have a lengthy amount of time to troubleshoot it. It's not unsafe and is a very common thing to fly with (especially if the system resets with no faults staying active)-- it's called a "deferral" and is done in accordance to FAA-blessed maintenance procedures.

To Alaska's credit, they went a step farther and restricted the jet from ETOPS operations (either Extended Twin-engine Overwater Operations or Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim, depending on who you ask)-- basically, they restricted the jet from flying to Hawaii (and realistically, any Captain would refuse the jet for ETOPS if it had a wonky auto-press controller, so it wouldn't matter if they'd restricted it from ETOPS or not).

So there's no conspiracy or anything nefarious here. The bottom line is that Boeing's subcontractor who did the fuselage plug install screwed the pooch on a whole bunch of Max9's. There will be fallout there. But the flight crew, Alaska and their maintainers appear to have by and large followed the proper procedures with the exception of not pulling the cockpit voice recorder circuit breaker to save the cockpit audio tapes (and that's on MX).

R.

[Alfisti]

Your technical explanation is sound but the fact Alaska felt they needed to keep this bird low and restricted it's flying to above land only in case the thing depressurized, tells me they felt there was some risk of this happening.

[CamasM3e93]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

No, no, no.

The light had NOTHING to do with the door.

Literally..... NOTHING.

The door is a plug that's installed at the factory in case the aircraft operator later wants to convert to high-density seating. If they do, the additional seats are added, the plug is popped out and another emergency exit is added.

You literally (there's that word again) can not access any part of the plug from inside the airplane without depanelling it. The plug is supposed to be permanently installed, so there's nothing to check— at least not until a heavy maintenance visit when they pull the interior of the airplane apart, and these jets were too new for that to have happened yet.

The pressurization system does give warning if a door is open or not indicating closed— but that's only for the two doors in front, the two or four (depending on model) over the wings, and the two in the rear (there are some other doors like the avionics service door, but we'll ignore them since they're not in the passenger cabin).

But none of that matters here. The light that the NTSB is talking about is the the auto-pressurization controller light. It's COMPLETELY unrelated to the door lights mentioned above. The auto-press light comes on when the pressurization computer decides that the system isn't working properly to pressurize the plane— so it shifts to a backup computerized system. The usual fix is to replace the pressurization control box, which is located over the First Officer's head— it's a simple job— four screws, a couple cannon plugs and you're done...... IF you have [...]

If that plug was loose in the fligts leading up to the incident seems quite possible that the plane was losing pressurized air through it and triggering the alarm. As the plug went through pressurization cycles it vibrated and further loosened over time and then the event. This is a hypothesis based on the information that is public.

Subsequent inspections have found loose bolts securing the plug on other aircraft. To say the failed plug was 100% unrelated to the preceding pressurization alarms at this point probably not possible.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by CamasM3e93

If that plug was loose in the fligts leading up to the incident seems quite possible that the plane was losing pressurized air through it and triggering the alarm. As the plug went through pressurization cycles it vibrated and further loosened over time and then the event. This is a hypothesis based on the information that is public.

Subsequent inspections have found loose bolts securing the plug on other aircraft. To say the failed plug was 100% unrelated to the preceding pressurization alarms at this point probably not possible.

Of course, I can't say with 100% certainty. But I'm still unconvinced that they're directly related-- they may be separate lines of incidence.

What I meant in my previous posts that the plug was NOT giving a Door Open light (and is in fact, incapable of giving a light), but that the light the NTSB references was the auto-press controller indicating a failure in the pressurization system. Those two systems are not directly interrelated in that the door open/closed light system has no direct interaction with the auto-press controller-- i.e. the systems are not hooked up together.

There are two cabin sensor ports that input into the pressurization controller, but those are different than the door open/closed lights.

There are a couple of things that make me go "hmmmm", though.

First is that you already have an outflow valve that's opening and closing to meter cabin pressurization. If there was a leak around the plug, the outflow valve would simply adjust its movement since it's already compensating for air exhausted through toilet and galley vents, miscellaneous fixed vents, and by seal leakage. In other words, if the plug was leaking like a door seal (which is usually noisy and irritating) it would probably be compensated for by the outflow valve metering the cabin altitude.

Also, the auto-press light (technically, Auto-Fail) illuminates for loss of DC power, a controller fault, an outflow valve control fault, excessive differential pressure (> 8.75 PSI), excessive rate of cabin pressure change (±2000 sea level feet/minute), high cabin altitude (above 15,800 feet), or if the controller is not responding properly.

Any of these conditions will push the system to automatically swap to the secondary controller (which is identical to the first.) Additionally, the auto-press light will stay on with a Master Caution- which is a big hint for the crew to crack open the checklists and take corrective action.

The checklist is pretty directive as to what to do (think: If/Then chase chart)-- if the plug door was affecting cabin altitude enough to force a controller swap to the Alternate mode (i.e. excessive differential pressure or rate of cabin pressure change or high cabin altitude), that would show up on the cabin altitude gauge or the cabin rate gauge and would direct specific actions via the checklist.

Those actions would be to go into Manual Mode on the pressurization controller in an attempt to control cabin altitude yourself (you essentially force the outflow valve full closed to control cabin altitude). To date, I haven't seen anything that indicates the crew had anything other than an auto-press controller fail in the primary mode (i.e. they ran it in Alternate)-- if they were driven by the checklist to operate in Manual mode, the cabin pressure controller would have been replaced at a minimum, based on troubleshooting/fault codes.

Although the two things may end up being related, so far it looks to me that there's a very real probability that they were two separate things-- there was an issue with the cabin pressurization controller and the plug gave up the ghost due to faulty installation. That being said, I reserve the right to revise my thought processes based on new information coming to light.

R.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

Your technical explanation is sound but the fact Alaska felt they needed to keep this bird low and restricted it's flying to above land only in case the thing depressurized, tells me they felt there was some risk of this happening.

I haven't seen where the jet was altitude restricted? That's new information.

Being restricted from ETOPS operations if the cabin pressurization controller was failing to the Alternate mode over the course of several flights is something that would not be unusual-- there are a ton of things that restrict you from ETOPS; as well, I don't think many Captains would take a jet with this history overwater.

R.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

I'm a Guppy Driver (737) from way back and have flown the -300,-500, -700, -800, -900, -900ER, Max8 and Max 9 as a First Officer, Captain and Line Check Airman (Instructor/Evaluator) and have at least 8,000 hours (probably a lot more) in type...

When Western changed their paint job to no paint (all aluminum) with a blue & red W-stripe we had our own names for their aircraft. A 73 was a Bud Light, the 72 was a six-pack and the DC10 was a keg.

[CamasM3e93]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

Of course, I can't say with 100% certainty. But I'm still unconvinced that they're directly related— they may be separate lines of incidence.

What I meant in my previous posts that the plug was NOT giving a Door Open light (and is in fact, incapable of giving a light), but that the light the NTSB references was the auto-press controller indicating a failure in the pressurization system. Those two systems are not directly interrelated in that the door open/closed light system has no direct interaction with the auto-press controller— i.e. the systems are not hooked up together.

There are two cabin sensor ports that input into the pressurization controller, but those are different than the door open/closed lights.

There are a couple of things that make me go "hmmmm", though.

First is that you already have an outflow valve that's opening and closing to meter cabin pressurization. If there was a leak around the plug, the outflow valve would simply adjust its movement since it's already compensating for air exhausted through toilet and galley vents, miscellaneous fixed vents, and by seal leakage. In other words, if the plug was leaking like a door seal (which is usually noisy and irritating) it would probably be compensated for by the outflow valve metering the cabin altitude.

Also, the auto-press light (technically, Auto-Fail) illuminates for loss of DC power, a controller fault, an outflow valve control fault, excessive differential pressure (> 8.75 PSI), excessive rate of cabin pressure change (±2000 sea level feet/minute), high cabin altitude (above 15,800 [...]

Appreciate that level of detail. Clearly more complex than I had envisioned. To be fair, my engineering background is in paper, lol. Our controller logic stops at the first if-then routine.

[flybigjet]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

When Western changed their paint job to no paint (all aluminum) with a blue & red W-stripe we had our own names for their aircraft. A 73 was a Bud Light, the 72 was a six-pack and the DC10 was a keg.

It's been a while, but let's see:

The 727 was the "Jurassic Jet".

The 737-200 was the "Steam-Driven" Guppy.

The -300 and -500 were "Yuppie Guppies".

The DC-10 was the "Death Cruiser".

The 747-200 was the "Ropestart".

The 747-400 was the "Whale".

The 777 is either "Bigfoot" or the "Starship".

The A319 & 320 are "Fifi".

The 787 is "Sparky" or the "Electric Jet".

Curiously, I've never really heard a term at my company for the 757 or for the NG/Max Guppies.

However, after the merger, the guys who's logo looked like a cage considered "Guppy" to be a pejorative, and were glad to tell you that over the radio if you called it a "Guppy" on an ATC or Ramp frequency. The guys with the tulip logo always considered (and do so to this day) it as a term of affection.

R.

[M2siast]

What’s the 787 called? I love that plane

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by flybigjet

Different recordings-- the YouTube audio you're hearing is from ATC. The interior cockpit recordings (i.e the "Black Box") that would have the pilots talking to each other, the Flight Attendants, cockpit noises, etc. from two channels (one from an area mike and one from the comm panels) was the one that was overwritten. Maintenance should have pulled a circuit breaker that would have preserved the recording-- this apparently wasn't done until it was too late.

As far as the length of recording, it depends on how the individual jet is configured (don't ask me why-- jets from the same series can have different recording lengths). Some are 30 minutes, a few are 25 hours. This one was 120 minutes and they're automatically overwritten.

R.

ah, yes, I must admit I didn’t think about the recording from the ATC.