You are at netAirspace : Forum : Air and Space Forums : Civil Aviation

The FAA have stepped in to ground over 170 Boeing 737 MAX9 aircraft after Alaska Airlines had grounded 65 of the aircraft in their fleet.
This was in response to a structual failure and decompression of an Air Alaska flight yesterday.The aircraft landed safely.

More from BBC News website - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67903655

"Most scrutinised aircraft in history," I think they said.

It wasn't a structural failure, more like human error and lack of QC.

Is there any difference between the door plug used on the MAX9 and the 900ER? If not, is this a knee-jerk response to ground the entire fleet?

This covers the situation pretty well....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhfK9jlZK1o

PA110 wrote:Is there any difference between the door plug used on the MAX9 and the 900ER? If not, is this a knee-jerk response to ground the entire fleet?

None. Same plug, same same same everything.

The FAA's Statement yesterday:

Every Boeing 737-9 Max with a plug door will remain grounded until the FAA finds each can safely return to operation. To begin this process, Boeing must provide instructions to operators for inspections and maintenance. Boeing offered an initial version of instructions yesterday which they are now revising because of feedback received in response. Upon receiving the revised version of instructions from Boeing the FAA will conduct a thorough review.

The safety of the flying public, not speed, will determine the timeline for returning the Boeing 737-9 Max to service.

FAA Link

The FAA is being its typical, bureaucratic leviathan with no common sense. The inspection is simple, pull the reveal off. look and make sure the fittings are properly installed, and that the blocking bolt is properly installed and the cotter pin is installed. Two hour inspection, tops.

miamiair wrote:The FAA is being its typical, bureaucratic leviathan with no common sense.

After letting Boeing mark its own homework, then supposedly breathing down its neck and making it get its house in order, I think someone is a little bit embarrassed.

miamiair wrote:The FAA's Statement yesterday:

Every Boeing 737-9 Max with a plug door will remain grounded until the FAA finds each can safely return to operation. To begin this process, Boeing must provide instructions to operators for inspections and maintenance. Boeing offered an initial version of instructions yesterday which they are now revising because of feedback received in response. Upon receiving the revised version of instructions from Boeing the FAA will conduct a thorough review.

The safety of the flying public, not speed, will determine the timeline for returning the Boeing 737-9 Max to service.

FAA Link

The FAA is being its typical, bureaucratic leviathan with no common sense. The inspection is simple, pull the reveal off. look and make sure the fittings are properly installed, and that the blocking bolt is properly installed and the cotter pin is installed. Two hour inspection, tops.

I sense a very strong bias from you in favour of Boeing, clearly you are not a fan of the FAA, surely it`s everybody`s interest to get this sorted out properly, and to make sure it never happens again.

Boeing can cry all they want about being picked on,the FAA have a job to do. Boeing have handled the entrie 737 MAX situation with incredible arrogance,verging on contempt for the safety of passengers.
They have used questionable shortcuts with the MAX aircraft, purely to try and regain some sales ground from the likes of Airbus and others.

paul mcallister wrote:I sense a very strong bias from you in favour of Boeing, clearly you are not a fan of the FAA, surely it`s everybody`s interest to get this sorted out properly, and to make sure it never happens again.

I do prefer Boeing over Airbus from a technical and maintenance aspect. Specifically when it comes to technical data such as manuals, drawings and process specifications. I am all for safety. But it should be viewed with common sense. How much thought has to be put into the accepted practice of using a bolt secured with a cotter pin in a shear application? It was accepted as part of production criteria. By inspecting the bolt for security in and of itself is a look at the area, and documenting the inspection. Why over-complicate it?

As long as humans are involved in production/maintenance; these things will keep happening. It is all about managing risk.

paul mcallister wrote:Boeing can cry all they want about being picked on,the FAA have a job to do. Boeing have handled the entrie 737 MAX situation with incredible arrogance,verging on contempt for the safety of passengers.
They have used questionable shortcuts with the MAX aircraft, purely to try and regain some sales ground from the likes of Airbus and others.

Boeing went to the dogs when the bought McDonnell Douglas in the 90's and let the bean counters run the asylum. Nothing good comes from cost-cutting and having safety be the compromised factor. The fuselages themselves are built by Spirit Aerosystems in Wichita, and shipped to Renton for incorporation as an assembled airplane. It is still Boeing's responsibility to inspect and accept the Spirit's work. This didn't happen for a multitude of reasons. If you think this is endemic to Boeing alone, take a look through the Airworthiness Directives for correcting unsafe conditions. The A350-900/-1000 are rife with them.

It is only when the holes in the cheese line up that the shit hits the fan, and regulatory authorities like the FAA and EASA, do not like the fecal bath. So they have to show the public that they are doing their jobs, even though they are screwing a lot of people with their theatrics.

Hell hath no fury like an embarrassed bureaucrat.

miamiair wrote:Boeing went to the dogs when the bought McDonnell Douglas in the 90's (..)

On a lighter side: Is that the origin of expression Mad Dog for the MD80-series ?

-HT

1-day safety stand-down at Boeing
UA reconsidering 737-10 order

miamiair wrote:
The FAA is being its typical, bureaucratic leviathan with no common sense. The inspection is simple, pull the reveal off. look and make sure the fittings are properly installed, and that the blocking bolt is properly installed and the cotter pin is installed. Two hour inspection, tops.

Alaska is saying each door takes 10 hours to inspect, start to finish.

DXing wrote:

miamiair wrote:
The FAA is being its typical, bureaucratic leviathan with no common sense. The inspection is simple, pull the reveal off. look and make sure the fittings are properly installed, and that the blocking bolt is properly installed and the cotter pin is installed. Two hour inspection, tops.

Alaska is saying each door takes 10 hours to inspect, start to finish.

Probably what is being costed at, and what Boing is getting billed. Damn sure not what Tommy Tentpeg is getting paid to do the work. (Should DEI Tommy Tentpeg with Tommmy/Tommasita . . . FFS).