Boeing 737 MAX 8

There absolutely needs to be a thorough investigation into what the hell is going on at Boeing. We're talking about people's lives here. I fly frequently and over the last several years have had to change my schedule just so I could avoid flying on a MAX plane.

But I don't think an investigation will happen. Because it's Boeing. And it's supposedly an iconic American company.

Too big to fail!

There are plugs all over the plane. Mostly windows. Lots of doors though.

I'm afraid you can't make it idiot proof. You need to account for idiots in the process, but that adds cost.

There is a difference between making it idiot proof, and making it structurally sound. This is a pressurized metal bubble. I am not an engineer, but like the video says the seal should be unable to be opened without breaking the area around the plug much more than that. Instead it just seemed to pull out which should have been easily preventable with more overlap and securing bolts.

We are told these doors cannot just be pulled out while the plane is in flight because the pressure secures them in place. Why would a plug that never had to be moved be engineered to fit less secure than an actual door? This is happening in a relatively new plane which means that all of these plugs are perhaps horribly designed. By horribly, I mean with Dayton Kitchens level of failure possibilities. Even if there were to be some amazing flaw in the materials that caused this, that would still be terrifying.

It had to move through several pressurize and depressurize cycles for this to happen. The plug can't move straight out for the reasons you cited. It had to slide/rotate up first. Someone left the bolts undone or off.

It blew out at 16,000 feet which isn't all that high. Operating ceiling is over 40,000. It came undone at low or ambient pressure.

Planes flex. Things move.

It happens all the time. Ever assemble toys at Xmas?

A commercial aircraft isn't a fucking toy, Steve.

Tell that to the mechanics who left off the oil plugs on all 3 engines of an Eastern L1011. Oops.

Maybe it would be a good timje to talk about QC and ways to make sure our flying machines are not put together with the same care as a subway sammich.

Oh wait, I am on earth with humans. Silly me, of course that is not going to happen because we have a choice between Joe Biden putting Pete Butrtgag in charge of safety regulations, or Donald Trump doing things to prevent this. I should probably just be happy the wings stay on most of the time.

It is good that humans survive like Doritos. Crunch all you want, We'll make more. In the end this is probably a lot less dangerous than a tesla cybertruck so I just have to remember not to live anymore because that seems to be the leading cause of death.

Seems to me like there could be more telemetry of these sorts of things, (eg, a low voltage circuit that’s only closed when all the bolts are in place) but I would worry it’d just become noise when the sensors inevitably fault.

https://x.com/mentourpilot/status/1745960135602626799?s=46&t=iYW3foyqIA6Tn8VWwn3nwQ

You mean like the sub that imploded?

It seems to me that the plug is there for a certain configuration of the jet. So there should be a semi permanent fixed bolt, or even perhaps a weld. If you are going to have to entirely refit the plane to establish more seating, then this should not be a matter of a few bolts that might have accidentally be left off or worked free. There should be some sort of clasp or bolt that seals this port for this configuration that would take a bit more than a wrench to remove.

I am not a welder, and it seems some people are around here. So could there be a temp weld that would be able to be removed if the jet were reconfigured for a higher passenger count?

I get certain bolts can work free, or someone might leave a bolt off, but if you had a couple of welds to keep the portal shut on a configuration that might not actually change over the course of the jets lifetime, that might be nice. Not to mention have these people ever heard of lock tight? When we used to change valves on air tanks we used to use the stuff because you did not want the valve to back out of a CO2 tank. Occasionally you would have to change out the valve, or install a siphon tube for the CO2, so you put some lock tight in there to make sure the valve never unscrewed from the tank by accident. You could do that shit with some bolts too. You could then heat it up and remove it if you were going to open the port.

Come on, this is a fucking jet. If I could use that shit cost effectively on millions of air tanks nationwide that cost less than 20 dollars, I think you could do that with a jet.

I am saying cost savings would have to be negligible. To not do it would be just pure lazy and bordering on desiring to see an accident like this.

Actually, this looks an sounds so obvious that this might not be an accident. This might be an on purpose by some employee working for boeing so I hope they do their research. I am not saying some plot by boeing, but rather a worker who thought it would be funny to leave this particular port unsecured.

Oooh the video he's going to do about this is going to excellent!

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-67968526?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA

They are. The fact that incidents like this are so rare is a testament to that.

Clearly something was missed in the processes here that needs investigating though.

As long as you accept shit, you will get shit. People should not be surprised these things happen when these things are permitted. My thought is if we start by finding every person responsible for these boeing problems and tossing them in prison along with their supervisors and some company execs this shit stops happening. But since it isn't their asss on the line, they do not give a fuck.

The fact that it has been 14 years and 11 months since the last fatal US incident *knocks on wood* is a pretty good testament as to the safety of the industry.

Absolutely not, unless individuals have been found to have been criminally negligent.

That isn't some soft hearted stance either, it's one of the core principles that aviation safety is based on.

It's referred to as a Just Safety Culture, and accepts that mistakes happen in terms of decision making and processes, and encourages and supports self reflection and honest assessment of what has led to incidents.

That doesn't at all mean that you don't prosecute and punish when someone has done something negligent like fraud, lying, or knowingly choosing to violate procedures, but blanket approaches like you endorsed there just encourage opacity and coverups.

Again, yopu assume things and try to make my argument something it isn't. Whether or not this is a problem with the design of the door plug, or something with this particular door plug construction, something happened that caused this. They need to figure out what that is, and then from there the prosecution happens.

The problem is no one is going to end up in jail or being punished for things like this. Someone was criminally negligent. Either by creating a shit design which means this is going to happen to other ports like this over time, or someone fucked up on this particular door. Either way this becomes unacceptable.

They investigate, and they find out why this happened. If it is design then you need to refit the planes. You punish the engineers who designed the door plug, the QC/testers who let the design through, the execs who signed off on it, and the head of the department that signed off on that shit. If it is some guy who forgot something you get him, the qc check guy, and their supervisor. if the QC is shit and they are cutting corners there, you go after the managers who approved that and hold whoever was in charge of making that decision in corporate accountable.

Someone fucked up somewhere. You can make things redundant and have QC checks that work. You should be doing that and not just saying accidents happen. It is one thing if you do not have a system to stop these things because you cannot double check, but I do not see any determination that is the case yet.

Maybe you know something I do not. If it comes down to some structural defect that happens in manufacturing every so often that caused some weak part that did this, then I am with you. This looks a lot worse than than.

This was not a fatal incident. That was only because a chair was empty.

Again, I do know what the exact issue is, but two suggestions have been made where their should be punishable error. No, you don't get a fucking error that causes a seat to fall out of a 6 month old passenger jet.

The two possibilities where someone is liable and needs rto be punished are if there was some short in manufacturing which made a dangerous situation in the design of these port plugs, and that needs to be remedied while the people who made the decision to do so are punished, or some idiot fucked up putting this together and they need to be punished along with whoever double checks their work. If there is no one double checking their work, then the people involved in that decision need to be punished.

The door did not fall of magically because of probability. You are going backwards with the reasons here. Just because nothing happens in a long time with a failure like this, does not mean that it just failed because something has to fail at some point. Yes, it is a reality that something woul;d fail sometime, but there is a reason for that failure, and if it is human error then we punish the person who did it.

You guys are treating this shit like it is magic and it isn't.

Are you familiar with the Swiss Cheese model?

Comes on a ham sammich model, right?

Just cheese and mustard pickle for me thanks.

The general public mostly got exposed to the concept during Covid, but it's been widely referenced since James Reason introduced the concept in 1990. Like many great modes of thinking it seems extremely obvious when introduced and I use it a lot.

Just gonna quote the wiki page because it's solid and I'm quickly writing this on the bus.

The Swiss cheese model of accident causation is a model used in risk analysis and risk management, including aviation safety, engineering, healthcare, emergency service organizations, and as the principle behind layered security, as used in computer security and defense in depth. It likens human systems to multiple slices of Swiss cheese, which has randomly placed and sized holes in each slice, stacked side by side, in which the risk of a threat becoming a reality is mitigated by the differing layers and types of defenses which are "layered" behind each other. Therefore, in theory, lapses and weaknesses in one defense do not allow a risk to materialize (e.g. a hole in each slice in the stack aligning with holes in all other slices), since other defenses also exist (e.g. other slices of cheese), to prevent a single point of failure.



The Swiss cheese model of accident causation illustrates that, although many layers of defense lie between hazards and accidents, there are flaws in each layer that, if aligned, can allow the accident to occur. In this diagram, three hazard vectors are stopped by the defences, but one passes through where the "holes" are lined up

In the Swiss cheese model, an organization's defenses against failure are modeled as a series of imperfect barriers, represented as slices of cheese, specifically Swiss cheese with holes known as "eyes", such as Emmental cheese. The holes in the slices represent weaknesses in individual parts of the system and are continually varying in size and position across the slices. The system produces failures when a hole in each slice momentarily aligns, permitting (in Reason's words) "a trajectory of accident opportunity",[3] so that a hazard passes through holes in all of the slices, leading to a failure.[4][5][6][7]

There are a bunch of different ways of breaking down those layers depending on how you're using the model, with different strengths and weaknesses. For the purposes of this discussion though it suffices to be aware of the concepts that:

1. All processes and layers will inherently have flaws, making it extremely unwise to rely on just one.
2. Any incident that occurs can almost always be shown to be the result of the flaws in multiple layers aligning.

Ummm… so… yeah… it’s a small world.

A dude might have been at a bar in this general location and might have ended up sitting up next to someone who worked on that fuselage.




According to this rando strango (again, take for all it is worth) Spirit (manufacturer of the fuselage) HAD put out a warning about the door assemblies. His team (which had one half the fuselage) checked and took care of their side, left a hand written note for the other side’s team and closed the ticket out.



He said the Monday after he came in he never saw so many suits in his life. His shift manager asked if he worked on that fuselage he said yes and the shift manager told him to hide in the bathroom. If they asked for him and he was there he would be interviewed for three hours and then who knows what after but if he wasn’t there they would move on to the next name on the list.

Second lawsuit faults Alaska Airlines, not just Boeing, for hole torn in side of plane

That is the argument I figured you were making. Please do talk to FF as he is more on your level. This has not yet been shown to apply here at all and is a nice what if that you have done absolutely no work in showing actually applies. However, if you have some knowledge that shows all the levels of redundancy we were capable of would have resulted in the alignemnt of these holes, please do. Just because this idea exists does not mean it applies here.

The reason I asked if you were familiar with that way of thinking was because of this statement by you:

That statement aligns more with Soviet style scapegoating than any attempt to find what actually went wrong and most importantly prevent it happening again.

You find out where the fault was first. The investigation is still going on, but I took the majorly likely scenarios into account. Do go fuck yourself with this bullshit. Like I said, you are best used for discussing shit with the boy as you are not here for any in depth discussion. Go blabber somewhere else.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-after-boeing-plane-breaks-down-on-davos-trip

Flew on 2 737 Max 8s today. You can bet I got a seat several rows away from the door plugs.