Senators Call for the Grounding of the 737 MAX

#276
#276
Rasputin_Vol said:
Well, they did get some alarms, but I have to admit that this would have probably been a hard thing to trace down on maintenance (at least in my mind). It wasn't a door but a door plug that failed.

Door plug that blew out of Boeing plane is found in Portland backyard
Click to expand...

While I despise Boeing in all shapes and forms, I'm not sure this is necessarily a design flaw.

If they were getting warnings, they should have tracked down everything possible before putting it back in the air. Including talking to Boeing about it.

This one is on the airlines.
 
#278
#278
Grand Vol said:
While I despise Boeing in all shapes and forms, I'm not sure this is necessarily a design flaw.

If they were getting warnings, they should have tracked down everything possible before putting it back in the air. Including talking to Boeing about it.

This one is on the airlines.
Click to expand...
I've been trying to find a youtube video that shows how they would test pressurization but hadn't found much yet. But maybe they have smoke or some tracer aerosol that you might see easing out of the plane if an area is not sealed?
 
#279
#279
Grand Vol said:
While I despise Boeing in all shapes and forms, I'm not sure this is necessarily a design flaw.

If they were getting warnings, they should have tracked down everything possible before putting it back in the air. Including talking to Boeing about it.

This one is on the airlines.
Click to expand...
If you're talking about a cockpit fault light for that system, that doesn't mean there's pressurization loss. There are multiple components (sensors, flow valves, controllers, ect) that can go bad and would produce a fault light. Not a pressurization problem. Might be deferrable since most airplane systems are somewhat redundant. Probably nothing they would ground the plane immediately for.

If it experienced pressure loss in flight previously, I'd expect the plane would be grounded until they found the problem. But I'd think a pressure loss in flight would be loud and obvious. Not just a warning. Flight crew would probably reject the A/C if they had concern.
 
Last edited:
#281
#281
Rasputin_Vol said:
I've been trying to find a youtube video that shows how they would test pressurization but hadn't found much yet. But maybe they have smoke or some tracer aerosol that you might see easing out of the plane if an area is not sealed?
Click to expand...
Should have never banned smoking. It was easy in those days. Just look for the nicotine stain on the fuselage

Thank God we don't have smoking on airplanes anymore
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#282
#282
For those of you that know, the door plug would be similar to a pre hung door assembly blowing out rather than just the door blowing off hinges, or is it something else?
 
#283
#283
TheDeeble said:
If you're talking about a cockpit fault light for that system, that doesn't mean there's pressurization loss. There are multiple components (sensors, flow valves, controllers, ect) that can go bad and would produce a fault light. Not a pressurization problem. Might be deferrable since most airplane systems are somewhat redundant. Probably nothing they would ground the plane immediately for.

If it experienced pressure loss in flight previously, I'd expect the plane would be grounded until they found the problem. But I'd think a pressure loss in flight would be loud and obvious. Not just a warning. Flight crew would probably reject the A/C if they had concern.
Click to expand...

Still likely something the airline should have gotten checked out. A few chief friend of mine in the USAF used to say "all yellow lights become red lights before long. Check those yellow lights frequently."

Seems like valid logic to me. Especially dealing with aircraft.
 
#284
#284
Grand Vol said:
Still likely something the airline should have gotten checked out. A few chief friend of mine in the USAF used to say "all yellow lights become red lights before long. Check those yellow lights frequently."

Seems like valid logic to me. Especially dealing with aircraft.
Click to expand...
If some part of the system was deferred a couple of days ago when they last got a "warning" (whatever that ends up meaning), they have a set amount of time the plane can fly before it has to be fixed. They would have checked it out. It probably had a 3-10 day limit I'd guess. When I use to work on ATRs pretty much any MEL was 3-10 days it seemed like. It was a surprise when I changed jobs to see MELs up to 120 days or even going out several hundred to C-Check.

The first planes I worked on were Fokker 27s. I remember the auto-pilot was deferrable for 90 days and no flight crew would write it up if it was intermittent. They'd rather have it part of the time than write it up and have it inop on MEL for up to 90 days.

But I'd guess a cabin pressure write-up is no more than a 10 day MEL if that's what was currently on the plane.
 
Last edited:
#286
#286
this doesnt make sense in my my mind..loose bolts caused a door loss, nah. Many or all missing bolts or nuts, sure.
 
#287
#287
Rasputin_Vol said:
So I am assuming that there is a torque spec for these bolts to be considered "loose"?

Click to expand...


Aren’t these plugs the emergency exits? If so why would they be held in with bolts unless it’s the frame that has come loose.
 
#292
#292
Orangeburst said:
this doesnt make sense in my my mind..loose bolts caused a door loss, nah. Many or all missing bolts or nuts, sure.
Click to expand...
This is what you said. I was responding to this comment and simply saying that United had loose bolts (allegedly), but did not have a door/plug loss.

With regards to the Alaska Airlines flight, we don't know yet what happened.
 
#293
#293
Rasputin_Vol said:
This is what you said. I was responding to this comment and simply saying that United had loose bolts (allegedly), but did not have a door/plug loss.

With regards to the Alaska Airlines flight, we don't know yet what happened.
Click to expand...
No ****
 
#297
#297
LOL...

Anthony Blinken Stranded In Davos After His Boeing 737 Breaks Down

After the recent fiasco involving the Boeing 737 Max, aka the "convertible" model, and the subsequent grounding the last thing the woke aerospace giant needed was more focus to its DEI-inspired airplane production practices (where airplanes are "designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys" but it's all very equitable and anti-white). Alas, that's precisely what it got moments ago when Bloomberg reported that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was unable to fly home from Davos as scheduled on Wednesday due to a critical error with his aircraft.... which, you may have guessed - is a Boeing 737.

After flying from Davos on helicopters (the gas-free variety, because we all know that the Davos set is very concerned about the environment and CO emissions) and boarding the modified Boeing 737, Blinken and his party were informed that the aircraft had been deemed unsafe to fly. An oxygen leak detected previously could not be remedied.
 
#300
#300
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol, McDad and lawgator1
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top