The Boeing 737 thread redux.

[MingtheMerciless]

Door found in garden, 2 lost phones found as well

Whilst we’re all still searching the garage for that 10mm socket

One of the phones was an iPhone and was still working after a fall from 16000ft!

Looks like BOEING QC Dept might be having a few vacancies soon.

[Horse]

Yes, and demonstrably there was ultimately nothing to stop that happening. Lots of things which were supposed to stop it, but in the end they all failed. The swiss cheese lined up.

That's why it's a classic case study you get taught.

And the final slab of no-holes cheese would be to have a window fitted from the inside.

If a plane windscreen is going to detatch would it be better if it blows inward or outward?

Under what circumstances would an aircraft (designed for high altitudes) have a window pop inwards?

[cheb]

And the final slab of no-holes cheese would be to have a window fitted from the inside.

If a plane windscreen is going to detatch would it be better if it blows inward or outward?

Under what circumstances would an aircraft (designed for high altitudes) have a window pop inwards?

Anti aircraft gunfire.

[Mussels]

And the final slab of no-holes cheese would be to have a window fitted from the inside.

If a plane windscreen is going to detatch would it be better if it blows inward or outward?

Under what circumstances would an aircraft (designed for high altitudes) have a window pop inwards?

At low altitudes when the wrong size bolts vibrate loose.

[Count Steer]

Logically, with the interior being pressurised at altitude, if the windows were internal fittings, they wouldn't pop off? Bit less of a problem at low altitude - unless they hit the pilot in the face.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Logically, with the interior being pressurised at altitude, if the windows were internal fittings, they wouldn't pop off?

That's the general idea.

See current news for alternative views

[mangocrazy]

Boeing.JPG (63.7 KiB) Viewed 812 times

[Horse]

Logically, with the interior being pressurised at altitude, if the windows were internal fittings, they wouldn't pop off?

There was a famous BA flight where the windscreen departed, nearly taking one of the pilots with it.

That was due to incorrect - very slightly undersize - bolts being used.

Oh, and poor design that the window could 'open' outwards.

[ZRX61]

One of the phones was an iPhone and was still working after a fall from 16000ft!

Phone was found under a bush which would have slowed it's impact with the planet.

[mangocrazy]

BadBoy.JPG (182.03 KiB) Viewed 739 times

[ZRX61]

https://babylonbee.com/news/boeing-ceo- ... -standards

[Horse]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ma ... rcna133291

The manufacturer of the Alaska Airlines door plug that detached midair during a flight was the subject of a class action lawsuit last year that alleged "widespread quality failures."

[Mr. Dazzle]

Boeing obviously having a hard time at the moment, but always remember when one door closes another opens

[ZRX61]

[wheelnut]

Apparently the plane in question had the master caution and depressurisation warnings on three previous flights but the warnings were ignored.

[wull]

Apparently the plane in question had the master caution and depressurisation warnings on three previous flights but the warnings were ignored.

The explanation for that by the NTSB was that the previous warnings were to do with the actual control unit itself versus and actual depressurisation in itself or low pressure, they have 3 systems which allows them to have 2 back up, auto manual etc, this is the reason why the flight was restricted by Alaska airlines well within the ETOPS regulations.

They stated that they don’t think it is related to but will look at it further, just seems too coincidental that you have those warnings and then that door blows out, seems suspect but you never know.

[wull]

Apparently the plane in question had the master caution and depressurisation warnings on three previous flights but the warnings were ignored.

But with that being said I’m still convinced like I had said initially that they are connected, I want to know if they manually checked the pressurisation of the cabin to find possible leaks and that their attention should have been drawn to doors especially a plugged one.

[wull]

[Taff]

Apparently the plane in question had the master caution and depressurisation warnings on three previous flights but the warnings were ignored.

But with that being said I’m still convinced like I had said initially that they are connected, I want to know if they manually checked the pressurisation of the cabin to find possible leaks and that their attention should have been drawn to doors especially a plugged one.

this would entirely depend on what the flight manual says to do in response to the indication, it would be surprising if the airline 'ignored' the indication, more like deferred the maintenance to the next A check (or whatever it's called for this type). no-one else will defer the maintenance after this though, proper LFE

For context, every aircraft has a 'Minimum Equipment List' that tells the pilot what system failures they can continue flying with (e.g. 1 out of 4 generators failed) and how long they can continue flying for which could be up to 500 flying hours depending on what the failure is. Even the engine control can carry failures for hundreds of hours.

https://wwwapps2.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2 ... _737_8.pdf

[wull]

Apparently the plane in question had the master caution and depressurisation warnings on three previous flights but the warnings were ignored.

But with that being said I’m still convinced like I had said initially that they are connected, I want to know if they manually checked the pressurisation of the cabin to find possible leaks and that their attention should have been drawn to doors especially a plugged one.

this would entirely depend on what the flight manual says to do in response to the indication, it would be surprising if the airline 'ignored' the indication, more like deferred the maintenance to the next A check (or whatever it's called for this type). no-one else will defer the maintenance after this though, proper LFE

For context, every aircraft has a 'Minimum Equipment List' that tells the pilot what system failures they can continue flying with (e.g. 1 out of 4 generators failed) and how long they can continue flying for which could be up to 500 flying hours depending on what the failure is. Even the engine control can carry failures for hundreds of hours.

https://wwwapps2.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2 ... _737_8.pdf

That’s all mentioned in the video.