Posted on 01/08/2024 8:40:34 AM PST by george76
“Window? How about over wing emergency exit?”
No; the over-wing emergency exit doors are fully in place: It was the rear access door that failed.
And yet everybody survived?
Like they say, flying is the safest way to travel.
Parachutes for passengers in that aisle?
Surprisingly the panel that blew out was not the over wing emergency exit. Apparently there is an option to configure with this auxiliary door further down the fuselage. I have no idea why. Really odd.
Now will the "MAX" engineers/Boeing demand the "cone of silence" be deployed?
Many years ago, I got bounced off the overhead in a Twin Otter, while flying in the mountains. Lesson: use your seatbelt at all times when seated. Big airliners don’t get tossed around like at Twotter ... but things still happen.
Like that big blowout, for example.
Use your seatbelt.
Bingo...the engineering was off. IMO, doors are generally sealed to the frame via many bolts because doors are meant to open OUT. In this case they will probably find that someone figured they just needed the normal panel assembly missing the fact that panels are sealed against the frame, not assembled against it. MD should have known that from their many DC 10 failures due to, tada, doors blowing off in flight.
Meanwhile Alaska continued to run this craft in beta mode, pressurization alerts is something that should not be considered normal, ever IMO. Of course Boeing who offloaded assembly to Spirit will claim, not us, look over there.
Well, according to The Moody Blues:
And you can fly high as a kite, if you want to;
Faster than light, if you want to;
Speeding through the universe,
Thinking is the best way to travel.
Checkbox hires in charge, I’d wager.
Of course they didn't. What a stupid statement.
Anybody who flew on chartered Iraqi Airways flights between Baghdad and Dubai in 2004 and a couple of years following that will pretty much fly on almost anything. It was somewhat primitive. 😏
More slides required? Only Boeing knows. Currently.
Good grief. What a hack, clickbait title.
“Looks like they didn’t engineer the modification correctly.”
There’s no basis for making that conclusion vs. an assembly / manufacturing / maintenance problem. If it were a design problem than many aircraft should be affected.
What an ignorant, embarrassing statement.
Yes a pressure warning could be anything from a bad sensor to a bad deal.. depressurization while not fun is not in and of itself a life threatening situation, at least not on a commercial flight with supplemental oxygen.
Obviously havi no an emergency exit blow out could kill someone if they got sucked out of the aircraft.
But I can’t fault the airline for using a plane that was showing intermittent pressurization issues. As long as they were continuing to fix the problems that appeared.
I want to talk to Boeing and re examine the entire design of this “plug” that was in this emergency exit. Short of manufacturing error sure seems like this may be a design flaw.
However the counter argument is if this plane is using the same fuselage and plug as many other models of thr 737 there have been likely millions of flight hours with this design… which would lead to a manufacturing defect or installation error being three culprit.
I'm shocked. Not.
Don’t forget Biden’s union pals.
“Apparently there is an option to configure with this auxiliary door further down the fuselage. I have no idea why. Really odd.”
It isn’t odd. Some airlines order the aircraft configured with more seats in which case another emergency exit is needed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.