Alaska Airlines explosive decompression 1/5/23

I have to ask this just for clarification:

Is this an engineering failure or a production QC problem?

I am under the impression the plug door assembly is properly engineered but the manufacturing process was sloppy?

No?
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I have to ask this just for clarification:

Is this an engineering failure or a production QC problem?

I am under the impression the plug door assembly is properly engineered but the manufacturing process was sloppy?

No?
Click to expand...
I see it as a quality control (QC) problem. However, engineers should be involved, at least for defining the processes.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I have to ask this just for clarification:

Is this an engineering failure or a production QC problem?

I am under the impression the plug door assembly is properly engineered but the manufacturing process was sloppy?

No?
Click to expand...
Based on the loose bolt findings on other airplanes at UAL and AS, I'm suspecting QC in the installation/assembly process rather than a manufacturing defect.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Based on the loose bolt findings on other airplanes at UAL and AS, I'm suspecting QC in the installation/assembly process rather than a manufacturing defect.
Click to expand...

Don't know whether this might apply here, but I've known of assembly processes that required the torqueing of certain fasteners to be witnessed by a QC inspector. During assembly, the technician would thread the fastener loosely then signal for an inspector to come witness the tightening. Could a change of shift, a coffee break, etc., foul this up? Maybe.

No evidence this happened in this instance, of course, but it might be a possibility.
 
Half Fast said:
Much of Boeing's downward slide began with the infiltration of McDAC management into Boeing's executive offices after the acquistion. Anybody remember Gus Grissom and the Liberty Bell 7's door departure? Yep, MD built that space capsule.

The legacy continues.....
:)
Click to expand...
You're 50% correct. McDonnell built the Mercury spacecraft. They didn't merge with Douglas until 1967, years after the Mercury program concluded.
 
Half Fast said:
Don't know whether this might apply here, but I've known of assembly processes that required the torqueing of certain fasteners to be witnessed by a QC inspector. During assembly, the technician would thread the fastener loosely then signal for an inspector to come witness the tightening. Could a change of shift, a coffee break, etc., foul this up? Maybe.

No evidence this happened in this instance, of course, but it might be a possibility.
Click to expand...
I could see it happening once. Not multiple times, as there are apparently a number of aircraft where they've discovered the same issue.

"Failure of Imagination" as invoked by Frank Borman almost 60 years ago. No one could see how they'd fail to tighten the bolts.

In mulling over what has been posted here, I am also reminded of Challenger. Some Thiokol engineers were worried about the O-rings in cold weather, and convinced some of their NASA counterparts that there was a potential issue. But management was not convinced (too much riding on the launch) so no action was taken.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
I see it as a quality control (QC) problem. However, engineers should be involved, at least for defining the processes.
Click to expand...
Saw a comment on Avweb that Boeing had regularly removed the plugs to install interiors. This one may not be on Spirit (though the Avweb article talks about Spirit issues).

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
I could see it happening once. Not multiple times, as there are apparently a number of aircraft where they've discovered the same issue.
Click to expand...

Yeah, good point. Sounds more like some process step being skipped.

"Well, Frank's our only certified bolt twister and he was out sick for five days last month, so....."
:biggrin:
 
wanttaja said:
Saw a comment on Avweb that Boeing had regularly removed the plugs to install interiors. This one may not be on Spirit (though the Avweb article talks about Spirit issues).

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
According to this article, the door plugs are only opened if there's a "rigging issue"...whatever that might be.

theaircurrent.com

Undamaged plug exit on Alaska Max 9 had fasteners tightened during assembly

During assembly, Boeing personnel tightened six loose fasteners on a key structure around the right-hand plug exit directly across from the failed exit.
theaircurrent.com theaircurrent.com
 
X3 Skier said:
The sky is not falling (yet).

www.wsj.com

Flying in America Has Actually Never Been Safer

U.S. airlines have gone nearly 15 years without a fatal crash—and it’s not just luck. The revolution in the skies began with an innovative program that has become a model for the rest of the world.
www.wsj.com www.wsj.com

Note the comments about how this program we all know (and some have used) isn’t in place on the manufacturing/ overhaul arena. It should be.
Click to expand...

A factually incorrect article. There has been a 121 accident that had fatalities since then, and there was the lady on the Southwest plane.

PenAir 3296 and Southwest 1380.

Still, two in 15 years is pretty damn good.

IMG_0226.jpeg
 
Half Fast said:
Don't know whether this might apply here, but I've known of assembly processes that required the torqueing of certain fasteners to be witnessed by a QC inspector. During assembly, the technician would thread the fastener loosely then signal for an inspector to come witness the tightening. Could a change of shift, a coffee break, etc., foul this up? Maybe.

No evidence this happened in this instance, of course, but it might be a possibility.
Click to expand...

Rigging / assembly of a door would normally be RII where I worked. But I don’t think this would be considered a door in that instance or RII.

I think the door would probably be opened for interior up fitting. Is there a third-party vendor doing this between Boeing and Alaskan?
 
From the link above: "The lawsuit also alleges that many of the oxygen masks that dropped did not seem to work..."

If true, more bad news for Boeing and Alaska Airlines.

But my money is on passengers not hearing, remembering, or understanding the "pull the mask towards you to start the flow of oxygen" and "the bag will not fully inflate" portions of the flight briefing.
 
GaryM said:
From the link above: "The lawsuit also alleges that many of the oxygen masks that dropped did not seem to work..."

If true, more bad news for Boeing and Alaska Airlines.

But my money is on passengers not hearing, remembering, or understanding the "pull the mask towards you to start the flow of oxygen" and "the bag will not fully inflate" portions of the flight briefing.
Click to expand...
I’d put good money on that being the case. And if it isn’t, I’ll sue!
 
aftCG said:
No
Click to expand...
So was there upfitting post delivery? Perhaps the original Boeing bashing was slightly misplaced if it was Alaska that did the upfitting, couldn't diagnose multiple pressurization issues, and can't pull a breaker. Alaska maintenance doesn't exactly have a sterling reputation.
 
GaryM said:
From the link above: "The lawsuit also alleges that many of the oxygen masks that dropped did not seem to work..."

If true, more bad news for Boeing and Alaska Airlines.

But my money is on passengers not hearing, remembering, or understanding the "pull the mask towards you to start the flow of oxygen" and "the bag will not fully inflate" portions of the flight briefing.
Click to expand...
"Did not seem to work"

Based on what? Were they expecting an air compressor to inflate their lungs
 
Back in the sixties they did some studies when either the masks deployed (either inadvertantly or in testing). A lot of people just stared at them, though I suspect that with the bedlam that the missing door was causing it probably wouldn't be just a curiousity thing in this case. Many put the masks on without yanking them down to pull the pin. They drop far enough that people can reach them but high enough that you can't get it on your face without pulling the pin. But it's hard to make things foolproof when the fools are so ingenious. Some people contorted themselves to get their face to the masks without having to pull it enough to activate.
 
flyingron said:
Back in the sixties they did some studies when either the masks deployed (either inadvertantly or in testing). A lot of people just stared at them, though I suspect that with the bedlam that the missing door was causing it probably wouldn't be just a curiousity thing in this case. Many put the masks on without yanking them down to pull the pin. They drop far enough that people can reach them but high enough that you can't get it on your face without pulling the pin. But it's hard to make things foolproof when the fools are so ingenious. Some people contorted themselves to get their face to the masks without having to pull it enough to activate.
Click to expand...
the thing that the press and the lawyers don't want to talk about is that the time of useful consciousness at 16k is almost 30 minutes. this did not happen at 35k feet. even if none of them worked, with the time it took them to get to 10k nobody would suffer any effects.
 
In any of the lawsuits they will allege everything possible and see what sticks and make them prove it worked perfectly…Part of the miserable process…
 
Racerx said:
So was there upfitting post delivery? Perhaps the original Boeing bashing was slightly misplaced if it was Alaska that did the upfitting, couldn't diagnose multiple pressurization issues, and can't pull a breaker. Alaska maintenance doesn't exactly have a sterling reputation.
Click to expand...
Any "upfitting" generally takes place during final assembly. The only exceptions I recall are BBJ and military variants. I don't recall AS getting anything crazy installed in their aircraft that would require going somewhere else to have it installed, and certainly not side wall lining panels.
Customers have the ability to select options which are provided by third parties, referred to as "buyer furnished equipment", but it still gets installed on the line. My wheelhouse was, well, the wheelhouse - so an example would be installation of a HUD. That was done via STC. The Big airplane company only "owned" the provisions, that is the mounting locations for the various components of the Rockwell equipment. It was still installed by Big airplane company mechanics and delivered ready to go.

Because of continuously changing technology, wifi is one of the variable features which customers choose and have installed at the appropriate place during final assembly.

I do know that customers treat newly delivered aircraft differently. Some air carriers take a fresh plane and fly it to an airport where it begins revenue flights that day. I was told (read: unconfirmed rumor) that AS would fly a new plane to their facility and take it apart so it could be put back together "correctly".

Not sure what your reference about their less than sterling reputation is. If you're referring to flight 261 that was a very long time ago on a different aircraft. Presumably AS made appropriate changes after that.
 
Racerx said:
So was there upfitting post delivery? Perhaps the original Boeing bashing was slightly misplaced if it was Alaska that did the upfitting, couldn't diagnose multiple pressurization issues, and can't pull a breaker. Alaska maintenance doesn't exactly have a sterling reputation.
Click to expand...

Spirit Aero, not Alaska. Spirit Aero is basically how Boeing cuts labor costs and shifts (up until now anyways) legal blame when things go heading one-eight-ooh-sh%t. :biggrin:. It's basically a Boeing sockpuppet account; the industry is aware of it, the public just isn't, as intended. Builds 70% of an airliner, boasts about non-OEM status with a straight face. lulz.

According to the inter-fu, they [the former] build 70 pct of that stretch guppy POS. It's entirely plausible that fuselage gets shipped to Renton with the interior insulation and panels fitted, which would imply Spirit installs the plug. See above, no free lunch in life, not even for Boeing.

I don't see Alaska doing that initial work. That kind of assembly is a manufacturing process writ large, the airlines aren't in that business. That'd be akin to the car dealers doing the entire interior fitting assembly in-house just because the customers may want to order a different option.

The good news is that shouldn't be too difficult to investigate. Did Alaska meddle with the plug upon initial receipt? No? Then it doesn't take a genius to figure out which of the two babies left for pickup at the daycare sh%t the diaper. They already know who did it, they're just sitting down with their bought/paid "regulator" and handing them their sanctioned talking point note-cards for the suckers' (that's us btw) consumption. Nothing to see here, move along..

1705167036047.png
 
unsafervguy said:
the thing that the press and the lawyers don't want to talk about is that the time of useful consciousness at 16k is almost 30 minutes.
Click to expand...
And there are those in the traveling public who, while possessing consciousness, don't have enough of it to be useful even at sea level.
 
Larry in TN said:
Because it directly addresses your comment about pilot unions.
Click to expand...
I don't understand how, since my comment was about what unions care about, not what unions publicly claim to care about. But maybe you could say more.
 
Clarify for this non A&P - For these six critical fasteners, it looks to me like they are each loaded in shear and retained by common low-profile shear nuts, which in turn are supposed to be cotter keyed. Shear nuts may have a torque spec (yes?) but the real problem is the lack of cotter keys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top