I didn't have any prior experience with them really, other than I knew of them as being a very large news outlet. I'm in Canada so we have our own news sources with their own agendas.
Alaska Airlines AS1282 door blow out!
- Thread starter edyvw
- Start date
- Status
The lower hinges-spring mechanism could have been completely missing and the door would probably never open even under pressurization. Any problems with the two upper fittings and bolts and the door is going bye-bye! This design is really not a “plug” door.
Last edited:
Do you think someone was just trying to be funny and then realized it was "too soon"? Or were they really that stupid?
Yeah, they are pretty tough, my son is using an iphone XR right now that was in a creek for 2 years. It had washed down about 1/2 mile from where the kid dropped it, he dried it out, plugged it in and used the emergency contact option to message the mother who told my son he could keep it. I left mine on the roof of my car, it blew off on the highway, then got the bottom corner run over, and then got knocked into the ditch, I just used my wifes phone to find it, got a new screen and its been good for a couple years now.Apparently, both iPhones that were sucked out are working.
I am thinking that my reliance on Apple products will continue next several decades
So anything more on aftermarket installation (WiFi) messing with said bolts?
Anything on assembly records? Inspection buy offs?
Anything on assembly records? Inspection buy offs?
Is this a gaping hole, or what?
Reasonable words, not sure if pilots "scrambled" though. Interesting on the records and such.........
Ummm.....Looks like a "gaping hole" to me. I have a neat looking blue card in my wallet with the proper credentials to make that statement about a 737.
Exactly how large of an opening are you willing to tolerate in your window seat at 16,000 feet and 300+kts?
"Excuse me stewardess, but a 2 foot by 4 foot section of the airplane just blew out, and I can see halfway to Toledo without having to even open the window shade, but dont worry about it, it aint no gaping hole or a large section or missing piece of the airplane, I thought you just might want to know why its suddenly so windy and chilly in here. Oh by the way, can I get another Coors light before we begin our initial descent?"
I'll defer to any of our esteemed pilots here who may want to opine about how large of an opening in the plane they are flying that they are willing to tolerate, and what they would consider a gaping hole or a large piece of their aircraft. I only fix the things, I dont fly them.
I have a strong opinion about what happened here and what (probably) caused it, but I'll let the appropriate powers that be decide that before I start mouthing off. In the meantime if this were an inevitable event, I'm glad this happened when and where it did, 15 or 20 minutes later and there could have been a good number of dead people in (and out) of this airliner.
The day after the plane went missing? That was most certainly not humor.
It's OK, don't hold back.
I'm not sure why they would have to remove those doors. But, considering others are finding loose bolts, and Boeing issued MOM for loose bolts in the rudder assembly in December, I would say my bingo card will have Boing as the culprit.
Wouldn’t shock me as per what I posted about my personal real job life/history.
I am not sure why those bolts arent final tightened.. at the manufacturer.
Relying on Boeing to do it later seems .. a bad idea
Even if Boeing is going to remove them later to install interior.
Also why its not designed to be more foolproof.. ie cant be removed without actuating something inside the panel.
(weight savings maybe?)
My (worthless) prediction Boeing never tightened the bolts because for some reason they never removed it to install interior.
Relying on Boeing to do it later seems .. a bad idea
Even if Boeing is going to remove them later to install interior.
Also why its not designed to be more foolproof.. ie cant be removed without actuating something inside the panel.
(weight savings maybe?)
My (worthless) prediction Boeing never tightened the bolts because for some reason they never removed it to install interior.
If that hole blew out the side of a minivan, I'd call it a gaping hole. But on something the size of a 737 it's kind of a small hole. A window could blow out and it would still be a big deal, because it's either pressurized or not right?
Okay I get your point, it's a "gaping hole". I personally would have described it as a door sized hole. I attached a picture I did my best to mark up the missing door, for perspective on the size.
It is most definitely not a "large section of the aircraft blew off" when it's small enough that you could miss it if you just glanced from a distance.
Attachments
Nah. This one was not “gaping”. It was small, contained, about eight square feet. The press has to sensationalize everything.
But the door failure on UAL 811 (a design flaw, later corrected) that ripped out parts of the floor, fuselage, and took 8 seats with it all, leaving a hole over 20 feet high and more than ten feet across- that hole was gaping. It was huge.
The press used “gaping” to describe that one as well. And in that case, they were right. Look closely at the people standing next to the missing door for a sense of scale.
It is important to note the brilliant performance of the crew on this flight. The door damaged both right engines, which then caught on fire, as well as the right wing.
Right when the airplane was still at maximum weight.
The extra drag from the all damage really hurt the airplane’s performance and it would not maintain altitude on the remaining two engines. They began jettisoning fuel immediately, and with full thrust on the left engines, descended slowly to preserve airspeed.
The Captain elected a straight in approach to a short runway. They didn’t have the performance available to make any turns to line up with a long runway, because the airplane was still descending.
He used only partial flaps to land, because they couldn’t extend flaps to check handling, or the extra drag from flaps would’ve caused them to crash short of the runway.
In fact, they never did level off, they couldn’t. He managed drag and glidepath the whole way back to Honolulu.
So, he landed well over maximum landing weight, two engines out, partial flap, with structural damage, on a short runway.
And brought it to a stop safely on the runway.
An absolutely superb example of airmanship.
But the door failure on UAL 811 (a design flaw, later corrected) that ripped out parts of the floor, fuselage, and took 8 seats with it all, leaving a hole over 20 feet high and more than ten feet across- that hole was gaping. It was huge.
The press used “gaping” to describe that one as well. And in that case, they were right. Look closely at the people standing next to the missing door for a sense of scale.
It is important to note the brilliant performance of the crew on this flight. The door damaged both right engines, which then caught on fire, as well as the right wing.
Right when the airplane was still at maximum weight.
The extra drag from the all damage really hurt the airplane’s performance and it would not maintain altitude on the remaining two engines. They began jettisoning fuel immediately, and with full thrust on the left engines, descended slowly to preserve airspeed.
The Captain elected a straight in approach to a short runway. They didn’t have the performance available to make any turns to line up with a long runway, because the airplane was still descending.
He used only partial flaps to land, because they couldn’t extend flaps to check handling, or the extra drag from flaps would’ve caused them to crash short of the runway.
In fact, they never did level off, they couldn’t. He managed drag and glidepath the whole way back to Honolulu.
So, he landed well over maximum landing weight, two engines out, partial flap, with structural damage, on a short runway.
And brought it to a stop safely on the runway.
An absolutely superb example of airmanship.
I'll one up you, astro. Not throwing stones.
The Hawaiian Air 737. Sue and I saw that plane sitting on the tarmac during one of our trips to Hawaii. How that thing stayed airborne is incredible.
Scott
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 940
But the aircraft wasn’t heavy, and didn’t lose any thrust ( or flight control problems affecting landing performance ).
Some passengers actually got sucked out and were ingested into the engine ( plus other debris ).
Bad for passengers on both flights but a much more difficult emergency to manage and fly on the United B747 for pilots.
If not handled properly, that 747 might not have even made it back in one piece.
Great job for sure.
If you watch some interviews of the whistle blowers who used to work for Boeing, you'll hear that planes are rushed through the assembly line, with incomplete assemblies due to the "must stay on schedule at all costs" mentality of their assembly line.
Also, many safety tests are skipped.
Penny wise and pound foolish. Boeing could have been a great company, but now I would never let my family ride on any Boeing plane.
It's Airbus 100% for me. Boeing has lost my confidence (for safety) forever.
I don't wish to paint with a wide brush, but I think it's a culture phenominon.
The US company's in general have CEO's who want to rush production, and cut costs.
If we use cars as example, the temptation of: If we can save $100 per vehicle we manufacture, and we manufacture 1,000,000 cars (for example), we can save the company 100 million dollars. And instead of taking 5 years for quality assurance of a new vehicle, lets do it in 18 months instead. That kind of cost cutting mentality is the main reason US companies like GM, Chrysler, Boeing, etc build inferior products in my opinion.
In Europe, the culture is different. Safety and regulation is a top priority in the aviation business.
I prefer to only fly Airbus planes. I'm not saying everyone should do that. But it's what I prefer to do for my family.
Also, many safety tests are skipped.
Penny wise and pound foolish. Boeing could have been a great company, but now I would never let my family ride on any Boeing plane.
It's Airbus 100% for me. Boeing has lost my confidence (for safety) forever.
I don't wish to paint with a wide brush, but I think it's a culture phenominon.
The US company's in general have CEO's who want to rush production, and cut costs.
If we use cars as example, the temptation of: If we can save $100 per vehicle we manufacture, and we manufacture 1,000,000 cars (for example), we can save the company 100 million dollars. And instead of taking 5 years for quality assurance of a new vehicle, lets do it in 18 months instead. That kind of cost cutting mentality is the main reason US companies like GM, Chrysler, Boeing, etc build inferior products in my opinion.
In Europe, the culture is different. Safety and regulation is a top priority in the aviation business.
I prefer to only fly Airbus planes. I'm not saying everyone should do that. But it's what I prefer to do for my family.
Certainly that qualifies, and exceeds United 811, as “gaping”.
But I’m not certain the degree of airmanship displayed on the Hawaiian flight exceeded that of the crew on 811.
Great job by the Hawaiian crew, absolutely. But I don’t believe they had quite the flight control and engine issues that 811 faced. The photograph here shows full landing flaps, where 811 used only minimal flaps because of wing damage.
I will research that mishap (not familiar, I tend to focus on airplanes I fly, and I’ve never flown the 737) and give it some careful consideration. There is likely a lot to be learned about how they handled structural damage in flight.
- Status
Similar threads
