3 ms·

It was not a "window and chunk of fuselage blowout" but a safety door blowout. In case 737MAX-9 is configured with maximum possible seat count then additional s

It was not a "window and chunk of fuselage blowout" but a safety door blowout. In case 737MAX-9 is configured with maximum possible seat count then additional safety door have to be added. On lower seat count configs (like on that incident flight) those extra door are still present but locked, hidden and not visible from inside.

MichaelMug 3y ago
Is there a citation or source for that? Not doubting you just interested.
- the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
  You can see the disabled door here in the picture. It’s behind the window that has more spacing: https://www.planespotters.net/photo/1483230/n969ak-alaska-airlines-boeing-737-9-max https://www.planespotters.net/photo/1483230/n969ak-alaska-ai... Inside there is no exit: https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Alaska_Airlines/Alaska_Airlines_Boeing_737-900_D.php https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Alaska_Airlines/Alaska_Air...
londons_explore 3y ago
> still present but locked, hidden and not visible from inside. Well that seems like a massive waste of weight...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
  - pcl 3y ago
    I wonder if real door maintenance is better understood than dummy door maintenance, though.
sitharus 3y ago
The fuselage opening for the door is still present as it’s a common part. The door is replaced with a window panel to seal the space, there is no door there. Any mechanical component - even if unused - requires servicing and maintenance. No airline would want to pay for that and the fuel cost on every flight to carry a door they don’t want.
- blensor 3y ago
  Somehow it feels less error prone to service an extra door than to replace the whole element from time to time. At least to my armchair viewpoint
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - sitharus 3y ago
    Why would it need replacing? It's a permanent element, unless the aircraft is refitted in the future when they can remove the panel and fit a door. The door's connection to the fuselage isn't a service item, just the mechanism itself.
- usrusr 3y ago
  “That particular Boeing 737 Max 9 rolled off the assembly line and received its certification two months ago“ Not a maintenance issue. Or if it is, that's a seriously shocking amount of maintenance demand.
  - bgentry 3y ago
    The patent was not claiming this was a maintenance issue. They were pointing out that if there were indeed a hidden exit door here that it would still require maintenance, which is why there wasn’t actually a hidden exit door here. Instead it’s a solid panel of some kind.
    - usrusr 3y ago
Symbiote 3y ago
It was a "window and a chunk of fuselage". It doesn't matter how the aircraft is assembled, those are the roles performed by the parts that fell away.

MichaelMug 3y ago

Is there a citation or source for that? Not doubting you just interested.

the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
You can see the disabled door here in the picture. It’s behind the window that has more spacing: https://www.planespotters.net/photo/1483230/n969ak-alaska-airlines-boeing-737-9-max https://www.planespotters.net/photo/1483230/n969ak-alaska-ai... Inside there is no exit: https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Alaska_Airlines/Alaska_Airlines_Boeing_737-900_D.php https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Alaska_Airlines/Alaska_Air...

londons_explore 3y ago

> still present but locked, hidden and not visible from inside. Well that seems like a massive waste of weight...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
- pcl 3y ago
  I wonder if real door maintenance is better understood than dummy door maintenance, though.

sitharus 3y ago

The fuselage opening for the door is still present as it’s a common part. The door is replaced with a window panel to seal the space, there is no door there. Any mechanical component - even if unused - requires servicing and maintenance. No airline would want to pay for that and the fuel cost on every flight to carry a door they don’t want.

blensor 3y ago
Somehow it feels less error prone to service an extra door than to replace the whole element from time to time. At least to my armchair viewpoint
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- sitharus 3y ago
  Why would it need replacing? It's a permanent element, unless the aircraft is refitted in the future when they can remove the panel and fit a door. The door's connection to the fuselage isn't a service item, just the mechanism itself.
usrusr 3y ago
“That particular Boeing 737 Max 9 rolled off the assembly line and received its certification two months ago“ Not a maintenance issue. Or if it is, that's a seriously shocking amount of maintenance demand.
- bgentry 3y ago
  The patent was not claiming this was a maintenance issue. They were pointing out that if there were indeed a hidden exit door here that it would still require maintenance, which is why there wasn’t actually a hidden exit door here. Instead it’s a solid panel of some kind.
  - usrusr 3y ago

Symbiote 3y ago

It was a "window and a chunk of fuselage". It doesn't matter how the aircraft is assembled, those are the roles performed by the parts that fell away.