5 ms·

Alaska Airlines Plane Appears to Have Left Boeing Factory Without Critical Bolts

52 points by wyldfire 3y ago

nullindividual 3y ago
https://archive.is/Xaa2z https://archive.is/Xaa2z
jayknight 3y ago
Brian from Real Engineering thinks[1] a likely culprit is that the company that makes the fuselage doesn't completely secure the door plugs because they usually get removed to build out the interior of the plane according to the customer's desires. If Boeing actually didn't take the plugs out for that purpose, it's possible that there was a miscommunication that that was the case, or a missed step in the procedure documents that those need to be fully secured even if they were never removed. [1] https://youtu.be/hhT4M0UjJcg https://youtu.be/hhT4M0UjJcg (that part starts around 3:45)
- jzl 3y ago
  Watch this video, it has more fleshed out details of the probable cause of the miscommunication: https://youtu.be/XhRYqvCAX_k https://youtu.be/XhRYqvCAX_k
- djmips 3y ago
  From the article: The bolts were missing not loose. Boeing did not put in the bolts when they re-installed the doors. From my speculation: Somehow this escaped a quality inspection step due to a problem with a procedure where the bolts are not added to a checklist.
  - bcrl 3y ago
    Go read the thread that claims to be a whistleblower inside Boeing (over here: https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/146074-boeing-internal-whistleblower-re-max-door.html https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/146074-boeing-inte... ). The claim is that the door plug was removed to repair a seal that was damaged while reworking rivets that failed inspection, but the door wasn't reinspected as it should have been. It's a pretty damning claim that will be a huge liability for Boeing as the FAA investigates the electronic chatter on internal systems about the plane that failed. The big question is how many more time-bombs like this are going to be found lurking inside of Boeing's SAT system.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    > The bolts were missing not loose. The same explanation is plausible for either one. > Boeing did not put in the bolts when they re-installed the doors. Do we actually know for sure that they were re-installed?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
justinclift 3y ago
Isn't this just confirming what the recent anonymous leaker said? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39111494 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39111494
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  The article rambles, but it seems to hypothesise an unplanned removal. We have no evidence of that at this point. (It could have been a totally planned but botched removal.)
anjel 3y ago
In which case it's rather impressive that the door stayed seated in place as long as it did.
- fransje26 3y ago
  Well, they did have pressurisation issues pretty much from the start, and pulled the plane off ETOPS routes..
  - kayfox 3y ago
    The issues were with the controllers for the pressurization system, these control the valve that releases pressure from the fuselage in order to maintain a pressure that is high enough but not too high. A different indication would have been generated if the AC packs could not maintain pressure.
fabifabulous 3y ago
Wow. I hope, I‘ll never have to fly in a Boeing plane again. As a European, I‘m happy for Airbus.
- throwaway5959 3y ago
  So monopolies are OK but only when it benefits Europeans?
  - guax 3y ago
    "I don't want to fly company A, im happy with company B." And from that phrase you took that OP likes B to be a monopoly? All that because he expressed... choice on the competitor?
  - fabifabulous 3y ago
    Well, at least that monopoly won‘t kill me. Can‘t say that about a Boeing flight.
    - throwaway5959 3y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Airbus_A320_family https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incide... I wouldn’t be too smug.
      - fabifabulous 3y ago
        You feel hurt because you work at Boeing?
_xerces_ 3y ago
Wait, so the airplane manufacturer, Boeing, does not even make its own airframes? Some third party company makes the whole fuselage (most of the plane) and Boeing does what, bolts on the wings and third-party engines then sells it?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
d1sxeyes 3y ago
I'd be cautious about believing these 'whistleblowers' who make it sound like the problem is human error, or Boeing contractors, etc., or anything else where there's a scapegoat or a quick fix. I'm not saying it's not true, but if you were trying to restore confidence in the airworthiness of a fundamentally flawed design, it might make sense to publish unfalsifiable rumours along those lines.
mannyv 3y ago
You'd think that someone would have noticed the four extra bolts that were left over when they stuck the plug back in. I mean, that happens to all of us, but most of us aren't working on anything important. It implies that the bolts were actually never there at all. But again, you'd think someone would notice that on disassembly.

52 points by wyldfire 3y ago

https://archive.is/Xaa2z https://archive.is/Xaa2z

Brian from Real Engineering thinks[1] a likely culprit is that the company that makes the fuselage doesn't completely secure the door plugs because they usually get removed to build out the interior of the plane according to the customer's desires. If Boeing actually didn't take the plugs out for that purpose, it's possible that there was a miscommunication that that was the case, or a missed step in the procedure documents that those need to be fully secured even if they were never removed. [1] https://youtu.be/hhT4M0UjJcg https://youtu.be/hhT4M0UjJcg (that part starts around 3:45)

jzl 3y ago
Watch this video, it has more fleshed out details of the probable cause of the miscommunication: https://youtu.be/XhRYqvCAX_k https://youtu.be/XhRYqvCAX_k
djmips 3y ago
From the article: The bolts were missing not loose. Boeing did not put in the bolts when they re-installed the doors. From my speculation: Somehow this escaped a quality inspection step due to a problem with a procedure where the bolts are not added to a checklist.
- bcrl 3y ago
  Go read the thread that claims to be a whistleblower inside Boeing (over here: https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/146074-boeing-internal-whistleblower-re-max-door.html https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/146074-boeing-inte... ). The claim is that the door plug was removed to repair a seal that was damaged while reworking rivets that failed inspection, but the door wasn't reinspected as it should have been. It's a pretty damning claim that will be a huge liability for Boeing as the FAA investigates the electronic chatter on internal systems about the plane that failed. The big question is how many more time-bombs like this are going to be found lurking inside of Boeing's SAT system.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > The bolts were missing not loose. The same explanation is plausible for either one. > Boeing did not put in the bolts when they re-installed the doors. Do we actually know for sure that they were re-installed?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

justinclift 3y ago

Isn't this just confirming what the recent anonymous leaker said? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39111494 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39111494

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
The article rambles, but it seems to hypothesise an unplanned removal. We have no evidence of that at this point. (It could have been a totally planned but botched removal.)

anjel 3y ago

In which case it's rather impressive that the door stayed seated in place as long as it did.

fransje26 3y ago
Well, they did have pressurisation issues pretty much from the start, and pulled the plane off ETOPS routes..
- kayfox 3y ago
  The issues were with the controllers for the pressurization system, these control the valve that releases pressure from the fuselage in order to maintain a pressure that is high enough but not too high. A different indication would have been generated if the AC packs could not maintain pressure.

fabifabulous 3y ago

Wow. I hope, I‘ll never have to fly in a Boeing plane again. As a European, I‘m happy for Airbus.

throwaway5959 3y ago
So monopolies are OK but only when it benefits Europeans?
- guax 3y ago
  "I don't want to fly company A, im happy with company B." And from that phrase you took that OP likes B to be a monopoly? All that because he expressed... choice on the competitor?
- fabifabulous 3y ago
  Well, at least that monopoly won‘t kill me. Can‘t say that about a Boeing flight.
  - throwaway5959 3y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Airbus_A320_family https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incide... I wouldn’t be too smug.
    - fabifabulous 3y ago
      You feel hurt because you work at Boeing?

_xerces_ 3y ago

Wait, so the airplane manufacturer, Boeing, does not even make its own airframes? Some third party company makes the whole fuselage (most of the plane) and Boeing does what, bolts on the wings and third-party engines then sells it?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

d1sxeyes 3y ago

I'd be cautious about believing these 'whistleblowers' who make it sound like the problem is human error, or Boeing contractors, etc., or anything else where there's a scapegoat or a quick fix. I'm not saying it's not true, but if you were trying to restore confidence in the airworthiness of a fundamentally flawed design, it might make sense to publish unfalsifiable rumours along those lines.

mannyv 3y ago

You'd think that someone would have noticed the four extra bolts that were left over when they stuck the plug back in. I mean, that happens to all of us, but most of us aren't working on anything important. It implies that the bolts were actually never there at all. But again, you'd think someone would notice that on disassembly.