737 MAX-9 preliminary report

[foggydogg]

A couple Y/T posters in the aviation community have detailed videos on how the door plug itself works, this website covers early inspection findings.
https://theaircurrent.com/feed/dispatch ... spections/
After assembling the airframe the bare aircraft is sent elsewhere in the "green" to install the interior; that facility would remove the plug to do the bulk of the work, then reinstall the door plug and cover it with insulation and finishing panels.
All the door stop tabs look to be intact on the accident aircraft, and the plug itself looks pretty good after having separated from the fuselage at 250+ kts and having fallen 16,000 feet.

[BlackBart]

Those green-coated fuselages pass through my city on trains from Wichita to Seattle (Renton).

(Aside - a train derailed once, dumping a half dozen bent 737s into the Clark Fork River)

I believe Boeing has forgotten how to use a torque wrench.

Don’t more than one person look at something to verify it’s finished??

They lost 20 Billion after those crashes, they’re still losing money, and it seems they’re scrambling to deliver all the unfinished parked planes. Shortcuts and skipped steps I’d say.

[abscate]

You guys realize these things pressure test like an P0455 evap code? I just learned that from retired Boeing brother

[matthew1]

They lost 20 Billion after those crashes, they’re still losing money, and it seems they’re scrambling to deliver all the unfinished parked planes. Shortcuts and skipped steps I’d say.

From what I gather, they lost the plot the minute they moved the HQ from Seattle to Chicago (2002?). Then it became a business, not a plane engineering firm, and bottom lines were the most important thing. The engineers lost their influence.

The 737 in today's form is an exercise in layering design compromise over design compromise, because its first flight was in 1968(!), and engines are much bigger/heavier/powerful than they were back then, throwing the balance off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737

A few decades ago they considered designing a fresh new model to fill its place, but that would have been too expensive.

[BlackBart]

Yes! A pressurization warning went off THREE TIMES before this accident and the airline failed to park it??

[abscate]

Yes! A pressurization warning went off THREE TIMES before this accident and the airline failed to park it??

No flying with the check engine light on….

Seriously , it’s routine to fly planes with stuff not working. The list of ‘acceptable not working stuff’ is tightly controlled and documented though

[BlackBart]

Agree with what Matt is saying. That catastrophic system that caused the two crashes was a total patch job of software and compromise. Their intent was to sort of “hide” it in the instructions so pilots wouldn’t need retraining, which of course would cost airlines money. If they designed a new system from scratch the plane would have to be re-certified, causing big delays and costing money.

They eliminated one of two angle-of-attack sensors on the nose - if the remaining one had a fault, there was no cross-check with the other one and the plane wouldn’t know if it was pointed up or down.

Professional pilots didn’t know the system even existed and therefore didn't know how to react when it failed.

People in the NW US used to joke “If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going,” but now I pat the side of the smooth modern airbus as I get on.

The 787 is quite an advanced airplane, but the 737 is in that Goldilocks sweet spot of just the right passenger load and domestic range and airlines like them.

[BlackBart]

Juan Brown -

[matthew1]

The first 737 (124 seats max)
Max. take-off weight: 44,225kg

Boeing_737_NASA_GPN-2000-001905.jpg (351.67 KiB) Viewed 1608 times

737 MAX 10 (244 seats max)
Max. take-off weight: ~ 89,765kg

boeing-737-max-10.jpg (85.9 KiB) Viewed 1608 times

[BlackBart]

I always called the early ones the Fat Cigar.