The panel is used instead of an exit door in some Max 9 configurations. As the BBC report explains, “The rear mid-cabin exit door is used in dense seating configurations on some Max 9 planes to meet evacuation requirements, but is ‘plugged’ on other planes, including the Alaska [Airlines] flight”. The carrier has taken 65 similar aircraft out of service.
Added to that number are the 79 Max 9s previously delivered to United Airlines. In total, 171 aircraft have been grounded following an FAA directive. The scale of disruption is hinted at by the Beeb also telling “Alaska said it cancelled 160 flights on Saturday, affecting about 23,000 passengers”. The “plugged” door area is held in place by four bolts. All must be inspected.
Fortunately, for those living on this side of the North Atlantic, “The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is following the FAA approach, but flight disruptions on the continent are expected to be minimal. EASA said it believes no European airlines operate Max 9s with the configuration covered by the FAA order. One of the world's largest intercontinental airports, London Heathrow, said there was no impact on flights”. So how bad was the incident?
Potentially, very bad indeed: the panel blew out at just over 16,000 feet, with passengers still having their safety belts fastened. However, as the BBC report reminds us, “The cruising height of a 737 Max is around 38,000ft. At this level, the difference between the pressure inside the aircraft and the atmosphere outside is much greater. Had the door blown out here, the sudden rush of air would have been much more violent, and potentially lethal, especially if passengers were not wearing seatbelts”. And it gets worse still.
OH DEAR
“The jet had been prevented from making long-haul flights over water, said Jennifer Homendy of the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) … Speaking at a news conference, Ms Homendy said pilots reported pressurisation warning lights on three previous flights made by the specific Alaska Airlines Max 9 involved in the incident”. There was more.
“The decision to restrict lengthy flights over water was so that the plane ‘could return very quickly to an airport’ in the event the warnings happened again, the NTSB chief added … ‘An additional maintenance look’ was requested but ‘not completed’ before the incident, Ms Homendy said”. Well, well.
Meanwhile, airlines that have committed to the 737 must be wondering what is going to happen next. A repeat of the Portland incident should be impossible for carriers like Ryanair, who thus far have restricted their new aircraft to the Max 8. But Michael O’Leary and his merry men have an order in for up to 150 Max 10s. Meanwhile, Airbus devotees are sitting pretty.
The problem for the Boeing 737 stems from the original design being rather too close to the ground for newer fan engines. Airbus could take a clean design brief with their A320 family. So the 737 had to have its engine intakes redesigned for the 300 to 800 series, with the infamous MCAS system for the Max. The company now needs to ensure it retains punters’ confidence after the Portland incident. Otherwise it could be in serious trouble.
Also, peak flying could be closer than the industry is prepared to admit.
https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton
10 comments:
Come on Anonymous, shoehorn Quislings, Red Tories, the sewer that is London, or Mr Micawber (if wet, Uriah Heep) into this.
For years many having been asking what comes after the 757. For years Boeing ignored the issue and have pushed the 737 to the MAX and it’s not working.
'Ere, wot's orl dis abaht.
Michael Kyne woz nowhere near the bladder plyne.
I ad dat Jonafin Iken in the backer me cab once. Ee noo abaht plynes an ow t'get from aye t'bee syflee.
Gawd bless innersint Prince Andy.
And a Portland schoolteacher called Bob found the missing part in his yard. “Hurray for Bob!” says my grate frend Jeff, who inhabits those parts. “One should always check one’s yard for airplane parts before going to work!” Though I can imagine that having something like that land on your house/car/head from 16,000 feet would do you a power of no good. United Airlines has reported finding loose bolts on some, or more, of its planes too.
The earlier business with the 737 MAX MCAS sub-system shewed Boeing to be a bunch of cowboys, and the FAA doesn’t appear to be much better..
This may well be the impetus to introduce the 797 for consumer routes.
"EASA said it believes no European airlines operate Max 9s with the configuration covered by the FAA order."
They were only bought by 2 airlines and I suspect they were pressured to Buy Boeing by the powers that be.
What please is meant by "peak flying"?
It's the point when flight becomes economically unviable due to rising fuel costs, and market saturation.
In the "golden age" of air travel, a relatively small number of flyers were prepared to pay top dollar for an exclusive service. Fast forward to the age of mass travel and airlines are run on a shoestring, profit margins are very tight, and the customer experience is pretty awful.
Soon we'll hit a point where costs will have to rise, putting air travel out of reach of many people. Those who can still afford it will not be enough to maintain the big carriers. We'll most likely go back to smaller planes and a bespoke service for the very rich.
"Economically unviable" = Plastic Yank speak, Wall Street edition.
Re: Filling you
I only put enough fuel in for the journey, otherwise I'm burning fuel to carry extra fuel around.
Yours,
Michael "Economically Viable" O'Leary
Post a Comment