Comments on: Update on B737 MAX 9 – Operators and Regulators Response

By: Ken D.

Ken D. — Wed, 10 Jan 2024 02:03:28 +0000

Fired former employees of Spirit Aerospace filed lawsuits for retaliation for reporting safety and quality issues! Right to work state, Right to keep your mouth shut and not get fired!

By: Ken D.

Ken D. — Tue, 09 Jan 2024 20:50:48 +0000

I’ve been in aerospace for over 35 years, I’ve seen a steady decline in skilled labor, Assemblers with no previous manufacturing experience, Inspectors with no aerospace experience, Managers straight out of college with no experience. I’ve worked for vendors while on layoff where there is no Union. SPIRIT IS NON-UNION, RIGHT TO WORK, RIGHT TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT AND KEEP YOUR JOB! SAY SOMETHING AND GET FIRED!

By: P. Du Cann

P. Du Cann — Tue, 09 Jan 2024 16:57:46 +0000

In reply to Victor Craft.

Sir, clearly this catastrophic failure issue (a very near-miss) is not a manufacturing problem. It is a fundamental Boeing design and development issue.
It can be seen that the Boeing management team does not know the basic engineering principles of a “Fail Safe” door plug.
As the equipment failure danger is a serious risk to crew, passengers and the aircraft; any measures taken to “plug” the emergency door aperture with anything other than the approved door assembly, needs to be designed then manufactured to fail safe.
Any “plug” should be designed and manufactured be forced tighter onto the frame when the aircraft is pressurised.
Even a child knows that a patch attached to the inside of a punctured paddling pool will hold back the water pressure better than a patch stuck to the outside alone.

By: Barbsright

Barbsright — Tue, 09 Jan 2024 08:16:16 +0000

I cannot understand how “Boeing” was allowed to use a panel that could fail-catastrophically, in order ‘to plug’ the door-space. pressurized aircraft use “plug-doors”, which are able to fail safely because the area around the door is smaller than the space the door enters through. this means the door can only be opened when the pressure in the aircraft is close to the pressure outside the aircraft. “Boeing” needs to replace all ‘plug panels’-door with plug-doors. they should’ve never been allowed to have some set up like that, that could fail catastrophically as this one did. These entries need to be failsafe the only way to make them failsafe is to replace them with plug-door-panels.

By: Victor Craft

Victor Craft — Tue, 09 Jan 2024 07:10:52 +0000

One shouldn’t jump to conclusions until a thorough investigation has been conducted. However, it does initially appear there is a potential manufacturing procedural issue that needs to be addressed. Questions to be raised are 1) was the torque on the bolt insufficient? 2) did QA fail to insure proper torquing during manufacturing? 3) was there an engineering mistake in the torque callout? As with most accidents of this nature, we discover that a series of missteps lead up to the incident. Boeing has been under the microscope with the 737 Max along with Boeing personnel even complaining about the lack of attention to detail on the assembly line for this and some of its other products. Could this be indicative of a rush to get planes out the door?