General Aviation Thread

[Rob c]

Rob, I've said this numerous times. The captain is reported as having said he believed he was cleared to enter the runway. If that's why he was on the runway, the status of the light is irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant as if he had not been cleared but though he had, the light would have been on and stopped him.
I also do not take much value yet from your wording that the captain was reported to have said he was cleared. until the official version is released and the official interpretation of the communication is released as to the clarity of this comms.

Presumably a dangerous pilot also needs the book thrown at them, yes?

Yes if the dangerous behavior was deliberate and known to the pilot to be dangerous.
I would comment that you need to take into account the complete meaning of what I have said and not try and micro critique it.
Let us wait until all the questions have been asked and answered by the professional investigators before passing judgment. I was involved in a crash investigation in my time in the air force ( a Skyhawk had turned it self into confetti) as the control specialist and know the time and work required. Post RNZAF my report on a fatal motorcycle crash was accepted by the Coroner as the correct report of the event. So I think I have a little more knowledge on what is required in these cases.

 

[Rob c]

can't say as I've made a mistake that is similar in consequence to causing people to die. Let's not conflate forgetting to order a refill for the office coffee machine with causing five people to die and endangering the safety of hundreds more.

O so you are the perfect driver and have never missed seeing a car when exiting an intersection, have never passed a cyclist to close, never acceded the speed limit etc , and the list goes on all dangerous mistakes.
No one is perfect. An old sayin from my religion is " let him who has not sinned cast the first stone".

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

It is not irrelevant as if he had not been cleared but though he had, the light would have been on and stopped him.

In retrosect that is a fair point that a working stop light would have given a clear indication. However, it's not necessarily conclusive, otherwise there would be crashes every day at airports where such lights weren't working.

Also you didn't answer my question about what is to be done in the scenario where the light isn't working. You're in charge of the airport and the maintenance team tells you the replacement parts will take at least a few weeks to arrive. Do you shut down the airport for night-time operations, or make a notice to airmen (which is what happened in this case)?

I also do not take much value yet from your wording that the captain was reported to have said he was cleared. until the official version is released and the official interpretation of the communication is released as to the clarity of this comms.

We shall see.

Yes if the dangerous behavior was deliberate and known to the pilot to be dangerous.

That's a ridiculously low bar to set, which would enable bad pilots to jump over it easily. It's irrelevant what the pilot thought, an objective assessment is what's needed.

O so you are the perfect driver and have never missed seeing a car when exiting an intersection

I don't drive. (Also that's a completely invalid comparison given that drivers don't have access to a traffic controller via radio who can give information on what other cars are doing.)

 

[Redlands18]

Further problems for Boeing with an entire window detaching just after take off luckily no one was sitting in the window seat, a child sitting in that row lost his shirt though. The plan made a safe emergency landing.

 

[Ananda]

this is should not be something new on Boeing assembly practices. Guess they are going to find themselves on another rounds of questioning, scrutiny and reputations damage control.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/spirit-aero-made-blowout-part-boeing-has-key-role-sources-2024-01-07/

Reuters put article on how the process installing this 'plug' on Max 9 being done. Their sources talk this is basically the similar work done on Max 9 predecessor 737-900ER. As mention before, the door only activate on Higher densities configuration, which most users are budget airlines.

Seems the indication on inspection probes going to be in the assembly process. Something that should be already reguler process, knowing this's already been done since from Max 9 predecessor.

 

[ngatimozart]

First, as I said, if the pilot has been accurately reported as saying he believed he was cleared to enter the runway (and that is why the coastguard plane was on it), the issue of the lighting is irrelevant.

Second, even if the coastguard crew had believed they were at a holding point off the runway, the issue of lighting would still be a minor issue. Airport facilities can come out of service from time to time - ILS is a common one. When aircrew are notified of those problems, they are responsible for taking mitigating action.

It's virtually certain that the captain and his crew didn't mean to act in an unsafe way. So there will have been something we're not currently aware of at play, such as fatigue. It's also fairly certain that the crew will have put themselves under pressure to complete the relief flight because they would want to help people. Their superiors may have suggested that they had to leave by a certain time.

But at the same time I think it's important to focus on what appears to the primary failing, that of the coastguard captain/crew. People have to take personal responsibility, and for me I'm not all that interested in minor contributory factors. That can be saved for the minutiae of the final report.

The investigation has just begun and we know very little. Don't rush into conclusions based on 2nd, 3rd, & 4th hand accounts.

 

[Rob c]

In retrosect that is a fair point that a working stop light would have given a clear indication. However, it's not necessarily conclusive, otherwise there would be crashes every day at airports where such lights weren't working.
What you are missing here is that the light is a safety measure to cover when pilots make mistakes. These mistakes are rare but due to human nature they happen from time to time and that is why we have such safety measures. there are a lot of other safety measures and procedures in place to cover for these rare mistakes. While usually there are not any accidents when these features are out of action, from time to time when these features are not operational there have been accidents. It is simply life that when humans are involved total 100% safety is not going too happen. Failure to recognize human frailty that is a fact of life is just due very restrictive thincking.

Also you didn't answer my question about what is to be done in the scenario where the light isn't working. You're in charge of the airport and the maintenance team tells you the replacement parts will take at least a few weeks to arrive. Do you shut down the airport for night-time operations, or make a notice to airmen (which is what happened in this case)?
As I said above, while safety features make things safer, there is only a small increase in the risk factor when the odd one fails. But we must also recognize that almost all accidents have a human element, risk is part of life.



We shall see.



That's a ridiculously low bar to set, which would enable bad pilots to jump over it easily. It's irrelevant what the pilot thought, an objective assessment is what's needed.
Bad pilots usually fail to become aircraft captains and they are regularly checked to ensure they are component. You are not seeing the difference between a mistake and a deliberate dangerous act. I think this is a rather constrained, pedantic outlook .



I don't drive. (Also that's a completely invalid comparison given that drivers don't have access to a traffic controller via radio who can give information on what other cars are doing.)
A deliberately dangerous act is a deliberately dangerous act irrespective of whether it is using a car, aircraft, boat or whatever.

A final word from me, as I said before, you have missed the pertinent points I was making due to being selective about points you make without looking at the bigger picture.

 

[swerve]

Just spotted this month-old follow-up on the AOG Technics fake parts scandal.

Opinion: Technician Experience Trumps Paperwork In Parts Scandal | Aviation Week Network

Good job done by that Portuguese technician!

But it should never have reached that point. When this first blew up last year (September?) I looked on LinkedIn & at the company registration. There were red flags everywhere. A couple I remember were that a senior person in a people-facing role (HR, IIRC), supposedly a graduate of a leading UK university, had no LinkedIn connections outside the company, the registered address of the company was at a provider of serviced offices (by the hour, if required - a respectable business activity, but iffy for the HQ of a firm in this business), & an absolute killer: photos of at least three supposed principals in the company were stock photos, e.g. from Shutterstock . . . .

If I was buying safety-critical airliner parts, I'd spend at least 5 minutes checking up on the supplier. Anyone who did so with AOG Technics should have had alarm bells ringing in their head almost immediately. So, whoever bought from them did effectively zero due diligence.

Aha! Bloomberg picked up on that.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-08/linkedin-profiles-expose-bogus-claims-at-fake-parts-supplier-to-jet-engines

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

That scandal passed me by. It's amazing that decades after the scandal of used parts being missold was uncovered in the US, the same thing was happening in Europe by the same mechanism (falsifying the paperwork).

 

[Ananda]

First Part
​

​ ​ ​

​

​ ​ ​ January 8, 2024 ​ Breaking: United Airlines Discovers Loose Bolts On Boeing 737 MAX 9 ​ The loose bolts were found by the FAA-mandated inspections following a door plug blowout aboard an Alaska Airlines flight. Key-Points ​ Loose bolts were found in a door plug installation, following the grounding of the United Airlines 737 MAX 9 fleet. United Airlines is conducting thorough inspections of the door plug area with its team of technicians. Installation issues with the door plug were discovered, and United Airlines is awaiting final approval from the FAA for its inspection process. ​ On Monday, January 8, United Airlines revealed that it had discovered several loose bolts that are used to install the door plug on some of the airline's Boeing 737 MAX 9 aircraft. These findings come just days after the emergency exit door plug was blown out of the fuselage aboard an Alaska Airlines flight 1282. This caused the eventual grounding of certain Boeing 737 MAX 9 aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other aviation authorities across the world. Inspection leading to findings After the emergency exit door plug was blown off the Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9, the FAA grounded all the aircraft variants in the United States and ordered the immediate inspection of this area of the affected aircraft. United Airlines, which operates a total of 79 Boeing 737 MAX 9 aircraft in its fleet, expected the FAA would require inspections and began prepping many of its aircraft this past Saturday. United Airlines is the largest operator of the 737 MAX 9 in the world, per ch-aviation, just above Alaska Airlines. The airline began its inspection process by removing the interior panel that covers the door plug from the inside and visually inspecting the surrounding area. To do this, two rows of seats and the sidewall liner must be removed. The United Airlines inspectors then verify the proper installation of the door and frame hardware. The process continues by opening the door plug itself and examining the associated seal and additional structure. The door is then reinstalled, ensuring the plug is fit and sealed properly. Any discrepancies are documented before the aircraft is entered back into service, although the FAA has not cleared any 737 MAX 9 aircraft to resume operations. This entire inspection process requires a team of five United Airlines technicians and takes the team several hours per inspection. United specified that the airline and its inspection team are still awaiting final approval from the FAA regarding the overall inspection process. However, upon this early inspection process, United technicians discovered several installation issues involving the emergency exit door plug. A statement from the airline said, "Since we began preliminary inspections on Saturday, we have found instances that appear to relate to installation issues in the door plug – for example, bolts that needed additional tightening. These findings will be remedied by our Tech Ops team to safely return the aircraft to service." Also, per Jon Ostrower of The Air Current, these discrepant bolts and other problematic parts were discovered on at least five of the airline's aircraft. Boeing did not immediately respond for comment regarding the finding.

Got this from my email newsletters from SimpleFlying. This is not good from my perspective. This is indicating problem on work quality on Boeing assembly practice. This is means problem on their QC inspection.

 

[Ananda]

2nd part:

Boeing jetliner was restricted due to warning light before inflight blowout

Alaska Airlines decided to restrict the aircraft from long flights over water so the plane could land quickly if the warning light reappeared.

www.pbs.org

Alaska also already restrict the Max 9 in question due to repeated warning lights on potential pressurization problem. Their maintenance team seems not having found the solution, thus the restrictions mostly for precautions. However in my opinion since the plug already cover by cabin panel, unless the maintenance team zero in on that area (like United team does), they will not suspect that.

Thus all Boeing customer now has to check the integrity of Boeing assembly work ? That's supposed to be Boeing QC work job. FAA will have busy days ahead in inspecting Boeing Assembly practices (again).

Another link on United findings on loose bolts:

United finds loose bolts on plug doors during 737 Max 9 inspections

United Airlines has found loose bolts and other parts on 737 Max 9 plug doors as it inspects its fleet of Boeing jets following the Friday rapid depressurization aboard an Alaska Airlines jet of the same make, according to three people familiar with the findings.

theaircurrent.com

 

[ngatimozart]

First Part
​

​ ​ ​

​

​ ​ ​ January 8, 2024 ​ Breaking: United Airlines Discovers Loose Bolts On Boeing 737 MAX 9 ​ The loose bolts were found by the FAA-mandated inspections following a door plug blowout aboard an Alaska Airlines flight. Key-Points ​ Loose bolts were found in a door plug installation, following the grounding of the United Airlines 737 MAX 9 fleet. United Airlines is conducting thorough inspections of the door plug area with its team of technicians. Installation issues with the door plug were discovered, and United Airlines is awaiting final approval from the FAA for its inspection process. ​ On Monday, January 8, United Airlines revealed that it had discovered several loose bolts that are used to install the door plug on some of the airline's Boeing 737 MAX 9 aircraft. These findings come just days after the emergency exit door plug was blown out of the fuselage aboard an Alaska Airlines flight 1282. This caused the eventual grounding of certain Boeing 737 MAX 9 aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other aviation authorities across the world. Inspection leading to findings After the emergency exit door plug was blown off the Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9, the FAA grounded all the aircraft variants in the United States and ordered the immediate inspection of this area of the affected aircraft. United Airlines, which operates a total of 79 Boeing 737 MAX 9 aircraft in its fleet, expected the FAA would require inspections and began prepping many of its aircraft this past Saturday. United Airlines is the largest operator of the 737 MAX 9 in the world, per ch-aviation, just above Alaska Airlines. The airline began its inspection process by removing the interior panel that covers the door plug from the inside and visually inspecting the surrounding area. To do this, two rows of seats and the sidewall liner must be removed. The United Airlines inspectors then verify the proper installation of the door and frame hardware. The process continues by opening the door plug itself and examining the associated seal and additional structure. The door is then reinstalled, ensuring the plug is fit and sealed properly. Any discrepancies are documented before the aircraft is entered back into service, although the FAA has not cleared any 737 MAX 9 aircraft to resume operations. This entire inspection process requires a team of five United Airlines technicians and takes the team several hours per inspection. United specified that the airline and its inspection team are still awaiting final approval from the FAA regarding the overall inspection process. However, upon this early inspection process, United technicians discovered several installation issues involving the emergency exit door plug. A statement from the airline said, ​ Also, per Jon Ostrower of The Air Current, these discrepant bolts and other problematic parts were discovered on at least five of the airline's aircraft. Boeing did not immediately respond for comment regarding the finding.

Got this from my email newsletters from SimpleFlying. This is not good from my perspective. This is indicating problem on work quality on Boeing assembly practice. This is means problem on their QC inspection.

It's appeared in the MSM here too and it definitely isn't a good look for Boeing. But they have had problems like this for the last few years. The USAF found FOD in various parts of their KC-46 airframes. The FOD was tools etc. Boeing certainly has a quality control problem and the media here noted that its share price has dropped as a result of the United Airlines find.

 

[John Fedup]

It's appeared in the MSM here too and it definitely isn't a good look for Boeing. But they have had problems like this for the last few years. The USAF found FOD in various parts of their KC-46 airframes. The FOD was tools etc. Boeing certainly has a quality control problem and the media here noted that its share price has dropped as a result of the United Airlines find.

Boeing was down over 8% yesterday. QC is a problem but customers like the USAF and major airlines still continue to buy. It seems that only insurance companies will have leverage on Boeing’s incompetent management. I am sure they will be sticking it to them big time and they deserve it.

 

[Ananda]

Some market analyst like this one from Citi believe the market dip on Boeing shares will be short temporary. However the other industry analyst seems more cautious. Still both of them agree that's this plug has been installed for long time. As I mentioned before it is already installed from Max 9 predecessor the 900ER.

So good thing for Boeing, perhaps it is indicating not design problem. However bad news again shown the indication this is manufacturing/assembly issues in Boeing or Spirit Aero (as supplier). Either way all analysts agree this will make FAA further scrutinized Boeing. In my opinion could be not a good situation for Boeing drive for earlier certification on both Max 7 and Max 10.



This picture of the plug that's been retrive. Originate from ABC news sites. FAA usually going to find the cause quite fast, when all materials related has been retrieved.

 

[swerve]

That scandal passed me by. It's amazing that decades after the scandal of used parts being missold was uncovered in the US, the same thing was happening in Europe by the same mechanism (falsifying the paperwork).

It turns out that the CV of the most senior of the supposed employees with a fake photo was fake. Major companies he was claimed to have worked for said they had no record of him. I'm sure the others will also be completely fake. It looks as if only the head really exists.

He's been arrested.

I'm still surprised that in such a business, companies were buying parts from such an obvious scammer. If I could see the company was dodgy almost immediately . . . . . LinkedIn is an excellent resource for checking.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I'm still surprised that in such a business, companies were buying parts from such an obvious scammer. If I could see the company was dodgy almost immediately . . . . . LinkedIn is an excellent resource for checking.

I guess they adopted the Homer Simpson approach: "It's not illegal if I don't see it!", i.e. they're not responsible if they do the bare minimum of due dilligence and save money accordingly.

Like in the US, were airlines censured for not investigating the quality of parts they received following the Partnair crash report? I don't think they were, they just claimed they were operating in good faith and pushed all the blame on to the scammers.

 

[Ananda]

"We are at this moment not sure if the bolts ever been there". That's NTSB official brief to media. I can only say, problem with loose bolts as before being found by Airlines, already damaging enough for Boeing Workmanship. If this is found out to be true, this is major, major QC problem within Boeing.

Personally I don't know if FAA going to give early clearance for Max 7 and Max 10 for Boeing after this. They will going to find blood with Boeing manufacturing practices, including with their vendors like Spirit Aero. Boeing should revamp their management 'again' after this. Including finding new CEO. Perhaps really rebuild not company practices, but also company cultures. When this already repeated happens on Boeing QC, for a manufacturing companies, ussualy means something wrong with their overall work culture.

 

[John Fedup]

"We are at this moment not sure if the bolts ever been there". That's NTSB official brief to media. I can only say, problem with loose bolts as before being found by Airlines, already damaging enough for Boeing Workmanship. If this is found out to be true, this is major, major QC problem within Boeing.

Personally I don't know if FAA going to give early clearance for Max 7 and Max 10 for Boeing after this. They will going to find blood with Boeing manufacturing practices, including with their vendors like Spirit Aero. Boeing should revamp their management 'again' after this. Including finding new CEO. Perhaps really rebuild not company practices, but also company cultures. When this already repeated happens on Boeing QC, for a manufacturing companies, ussualy means something wrong with their overall work culture.

Get the bean counters in senior management replaced by engineers and move the HQ back to Washington State. Might be a good start for recovery.

 

[Ananda]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745794679109529719

As expected, FAA really hitting Boeing manufacturing practices. More indication not only Max 9 grounding will be extended, but also potentially no early reprieve for Max 7 and Max 10 certification.

Boeing CEO already 'threaten' US Congress before on Boeing scaling down production if Max 7 and Max 10 not get certification soon. However if I'm Boeing creditors or shareholders, better push Boeing board to sack the CEO and revamp overall management team. Boeing really deserve to get left behind in the market by Airbus, and set become 2nd player only for foreseable future.

 

[John Fedup]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745794679109529719

As expected, FAA really hitting Boeing manufacturing practices. More indication not only Max 9 grounding will be extended, but also potentially no early reprieve for Max 7 and Max 10 certification.

Boeing CEO already 'threaten' US Congress before on Boeing scaling down production if Max 7 and Max 10 not get certification soon. However if I'm Boeing creditors or shareholders, better push Boeing board to sack the CEO and revamp overall management team. Boeing really deserve to get left behind in the market by Airbus, and set become 2nd player only for foreseable future.

Probably dozens need to be sacked, not just the CEO and a few of his minions.