Is a Boeing 737 MAX the safest plane in service?

Pretty good passenger video of the return here. Nobody was sitting near the window thankfully.

https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/18zrrx4/10_week_old_737_max_alaska_airlines_1282/

Looks like a plug door failed?

 

The issues are problems at Boeing which stretch to volume over safety, too limited QA.
Then were taking a 60's design and stretching it beyond contemplation.
A door plug blowing out is probably a constitution flaw rather than a design flaw, but it all indicates how deeply flawed Boeing is.

Two anecdotes. Friend who is in early 60's engineer took early retirement from Boeing. he happens to be black and went off on their DEI culture going on to say they're hiring Black women over qualified engineers.

Another Freind who spent half his career flying KC135's so a Boeing guy, moved on tot he airline's, at a certain point he insisted on being taken off the 737 and being trained on Airbus, he said "the new 737 is a pos and band aids on top of band aids" this was before the Max.

To me certain planes geta rep, the DC10 comes ot mind, they just have too many inherent shortcuts or lack of ultimate best practice. each time a flaw is tragically discovered its fixed, but then a few years later another one crops up. Why take the chnace if you can avoid it.

Boeing is along way from the company that gave us the classic 707, 727, 737 747 and 777. While the a320 had its teething problems those are decades in the past and I absolutely prioritize flying on one. personally I try to avoid newer Boeign products, even if the design is Ok i'm not confident in the rest, just too many instances and stories off poor Qa Qc. even when there is not an accident.

im sorry guy's but wall street destroyed Boeing, and it is yet to be fixed..

 

Here you can see the plug for the inactive emergency exit detached in flight. Not good on a new plane.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Not sure why they grounded their entire MAX fleet?? This sounds like an error on someone's part, not the MAX's as the door is shared by non Max aircraft.

 

So apparently the answer to the OP's question is "no."

 

Locking doors was an additional cost option.

 

Blancolirio (777 pilot)



.

 

FAA grounds the Max again

https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID122693486620240106201913.0001?modalOpened=true

This affects Max 9s with the mid-cabin exit door plug.

 

As I and others have stated, this door location and door is not a new design on the -9 (Max). Sine the AD is limited to the Max it is not a design flaw. They know what the issue is and most certainly endemic to the Max assy line. Of course given the -9 Max line is same line as the other Max ………

 

might not be a design flaw, might be a one off event. likey poor QA QC, and that can be endemic to the entire line. Ie what's next.

 

That was my point. Apparently not conveyed too well.

 

Seems crazy. Like the door just vanished without damaging anything. Man was someone lucky that day.

 

What puzzles me is the fact that a plug door is designed to seal better and better as the plane climbs thus there is more P inside than outside.
Other than a bracket/part failure or assembly error, nothing else could have happen to release that door into the outside, specially on a less than one year old plane.

 

Texted a friend with Alaska Air to ask his opinion on the ‘blowout’……his response; “Hey, would you look at that Airbus in Japan; can you believe how it just burned to the ground? BTW: I just told them I cant make that LAX flight tonight, working late in the office……”

 

And on an inward opening door too……

 

This does not appear to be a "plug type door" to me. Where's the angled frame? I can see some kind of frame structure but not for a plug door. You can't blow out a plug door unless there has been damage to the frame. I have been away from this stuff for a long time but maybe that opening is a provisional installation fora future escape hatch that wasn't properly put together. These design items used to be pressure tested for proof before production.

 

All about the 737 mid-cabin exit doors, including the MAX 9 door plug option:

 

This was bothering me also - I was picturing an angled frame, like a window on a submarine but reversed.
Seems to be teminology. From the video above "Plug" apparently means the door and frame cannot serve as an actual exit, and would need to be "significantly" modified IF the plane capacity/seat configuration ever necessitated a "mid cabin" emergency exit.

According to the vid, there are only TWO bolts (in the "upper guide fitting") keeping the door from sliding up ~1" and falling open.
If the pic below is accurate, these are fairly small diameter bolts.
Seems like hard landings or maybe even turbulance can "bounce" the door, stressing the 2 bolts in shear, and also the bracketry on the door and frame.
Or maybe the bolts were never installed....
I would have also put a (removable) stopper strip along the door's top edge to prevent any vertical movement.

Hopefully they can find the door, which may hold key evidence into what happened.

Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

"plug" (no handle, full size window) vs "deactivated" door
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Supposedly a kid in the same row had his shirt ripped off and sucked out of the plane.
How'd you like to try getting him to fly again?

I always try getting a window seat - don't want to imagine sitting next to that hole going 450mph :/

 

I like the window seat but I always wear my seat belt!

 

Regulatory authorities define a plug door as one with initial opening movement being inward, and one which is not openable when pressurized. The door stops act as the ‘plugs’. The inward opening movement on these doors is basically zero once pressure is relieved. Airbus doors are no different. Boeing has patents on ‘plug’ doors of this type that do not have any inward movement when opening. Go figure.

Two 3/16 fasteners with 95ksi shear strength can react over 5000lb. This door weighs less than 100lb. Thus inertia loads capable of breaking the two fasteners would be unobtainable.

Thousands of doors such as these flying every day for decades. Something very simple was missed.

 

ok then by that definition it's not a "plug" door. No inward movement that I can see. It's up and out.

Your calculations may be accurate but don't take into account fatigue.
That said it does seem like if the bolts were there they should have lasted MUCH longer than 3 months.
And if they were there, and properly connected to the door and frame, the door can't move vertically which is apparently necessary to allow it to swing out&down from the bottom hinges.

Really want to see that door, and close up of where the bolts connect to frame.

 

It doesn't seem like there's any need for that solution and lots of potential downsides to it. It strikes me as an engineering solution looking to overcome a non-existent problem.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

Except there is no fatigue load on them.

 

Don’t understand your comment. What I am saying is that Boeing claims they have a plug door when it is not, and as such there are reduced requirements for certification.