Door comes off in flight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tc_s1

Don't forget though, longer than 20 years ago, about 35 years ago, n April 28, 1988, the roof of an Aloha Airlines (flight 243) jet ripped off at 24,000 feet, but the plane still managed to land safely. That was ALSO a Boeing, the 737, where its roof tore loose and peeled off mid-flight. A flight attendant was killed, and more than 60 people suffered injuries. This was long before the mergers and MBA-ification noted above.

Airplanes are still dangerous business, though statistically one of the safest ways to travel. So much can go wrong between engineering, value engineering, production, operations, maintenance, weather, etc........ yes, Boeing has had a tough run of late and it is tragic that there has been loss of life.

Airbus has had its fair share as well - As of January 2024, 180 aviation accidents and incidents, including 38 hull loss accidents and 1505 fatalities in 17 fatal accidents.

Again, it's still a dangerous business, all the way round.

---

I flew that route with Aloha a few years before that incident.
I have never experienced anything that felt like it would self destruct as that plane!

Tony

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

To quote Wikipedia:- "caused by part of the fuselage breaking due to poor maintenance and metal fatigue."

"While the airframe had accumulated 35,496 flight hours prior to the accident, those hours included nearly 90,000 flight cycles (takeoffs and landings), owing to its use on short flights."

"This amounted to more than twice the number of flight cycles for which it was designed."

I am not sure that one can be laid at Boeing's door - the aircraft was clearly being used in a way that was outside its design. I think this was in Aloha's domain, not Boeing's, although it is possible that Boeing did not properly document the expected fatigue life of the plane. One member of the investigating panel allocated blame to both Boeing and the FAA for this, although the rest of the panel blamed Aloha for not spotting cracking - which was noticed by one passenger boarding the flight (who said nothing!).

This was a very early production one (152) and all 737s after 291 had the skin joint that fatigued and failed redesigned because it had become a known problem.

Edit: More information

---

Before I fly again I'll question whether the airline still has a Dragon Rapide in service, it can't have these problems Others maybe, but I'll take my chances.[bighmmm] [bigrolf]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tc_s1

Don't forget though, longer than 20 years ago, about 35 years ago, n April 28, 1988, the roof of an Aloha Airlines (flight 243) jet ripped off at 24,000 feet, but the plane still managed to land safely. That was ALSO a Boeing, the 737, where its roof tore loose and peeled off mid-flight. A flight attendant was killed, and more than 60 people suffered injuries. This was long before the mergers and MBA-ification noted above.

---

There is no correlation whatsoever between the Aloha incident ( JDNSW covered that ) and the well known 737 MAX disasters of two relatively new aircraft or the recent Alaskan accident ( FAA is calling it that, which raises the level of severity in which it is regarded ) of an airframe that has been in service for only three months. These can be laid squarely at the feet of Boeing and it's suppliers, as can the other many failures at inspection of the 737 AND other airframes that are coming to light. Loose and missing bolts are just the tip. Ultimately it is totally Boeing's responsibility to produce aircraft that meet very high standards, and clearly it has failed to do so.

As for Airbus, when was the last time they had an entire family of aircraft grounded?

It is, as you say, a dangerous business, but that is no reason to accept systemic failures of procedure. Boeing needs a major shakeup. We'll see now if the FAA has the stones to do it. Boeing is a major supplier of military hardware, after all. Probably gets it some indemnity at a Congressional level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

To quote Wikipedia:- "caused by part of the fuselage breaking due to poor maintenance and metal fatigue."

"While the airframe had accumulated 35,496 flight hours prior to the accident, those hours included nearly 90,000 flight cycles (takeoffs and landings), owing to its use on short flights."

"This amounted to more than twice the number of flight cycles for which it was designed."

I am not sure that one can be laid at Boeing's door - the aircraft was clearly being used in a way that was outside its design. I think this was in Aloha's domain, not Boeing's, although it is possible that Boeing did not properly document the expected fatigue life of the plane. One member of the investigating panel allocated blame to both Boeing and the FAA for this, although the rest of the panel blamed Aloha for not spotting cracking - which was noticed by one passenger boarding the flight (who said nothing!).

This was a very early production one (152) and all 737s after 291 had the skin joint that fatigued and failed redesigned because it had become a known problem.

Edit: More information

---

To be fair, John, a lay passenger would likely assume what is obviously visible to them has been seen and dismissed by more qualified eyes. Lets face it, the pilots, engineers and cabin crew use the same door.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V8Ian

To be fair, John, a lay passenger would likely assume what is obviously visible to them has been seen and dismissed by more qualified eyes. Lets face it, the pilots, engineers and cabin crew use the same door.

---

Undoubtedly - I did not mean to criticise the passenger - just that if it was obvious to a passenger, how did the aircrew and maintenance personnel manage to miss it? The accident report suggests that part of the reason was that maintenance was all done at night, presumably because most flying was daytime.

It is reminiscent of the occasion many years ago where the cook on board a steamer complained to the captain about a crack in the galley deck. When his report was ignored he started marking the date at the end of the crack each day.

Some weeks later, the ship broke in two. Fortunately for science, the half with the dates on it remained floating, and this provided just about the only well documented example of the rate of progress of a fatigue crack in a large structure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tins

There is no correlation whatsoever between the Aloha incident ( JDNSW covered that ) and the well known 737 MAX disasters of two relatively new aircraft or the recent Alaskan accident ( FAA is calling it that, which raises the level of severity in which it is regarded ) of an airframe that has been in service for only three months. These can be laid squarely at the feet of Boeing and it's suppliers, as can the other many failures at inspection of the 737 AND other airframes that are coming to light. Loose and missing bolts are just the tip. Ultimately it is totally Boeing's responsibility to produce aircraft that meet very high standards, and clearly it has failed to do so.

As for Airbus, when was the last time they had an entire family of aircraft grounded?

It is, as you say, a dangerous business, but that is no reason to accept systemic failures of procedure. Boeing needs a major shakeup. We'll see now if the FAA has the stones to do it. Boeing is a major supplier of military hardware, after all. Probably gets it some indemnity at a Congressional level.

---

For clarity the post was not intended to let Boeing 'off the hook', but more to share thatcwhile decentralized, MBA led structure may or may not be the root cause, there are incidents throughout the various organizations, structures, airframe, and timeliness..... simply stating that spinning off companies as suppliers and Engineering vs MBA inclined leadership in prior comments, while interesting points to consider, didn't seem to give a complete picture, nor the matter the consideration it warrants. True, perhaps the FAA will proceed more substantially now and from the audit announced that seems likely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tins

As for Airbus, when was the last time they had an entire family of aircraft grounded?

---

Honestly? Emirates was covering for them with A380 faults. I was playing in a band with one of the senior safety crew for Emirates. Some of the photos I saw of A380 engineering and electrical systems would leave you cold. Did they fix it? Yes, eventually. But Airbus were covered by the airline because they needed to "save face" and the Arabs are part of that crew.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4bee

Before I fly againOthers maybe, but I'll take my chances.[bighmmm] [bigrolf]

---

There are a range of estimates out there, but based on its analysis of US Census data, it puts the odds of dying as a plane passenger at 1 in 205,552. That compares with odds of 1 in 4,050 for dying as a cyclist; 1 in 1,086 for drowning, and 1 in 102 for a car crash.


Walk or not walking risk "The risk of dying from any cause or from cardiovascular disease decreases significantly with every 500 to 1000 extra steps you walk. An increase of 1000 steps a day was associated with a 15% reduction in the risk of dying from any cause, and an increase of 500 steps a day was associated with a 7% reduction in dying from cardiovascular disease."

I may need to put away my bike Should I stop Diving- My car OMG [biggrin][biggrin][biggrin] Happy to have a bet all of us die from something other than flying[bigrolf]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NavyDiver

There are a range of estimates out there, but based on its analysis of US Census data, it puts the odds of dying as a plane passenger at 1 in 205,552. That compares with odds of 1 in 4,050 for dying as a cyclist; 1 in 1,086 for drowning, and 1 in 102 for a car crash.


Walk or not walking risk "The risk of dying from any cause or from cardiovascular disease decreases significantly with every 500 to 1000 extra steps you walk. An increase of 1000 steps a day was associated with a 15% reduction in the risk of dying from any cause, and an increase of 500 steps a day was associated with a 7% reduction in dying from cardiovascular disease."

I may need to put away my bike Should I stop Diving- My car OMG [biggrin][biggrin][biggrin] Happy to have a bet all of us die from something other than flying[bigrolf]

---

Oi,speak for yourself Sailor Boy.

Sgd

Bigglesworth, Ginger & Archie..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tc_s1

For clarity the post was not intended to let Boeing 'off the hook',

---

To be fair, Alaska Airlines is also at fault for not grounding the aircraft in the days leading up to the incident. The panel on the aircraft had been showing fault lights from the panel in a few of the preceding flights and if they checked then maybe the incident would not have happened. Instead they all allowed the aircraft to fly but restricted its used to over land with no over water flights.

Really not good enough.

Garry