jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

A new (two months old) 737 blew a door off at 14,000 feet shortly after taking off. The T-shirt was pulled off a 16-year-old boy as his mother was holding onto him. The "rubber jungle" deployed - oxygen masks. I had never heard that term before. The American passengers stayed calm.

In another thread, it was mentioned how the Japanese passengers stayed calm while their plane was burning on the runway. This incident wasn't as severe, but the American passengers remained calm, as show in a video or two.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9EvHpf8jZg

ecblackiii Loc: Maryland

Old news.

BebuLamar

14000ft isn't too much higher than the altitude that you can breath. So it doesn't take too long to decent to the level where the passengers can breath without the oxygen mask.

ecblackiii Loc: Maryland

True. Airliners generally descend at 1,000 feet per minute, except in emergencies. But, the FAA requires pilots flying above 12,500 feet for more than 30 minutes to wear oxygen masks.

fantom Loc: Colorado

I believe you are mistaken. I've flown well over 2 million miles and have looked into countless cockpits and never saw a pilot, or anyone else, wearing an oxygen mask. Maybe you are talking about private pilots' regulations.

Also, do you suppose pilots in La Paz put on oxygen masks when they board a plane on the runway---which is over 12,000 feet??

ecblackiii Loc: Maryland

[quote=fantom]I believe you are mistaken. I've flown well over 2 million miles and have looked into countless cockpits and never saw a pilot, or anyone else, wearing an oxygen mask. Maybe you are talking about private pilots' regulations.

Also, do you suppose pilots in La Paz put on oxygen masks when they board a plane on the runway---which is over 12,000 feet??[/quote

It's "pressure altitude" that matters and it applies to every pilot. Commercial airliners are normally pressurized to an altitude less than 12,500 feet no matter how high they really are. But, if the airplane cannot maintain a pressure altitude of 12,500 feet or less, the pilots must use a supplemental oxygen system (i.e., an oxygen mask).

fantom Loc: Colorado

[quote=ecblackiii][quote=fantom]I believe you are mistaken. I've flown well over 2 million miles and have looked into countless cockpits and never saw a pilot, or anyone else, wearing an oxygen mask. Maybe you are talking about private pilots' regulations.

Also, do you suppose pilots in La Paz put on oxygen masks when they board a plane on the runway---which is over 12,000 feet??[/quote

It's "pressure altitude" that matters and it applies to every pilot. Commercial airliners are normally pressurized to an altitude less than 12,500 feet no matter how high they really are. But, if the airplane cannot maintain a pressure altitude of 12,500 feet or less, the pilots must use a supplemental oxygen system (i.e., an oxygen mask).[/quote]

Correct and pilots are not required to wear oxegen masks to fly the plane, under normal circumstances.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Two days before the post.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Posted online - https://www.npr.org/2024/01/08/1223427243/boeing-flight-door-plug-alaska-airlines

On three flights prior to Friday's, the plane's auto pressurization fail light came on, Homendy said.

The flights happened on Dec. 7 of last year, and then on Jan. 3 and Jan. 4 — just prior to last Friday's flight. The light coming on is "very benign," Homendy said, and it was tested by maintenance crews and reset.

"We don't know that there was any correlation of the two," Homendy said. "It could be entirely separate."

Alaska Airlines then temporarily restricted the plane from being flown over water to Hawaii, so that it could be easily accessible to an airport. The airline requested that maintenance crews examine the light. However, they had not been fulfilled before the plug came off.

fourlocks Loc: Londonderry, NH

Another black mark for Boeing. They took an old airframe and tried to update it into the Boeing 737 Max (this is the model where two took dives into the ocean because of the faulty autopilot feature) by adding bigger engines and other modifications that included sealing over the door that blew out. They found the door in a teacher's back yard and I'm betting the NTSB will find the seal design or installation at fault. The sealed door supposedly doesn't require any sort of attention so poor maintenance is not the cause. I wouldn't be surprised if investigations reveal covered up Boeing internal memos indicating a problem but Boeing thought it too expensive to fix.

marine73 Loc: Modesto California

This is not in reply to a specific post, but the one thing that struck me as odd was that during the previous events that now one had mention a whistling noise coming from the area of the door which would have led to a more detailed troubleshooting of the plane's auto pressurization fail light. At my company we get a lot of log pages for noise/leakage from the cabin doors and it's not fleet specific. The aircraft sits on the ground until we find the source of the leak and fixit. Once we find it and fixit the aircraft is pressurized to above normal cabin pressure to ensure there is no leaks, once everything is ok the aircraft is released back to service.

I don't know what Alaskas maintenance practices are but one thing is for sure I would have grounded the aircraft until the issue with the light had been resolved. At any time the any of the flight crew could have refused the aircraft for a continuing problem. They are required to review all log book entries to determine if the aircraft is airworthy.

Where I work we were getting up to five crew refusals a day which if they could not be resolved at the gate came to the maintenance base as OOS (out of service) and were a priority to work. OOS and thru flights take priority for the maintenance base. Once we get an oss fixed it goes back into service for a flight or it becomes a spare.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

From what I've seen in the crash investigation videos, it's not uncommon for pilots to report a specific problem dozens of times until that problem finally brings the plane down. I've heard of pilots being reluctant to refuse to fly a defective plane because it could impact their career. If the company says the plane is airworthy, then it's airworthy, regardless of the condition.

nervous2 Loc: Provo, Utah

It was new to me. I appreciated the post.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Old news is Pearl Harbor is bombed. This is recent news.

marine73 Loc: Modesto California

The captain/pilot in command actually has the final say as to whether the aircraft is airworthy regardless of what the company says. If he feels the aircraft is unairworthy based on his reading the maintenance logbook and the corrective actions for discrepancies, he/she should refuse to fly the aircraft. The company is not licensed to say an aircraft is airworthy, only the pitots in command and a licensed maintenance technician can determine the airworthy status of the aircraft and that is what our signature on the maintenance log pages signify.

If an aircraft has and item or system on MEL (minimum equipment list) it will have a time limit in which it must be fixed. If it has 119 days remaining on it if the part or item is available we will troubleshoot and/or replace the item. Common items that are on deferral in the cabin with high deferral times is galley oven and coffee makers.
Short time deferrals may include plugged galley sinks or Lavs and will have a must fix or terminating action from 3 to 5 cycles (flights) if not fixed within that time the aircraft is grounded wherever there last destination was. If maintenance is not available then an EFS (emergency Field service team) is sent from the nearest maintenance base or from a station that has the most experience with that issue.