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

Post by Night_Thastus » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 9:33 PM UTC

chatmasta wrote: post #22

Night_Thastus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those claims that it was maintenance is a bit bizarre considering these were brand new craft, and that panel isn't exactly a wear item. (ofc, some wear with each pressurization cycle, but I digress) It'd be different if it was an engine issue on a 20+ year old plane. But still, this isn't anything like the prior MAX issue - and frankly could have just as easily happened to any manufacturer like Airbus. I don't think…

> But still, this isn't anything like the prior MAX issue Sure, other than being with a variant of the same model of plane built by the same manufacturer, this latest issue is nothing like the prior issue.

Post by hmottestad » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 9:34 PM UTC

gostsamo wrote: post #47

hmottestad wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe when airlines start advertising that they don’t use the new 737s. The more likely scenario is that the Chinese or Europeans will ground the new 737s until some very expensive fix is put into place and not accept any workarounds. That would probably make a difference. FYI: https://qz.com/1569865/china-grounds-737-max-8-after-ethiopi...

There are mutual recognition agreements between the regulators and if the europeans try something like that, the americans can create counter measures to even the field in a mutually undesired spiral. At this moment, the biggest enemy of Boeing is Boeing itself.

Post by hef19898 » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 9:36 PM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #70

Syonyk wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's as insane as it reads. It means people were careless and sloppy during assembly. Think of it like seeing "one cockroach in your kitchen." It's not one cockroach. You just haven't opened up the rest of the walls.

What's crazy to me is that these things do not roll of the factory line in large numbers. If it was a car plant or some other line where large numbers come off per shift, you could find that possibly one operator for one shift set their torque wrench to the wrong setting causing the finished items for that shift to be suspect. But seeing as not one plane rolls of the floor per shift, this is much more systemic like p…

Post by kube-system » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 9:37 PM UTC

spike021 wrote: post #38

tuckerpo wrote: post #10

It seems there's a sense of malaise falling over everything and everyone in the USA. People at large simply cannot be bothered to care about anything, including torque specs for freakin' AIRLINERS

I know of a pretty famous car tuner in the US (I won't get too specific for various reasons) and despite most people in my community going to him for service over the years, multiple people have come out and proved he rarely if ever torques anything to spec. For the longest time he even allowed customers to watch in the shop space as he worked on their cars and he'd hand-torque many things that the car manual was ver…

Post by Scoundreller » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 9:38 PM UTC

lucisferre wrote: post #91

Scoundreller wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My beef is that torque specs are for factory assembly. If you’re using new parts, sure, but once they’re old/re-used parts with some corrosion due to dissimilar metals, age or salt belt, you’re flying blind and probably undertorquing if going by the book. Given the amount of (soft) aluminum on aircraft, (737 is 80% aluminum), it would be insane to not precisely consider torque. Steel on steel is more forgiving.

Why would the softness matter for torque, if there has been some shift or compression since original install the torque should still ensure the correct pressure between the fitting, no?