Brian from Real Engineering thinks[1] a likely culprit is that the company that makes the fuselage doesn't completely secure the door plugs because they usually get removed to build out the interior of the plane according to the customer's desires. If Boeing actually didn't take the plugs out for that purpose, it's possible that there was a miscommunication that that was the case, or a missed step in the procedure documents that those need to be fully secured even if they were never removed.
Go read the thread that claims to be a whistleblower inside Boeing (over here: https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/146074-boeing-inte... ). The claim is that the door plug was removed to repair a seal that was damaged while reworking rivets that failed inspection, but the door wasn't reinspected as it should have been. It's a pretty damning claim that will be a huge liability for Boeing as the FAA investigates the electronic chatter on internal systems about the plane that failed.
The big question is how many more time-bombs like this are going to be found lurking inside of Boeing's SAT system.
The article rambles, but it seems to hypothesise an unplanned removal. We have no evidence of that at this point. (It could have been a totally planned but botched removal.)
The issues were with the controllers for the pressurization system, these control the valve that releases pressure from the fuselage in order to maintain a pressure that is high enough but not too high. A different indication would have been generated if the AC packs could not maintain pressure.
Wait, so the airplane manufacturer, Boeing, does not even make its own airframes? Some third party company makes the whole fuselage (most of the plane) and Boeing does what, bolts on the wings and third-party engines then sells it?
I'd be cautious about believing these 'whistleblowers' who make it sound like the problem is human error, or Boeing contractors, etc., or anything else where there's a scapegoat or a quick fix.
I'm not saying it's not true, but if you were trying to restore confidence in the airworthiness of a fundamentally flawed design, it might make sense to publish unfalsifiable rumours along those lines.
You'd think that someone would have noticed the four extra bolts that were left over when they stuck the plug back in. I mean, that happens to all of us, but most of us aren't working on anything important.
It implies that the bolts were actually never there at all. But again, you'd think someone would notice that on disassembly.
22 comments
[ 1.7 ms ] story [ 69.1 ms ] thread[1] https://youtu.be/hhT4M0UjJcg (that part starts around 3:45)
From my speculation: Somehow this escaped a quality inspection step due to a problem with a procedure where the bolts are not added to a checklist.
The big question is how many more time-bombs like this are going to be found lurking inside of Boeing's SAT system.
The same explanation is plausible for either one.
> Boeing did not put in the bolts when they re-installed the doors.
Do we actually know for sure that they were re-installed?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39111494
I wouldn’t be too smug.
And from that phrase you took that OP likes B to be a monopoly? All that because he expressed... choice on the competitor?
I'm not saying it's not true, but if you were trying to restore confidence in the airworthiness of a fundamentally flawed design, it might make sense to publish unfalsifiable rumours along those lines.
It implies that the bolts were actually never there at all. But again, you'd think someone would notice that on disassembly.