The depressurization incident suffered by a Boeing 737 MAX 9 of Alaska Airlines in the first days of the year continues to be a source of controversy. Most airlines that operate the aircraft temporarily stopped using it, while the US Federal Aviation Administration opened a formal investigation against the manufacturer. But now new details of the event and its apparent causes have emerged, from a company informant.
The subject in question, who claims to be a current Boeing employee, posted a couple of extensive comments on Leeham News & Analysis, a renowned portal specialized in aeronautics. There, he gave a detailed overview of the events that supposedly led to the blowing off of the center door plug of Alaska Airlines’ Boeing 737 MAX 9, and blamed the company’s faulty quality control system for what happened. In fact, he described what happened as a “malicious stupidity” by the Seattle firm.
The Boeing whistleblower explained that the company uses two management tools during the production of the 737 MAX 9. One is called SAT —a sort of “Slack for idiots,” as he said—, and the other is known as CMES, which is what generates the official record of the manufacturing and maintenance tasks of the aircraft. Apparently, the managers and managers of the company pay more attention to the first than to the second, and this has become a problem. A big problem.
That said, the apparent Boeing worker indicated that the Alaska Airlines plane incident occurred for a simple reason: The 4 bolts that are responsible for preventing the central door plug from coming off were not installed. Something that, supposedly, appears in the records of the aeronautical manufacturer.
Whistleblower exposes alleged shortcomings in Boeing quality control
The informant explained that the installation of the central door plugs on the Boeing 737 MAX 9 is carried out by the company Spirit AeroSystems. While Boeing itself is in charge of carrying out a final review in search of flaws.
On August 31, 2023, the company would have found “discrepancies” in the center plug on the right side of the fuselage. However, a day later, on September 1, another team reported problems on the left side. The latter is the one that broke out in the incident earlier this year. What would have been the drawbacks? The presence of damaged or improperly installed rivets on the center door stopper.
Continuing with the story of the apparent Boeing employee, Spirit AeroSystems would supposedly be in charge of repairing the failures. However, Boeing quality control indicated that the reported work had not been performed and that in fact only the defective rivets had been painted over. But here another drama was unleashed, since the complication would not have been limited to these components, but to the appearance of a damaged pressure seal; which would require major intervention on the Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 MAX 9.
This is how the informant explains it:
“Upon presenting you with evidence of their misconduct, Spirit reopens the package and admits that not only did they not place the rivets correctly, but there is a damaged pressure seal that needs to be replaced (I am not clear who damaged it and when it was damaged) The big problem with this stamp, at least according to the frenetic SAT publications, is that the piece is not immediately available and must be ordered, which affects the schedule and, reading between the lines here, angers the leadership.
However, most critical for the purposes of the accident investigation is that, as expected, the pressure seal is sandwiched between the plug and the fuselage, and cannot be replaced without opening the door plug to gain access. . This whole conversation is documented in increasingly aggressive posts on the SAT, but we finally get to the damning entry that says something like ‘coordinate with door team to determine if door will need to be removed completely or simply opened.’ If it must be removed, an Extraction will have to be drawn up.’ Note: An Extraction is a type of record in the CMES that requires formal quality control approval that the aircraft has been restored to drawing requirements.”
What happened to the Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 MAX 9
What the aforementioned emphasizes is that, regardless of whether the central door plug had to be opened or removed completely, the 4 retaining bolts mentioned above would have to be removed yes or yes. What apparently happened was that the plug that was later dislodged in the accident was only opened, so a Remove order was never entered into Boeing’s CMES.
“Therefore, in the aircraft’s official construction records, a pressure seal that cannot be accessed without opening the door (and therefore without removing the retaining bolts) is documented as replaced, but the door It was never officially opened and therefore no quality inspection was required. This entire sequence is documented in the SAT, and the non-conformance records in CMES address the damaged rivets and pressure seal, but at no point verification work was reopened, nor was any record of retaining bolts removed created, despite it being a physical impossibility.”
Boeing whistleblower.
The alleged Boeing worker also mentions that Spirit completed work on the Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9 linked to the rivets. But the whole maintenance thing was closed on September 19 with no references to bolts removed and apparently never replaced. “I told them it was stupid,” the aforementioned published.
According to the informant, it is likely that the retaining bolts of the center plug detached from the aircraft are resting on a work bench. Or they have been thrown into a trash can. The subject indicates that the company does not have a system to identify them, which complicates things. In his words, the Boeing 737 production line is an “incoherent, floundering disaster waiting to happen.”
At first glance, the story sounds extremely convincing, of course. But it will be up to the authorities to define the guilt of Boeing and/or Spirit AeroSystems in this event. However, the work of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) may require at least two years before delivering concrete results.
Alaska Airlines claims to have found many loose bolts
Alaska Airlines has not sat idly by after the incident with its Boeing 737 MAX 9. Ben Minicucci, CEO of the airline, told NBCNews that post-accident inspections showed that several of its aircraft of the same model had loose bolts. Something similar to what United Airlines, the other major operator of this plane in North America, denounced weeks ago.
The executive was angry about the situation and its consequences. “I am beyond frustrated and disappointed. I’m angry. This happened to Alaska Airlines. It happened to our guests and it happened to our people. And my demand to Boeing is what do they plan to do to improve their internal quality control programs,” Minicucci said.
The United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has already clarified that the investigation into the incident it will take time. And that the priority will be placed on safety. “Boeing’s manufacturing practices must meet the high safety standards they are legally required to obey. The safety of the public, not speed, will determine the schedule for the Boeing 737 MAX 9 to return to service,” they explained.