Back to Squawk list
  • 29

FAA Warns of Possible Decompression on Boeing 737 NG and MAX

제출됨
 
Via an Airworthiness Directive (AD) the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has warned all Boeing 737 NG and MAX operators of a possible rapid decompression risk. (airwaysmag.com) 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


Quirkyfrog
One of the last times I flew on an RJ was one that had a massive door seal leak. All we heard for the duration of the flight, once we hit altitude, was the whistling of the door seal. Someone asked the FA about it, and she said 'It's a bad door seal. We just can't go over a certain altitude.'. The passenger looked around rather uneasily. Yeah, sure, fly on another RJ. I'd rather not... I realize it's not an essential part, and the things flew lower anyway, but it kinda made me a little uncomfortable too.
Highflyer1950
Just wet paper towels and jam them in the area where the leak is. Works every time and the F/A’s get a weird look when all paper falls out on arrival when the door is opened! It’s not the first time a door seal has rolled or been deformed?
Quirkyfrog
The FA said it was their last flight in that plane, and last of the day, so they apparently didn't want to go overboard to try to address it. Almost made me wonder what else they treated the same way. It was an 11pm departure that was 40 minutes late. I knew the tower closed at 11:30, and we would be getting in after that. Yippee.

They all looked tired. Not getting paid for the delay after what looked like a long day sure must suck.
Highflyer1950
I mean stuff the wet paper towels in the door area when airborne! Plugs the air leak like glue until you open the door.
Quirkyfrog
I knew what you meant. What struck me was the FA saying that 'some planes are worse than others'. To me, flying a plane with a blown door seal is just nuts. But if they can save money fixing it, it's a win for the carrier I guess. I can't imagine it's easy to replace them. I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of planes flying with 'nonessential' items unrepaired. Some things on the list don't make much sense. *shrug* RJ's aren't for me...
Propwash122
“warned” is not the best word choice to describe what’s going on. If you click through from this AirwaysMag article to the AD, you’ll see that Boeing issued an Alert Requirements Bulletin about this issue on January 24. I think it likely that the problem has already been dealt with on most if not all affected planes. The AD itself takes effect March 29 and will then require compliance before further flight.
mnemes
Well said CPT Buck
RetiredCaptain
Actually the AD (2021-01-04) applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737 series airplanes, excluding Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The AD can be found here:

https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/936cfd41fd8f7c84862586850050b2e8/$FILE/2021-01-04.pdf

This AD comes on the heels of a Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-52A1180 RB, dated January 24, 2020. The service information specifies procedures for an inspection, a measurement, or a records check of the upper aft corner stop fitting assembly to determine the part number, and applicable on condition actions.

This issue is a known one and has been the subject to numerous inspections (and replaced parts) by the two principal U.S. operators, SWA and AA. Not sure about foreign operators and what they're doing.

Best

Capt J Buck
Aviation Safety Consultant.

P.s. it would have been nice had Airways magazine identified the models affected and the AD number, and where to find it. But then it is the media after all.
punkrawk78
Well actually, if you exclude the 100, 200, 200C, 300, 400, and 500 series aircraft all that’s left is the NG and Max. So in effect the article did identify the models affected. They could’ve been redundant and mentioned the AD doesn’t apply to earlier model aircraft, but then that would be redundant.
RetiredCaptain
Have to disagree. FAA Type Certificate data Sheet A16WE (Rev. 66 November 9, 2020) lists the following Boeing 737 models:

737-100
737-200
737-200C
737-300
737-400
737-500
737-700
737-800
737-600
737-700C
737-900
737-900ER
737-8
737-9

The official FAA certification documents do NOT list any model designated as a Max or Next Generation (NG.) The term MAX does appear once in the TCDS on Page 99 in the "Notes Section XI (737-8/-9): NOTE 4: The type design reliability and performance of the 737-8 and 737-9 airplanes have been evaluated in accordance with the requirements of 14 CFR § 25.3(b)(1) and 25.1535 and found suitable for up to and including 180-minute Extended Operations (ETOPS) when operated and maintained in accordance with Boeing Document No. D044A032, “737 MAX ETOPS Configuration, Maintenance, and Procedures.” This finding does not constitute approval to conduct ETOPS.

Note that it's a Boeing document that uses the term MAX, not an FAA certification document. The Term NG does not appear anywhere in the FAA Certification documents.

To that end I don't think you can necessarily consider all 8 of the aircraft models beyond the -500 to be either a Max or NG. Because they're not. At least not in the eyes of the FAA. it all depends on the mods. Engine (e.g. GE LEAP vs PW, winglets, etc.)

Kind of like the DC-9. All the DC-9s and B717 are DC-9s. All on the same TCDS, all get you the same type rating.

Best

Capt. J Buck
ATP DC-9
TorstenHoff
I don't know why anyone would downvote your post. Fixed.
vector4traffic
Weight Reduction Gone Wild!
raleedy
Sounds like the accountants are back at the drawing board.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

RetiredCaptain
And you base that comment on what engineering and safety data exactly? Please share that with us along with your aviation credentials.

Best
Capt J Buck

ATP DC-9 B757 B767
Flight Instructor
Ground Instructor
Aircraft Dispatcher
A&P Mechanic
Air Traffic Controller
FAA Aviation Safety Inspector (Ops & Aws) ((Ret.)
FAA certified accident investigator (Ret.)
ICAO Panel Member
Aviation Safety Consultant
KicksOnRoute66
Good. The FAA doing it's job before something happens, as it should be.
RetiredCaptain
"... and is also charged with promoting air travel".

Please show me in Title 49 USC or Title 14 CFR where it says that.

Best

Capt. J Buck
Quirkyfrog
The FAA is schizophrenic. It's a regulator, and is also charged with promoting air travel. So, um, anyone see the potential for a HUGE conflict of interest? And a huge potential for the regulating FAA to be gagged by the promoting FAA?

THAT'S why you don't want government run as a business! The FAA would be promoting and the regulating division could get shouted down because regulating tends to 'hurt business'. Well, the BUSINESS of the airlines is to deliver people to their destination SAFELY, Not shower the carriers investors with more cash. A true 'deep state' government regulator would realize that. A 'business man/person' would think of investors first, people second, or even third.

로그인

계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
종료
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..
종료