I don’t know how common it is to get a spurious error light on an aeroplane but multiple instances of a warning regarding pressurisation you would think would result in grounding the plane for investigation at least!
The removed it from any overwater flights but kept it in service.
The cockpit voice recorder got erased because they get overwritten every two hours and the pilots seem to have "forgotten" to turn it off when they landed.
the door will have had a decent radar signal, so I imagine the authorities have a very good idea where to look.
Somebody found the door in their back garden. It should be pretty simple to see exactly what failed.
Somebody found the door in their back garden
Very lucky that it didn't go through a house or land in a school playground etc.
Could have been very nasty!
I was thinking the structure of the door itself failed. It’s basically a series of 6 bridges that span the gap between the tabs. From the photo of the one under inspection one of those bridges is interrupted by the window and another takes a route around the window. If it were to bend in two vertically due to fatigue there’s nothing to keep it in place in the top or bottom of the aperture – it’d just flow over the tabs and pop out. (The top is basically a movable draft seal and the bottom is where a slide would be mounted in the “real door” scenario).
That's an unlikely way to fail unless there was a manufacturing fault. It uses basically the same structure as the fuselage itself. It was a nearly new aircraft so fatigue is unlikely. If it did fail due to a manufacturing flaw, the locating bolts would have had to have sheared off so there would be damage where those bolts mount to the fuselage. If that panel failed in the way you suggest, it's more likely that the skin would have blown off but the frame remained attached to the aircraft. Everything points to the plug leaving the aircraft intact.
thols2
The removed it from any overwater flights but kept it in service.
Yeah that was in the article, but it just doesn't seem good enough (speaking as a layman obviously!).
Even if it was just something more minor like a piece of trim allowing an air leak, it still could have come off and struck one of the tail fins or gone into an engine.
I'm just very very surprised they're allowed to carry passengers on a plane where this warning has occurred several times.
But as i said, maybe these pressure sensors are prone to producing spurious warnings 🤷♂️
It's certainly not filling me with confidence about flying on a 737 Max.
I’m just very very surprised they’re allowed to carry passengers on a plane where this warning has occurred several times.
The pilots' "oversight" in leaving the cockpit voice recorder running so that it automatically overwrote the pre-flight and takeoff conversations seems suspicious to me. It's not impossible that it was an innocent mistake but my guess is that they discussed the issue and do not want that heard by investigators.
The deciding factor would be what the potential outcome would be. First fault was last month, so the plane flew a month with no further issues, with the fault then occurring twice, on different flights.
From the posts I've seen, ground maintenance ran some tests and couldn't fault the system, and the flight crew didn't notice anything other than the warning, so nobody deemed the aircraft unfit to fly, but the aircraft was scheduled for maintenance/investigation.
I'm sure the worst outcome anybody in the decision chain expected, was that the aircraft may have to descend due to a leak, hence it got removed from ETOP use. I don't think anybody would have expected a door plug to blow out.
And we don't yet know if the door was the cause of the fault, so the fault could be unrelated.
we don’t yet know if the door was the cause of the fault, so the fault could be unrelated.
That would be a remarkable coincidence.
The pilots’ “oversight” in leaving the cockpit voice recorder running so that it automatically overwrote the pre-flight and takeoff conversations seems suspicious to me.
I'm more inclined to believe that in the whole "dealing with the incident" and getting back onto the ground with a cockpit door flapping around, the wind noise and the fact that the co-pilot apparently lost her headset that once back in the ground they were busy shutting it all down, dealing with emergency services etc.
But that's from a layman POV...
once back in the ground they were busy shutting it all down
If they had shut it down, the voice recorder would have stopped recording. The point is that they obviously didn't shut it down. Very convenient way to make sure that discussion of the problem before takeoff can't be recovered.
Very convenient way to make sure that discussion of the problem before takeoff can’t be recovered.
On the flip side if this was a cunning plan on their part it shows they remain rather calm in a crisis/post crisis. Remembering to keep stuff to remove evidence and also, i assume, passing notes to each other saying "shhhh dont read this out loud but remember that conversation we had before it hit the fan? we need to keep the tapes running" so they dont get picked up.
10 out of 10.
Too busy changing their underwear or examining the novel hole in the side of the plane?
That would be a remarkable coincidence.
More or less of a coincidence than having had a discussion about an apparently spurious warning light a month previous that probably (assuming ~4 crews on that plane in rotation) may not have directly happened to that crew and would just have been a note on a checklist to them?
Bearing in mind that from the PoV of the crew before takoff, there's no problem with the door.
And if there was a known fault they'd been told was OK to fly with, the last thing you'd do is delete the conversation you had about it as it proves you were right / someone else was to blame. It's not like they'll have been grounded and decided to fly it anyway as the 1st officer had gig tickets for that evening.
On the flip side if this was a cunning plan on their part it shows they remain rather calm in a crisis/post crisis.
Pilot's unions oppose using cockpit flight recording data in prosecutions because it encourages pilots to turn them off. My guess is that pilots are unofficially coached in how to ensure that evidence is accidently lost after incidents. Just like how cops conveniently forget to turn on their body cams.
Having found two iPhones that had experienced a rapid unexpected deplaning incident, one might have thought finding a white door in an unexpected location would be a piece of piss!
Also, I’m sure the owner of the phone in the photo is going to be pretty chuffed when they get tracked down and someone says, “I believe you might have misplaced your phone…”
…And not have to claim on their insurance.
edit/ Somebody found the door in their back garden
Missed that post while checking previous ones and writing this one.
It’s the extraordinary breadth and depth of knowledge that keeps me coming back to this place! STWiki 😁
My guess is that pilots are unofficially coached in how to ensure that evidence is accidently lost after incidents.
You’d guess wrong. I fly the things and have no idea how to disable the CVR without a phone call with our engineering department. Don’t even know whether the circuit breaker is electronic or thermal, or if more than one of them.
Boeing doesn’t give pilots any of this information. While I’d like to think that I’d have the presence of mind to try to organise it, the job wouldn’t be enormously high on my list of priorities.
More modern aircraft pause the CVR after engine shutdown automatically.
Pilot’s unions oppose using cockpit flight recording data in prosecutions because it encourages pilots to turn them off. My guess is that pilots are unofficially coached in how to ensure that evidence is accidently lost after incidents. Just like how cops conveniently forget to turn on their body cams.
What a load of tosh! do love an armchair pilot...
After an incident like that, the adrenaline will be coursing quite vigorously and trust me, the last thing you will be thinking of is to spoof the CVR, also it looks like from initial reports that all the crew performed 100%.
So they would have nothing to hide.
I fly the things and have no idea how to disable the CVR without a phone call with our engineering department.
I just had a look at the manuals...and there is no guidance.
I’ll third that. Flown Boeings and Airbus & the
only thing I know about the operation of the CVR is that I push a button to test it before flight. It’s intentionally not an item we have anything to do with.
That’s what they’ve coached you to say
Pretty sure that the CVR on/off switch is next to the chemtrail generating system panel on modern aircraft.
Yeah, totally……
Must be cold under the bridge tonight as all the trolls are in here.
I just had a look at the manuals…and there is no guidance.
Page 666.
Just under the bit about pretending you're flying over a globe earth, not hitting the ice wall at the edge and remembering to dispense chemtrails in all the right places is the instructions on uploading fake cockpit conversation / deleting all the incriminating stuff.
It's just above the part where They remind you that you have to be polite to the moving cargo who tell you how to do your job every time...
Was the previous warnings why there was no-one on those two seats during the flight? I haven't seen anything saying it was but it was very fortunate there was no-one there
My guess is that pilots are unofficially coached in how to ensure that evidence is accidently lost after incidents.
what a load of rubbish!
CVRs run for 2h in a loop and stops recording when the aircraft shuts down 5 mins after the last engine shutdown at the end of the trip.
The only interaction we have is testing it prior to flight.
The forum airplane drivers immediate reactions to some of the comments in this thread:
Standard issue to stop the cosmic rays, which you SLF don’t get told about.
A question to the real, proper, qualified pilots - is it correct that, under European air regulations, CVRs are required to have a 25 hour 'recording window' and, if that's the case, why is it only 2 hours under US regs?
More modern aircraft pause the CVR after engine shutdown automatically.
On this aircraft, the CVR was left running and it overwrote the data. They didn't disable it, they didn't stop it recording and that caused it to delete the data from the incident. Did they forget to shut down the engines? If they did shut down the engines and that automatically stops the recording, then someone has acted to destroy the data.
CVRs are required to have a 25 hour ‘recording window’ and, if that’s the case, why is it only 2 hours under US regs?
Pilots don't want their conversations heard in court. Their unions are opposed to longer duration CVR.
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, representing Atlas Air pilots, makes clear why they’re objecting to 25 hour cockpit voice recordings.
They claim that pilots have an expectation of privacy in the cockpit.
They believe that pilots ‘wouldn’t have agreed’ to any recording in the first place (as though it was their decision right) had they known these recordings would ever be made public.
Pilots might break airline rules, and voice recording would help prove their guilt
In a criminal matter, the FBI isn’t restricted in how it can use recording (umm… good?)
Stretching to make this about safety, the union says that crew in the cockpit might not trust each other if they’re being recorded. They’d chit chat less, imposing fewer war stories and other exploits upon their colleagues, and thus might not establish ‘rapport’.
From the diagram on the BBC it appears that panel is fitted from the outside. If it was fitted from the inside against a frame on the fuselage the internal pressure would keep it in place rather than blowing it off. Seems a bit like the infamous DC10 cargo door.
Also, I’m sure the owner of the phone in the photo is going to be pretty chuffed when they get tracked down and someone says, “I believe you might have misplaced your phone…”
…And not have to claim on their insurance.
I think Apple might make a "reasonable" offer for that phone to use in advertising. "Fell 16,000 ft and still works".
My question was addressed to '...real, proper, qualified pilots'.
I'll wait for them to respond.
Don't take offence but...they know what they're talking about based on hands-on experience; they fly passenger planes for a living.
I don't; do you?
I also made specific reference to the difference between European and US regulations regarding the duration of the 'recording window' which your edited quote did not reflect.
My question was addressed to ‘…real, proper, qualified pilots’.
I’ll wait for them to respond.
Yes, I'm waiting too. I want to hear how a CVR that automatically turns off when the engines are shut down kept running and overwrote the data. Somebody who understood the system turned the CVR on. You telling me that that was an accident? Or did the pilots forget to shut down the engines and nobody noticed?
The Teamster's union is publicly opposed to the use of CVR data, that's not something I imagined, it's public record. The major reason is that the recordings can be used in court to prosecute pilots.
I wouldn't have much confidence in anything from the teamsters.
The teamsters have always been against anything and everything which would 'threaten' their members' interests - regardless of whether those 'threats' are real (unlikely) or perceived; significant or not.
Not as corrupt as they were in jimmy hoffa's time but...that's not saying much, if anything.
A two hour CVR 'recording window' is unreasonably - and unfeasibly - short for most flights.
When dantsw, flaperon or other pilots comment there may be more to say.
Until then...
Waitrose sell some high quality tinfoil.
Joining in the tinfoil hattery.
How do you think the CVR got turned back on after the engines were shut down after landing? Do you think the aircraft is haunted and a supernatural creature turned it on again or do you think it's more likely that a human being did it deliberately to destroy the pilots' discussions? If the pilots discussed the fault pre-takeoff (which surely they must have give that it was a documented fault), then the CVR contained evidence that they approved a flight on an aircraft with a fault that later turned out to be an extreme risk. That recording would almost certainly be used in court by passengers suing the airline. It's extremely suspicious that someone with access to the aircraft turned the CVR back on after the aircraft had been shut down, I cannot see how that would have happened by accident. Maybe a commercial pilot can explain that.
The Teamster's Union's opposition to CVRs is on the record. They oppose using them at all and the reason that U.S. aircraft only record for 2 hours is due to union opposition. The union is protecting its members from attempts to prosecute in cases like this where there is a plausible case of negligence. Yes, the fault was caused by Boeing but the airline and the pilots approved using the aircraft despite knowing there was a problem. A lawsuit against the airline and pilots is guaranteed in the U.S. Destroying that recording was in the best interests of the pilots and the airline.
I wouldn’t have much confidence in anything from the teamsters.
Yet they get to veto a safety issue like extended CVR recording time.
More loose bolts found in United Airlines 737’s:
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/08/1223517098/door-plug-boeing-737-max-portland-ntsb-faa
Yawn.
You are not...a pilot, an air safety expert, an air traffic accident investigator; not an expert in any form of travel and/or transport safety.
Taking that into account, why would anyone attach any credence or credibility to your views about an incident which you are completely unqualified to comment on?
It's like a dog barking at the moon.
As for the teamsters having a veto, that's nothing other than a perception of their (historic) relevance; they are irrelevant.
When the forum's experts - the pilots who fly passenger planes for a living - comment I may have more to say; until then, I'll leave you to your unfounded speculation.
You may be aware of the 4 Fs - First Find the **** Facts.
Facts, not speculation.
CZ - see page 2 above.
I doubt United will be the only ones.
First Find the **** Facts.
The facts are that somehow the CVR was left running and the data was overwritten. We've already had a commercial pilot on here say that the CVR on modern planes turns off automatically when the engines are shut down (which seems commonsensical). Those are facts.
So, taking those facts, either the pilots didn't shut down the engines and the CVR kept running too (which seems unlikely, but if a pilot assures me that it's normal to leave the engines running for hours after landing, I'll take their word for it), the pilots did shut down the engines but somehow bypassed the automatic shutoff of the CVR (which sounds unlikely to me), or someone turned the CVR back on after it had shut down (which seems the most likely due to the other possibilities being very unlikely).
Another fact is that U.S. airline pilots are opposed to CVR data being available for prosecution of pilots. In a case like this, it is in the interest of the pilots and the airline that CVR data not be recovered. So, somehow a recorder that should have automatically turned off and saved the data either kept running or was turned back on again by someone with access to the flight deck. I'm guessing it wasn't a poltergeist.
Another question for the real pilots. In the event of a depressurization do you wait for ATC clearance or just get after it?
Listening to the radio calls it sounds like permission (which I get from a not flying into other planes perspective) but at the same time seems like one of those times to get after it?
Also - do you not "squawk" emergency? Seems strange that every communication keeps checking it's an emergency.
I'm pretty sure no pilot gets into a plane where they are even remotely worried about the airworthiness..... Just not a conversation I can imagine professionals having.
Do you think that a poltergeist turned the CVR back on?
We’ve already had a commercial pilot on here say that the CVR on modern planes turns off automatically when the engines are shut down (which seems commonsensical). Those are facts.
They said more modern aircraft. Not all modern aircraft.
And given the 737 dates back to the 60s, it's not really a modern aircraft. It really wouldn't surprise me if simply turned on with the master power.
And going by discussions on a forum frequented by far many more pilots, none of them seem to know how to actually turn it off.
IANAE, but note that actual pilots have already commented.
I'm not sure why non experts are so confident that the CVR operates in line with the engines running, if that's the case why didn't the pilots discuss their 'illegal' flight plans prior to starting the engines? seems a bit dumb not to?
Is it not more likely that if the CVR is operating automatically it runs when the aircraft is energised, so if it is running from an APU it would continue to operate which is most likely the case here, as the circuit breaker wasn't pulled to stop it. Engines running or not is possibly an irrelevance.
Again, IANAE. but the conspiracy theory stuff here is lame.
