Thank you, Simple Flying. I think this question has been on all our minds lately. We appreciate your insight. Btw. Just wanted to say, love your gentleman who does the voice work. Not just the accent, but the inflections as well. You are my prime source for aviation news and goings on. Thank you very much to everyone at simple flying, and long haul.
'Yep, definitely! As a Wildlife Biologist, I can definitely confirm that whether in English or within the Kazakh interpretation, "SCAT" is definitely a 'SHITTY' name for an airline! 💩 🛩 🛬 💩 🛩 🛬 💩 ... or for any other commercial 💩 product, 💩 for that matter! 🐺 🦊 🐺 🐈 😺 💩 😸 🐈 🐺 🦊 🐺
4:23 Spirit AeroSystems fuselages have "fitted, but not completed, door plugs" 4:40 seems Boeing can't pass the buck to Spirit. 5:49 Just a few more seats and more exit doors would be required. 6:39 Airbus door plugs by Saab
The first time that I became aware of 'door plugs' was with the announcement of the 'Airspace' A321. As to being aware of what that actually involved, that would be shortly after the Alaska MAX9 lost one. After seeing an excellent video about all the options for that location, I now understand far more, and hopefully will avoid making some of the rediculous assumptions, and coming to the equally stupid conclusions far too many posters do. Who would have thought that there were 'plugs', 'deactivated', and a multitude of 'active' doors, with each of those different active door configurations having their own passenger limits! And before some smart Alec says that there is only one design of active door - configuration also includes the presence (or lack of) adjacent crew seats and different interior panels, sometimes including the deletion of overhead bins above the exit to allow more headroom (and prevent people trying to access those bins during an emergency?)
Yes I knew about the door plugs and emergency exit doors on the Max 9 and 900ER when your inside you can’t tell unless you work on maintenance like or just a heavy aviation enthusiast or work in the industry itself.
That doesn't fix the fact they aren't doing QC properly. There are too many things slipping through the cracks in many models of their planes. And the FAA is there, believing everything Boeing says without even checking. That's how the MCAS stuff happened. That's how they find loose parts on their Dreamliner, and so on
That has absolutely NOTHING to do with production quality. There's nothing wrong with the design of the aircraft. I'm sick and tired of hearing that argument. The A320 is no spring chicken either.
@@jdf1statsthe 220 wouldn’t be designed by Airbus or Boeing as it was in production already. They also said they wouldn’t look at clean sheet design until the next generation of aviation technology comes out. The 737 can keep up with the a320 which is their only competition. The 757 was a better single isle jetliner but high production costs kept it from overtaking the 737 same reason the A220 isn’t being pushed more by Airbus.
According to the Aircurrent, the door plug was properly secured but then was removed by Boeing so Spirit employees working at Renton could resolve an issue with rivet installation on the panel next to the plug.
Door plugs seem to be too big of a risk. If an opening is meant to be a door, it should remain as such, no exceptions. Reason? Flight staff already have procedures to ensure doors are secure. Door plugs have no such procedure while in normal operation; once the paneling is put back together all of the non permanently fastened bolts are hidden. The only acceptable installation of a plug should be a more permanent solution like welding.
Door plugs are safe, it just comes down to how well they’re installed. In the case of the recent incident, the door was just improperly installed, or at least, was installed lazily.
There is ambiguity about how door plugs are installed and their size and shape. The reason this is important, is because if the plugs are installed from the outside, then they are no larger than the opening and could easily pop-out with minimal internal air pressure in flight, if even a single bolt is omitted. An extremely bad design, with no failsafe. If the plug is installed from inside the fuselage and is larger than the hole, then cabin air pressure would keep the door sealed, unless pressure exceeds the strength of the plug or the door frame, in which case the plug that departed should have been terribly deformed by squeezing out through the smaller hole. And it did not look deformed to me. Regardless, IMHO, visual inspection and bolt replacement is a temporary measure - a plug-redesign and a fuselage door frame redesign are necessary before I will fly another 737. 737s are based on the 707 fuselage, a 75-year-old design. I know this because the 737 is the only Boeing product I absolutely despise as being too narrow for six-across-seating.
CORRECTION: Flyduabi, Icelandair and Copa have deactivated doors. These can be identified by having the tiny porthole instead of a full sized window. Source is the 737 Technical Channel
How refreshing to know that Boeing is helping its airline customers to really cram more seats and paying passengers inside. I love aviation, yet flying is getting less and less appealing. As for production quality "escapes," remember when our parents insisted we be honest and truthful? Yeah, well now that's called "whistleblowing" and corporations HATE it.
I was.confused for a moment when you said Ontario international airport, and im thinking, Ontario (the province) has a bunch of international airports...
No. Whereas the high density MAX 9 is still a MAX 9, the MAX 200 is technically a separate variant with separate certification. It comes with the extra exit doors. Instead of plugging the MAX 200 doors, airlines can just order the MAX 8. As far as removing the doors and plugging them for the secondhand passenger market, I do not believe this is possible.
No the -900ER isn't grounded. The FAA just recommends that airlines visually inspect the door plugs. "As an added layer of safety, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is recommending that operators of Boeing 737-900ER aircraft visually inspect mid-exit door plugs to ensure the door is properly secured. The Boeing 737-900ER is not part of the newer MAX fleet but has the same door plug design. In accordance with their Safety Management Systems, operators conducted additional inspections on the Boeing 737-900ER following the loss of a mid-cabin door plug on a Boeing 737-9 MAX airplane on January 5th. Read the Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) regarding the Boeing 737-900ER here." www.faa.gov/newsroom/updates-grounding-boeing-737-max-9-aircraft
@@jdf1stats -900ERs / MAX 9s have flown millions of flights without door plugs flying off. It *seems* like this incident was a one-off due to an employee's negligence and Boeing's poor quality control, not a flaw in the design of the door plug itself. If anything, the -900ER you flew on was in all likelihood assembled before Boeing had such severe QC issues. Inspecting -900ERs was a good, "abundance of caution" move.
Door plugs are safe, it just comes down to how well they’re installed. In the case of the recent incident, the door was just improperly installed, or at least, was installed lazily.
@@taxiway207 what a naive statement. no door plug, no problem. door plug, then you have a problem because human beings are flawed. it is an easy equation. SAFETY FIRST. just one incident of human imperfection affecting the production of an aircraft shows the nonchalant stupidity of people.
😒.. All about Boeing... Strong for business oriented (profit).. but weak of safety procedures.. 🙄.. And lack of technology (no improvement) for maintenance or easy to check when is needed... ☹️
Great video as always... Sad to say that I'll be staying away from Maxes in the future. Hate to make this political but that's one of the side effects of capitalism... Always focusing on the Buck when Boeing's Priority should be safety. Long live the Queen of the skies!
Everybody talk about this terribile incident but no one have details how this shit plug door has been designed by assholes who should design only an IKEA component
Thank you, Simple Flying. I think this question has been on all our minds lately. We appreciate your insight. Btw. Just wanted to say, love your gentleman who does the voice work. Not just the accent, but the inflections as well. You are my prime source for aviation news and goings on. Thank you very much to everyone at simple flying, and long haul.
Inflections?
Unique and particular ways of pronunciation. Relating to what syllable is accentuated.@@sithabelamandlawenkosiwodu6298
Voice over guy does have nice intonation.
I like to think he’s called Simon. Not sure why. Just seems to fit.
@@Rasscasse I'm pretty sure his name is simon. He sounds like a Simon.
@@Rasscasse I like it. Simon........ it does fit.👍🙂
What is the weight difference between a functional emergency exit and a door plug? What is the cost difference (more or less)?
Scat Airlines? That has to be the worst branding of anything anywhere.
It certainly doesn't pass the smell test!
'Yep, definitely! As a Wildlife Biologist, I can definitely confirm that whether in English or within the Kazakh interpretation, "SCAT" is definitely a 'SHITTY' name for an airline!
💩 🛩 🛬 💩 🛩 🛬 💩
... or for any other commercial 💩 product, 💩 for that matter!
🐺 🦊 🐺 🐈 😺 💩 😸 🐈 🐺 🦊 🐺
@@andrew22800😅 😅 💩 😅 😅
Boeing remains undefeated as Airbus’ most successful marketing campaign.
Embraer can also say "We're glad Boeing didn't buy us"
@@EuropeanRailfanAlt “Embraer. Not owned by Boeing.” Great slogan.
The real interesting part is Alaska's response to prior notification of cabin pressure issues.
4:23 Spirit AeroSystems fuselages have "fitted, but not completed, door plugs" 4:40 seems Boeing can't pass the buck to Spirit. 5:49 Just a few more seats and more exit doors would be required. 6:39 Airbus door plugs by Saab
Good report
The first time that I became aware of 'door plugs' was with the announcement of the 'Airspace' A321.
As to being aware of what that actually involved, that would be shortly after the Alaska MAX9 lost one.
After seeing an excellent video about all the options for that location, I now understand far more, and hopefully will avoid making some of the rediculous assumptions, and coming to the equally stupid conclusions far too many posters do.
Who would have thought that there were 'plugs', 'deactivated', and a multitude of 'active' doors, with each of those different active door configurations having their own passenger limits!
And before some smart Alec says that there is only one design of active door - configuration also includes the presence (or lack of) adjacent crew seats and different interior panels, sometimes including the deletion of overhead bins above the exit to allow more headroom (and prevent people trying to access those bins during an emergency?)
Yes I knew about the door plugs and emergency exit doors on the Max 9 and 900ER when your inside you can’t tell unless you work on maintenance like or just a heavy aviation enthusiast or work in the industry itself.
Good video SF 👍
Boeing needs to move on from the 737. The constant retrofitting and refitting of a SIXTY YEAR OLD core design has reached breaking point!
The NG was the last "healthy" update for the 737. The MAX had a lot of unhealthy things added to it which eventually made it deadly.
That doesn't fix the fact they aren't doing QC properly. There are too many things slipping through the cracks in many models of their planes. And the FAA is there, believing everything Boeing says without even checking. That's how the MCAS stuff happened. That's how they find loose parts on their Dreamliner, and so on
@@LaczPro Boeing should never have been allowed to self assess! The conflict of interest obvious. Self regulation never works.
Mcdonnel Douglas bought Boeing with Boeings money
That has absolutely NOTHING to do with production quality. There's nothing wrong with the design of the aircraft. I'm sick and tired of hearing that argument. The A320 is no spring chicken either.
The 737 has become the new infamous DC10. I wonder how long it will take for Boeing to come up with a new clean sheet design.
They had one but they let Airbus take it!!!
@@jdf1statsthe 220 wouldn’t be designed by Airbus or Boeing as it was in production already. They also said they wouldn’t look at clean sheet design until the next generation of aviation technology comes out. The 737 can keep up with the a320 which is their only competition. The 757 was a better single isle jetliner but high production costs kept it from overtaking the 737 same reason the A220 isn’t being pushed more by Airbus.
Even if Boeing were to do a clean sheet design, it doesn't help that there are problems with QC.
So the fuselage is delivered to Boeing with the door plugs in tact boeing engineered then remove it and obviously have not fitted it back correctly?
According to the Aircurrent, the door plug was properly secured but then was removed by Boeing so Spirit employees working at Renton could resolve an issue with rivet installation on the panel next to the plug.
I thought Alaska Airlines was not seating passengers in that row because that was part of the protocol that got triggered by the alerts?
Had no idea, thanks for the info! :)
Not really but thanks for explaining that topic.
A hijacking was prevented when the hijackers realized it was a Boeing and knew the door plug would do the job for them.😅
Flying doesn't kill. It's the sudden impact that does.
Door plugs seem to be too big of a risk. If an opening is meant to be a door, it should remain as such, no exceptions. Reason? Flight staff already have procedures to ensure doors are secure. Door plugs have no such procedure while in normal operation; once the paneling is put back together all of the non permanently fastened bolts are hidden. The only acceptable installation of a plug should be a more permanent solution like welding.
Door plugs are safe, it just comes down to how well they’re installed. In the case of the recent incident, the door was just improperly installed, or at least, was installed lazily.
@@taxiway207 That's my point exactly.
@@yaughl if door plugs were welded, it would be much harder for airlines to reconfigure aircraft how they see fit
There is ambiguity about how door plugs are installed and their size and shape. The reason this is important, is because if the plugs are installed from the outside, then they are no larger than the opening and could easily pop-out with minimal internal air pressure in flight, if even a single bolt is omitted. An extremely bad design, with no failsafe. If the plug is installed from inside the fuselage and is larger than the hole, then cabin air pressure would keep the door sealed, unless pressure exceeds the strength of the plug or the door frame, in which case the plug that departed should have been terribly deformed by squeezing out through the smaller hole. And it did not look deformed to me. Regardless, IMHO, visual inspection and bolt replacement is a temporary measure - a plug-redesign and a fuselage door frame redesign are necessary before I will fly another 737. 737s are based on the 707 fuselage, a 75-year-old design. I know this because the 737 is the only Boeing product I absolutely despise as being too narrow for six-across-seating.
6:09 Somehow I don't think I'd want to travel on an airline called SCAT.
CORRECTION: Flyduabi, Icelandair and Copa have deactivated doors. These can be identified by having the tiny porthole instead of a full sized window. Source is the 737 Technical Channel
Would this explain why these airlines' MAX 9s were not grounded by their respective regulators and were allowed to land in the US? It would seem so.
@@Handlemcdaniel yes
How refreshing to know that Boeing is helping its airline customers to really cram more seats and paying passengers inside. I love aviation, yet flying is getting less and less appealing. As for production quality "escapes," remember when our parents insisted we be honest and truthful? Yeah, well now that's called "whistleblowing" and corporations HATE it.
I was.confused for a moment when you said Ontario international airport, and im thinking, Ontario (the province) has a bunch of international airports...
Pros of flying for a budget airline with sardine density seating: I will never see a door plug anywhere near my planes
"for todayyyyy's video" 🙂 THANK YOU !! 🤣
0:46 A teenage boy sat in the third seat
He lost his shirt!
Isn't there a similar problem with MAX-8 vs MAX 200 planes?
No. Whereas the high density MAX 9 is still a MAX 9, the MAX 200 is technically a separate variant with separate certification. It comes with the extra exit doors. Instead of plugging the MAX 200 doors, airlines can just order the MAX 8. As far as removing the doors and plugging them for the secondhand passenger market, I do not believe this is possible.
maybe spirtit shouldnt install the door plugs and leave them off so boeing can install all. its taken off for manufacturing access anyway.
Yet another video made just a little too early. -900ERs grounded for inspections as well.
No the -900ER isn't grounded. The FAA just recommends that airlines visually inspect the door plugs.
"As an added layer of safety, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is recommending that operators of Boeing 737-900ER aircraft visually inspect mid-exit door plugs to ensure the door is properly secured. The Boeing 737-900ER is not part of the newer MAX fleet but has the same door plug design.
In accordance with their Safety Management Systems, operators conducted additional inspections on the Boeing 737-900ER following the loss of a mid-cabin door plug on a Boeing 737-9 MAX airplane on January 5th.
Read the Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) regarding the Boeing 737-900ER here." www.faa.gov/newsroom/updates-grounding-boeing-737-max-9-aircraft
I was afraid you were going to say that... Flew on Delta's -900er. 😵💫
I was wondering when the -900ER was gonna get the same scrutiny as the MAX 9.
@@jdf1stats -900ERs / MAX 9s have flown millions of flights without door plugs flying off. It *seems* like this incident was a one-off due to an employee's negligence and Boeing's poor quality control, not a flaw in the design of the door plug itself. If anything, the -900ER you flew on was in all likelihood assembled before Boeing had such severe QC issues. Inspecting -900ERs was a good, "abundance of caution" move.
safety first, wasn't that Boeing's rallying cry after the max 8 crashes? so now flexibility trumps safety!!!
Door plugs are safe, it just comes down to how well they’re installed. In the case of the recent incident, the door was just improperly installed, or at least, was installed lazily.
@@taxiway207 what a naive statement. no door plug, no problem. door plug, then you have a problem because human beings are flawed. it is an easy equation. SAFETY FIRST. just one incident of human imperfection affecting the production of an aircraft shows the nonchalant stupidity of people.
please don't put such significant music in the background it was pretty annoying
😒.. All about Boeing... Strong for business oriented (profit).. but weak of safety procedures..
🙄.. And lack of technology (no improvement) for maintenance or easy to check when is needed...
☹️
FAA: Inspect door-plugs on 737-900ER
Why not just have every aircraft with 8 doors regardless of the amount of seats. Problem solved.
Things like door plugs allow airlines to configure their aircraft how they see fit for their routes and business model.
I will never fly the Max. Any airline operating the Max is a no unless for long haul flights
*Comac overtaking Boeing*
Great video as always... Sad to say that I'll be staying away from Maxes in the future. Hate to make this political but that's one of the side effects of capitalism... Always focusing on the Buck when Boeing's Priority should be safety. Long live the Queen of the skies!
Yeah no I'll fly Airbus thanks.
Glad I don't fly. Too many "loose bolts": sabotage?
Everybody talk about this terribile incident but no one have details how this shit plug door has been designed by assholes who should design only an IKEA component