Obligatory Big Lebowski clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmy1AsWgOXY
Coincidentally I flew on 2 Max 9s on 1/1/24. Hopefully they get all this worked out because the oversized overhead bins are a game changer for economy class flyers.
european or african?
especially in the PNW
You have to know these things when you’re a pilot, you know.
Sounds like the basis for a Grant application.
The big bins are in most airline’s 737 fleets already. Both old NGs and new MAXs.
That bit you cited is a key clue. One I’d skipped over in my earlier reading and thinking and writing.
Internally the mechanical systems on the MAX is a lot more computerized than the NG; it’s got a lot more in common with the later model Boeings in that. But since the cockpit is a near clone of the NG to achieve interoperability for the pilots without cross-training, the “UI” of all those computers is just a handful of 1970s idiot lights. And so highly limited. Those simple basic idiot lights, or lack thereof, is what I was talking about earlier trying to connect news of a “light” with an MEL item.
During flight the MAX collects lots of different airplane health data. That data is not exposed to the pilots. That’s normal on any modern airplane. On the MAX, there is a generic idiot light labeled [MAINT] tucked in an obscure corner that illuminates shortly after landing to indicate the airplane health logging system recorded something interesting and the pilots should document that the light came on so the maintenance team can go spelunking into the computers to see whatever was interesting. And do so before the next flight.
The light waits until after landing to trigger since there’s nothing useful the pilots can do with that info earlier.
The info published by my former employer to the pilots does not detail what parameters are recorded why. Glancing over the mechanics’ shoulders while they poke around in there at the gate, it’s legions of data and tons of alerts, many of which are nuisance. Anyone who’s ever dumped the OBD-II data from a car knows what I’m talking about but this is turned up to eleventy-hundred.
If (pure speculation here) the pressurization system is smart enough to know what a reasonable pressurization outflow valve setting ought to be for the given altitude, diff pressure, and airflow into the cabin, and it’s seeing the outflow valve more closed than expected to maintain altitude, that might trigger logging a flag for maintenance to review. The implication being that either something with one of the sensors is out of calibration, or something is leaking someplace. And that data logging would trigger the [MAINT] light. Leaving maintenance a vague hint something is amiss, but certainly not in great detail.
It’s not that uncommon for exterior doors to be closed not quite perfectly, or for the gaskets to wear a bit and leak. The overall airplane net of the outflow valve is not exactly air tight. It oughta be close, but there are lots of legit uninteresting operational, not maintenance, reasons for one-time leaks. So signs of leakage are not a problem that would be treated as a smoking gun after 1 or even 2 occurrences. Depending of course on details we don’t have.
We shall see.
Apparently United have found loose bolts during their 737 inspections.
Yikes:
Anyone know what drives the decision to use a castellated nut + safety wire (or pin) vs. not? We can’t see what’s on the other side of those bolts, but presumably it’s either a normal nut or a threaded hole. If the locking bolt warranted a positive locking device, why not the others?
Not seeing a yikes.
The nut we see is well secured by the cotter pin. The two bolt heads we see certainly have nuts on the back. If they were going into blind holes they’d be safety wired.
Cant say w 100 certainly those are undrilled bolt heads, but they sure look it. Meaning they couldn’t be safety wired.
I’d sooner bet on a failure to install safety wire than a failure to install the right bts or specify the right bolts.
United seems to gave found the smoking gun snd it’s systematic.
The yikes is that you can see at least two bolts that aren’t even finger-tight. Not the kind of thing you want to see immediately upon removing the interior panels of your aircraft.
Yeah it doesn’t appear to be specifically a “yikes” in terms of the door falling off but it’s a “yikes” for quality control.
D’oh!!!
I totally missed the not-even finger tight.
Guess I should apply for a job as QC at Spirit Aerosystems. They’ll have a very low rework rate while I’m on the job. 
In my defense I’m on my phone.
It’s hard to be sure, but I think the bracket is actually being pushed up by the spring. I.e., none of the bolts are actually tight, and the only thing keeping it from separating further is the fact that it’s sorta jammed upward at an angle. Regardless, at least two of the bolts have no torque on them at all.
Now that I zoomed in & thought, I think you’ve nailed it.
Not quite sure what the consequences of those particular bolts backing out will be but it isn’t helpful, that’s for sure.
From the NTSB Flickr account:
The green bracket that had loose bolts on the United aircraft appears to be on the bottom right of the picture.
Since some of us are a bit weak in Japanese, could those of you who understand the language point out the more interesting comments?
Here’s a post on X showing a diagram of the door plug: