Heard a DC3 overhead this morning, but it wasn’t the one I thought it was.
Turns out Air Chathams runs one for scenic flights and it was over Auckland for about three quarters of an hour today. That meant as I popped out for lunch I got a good look at it going overhead. 
That was painful to watch. She didn’t seem to understand basic flying principles and that is made worse in a high performance plane.
I’ve never used an auto pilot system but I’m surprised A Debonair didn’t have an electric trim, What are the clutches doing in the auto pilot system? Grabbing the elevator after the pilot manually moves the yoke without trim?
The Airworthiness Directive from the FAA is on the DRS here: https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID122693486620240106201913.0001?modalOpened=true
I hope that link works. It’s also linked here: https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/updates-grounding-boeing-737-max-9-aircraft
The AD is specific to the 737-max 9 with the plug, at least for now. If there’s reason to think the door version or other older variants are affected, the AD will be updated.
The FAA has zero jurisdiction in other countries. They can only ground aircraft that are registered/operating in their country. EASA did adopt the AD, so those planes are affected as well because of EASA’s action, not directly because of the FAA. Transport Canada has issued no AD, because there are no aircraft of the type with the affected components registered in the country.
The aircraft you saw may have been one with a regular door, or one registered to a country who have not issued their own airworthiness directive for whatever reason.
I saw that DC3 today as well. We were taxying to take-off at Auckland and the DC3 was getting prepped.
I think it just grabs the cables to fly the plane and gives a trim message if it’s holding a certain amount of pressure for a certain amount of time. I used to fly a Shrike Commander that had a very similar autopilot with manual trim, but of course I’ve thrown all my manuals and notes out, thinking they’d be of no interest to future me.
Autopilots are great but they definitely don’t negate the need to understand the basics of flying. If you don’t fully understand what the autopilot should be doing then you won’t be able to adequately monitor it.
Copa B737-9s are low density so they’re not required to have an exit in that mid wing position, however looking at a photo of one it appears they do have a functional emergency exit rather than a plug. You can tell because the door has a small “porthole” rather than a full sized window. Presumably that’s why it was flying, though you are correct that they wouldn’t have been bound by an FAA grounding anyway.
Relatively speaking 
I wouldn’t mind the size, but they’re positioned so that you can’t see anything.
Also the paint scheme. That grey band around the door indicates an emergency exit and implies it’s functional. No delegate worth their salt should sign off on a paint scheme that puts that marking on a plane if it isn’t indicating a door that can be opened from the outside.
The marking is required by 14 CFR 25.811(f), or equivalent in other countries.
The mid exit doesn’t have that grey band. What that may mean is that the door is a deactivated exit rather than a plug. This would tie in with their B737-9s being low density seating.
Edit: I don’t know if someone asked this question here or on another forum I frequent, but it does make me wonder what the fallout would be if an airliner with deactivated exits had an emergency evacuation and it was found that lives were lost due to a lack of exits.
You’re absolutely right, I spend too much time looking at the overwing exits on smaller planes, my eyes were drawn right to them! The paint requirement is still valid though!
So if the Copa plane has the plug then the country the plane is registered to would be Panama (HP registration). I don’t know Panama’s civil aviation processes, or why they did or didn’t issue an AD. It may be a process issue causing a delay?
It’s possible the aircraft was being readied for a ferry flight to return to base, rather than passenger operations. Or was permitted one flight with pax to get home after certain checks were done, with the approval of Panama’s aviation authority.
Edit: or, as you say, the structure is actually a door that’s not operational.
Oooh that’s a fun edit you snuck in there!
The rules for quantity and location of exits are pretty prescriptive, with quantities based on passenger counts but also requirements for proximity and access on both sides of the aircraft. If an accident were to conclude “there aren’t enough doors” then it would rip apart all of the existing regulatory standards about doors and evacuation procedures and the compliance testing done throughout the entire aviation industry. You wouldn’t be able to retrofit all existing aircraft, it just isn’t feasible. They’d all be grounded and you’d collapse large parts of the industry!
New rulemaking can define that future builds must have more doors, or closer together or whatever (there’s a current international working group discussion on how far away is too far for the second door required in commercial ops) but the entire existing fleet couldn’t change. Doors are stupidly hard to certify precisely because they simultaneously have to hold shut and open easily.
Fascinating question!
It’s definitely not the plug, as the plug has the standard window.
As for the “lack of exits” scenario, I was thinking more along the lines of the JAL A350 accident where more than half the exits were unusable due to the location of turning engines and fire. Imagine a bunch of passengers trying to get out of a burning airliner with only the aft exits usable and 25% of them die in the vicinity of a deactivated exit.
Unfortunately plenty of accidents of that nature have happened but that’s why there’s a requirement for at least one door on each side of the plane (for the smallest planes, even business jets, that want to operate commercially part 135 or equivalent).
The basics of what’s certified for evacuation of larger planes are found in Appendix J. Offhand I can’t tell you whether there are any significant regulatory differences in other jurisdictions but here’s the current version as applicable to the USA: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/appendix-J_to_part_25
It uses one exit from each exit pair (it assumes a standard layout where there’s left/right symmetry for all doors - alternate floorplans would need agreement from the regulatory agency on how to proceed).
You can’t plan for every scenario but you can plan for a lot. That particular accident may lead to revision of Appendix J, it’s possible. The rules are constantly being updated but they are rarely retroactive unless the impact to safety is overwhelming (e.g. can’t ask a 9G crashworthy plane to meet 16G requirements but you can reasonably mandate changing the 2h CVR to 24 or 48 or whatever).
In theory, you’ve mitigated potentially catastrophic events enough that the design will be enough. Materials will resist fire or self extinguish (the fuel however, is always a problem by definition). You’ve established good crew resource management, good communication protocols, good airport monitoring…this event had multiple failures before needing to consider evacuation that also need to be explored. In this case the aircraft actually seems to have performed as intended - everyone got out.
I’m looking forward to all the facts being available, and I do actually participate in public consultation (via my employer) on regulatory changes in Canada as well as with the FAA and EASA. It will be interesting to see what comes out of these two events!
Here’s the standard that defines the type and quantity of exits. It’s a bit convoluted and I always have to work by process of elimination!
An interesting talk from Mike Patey about GA safety. 80 minutes long and I am not sure how much weight should be given to him beyond being an experienced GA pilot. IANAPilot but found it interesting. Some interesting anecdotes on how easy it is to get in real trouble.
Long before the harrowing Alaska Airlines blowout on Jan. 5, there were concerns within Boeing about the way the aerospace giant was building its planes. Boeing, like so many other American manufacturers, was outsourcing more and more of the components that went into its complex machines.
A Boeing aerospace engineer presented a controversial white paper in 2001 at an internal technical symposium. The engineer, John Hart-Smith, warned colleagues of the risks of the subcontracting strategy, especially if Boeing outsourced too much work and didn’t provide sufficient on-site quality and technical support to its suppliers.
“The performance of the prime manufacturer can never exceed the capabilities of the least proficient of the suppliers,” Hart-Smith wrote. “These costs do not vanish merely because the work itself is out-of-sight.”
“This Has Been Going on for Years.” Inside Boeing’s Manufacturing Mess.
I reckon I’ll have ample opportunity to photograph it over the next couple of months as its flight path goes very close to my house. If they are doing regular scenic flights on the weekends, I just need to keep the camera at hand.
Hitting golf balls out at Hickam AFB (Joint with Pearl Harbor Navy and Honolulu airport on Thursday. A very rare south west wind, strong, so runways 22L and 22R are in use. The Air National Guard (forget one weekend a month/two weeks a year) flies F-22s. A lot. They got a bunch more after the hurricane smashed Tyndall. They fly in all the Pacific exercises and they are over at the Pacific Missile Range Facility Barking Sands (PMRF) testing radars and secret stuff commonly most weekdays. The runways are almost directly over the golf course. The first pair take off, doing a big zoomie, crushingly loud. Just awesome; we’re looking up at the afterburners disappearing into the sky. Later, one comes ripping by at low level within a couple of hundred yards before shooting upwards. Ground shaking, clasp your ears time. At least we were expecting the wingman a few seconds later. I should have my camera but the sights are so common, I forget. You’ll see all the Boeing big jets, all the Airbus airliners to include an A380 that comes in from Japan weekly, Now dozens of 737s with Alaska and Southwest going at it. Interspersed with all those are the F-22s, C-17s, occasional C-5s, KC 135s (KC10s are gone I think), C130s from all services, other Govt. planes, private jets, B717s and turboprops for interisland travel. I’ve gone out to the beach for more than a few times to take it all in. If you’re lucky, Army and or Navy ships are heading in or out; I’ve even seen one of the attack subs coming in. Also I’ve seen B-52s and B2 coming in; but not a B1, must have been my day off. Anyway, just rambling on the keyboard.
Sorry if posted earlier.