The aviation industry continues to be in shock after approx close to disaster on January 5, 2024, when a 60-pound “door plug” flew out of a nearly recent Boeing 737 MAX 9 flying at 5,000 feet, leaving a gaping hole within the fuselage.
In answer, Federal Aviation Administration grounded all 737 MAX 9 aircraft have such plugs, as do aviation authorities in other countries he followed of their footsteps.
The industry is watching this closely.
Many press reports emphasized impressive safety record the worldwide aviation industry, especially because the Alaska Airlines crew managed to land without fatalities. I commend the exceptional work of the airline staff, air traffic controllers and emergency services who achieved this impressive feat.
However, as a former United Airlines pilot currently teaches on the Yale University School of ManagementI consider the improper questions are being asked about what happened on Alaska Airlines Flight 1282. Because National Transportation Safety Board and various news web sites As we explained, door plugs are commonly used to seal unused exits on industrial airliners. The query we’d like to ask ourselves is why would not an airline use all the plane’s emergency exits? Wouldn’t this increase passenger safety?
It all revolves around money.
Security is not free
Airlines have a lot of expenses. Some, similar to jet fuel, are easier to calculate. Others, similar to emergency exits, are more opaque to travelers.
Believe it or not, for an airline, every working emergency exit comes at a cost. Each requires routine maintenance and frequent inspections – for instance, to ensure emergency evacuation slides are working properly – and for safety reasons, flight attendants must man emergency exits during takeoff and landing.
In other words, each time you allow your job, there are associated costs in the shape of wages, health advantages, retirement plans, training, and related expenses. Closing emergency exits reduces costs.
But are each of those emergency exits crucial? From the US government’s standpoint, not necessarily.
NTSB/AP photo
Why there are more emergency exits in Indonesia
In the US, airlines must comply with federal aviation regulations, which govern aircraft maintenance procedures and the allocation of on-board personnel, in addition to minimum standards for emergency exits.
The problem is that Boeing sells the identical plane to different airlines with different needs.
Boeing notes that the Boeing 737 MAX 9 can carry up to 220 passengers, which, under US regulations, requires the plane to have a certain variety of emergency exits. This dense seating configuration is common amongst low-cost global airlines similar to Jakarta-based Lion Air.
However, provided that Americans want loads of legroom, most U.S. carriers have far fewer than 220 seats, and after they are tight, lower than 190 places, the regulations allow for the supply of fewer emergency exits. An Alaska Airlines Max 9 had just that 178 places.
Under these conditions, federal regulations allow air carriers to block these exits and plug the openings. This is strictly what happened with Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 and when “door stopper” suddenly entered the American vernacular.
While this kind of workaround is allowed, it is just not clear to me that it’s in the perfect interest of aviation safety. Wouldn’t or not it’s higher if the FAA required that each one exits be available to be used in an emergency, whatever the variety of seats on the plane, even when it will require additional expense for airlines?
A disturbing safety record
The 737 MAX is an aircraft with many recent features – not all of them positive.
The MAX is the newest addition to the Boeing 737 family of aircraft. The 737 family has significantly outshined all competitors the most well-liked industrial airliner ever builtand since its introduction in 1967, over 10,000 units have been sold worldwide.
Some carriers, similar to Southwest Airlines within the United States and Ryanair in Ireland, only fly 737s; it’s a critical element of their low price business strategy. By flying just one sort of aircraft, these airlines greatly improve schedule flexibility while reducing maintenance and training costs.
This all implies that demand for the most recent Boeing 737 has been high. In 2017, when the FAA issued a flight safety certificate for the 737 MAX, Boeing already received over 3,600 recent orders from 83 customers.
But soon after two failures This a total of 346 people died grounded the 737 MAX for nearly two years – once more the longest airline grounding in aviation history. He was expected to make $12 million on the sale of every $121 million MAX significant incentive for Boeing to proceed developing the MAX regardless that the plane’s design had already proven to be dangerously problematic.
In 2020 FAA recertifies MAX as ‘secure to fly’; by 2023, Boeing has registered a total of over 7,000 orders for the MAX, distant eclipse sale of one other sort of passenger aircraft. This fact alone should raise security concerns. It may soon be unattainable to avoid flying on the Boeing 737 MAX, especially within the US domestic market. United, American, Southwest and Alaska Airlines everyone currently flies on the MAX.
When plane parts and passengers’ cell phones are it’s raining from the skythis may increasingly mean the industry needs to think more fastidiously about unintended costs and consequences.
