• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Boeing problems...

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
[DHT]Osiris said:
Odds the sensors were deactivated since 'it's not a door anymore', and it was put on incorrectly?
Click to expand...
Looks like that was likely the case. It's still a plug style door so it should not be able to open with pressure on it. Based on the AD that came out, they are looking for missing deactivation bolts and rods. These make sure the door can't be opened, but the door still shouldn't open itself without these considering they aren't installed on any aircraft where this door is activated. The bolts just provide the equivalent level of safety needed to deactivate the sensors.

Also video of the door opening normally.
 
skyking said:
That door is exactly the same in the 737-900, circa 2004. It is required as an emergency exit in high density seating.
It is old tried and true tech, but the assembly line and inspection screwed up.
Click to expand...
There is a possibility Alaska opened it and/or checked it during their conformity checks, not really sure if that would be part of that or not.
 
skyking said:
That door is exactly the same in the 737-900, circa 2004. It is required as an emergency exit in high density seating.
It is old tried and true tech, but the assembly line and inspection screwed up.
Click to expand...
And when you think of the number of miles flown by the rather large fleet that uses this design it's a pretty sound design. Some speculation on flyertalk that a contractor who has already been troublesome might be to blame
 
Ohman… freshly delivered aircraft with mx write ups on the plug?!?! Article intimates the lights were MEL’d for over water ops… No bueno!
 
iRONic said:
Ohman… freshly delivered aircraft with mx write ups on the plug?!?! Article intimates the lights were MEL’d for over water ops… No bueno!
Click to expand...
They didn't say the light was MEL'd they said that mx cleared the error and returned the aircraft to service. Sounds like their repeat control group flagged the repeat error, scheduled it for more in-depth checks and added the no-ETOPS restriction.

It does look like there is an MEL for it in the MMEL, though, if they wanted to use one. IIRC, the light shows a problem with the controller, since the fault cleared when they changed controllers, it might be completely unrelated.
 
ETOPS used to stand for Extended Twin-Engine Operations, and now is Extended Operations. Originally, it was a certification that permitted twin engine aircraft to fly routes which may, at the time, be greater than 60 minutes flying time from the nearest airport that is suitable for an emergency landing.
A minimum equipment list (MEL) is a list which provides for the operation of aircraft, subject to specified conditions, with particular equipment inoperative (which is) prepared by an operator in conformity with, or more restrictive than, the MMEL established for the aircraft type.


A minimum equipment list (MEL) is a list which provides for the operation of aircraft, subject to specified conditions, with particular equipment inoperative (which is) prepared by an operator in conformity with, or more restrictive than, the MMEL established for the aircraft type.


The master minimum equipment list (MMEL) is a list established for a particular aircraft type by the organisation responsible for the type design with the approval of the State of Design which identifies items which individually may be unserviceable at the commencement of a flight. The MMEL may be associated with special operating conditions, limitations or procedures.
 
Drach said:
ETOPS used to stand for Extended Twin-Engine Operations, and now is Extended Operations. Originally, it was a certification that permitted twin engine aircraft to fly routes which may, at the time, be greater than 60 minutes flying time from the nearest airport that is suitable for an emergency landing.
A minimum equipment list (MEL) is a list which provides for the operation of aircraft, subject to specified conditions, with particular equipment inoperative (which is) prepared by an operator in conformity with, or more restrictive than, the MMEL established for the aircraft type.


A minimum equipment list (MEL) is a list which provides for the operation of aircraft, subject to specified conditions, with particular equipment inoperative (which is) prepared by an operator in conformity with, or more restrictive than, the MMEL established for the aircraft type.


The master minimum equipment list (MMEL) is a list established for a particular aircraft type by the organisation responsible for the type design with the approval of the State of Design which identifies items which individually may be unserviceable at the commencement of a flight. The MMEL may be associated with special operating conditions, limitations or procedures.
Click to expand...
I'll add the MMEL (Master list) is a public document owned by the FAA so it can be found by searching for "737 MMEL." Alaska's specific MEL is a private document that is approved by the FAA.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Sounds to me like someone took the easy way out of something.
Click to expand...
Without the minimum equipment lists (MEL), if a reading light on seat 36E burned out, the aircraft couldn't take off until it was replaced. The MEL allows them to fix the light within 10 days and go for now. Literally nothing on an airplane can be broken or not working without some sort of authorization, the MEL being the most common. The MEL is based on the safety design of the aircraft and takes redundancy into account. It also provides any additional inspections or operational restrictions required to operate with that item not working.

MELs can be abused, but the FAA and pilots come down hard on this. My old operator lost their ability to MEL the aux power units on some fleets because they were being used too often.

woolfe9998 said:
Try googling MEL or even m.e.l. It starts with the Michigan Electronic Library, then moves on to Mel Gibson and Mel Brooks.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I'll try to spell them out in the future.
 
I can only correct you on one thing, Zorba. FAA doesn't “approve" your MEL or your operating certificate, ie Part 91, 135, or 121. They “accept” it.

I’ve written, submitted, and had accepted at least four over my career. I’ve been retired for about 11 years now but I can't imagine that part of the FARs have changed.
 
Zorba said:
Without the minimum equipment lists (MEL), if a reading light on seat 36E burned out, the aircraft couldn't take off until it was replaced. The MEL allows them to fix the light within 10 days and go for now. Literally nothing on an airplane can be broken or not working without some sort of authorization, the MEL being the most common. The MEL is based on the safety design of the aircraft and takes redundancy into account. It also provides any additional inspections or operational restrictions required to operate with that item not working.

MELs can be abused, but the FAA and pilots come down hard on this. My old operator lost their ability to MEL the aux power units on some fleets because they were being used too often.


Sorry, I'll try to spell them out in the future.
Click to expand...
TY
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top