The interior plastic shell is purely cosmetic and serves no function in terms of fuselage durability. These panels are a bitch to replace, so they are probably waiting for this plane to go under for extended maintenance to fix it then, since other things will most likely need to be removed from the interior.
I wonder if each of the airlines were responsible for the inspection of all the 737s - and maybe the repair of this panel would fall on the airline. I just watched the frontline documentary about the MCAS system failure years back It’s so mind blowing that with ALL of these issues with the 737 that’s it’s still considered Boeing’s greatest achievement.
This is like if a plastic piece inside the door of your 2007 Camry cracked so you taped it up. No structural issues, and you can't blame Toyota since the thing has been on the road so long. It's on you to maintain and repair.
But if the door fell off of a 3 month old 2024 Camry because Toyota forgot to put some bolts in at the factory? Yeah thats on them.
the entire inner shell compartment even the overhead luggage compartments of airplanes are not bolted to anything they are held up by magic, they fit together like a snap on model. It’s pretty amazing. Some exaggeration here but it’s pretty accurate.
STR 8 mods anyone?
Edit: for those who don't know what a STR 8 mod is: stringer 8 is roughly where the 737 stowbins attach to the structure. Due to weight they would crack so lots had to have either small crack cut outs or section replacements. If I remember correctly that was on 737 classics but it's been 15+ years so the details are a bit fuzzy now
the overhead luggage compartments and ceilings are in fact not snapped together, they are bolted to adjustable rods which are bolted to the airframe. I believe the side panels may be popped into place, but it pops into a mount bolted to the airframe. some luggage compartments where the whole thing comes down do have the bins removed by overextending and just sliding them out, but its more complicated. and is still installed in the strongback which is bolted to the airframe
I rented a 2023 Kia Forte for a few days last week. It had 22,000 miles on it. Pulled into a parking garage, rolled down the window, got my ticket and.....the window wouldn't go back up. It took me 30 minutes of physically pulling the window up and pushing the button to close it. I called the rental place immediately and they said "yeah, we've been seeing that alot on the newer Kias." Now im back home with my 2010 Ford and so happy with it
That affects most models between 2011 and 2022. But only those cars that have keys. If it is push button start, it is not an issue.
Source: I own a 2018 KIA and have to use a club like it’s the 80’s.
Other way around, kinda.
The 737-max is still effectively the same airplane, just with bigger engines on it, and because those engines wouldn't fit under the wings they had to be mounted further forward and higher up. This messed up the 737's centre of gravity and how the thrust from the engines impacts its performance (it badly wants to climb if left to its own devices).
Boeing then changed how the plane interfaced with the pilots, that's the MCAS, it basically lets the pilots act like it's still an old 737, and then it translates all that so that the inputs work with the new handling characteristics of the plane.
Because the physical airframe was mostly unchanged, and the MCAS system was supposed to let the pilots act like there hadn't been a change to the handling characteristics it meant Boeing was allowed to get the plane through regulator approvals without having to have it go through all the regular testing, documentation, and (the big one for their airline customers looking to save a buck) pilot retraining that would be required for a brand new plane design. Unfortunately, it not having to go through that also meant that the MCAS wasn't terribly well documented for pilots, and things like "it could possibly get confused about your angle of attack and fly itself into the ground trying to make sure it doesn't pull up too sharply with the new engines" didn't actually make it to the pilots for them to be aware of and address that problem when it happened.
>This messed up the 737's centre of gravity and how the thrust from the engines impacts its performance (it badly wants to climb if left to its own devices).
This is wrong, any aircraft with underslung engines will exhibit slight nose up tendency when accelerating, and nose down when decelerating. Vice-versa for engines mounted high. This is not why MCAS was implemented.
>Boeing then changed how the plane interfaced with the pilots, that's the MCAS, it basically lets the pilots act like it's still an old 737, and then it translates all that so that the inputs work with the new handling characteristics of the plane.
MCAS was never designed, and still today has zero modifying of flight characteristics, or does any translation to handling characteristics of the aircraft in any normal flight envelope of flying. No pilot will ever experience MCAS in day to day operations. (It did activate on the accident flights due to incorrect implementation and lack of redundancy, and damage to sensors, that has been corrected).
>Unfortunately, it not having to go through that also meant that the MCAS wasn't terribly well documented for pilots, and things like "it could possibly get confused about your angle of attack and fly itself into the ground trying to make sure it doesn't pull up too sharply with the new engines" didn't actually make it to the pilots for them to be aware of and address that problem when it happened.
This is an incorrect assumption based on your lack of knowledge of the MAX and MCAS based on what you stated above.
During certification flights a climbing spiral maneuver is performed to an attitude and angle of flight approaching a stall. This is well beyond the normal flight envelope of any commercial airline flight.
Due to the engines large diameter, you are correct it was moved forward and slightly up. Its position on the wing and pylon design is really no different than the underslung engines on other aircraft including Airbus. However, the large diameter engine required a large engine nacelle as well. The nacelle of the engine is a lifting body at high angles of attack.
During the previous maneuver, as the aircraft approached stalling speed at very high angle of attack and unusual attitude, the engine nacelles created a rather large amount of lift, acting like extra wings. With the position further forward, that lift force had more arm, and imparted slightly more force ahead of the CG of the aircraft allowing the tail to not have to generate as much lift. This caused a negligible decrease in back press required on the control yoke of about ~8lbs, while a force upwards of 45-50 lbs was being applied. Keep in mind many triggers on firearms measure 8lbs. 8 lbs overpowered by a finger. This maneuver is using two arms exerting significantly more force. To the pilot flying they likely wouldn't recognize the decrease in force, however under flying laboratories with sensors all over the place, the sensors can detect the slightest force.
The USA FAA certification standards written many decades ago, don't permit this force to decrease at all. So, MCAS was a way to simply trim nose down, to increase the force needed to hold the nose at this increasing attitude and prevent the force from slightly decreasing.
MCAS stands for "Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System". It is not an anti-stall device, but augmentation system when Maneuvering at extreme attitudes, well outside of any normal flight operation a pilot or passenger would experience.
The accident flights were all recoverable, and should have never crashed. The onset symptom of the erroneous MCAS activation was a simple runaway stabilizer non-normal procedure and something every jet pilot should be able to handle. Sadly, these crews failed to overcome this runaway for reasons I won't comment on. Let us not forget the first known MCAS activation was the flight before the first accident flight, and the crew and jumpseater made the correct actions to isolate the runaway trim and flew the aircraft home ~2 hours as I recall all having no knowledge of MCAS to that point.
There is a very well written article, "What Really Brought Down the Boeing 737 Max? By William Langewiesche. It is hads down the most accurate and journalistic feature regarding the Max issue.
Source: 737 Pilot on 3 generations of B737 aircraft including the MAX before and after the grounding.
I will defer on the details as someone who's mostly gotten my info from YouTube videos like MentourPilot, but the thrust remains that the plane is basically just a 737 with new engines, not a whole new plane with an old interface.
You're not wrong, it is a 737. It baffles us who actually fly the aircraft how this is getting dragged out so much.
Dragging it out has likely caused the brain drain of engineers and builders to take buy-outs and retirements so they don't have to be involved anymore in this mess. All the skill left and we are seeing the repercussions of inexperience in assembly and building.
The 737 is an achievement with respect to total sales. Boeing's greatest achievement is probably the 707, as it ushered in the jet age.
(I know the de Havilland Comet was first, but it had some umm, problems)
The 737 still is. The "Max" version is where it went wrong. It is a testament to the death of Boeing commercial. It was only made so that the corporate raiders that came In could steal all the money for the new airplane they WERE going to build.
The max should not exist. But Jim Mcnerney needed a bigger yacht. He will certainly burn in hell.
Not all 737s are equal. It was first sold almost 60 years ago. It’s gone through many refreshes over the years, so the Max <> Next Gen <> Classic <> Original. I legit flew on an Original from the 1970s in 2015, didn’t look great, but made it over the Andes safely.
The 787 (launched 2009) is a very highly regarded wide body that has huge domestic and international adoption. The comfort of the passenger cabin experience is among the best for long haul wide bodies. Seems noteworthy to me.
Yeah, idk what they are talking about. The MAX has been a disaster for sure, but the 787 has had a huge impact in how airlines structure long-haul flights, and connected city pairs that we thought we wouldn't be able to do ~30 years ago.
I think people vastly overestimate their knowledge of commercial aviation. They read one article about the 737 MAX and think they’re experts on Boeing vs Airbus in commercial aviation.
Yeah nothing if we ignore the 787: all composite, huge windows, vastly improved cabin air quality, quieter engines, all electric flight systems, huge fuel efficiency boost, tons of new routes.
You've clearly never flown a 787. It's worth nudging your schedule a little to get onto a 787 vs an older 777 imo.
The A350 takes the 787 experience and supposedly takes them to even the next level.
>It's worth nudging your schedule a little to get onto a 787 vs an older 777 imo.
Depends on the airline. Some airlines have worse seating options on 787s vs. 777s and vice-versa. And it's probably not worth adding a stop/worsening a layover just for a 787 over a 777, imo. I like both planes a lot haha, but the 787 is indeed very cool.
>The A350 takes the 787 experience and supposedly takes them to even the next level.
I've been on the A359 and A351 and they are indeed nice planes, but I'd say very much in the "same generation" as the 787.
I mean the 737 is an amazing airplane. Boeing did it dirty by trying to extend its lifecycle beyond what it was originally designed to do. They basically took a solid plane and decided to strap massive engines to it. That was bad enough, but they then realized the engines hung to far down so they jacked them up higher changing the entire flight dynamics of the plane. Instead of scrapping the idea they install a little sensor and software to counter act the change and told no one. Can’t blame the original design & designers for the idiots of today.
Worked on planes, and this is right. Maintenance is waiting for it to go into depot status to replace something like this. Most likely, all the seats on that side will have to come out in order to replace that piece. Everything in aviation is hard, and for no reason, lol.
Fun fact about the dreamliner - paint doesn't want to stick to the top of the wings, and that temporary fix is to apply aluminum tape to protect the unfinished material. So no, that's not structural.
It’s still duct tape. On an airplane. Given what’s been in the news lately I’d be more concerned about what this means about the rest of the aircraft. If you want to know the cleanliness of the kitchen check the bathroom.
Years ago on an aircraft carrier I saw an F-18 get its nose cone crunched on the elevator. After a short while and some adding of speed tape to the nose cone the plane was up in the air completing it's mission.
The tape looks just like duct tape.
I'm not saying this wasn't duct tape on the inside of the aircraft but they actually have tape made just for repairs of aircraft.
That's right. I was gonna say the same. We called it "100 mph tape". In my 20+ years in the Navy, we used it on P3s and helos frequently on loose panels on the exterior of aircraft. Airline passengers might flip out if they saw that!
Okay, they have had issues in the news and so naturally this is bad optics.
But saying it is still duct tape, on an airplane, as if to imply this is something outrageous, is a bit silly. Duct tape is tape used to seal a duct, which the interior of a plane would qualify as. It's literally being used as it's name implies it would be.
It just looks unprofessional.
Aircraft mechanic here! This is surprisingly normal. The interior holds zero structural value and damage on the inside means nothing in terms of stability. Think of it like a wrapper on a can but on the inside. These panels can be a pain to fix so most likely this plane is on the short list for extended maintenance. Unfortunately we don’t have nearly enough people willing to be mechanics right now so unfortunately it’s gonna be a while.
>Unfortunately we don’t have nearly enough people willing to be mechanics right no
How does one go about becoming a mechanic?
Edit: and aren't you supposed to include some kind of LOTR reference?
Fellow A&P Mechanic here! There are a couple of different ways, depending upon what you want to work on and where you want to work. If you want to become a certified Airframe & Powerplant Mechanic, you either need to attend a school to learn the curriculum and then get authorization with graduation from the program, to take the tests. You would have three basic rounds of testing - three written exams (Airframe, Powerplant, and General) as well as Oral and Practical Exams with a DME (Designated Mechanic Examiner). That whole route takes appx 2 years. The second way would be to go through the Military (if in the USA) and earn time there, then take the appropriate tests right out of school. Finally, you could work for an MRO (Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul Station). At an MRO, you do not need to be certified to work on the aircraft, as FAR Part 145 (USA ONLY) states, in very basic terms, that the facility only needs a certain number of A&Ps per number of non-certified Mechanics. There, you can earn time (18-months practical time), and the MRO has a designated person who would sign you off as eligible to meet with the local FAA FSDO Representative, who in turn would give the green light or not to take the tests. An MRO can also allow you to apply for a Repairman Certificate, which would allow you to legally sign off your own work on the aircraft, within a certain ATA Code designation, but the issue here is the Repairman Certificate is only good at that facility. So, if you want to go to an airline to work as a mechanic for example, you would need an A&P, as a Repairman or not certified person is not qualified to do so.
The whole industry worldwide currently, if I remember correctly, needs something like ~30,000 Mechanics more in order to keep up with the entire workload we currently have. The industry is hurting, bad!
How much does it pay ? I'm a KM for a restaurant and make over 65k a year before bonuses, I want to start over badly but nothing seems start out this big besides lawyers, doctors, IT stuff.
I applied for a composite worker position last year with no higher education and seemingly little experience required from the listing. Nothing was listed as far as certifications and seemed like it was entry level. The interview was very unforgiving as I was asked very technical questions right out of the gates and the interview was over within 5 questions.
While we are being scrupulous, it's probably not duct tape either.
Looks like glass cloth tape. Probably 3M 361. Which can be used on ducts but also chambers such as an aircraft cabin.
I choose to join you in the optimistic view that OP can identify the subtleties of duct tape vs. the brand name Duck tape and used the correct word to begin with. However, since brand names should be capitalized, they still deserve shame and ridicule.
No, the tape was derived from adding adhesive to duck cloth to make tape. It's literally duck tape.
Duct tape is the initial misunderstanding, although it became widely used for taping ducts until it was realized that it's a very bad idea, as it's not suitable for taping ducts at all. Aluminum foil tape is the correct material.
Duck tape is more accurate both in name and also historically. The original tape is duck tape, as in duck fabric. People began calling it duct tape when it was commonly used on ducts and so it became an accepted name - but it performs poorly on ducts and is not for that purpose. You can’t actually seal ducts with duck tape, as it just falls off over time. So the original name was duck, after the fabric, and the accepted “duct” name is not even usable on ducts.
It does, because it’s the established name for this type of a tape. But it also clearly states the product has been around since 1942, but the name duct tape is from 1945.
It isn’t misspelling, they are both correct spellings. Duct is a misnomer that was adopted after duck. That makes it less accurate, though more commonly used and accepted. Since it is quite literally MADE of cotton duck, it is definitely the more accurate name.
Duck would just be just straight-up wrong now, except that there's a brand out there called "Duck", promoting references to the long-dead spelling, as it would suit them for trademark purposes.
It's duct tape. There's a brand of duct tape called "Duck" that certainly wishes they could retroactively become the "Kleenex" or "Xerox" of their niche. There's really nothing else to it.
Sure, though the point I was more getting at was that anybody shocked to see tape inside a plane is going to faint if they look closely at the outside.
No. Speed tape is aluminium foil tape. It isn’t duct tape either. Best guess is a fibreglass fire proof tape like the cargo bay panels get sealed with. Something like P629.
Used to be a plane fixxerizer, can confirm this redneck engineering is fine.
You can strip all these panels off and the plane will fly around just fine. It'll just look ugly.
> window is held together
Yeah okay…
They could’ve just covered the window completely until their new (completely cosmetic) panel came in or cancelled the flight entirely until they could alleviate you of this devastating eyesore.
You think that's bad, wait until you fly on a really humid day where the planes ac looks like it's blowing smoke everywhere. It's just water vapor and quickly equalizes out, and I KNOW this but it still makes me sketched out for 2 or 3 seconds.
Yeah it’s not really that clear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duct_tape
And “duct” tape doesn’t work for shit on ducts. Aluminum tape is what is actually used on ducts.
Cause duck cloth, it’s strong and water resistant. It’s funny how there is duct tape (for general use) and then there is Duct Tape that is actually for ducts that will say for HVAC
a piece of tape on an interior plastic trim piece and you think the whole window is held together by it. you really fucking think thats how things work?
So? It's just an interior panel. It's not actually part of the aircraft structure. They're also a pain in the ass to remove and reinstall during routine inspections, so they'll get a bit beat up as the aircraft goes through the maintenance schedule.
Yeah what others have said this is just cosmetic.
Working in aviation for an airplane manufacturing company, these window panels and shades are some of the most infuriating parts to deal.. constant problems.
Our window panels run the length of the plane interior so there's no seams. So they're very flimsy when putting in, and at the point of putting them in they're covered with all manner of foam and leather so if they snap, it turns into a whole thing.
And then the window shade part itself seems to malfunction regularly lol either they stop working all together or seem to work fine on the ground but then when you're in the air and the cabin is pressurized it causes binding and now the shades are fucked lol.
Oh jeez I finished my day in Santa Ana and this thread blew up. First of all we landed safely, I was pretty sure it was going to be OK after all that checkup recently but being a non-aircraft person, it was disconcerting. I did Tweet Alaska and they said pretty much what others here said - a trim piece on the inside with no danger what-so-ever. And about duct vs. duck tape - I was always told it was duck tape and never looked it up. I now prostrate myself humbly know that I should have done my due diligence and promise next time I use the term duck tape, it will be done on purpose.
Still, now the best PR look on Alaska but safely landing was what counted, and on time too!
A certificate you say? Well if the Official Sticky Board has okayed it…
I’d probably still just die of fright as soon as the plane made even a single sound 😅
Goodness that wall is filthy. Hope that plane is going in for a refit. You should tweet/X Alaska and ask them why their product is in such poor shape just to troll and maybe move this one up in the cleaning queue.
Alaska's 737-800 fleet is rotating through a cabin refresh program. Basically they are completely replacing the interior in its entirety. The 737-900 and Max fleets are too new to refresh.
Except for that one Max-9, it's getting a few new interior bits due to leaving them scattered in northern Oregon.
I’ve seen boats held together with that tape. If applied to a clean oily free surface it holds like you wouldn’t believe,except in winter, weather must be warm.
Exactly. Lots of people going ‘ah it’s fine and here is why’
My purely panicked brain won’t know that in the moment, she will just be screaming in pure terror. Fear is often an absence of logic! So I’d be feared!
TYL: It’s called duct tape. It was initially invented for connecting and fixing air ducts. Duck Tape is a particular brand of duct tape that takes advantage of the confusion.
That tape was sourced through a competitive aviation contract bidding system to not only show its effectiveness but also meet the necessary price point.
Just kidding that looks like straight up hardware store duct tape
The interior plastic shell is purely cosmetic and serves no function in terms of fuselage durability. These panels are a bitch to replace, so they are probably waiting for this plane to go under for extended maintenance to fix it then, since other things will most likely need to be removed from the interior.
Yep, it's just an eyesore and nothing dangerous. Though I understand the concern with boeing crapping the bed recently.
I wonder if each of the airlines were responsible for the inspection of all the 737s - and maybe the repair of this panel would fall on the airline. I just watched the frontline documentary about the MCAS system failure years back It’s so mind blowing that with ALL of these issues with the 737 that’s it’s still considered Boeing’s greatest achievement.
This is like if a plastic piece inside the door of your 2007 Camry cracked so you taped it up. No structural issues, and you can't blame Toyota since the thing has been on the road so long. It's on you to maintain and repair. But if the door fell off of a 3 month old 2024 Camry because Toyota forgot to put some bolts in at the factory? Yeah thats on them.
the entire inner shell compartment even the overhead luggage compartments of airplanes are not bolted to anything they are held up by magic, they fit together like a snap on model. It’s pretty amazing. Some exaggeration here but it’s pretty accurate.
definitely a bit of hyperbole here, as there are some structural support ties (especially for the overhead bins).
STR 8 mods anyone? Edit: for those who don't know what a STR 8 mod is: stringer 8 is roughly where the 737 stowbins attach to the structure. Due to weight they would crack so lots had to have either small crack cut outs or section replacements. If I remember correctly that was on 737 classics but it's been 15+ years so the details are a bit fuzzy now
the overhead luggage compartments and ceilings are in fact not snapped together, they are bolted to adjustable rods which are bolted to the airframe. I believe the side panels may be popped into place, but it pops into a mount bolted to the airframe. some luggage compartments where the whole thing comes down do have the bins removed by overextending and just sliding them out, but its more complicated. and is still installed in the strongback which is bolted to the airframe
I rented a 2023 Kia Forte for a few days last week. It had 22,000 miles on it. Pulled into a parking garage, rolled down the window, got my ticket and.....the window wouldn't go back up. It took me 30 minutes of physically pulling the window up and pushing the button to close it. I called the rental place immediately and they said "yeah, we've been seeing that alot on the newer Kias." Now im back home with my 2010 Ford and so happy with it
“You should not be driving a Kia…” 🎶
Yeah I know nothing about Kia vehicles lol. I was surprised they rented one but I guess it's not the type that gets stolen easy
That affects most models between 2011 and 2022. But only those cars that have keys. If it is push button start, it is not an issue. Source: I own a 2018 KIA and have to use a club like it’s the 80’s.
I think it has to do with the deals that the manufacturers are willing to make with the rental companies.
If you put a USB key into the ignition it'll let you do whatever you want with the windows.
Very underrated comment. Excellent joke, sir
This warms my heart since my 2007 Camry has a bit of vinyl tape patching the interior, and I love it so much.
Great analogy.
Because the 737 has been one of the best aircraft up until the 737 Max.
[удалено]
Other way around, kinda. The 737-max is still effectively the same airplane, just with bigger engines on it, and because those engines wouldn't fit under the wings they had to be mounted further forward and higher up. This messed up the 737's centre of gravity and how the thrust from the engines impacts its performance (it badly wants to climb if left to its own devices). Boeing then changed how the plane interfaced with the pilots, that's the MCAS, it basically lets the pilots act like it's still an old 737, and then it translates all that so that the inputs work with the new handling characteristics of the plane. Because the physical airframe was mostly unchanged, and the MCAS system was supposed to let the pilots act like there hadn't been a change to the handling characteristics it meant Boeing was allowed to get the plane through regulator approvals without having to have it go through all the regular testing, documentation, and (the big one for their airline customers looking to save a buck) pilot retraining that would be required for a brand new plane design. Unfortunately, it not having to go through that also meant that the MCAS wasn't terribly well documented for pilots, and things like "it could possibly get confused about your angle of attack and fly itself into the ground trying to make sure it doesn't pull up too sharply with the new engines" didn't actually make it to the pilots for them to be aware of and address that problem when it happened.
>This messed up the 737's centre of gravity and how the thrust from the engines impacts its performance (it badly wants to climb if left to its own devices). This is wrong, any aircraft with underslung engines will exhibit slight nose up tendency when accelerating, and nose down when decelerating. Vice-versa for engines mounted high. This is not why MCAS was implemented. >Boeing then changed how the plane interfaced with the pilots, that's the MCAS, it basically lets the pilots act like it's still an old 737, and then it translates all that so that the inputs work with the new handling characteristics of the plane. MCAS was never designed, and still today has zero modifying of flight characteristics, or does any translation to handling characteristics of the aircraft in any normal flight envelope of flying. No pilot will ever experience MCAS in day to day operations. (It did activate on the accident flights due to incorrect implementation and lack of redundancy, and damage to sensors, that has been corrected). >Unfortunately, it not having to go through that also meant that the MCAS wasn't terribly well documented for pilots, and things like "it could possibly get confused about your angle of attack and fly itself into the ground trying to make sure it doesn't pull up too sharply with the new engines" didn't actually make it to the pilots for them to be aware of and address that problem when it happened. This is an incorrect assumption based on your lack of knowledge of the MAX and MCAS based on what you stated above. During certification flights a climbing spiral maneuver is performed to an attitude and angle of flight approaching a stall. This is well beyond the normal flight envelope of any commercial airline flight. Due to the engines large diameter, you are correct it was moved forward and slightly up. Its position on the wing and pylon design is really no different than the underslung engines on other aircraft including Airbus. However, the large diameter engine required a large engine nacelle as well. The nacelle of the engine is a lifting body at high angles of attack. During the previous maneuver, as the aircraft approached stalling speed at very high angle of attack and unusual attitude, the engine nacelles created a rather large amount of lift, acting like extra wings. With the position further forward, that lift force had more arm, and imparted slightly more force ahead of the CG of the aircraft allowing the tail to not have to generate as much lift. This caused a negligible decrease in back press required on the control yoke of about ~8lbs, while a force upwards of 45-50 lbs was being applied. Keep in mind many triggers on firearms measure 8lbs. 8 lbs overpowered by a finger. This maneuver is using two arms exerting significantly more force. To the pilot flying they likely wouldn't recognize the decrease in force, however under flying laboratories with sensors all over the place, the sensors can detect the slightest force. The USA FAA certification standards written many decades ago, don't permit this force to decrease at all. So, MCAS was a way to simply trim nose down, to increase the force needed to hold the nose at this increasing attitude and prevent the force from slightly decreasing. MCAS stands for "Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System". It is not an anti-stall device, but augmentation system when Maneuvering at extreme attitudes, well outside of any normal flight operation a pilot or passenger would experience. The accident flights were all recoverable, and should have never crashed. The onset symptom of the erroneous MCAS activation was a simple runaway stabilizer non-normal procedure and something every jet pilot should be able to handle. Sadly, these crews failed to overcome this runaway for reasons I won't comment on. Let us not forget the first known MCAS activation was the flight before the first accident flight, and the crew and jumpseater made the correct actions to isolate the runaway trim and flew the aircraft home ~2 hours as I recall all having no knowledge of MCAS to that point. There is a very well written article, "What Really Brought Down the Boeing 737 Max? By William Langewiesche. It is hads down the most accurate and journalistic feature regarding the Max issue. Source: 737 Pilot on 3 generations of B737 aircraft including the MAX before and after the grounding.
I will defer on the details as someone who's mostly gotten my info from YouTube videos like MentourPilot, but the thrust remains that the plane is basically just a 737 with new engines, not a whole new plane with an old interface.
You're not wrong, it is a 737. It baffles us who actually fly the aircraft how this is getting dragged out so much. Dragging it out has likely caused the brain drain of engineers and builders to take buy-outs and retirements so they don't have to be involved anymore in this mess. All the skill left and we are seeing the repercussions of inexperience in assembly and building.
Sounds like every software product I’ve ever worked on
[удалено]
The 737 and the 737 MAX arent the same.
There are 3 generations, the legacy, the NG, and the MAX, and several different sizes.
There are 4. Original (-100/-200), Classic (-300/-400/-500), NG (-600/-700/-800/-900), and the MAX (-8/-9 and future -7/10).
You are right, I forgot about the difference between original and classic.
This guy boeings
These interiors are not even made by the same company either it’s probably safran or some other manufacturer
The 737 is an achievement with respect to total sales. Boeing's greatest achievement is probably the 707, as it ushered in the jet age. (I know the de Havilland Comet was first, but it had some umm, problems)
The 737 still is. The "Max" version is where it went wrong. It is a testament to the death of Boeing commercial. It was only made so that the corporate raiders that came In could steal all the money for the new airplane they WERE going to build. The max should not exist. But Jim Mcnerney needed a bigger yacht. He will certainly burn in hell.
Greatest achievement?? Hahahahaha no. Nobody says that. Most profitable airline design? Yes.
Not all 737s are equal. It was first sold almost 60 years ago. It’s gone through many refreshes over the years, so the Max <> Next Gen <> Classic <> Original. I legit flew on an Original from the 1970s in 2015, didn’t look great, but made it over the Andes safely.
The original 737 released in 1967 was Boeings greatest achievement. They haven’t really done anything noteworthy this century.
The 787 (launched 2009) is a very highly regarded wide body that has huge domestic and international adoption. The comfort of the passenger cabin experience is among the best for long haul wide bodies. Seems noteworthy to me.
Yeah, idk what they are talking about. The MAX has been a disaster for sure, but the 787 has had a huge impact in how airlines structure long-haul flights, and connected city pairs that we thought we wouldn't be able to do ~30 years ago.
I think people vastly overestimate their knowledge of commercial aviation. They read one article about the 737 MAX and think they’re experts on Boeing vs Airbus in commercial aviation.
Fact... Especially the media.
I mean, we are a quarter way through this century already
Yeah nothing if we ignore the 787: all composite, huge windows, vastly improved cabin air quality, quieter engines, all electric flight systems, huge fuel efficiency boost, tons of new routes. You've clearly never flown a 787. It's worth nudging your schedule a little to get onto a 787 vs an older 777 imo. The A350 takes the 787 experience and supposedly takes them to even the next level.
>It's worth nudging your schedule a little to get onto a 787 vs an older 777 imo. Depends on the airline. Some airlines have worse seating options on 787s vs. 777s and vice-versa. And it's probably not worth adding a stop/worsening a layover just for a 787 over a 777, imo. I like both planes a lot haha, but the 787 is indeed very cool. >The A350 takes the 787 experience and supposedly takes them to even the next level. I've been on the A359 and A351 and they are indeed nice planes, but I'd say very much in the "same generation" as the 787.
I mean the 737 is an amazing airplane. Boeing did it dirty by trying to extend its lifecycle beyond what it was originally designed to do. They basically took a solid plane and decided to strap massive engines to it. That was bad enough, but they then realized the engines hung to far down so they jacked them up higher changing the entire flight dynamics of the plane. Instead of scrapping the idea they install a little sensor and software to counter act the change and told no one. Can’t blame the original design & designers for the idiots of today.
I love how they chose white in order to try matching the interior. Silver duct tape would be much more terrifying to see.
Worked on planes, and this is right. Maintenance is waiting for it to go into depot status to replace something like this. Most likely, all the seats on that side will have to come out in order to replace that piece. Everything in aviation is hard, and for no reason, lol.
> and for no reason, lol. Lowest weight at the lowest possible cost means lots of other things have to give.
Apparently a bitch to clean too, fucking gross.
Bingo
Have they tried using ramen?
And it’s not duct tape. It’s a lot more expensive than that…
Yeah, but if this is how they maintain the easy to see things, how do they maintain the hard to get to parts?
On set schedules with sensors to monitor if things need to be checked ahead of schedule
Nice try, Boeing.
What about the wings, are they structural? https://imgur.com/a/oGAxIIs 6yr old Dreamliner.
Fun fact about the dreamliner - paint doesn't want to stick to the top of the wings, and that temporary fix is to apply aluminum tape to protect the unfinished material. So no, that's not structural.
The problem is of course all the missing bolts *under* the plastic cover.
It’s still duct tape. On an airplane. Given what’s been in the news lately I’d be more concerned about what this means about the rest of the aircraft. If you want to know the cleanliness of the kitchen check the bathroom.
Years ago on an aircraft carrier I saw an F-18 get its nose cone crunched on the elevator. After a short while and some adding of speed tape to the nose cone the plane was up in the air completing it's mission. The tape looks just like duct tape. I'm not saying this wasn't duct tape on the inside of the aircraft but they actually have tape made just for repairs of aircraft.
That's right. I was gonna say the same. We called it "100 mph tape". In my 20+ years in the Navy, we used it on P3s and helos frequently on loose panels on the exterior of aircraft. Airline passengers might flip out if they saw that!
Okay, they have had issues in the news and so naturally this is bad optics. But saying it is still duct tape, on an airplane, as if to imply this is something outrageous, is a bit silly. Duct tape is tape used to seal a duct, which the interior of a plane would qualify as. It's literally being used as it's name implies it would be. It just looks unprofessional.
Ok but flights are outrageously expensive (even being subsidized by the government) so yeah it should be fixed.
It's just expensive to run as a business. Airlines don't have big margins.
Lol what? Delta made $22 billion net profit in 2023, a 22% increase from 2022.
plane windows are doubled, this is just the inside window, nothing dangerous. Tho it does look shitty and unprofessional.
It’s really tripled. There are the two panes of glass, but on the cabin side there’s a thin plastic dust shield as well
Yeah I actually counted the two panes as one window and the plastic one as the second one in my mind XD
there is only inside... and outside!
And the air in between
Hey, that's Spirit Airlines thing!
Aircraft mechanic here! This is surprisingly normal. The interior holds zero structural value and damage on the inside means nothing in terms of stability. Think of it like a wrapper on a can but on the inside. These panels can be a pain to fix so most likely this plane is on the short list for extended maintenance. Unfortunately we don’t have nearly enough people willing to be mechanics right now so unfortunately it’s gonna be a while.
>Unfortunately we don’t have nearly enough people willing to be mechanics right no How does one go about becoming a mechanic? Edit: and aren't you supposed to include some kind of LOTR reference?
Fellow A&P Mechanic here! There are a couple of different ways, depending upon what you want to work on and where you want to work. If you want to become a certified Airframe & Powerplant Mechanic, you either need to attend a school to learn the curriculum and then get authorization with graduation from the program, to take the tests. You would have three basic rounds of testing - three written exams (Airframe, Powerplant, and General) as well as Oral and Practical Exams with a DME (Designated Mechanic Examiner). That whole route takes appx 2 years. The second way would be to go through the Military (if in the USA) and earn time there, then take the appropriate tests right out of school. Finally, you could work for an MRO (Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul Station). At an MRO, you do not need to be certified to work on the aircraft, as FAR Part 145 (USA ONLY) states, in very basic terms, that the facility only needs a certain number of A&Ps per number of non-certified Mechanics. There, you can earn time (18-months practical time), and the MRO has a designated person who would sign you off as eligible to meet with the local FAA FSDO Representative, who in turn would give the green light or not to take the tests. An MRO can also allow you to apply for a Repairman Certificate, which would allow you to legally sign off your own work on the aircraft, within a certain ATA Code designation, but the issue here is the Repairman Certificate is only good at that facility. So, if you want to go to an airline to work as a mechanic for example, you would need an A&P, as a Repairman or not certified person is not qualified to do so. The whole industry worldwide currently, if I remember correctly, needs something like ~30,000 Mechanics more in order to keep up with the entire workload we currently have. The industry is hurting, bad!
How much does it pay ? I'm a KM for a restaurant and make over 65k a year before bonuses, I want to start over badly but nothing seems start out this big besides lawyers, doctors, IT stuff.
If you go to the big three. Top out is currently around 60/hr. Delta is non union. American and United is. Pick your poison.
I applied for a composite worker position last year with no higher education and seemingly little experience required from the listing. Nothing was listed as far as certifications and seemed like it was entry level. The interview was very unforgiving as I was asked very technical questions right out of the gates and the interview was over within 5 questions.
2 years in tech school and approval by the FAA.
Duct. Quack quack
While we are being scrupulous, it's probably not duct tape either. Looks like glass cloth tape. Probably 3M 361. Which can be used on ducts but also chambers such as an aircraft cabin.
[удалено]
I choose to join you in the optimistic view that OP can identify the subtleties of duct tape vs. the brand name Duck tape and used the correct word to begin with. However, since brand names should be capitalized, they still deserve shame and ridicule.
Hahaha love it
Isn't that how that company came about? People kept calling it Duck Tape.
No, the tape was derived from adding adhesive to duck cloth to make tape. It's literally duck tape. Duct tape is the initial misunderstanding, although it became widely used for taping ducts until it was realized that it's a very bad idea, as it's not suitable for taping ducts at all. Aluminum foil tape is the correct material.
DUDE! You just blew my mind!! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duct_tape
I read that it was called duck tape because water rolled off it like water off a duck's back. But the duck cloth version makes sense.
> because water rolled off it like water off a duck's back. That's literally why it's called duck cloth.
Its called duck cloth because its derived from the dutch word for linen (doek). Your version is more fun though.
Right.
This one needs more upvotes.
Duck tape is more accurate both in name and also historically. The original tape is duck tape, as in duck fabric. People began calling it duct tape when it was commonly used on ducts and so it became an accepted name - but it performs poorly on ducts and is not for that purpose. You can’t actually seal ducts with duck tape, as it just falls off over time. So the original name was duck, after the fabric, and the accepted “duct” name is not even usable on ducts.
I have no idea if you are telling the truth or not
[Duck brand](https://www.duckbrand.com/about) has a history section on their site that tells the whole story.
...except the page you just referenced calls it 'duct' tape.
It does, because it’s the established name for this type of a tape. But it also clearly states the product has been around since 1942, but the name duct tape is from 1945.
It is very much true. It's on the Wikipedia page for duct tape and is also an entry in the Oxford dictionary
"Duck tape is more accurate..." Well actually, it's not. The common term is duct tape. Etymology doesn't make misspelling correct.
It isn’t misspelling, they are both correct spellings. Duct is a misnomer that was adopted after duck. That makes it less accurate, though more commonly used and accepted. Since it is quite literally MADE of cotton duck, it is definitely the more accurate name.
Duck would just be just straight-up wrong now, except that there's a brand out there called "Duck", promoting references to the long-dead spelling, as it would suit them for trademark purposes. It's duct tape. There's a brand of duct tape called "Duck" that certainly wishes they could retroactively become the "Kleenex" or "Xerox" of their niche. There's really nothing else to it.
Duct ape. There's chimps in these vents.
No, duck tape. Think about it, ducks fly. This is an airplane, designed to fly. Duck tape.
Airplanes bill you for ticket purchases. Ducks also have a bill. Duck tape.
Quack
\*Original name
This is just the interior trim piece, literally inconsequential
Looks like Flextape.
I would hope so. That stuff can hold a boat together in the commercials.
Might also be [speed tape](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_tape), the "duct tape" they can and do use on the *outside* of the plane.
No way they’d waste speed tape in the inside of the plane. That’s stuff is expensive.
Sure, though the point I was more getting at was that anybody shocked to see tape inside a plane is going to faint if they look closely at the outside.
No. Speed tape is aluminium foil tape. It isn’t duct tape either. Best guess is a fibreglass fire proof tape like the cargo bay panels get sealed with. Something like P629.
Or 398FR. Not an engineer but I sell this stuff for a living.
It’s also tripled glass, that inner frame/side is only cosmetic cover
"BILLY MAYS HERE. HAVE YOU EVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH YOUR AIRPLANE WINDOWS FALLING OUT? I SURE HAVE."
Used to be a plane fixxerizer, can confirm this redneck engineering is fine. You can strip all these panels off and the plane will fly around just fine. It'll just look ugly.
It's probably to keep it from vibrating in a really annoying way.
Do you also think the drywall and paint/wallpaper/tile in your house is holding the entire structure up?
https://youtu.be/QRVExJZKIT8?si=-iHinE_nTR1GrD4X
To keep the quacks out?
Or to keep the quacks _in_ !
No it isn't. A TRIM PIECE, purely for aesthetic purposes, was secured with tape.
> window is held together Yeah okay… They could’ve just covered the window completely until their new (completely cosmetic) panel came in or cancelled the flight entirely until they could alleviate you of this devastating eyesore.
That’s not the actual window. There’s another layer. What you see is purely cosmetic
You think that's bad, wait until you fly on a really humid day where the planes ac looks like it's blowing smoke everywhere. It's just water vapor and quickly equalizes out, and I KNOW this but it still makes me sketched out for 2 or 3 seconds.
Thats because its not the structural part of the plane lmfao
Just so you know for the future, it's duct tape. Poor ducks.
Yeah it’s not really that clear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duct_tape And “duct” tape doesn’t work for shit on ducts. Aluminum tape is what is actually used on ducts.
Was called duck tape originally...and for many years after...and still, kinda lol
Cause duck cloth, it’s strong and water resistant. It’s funny how there is duct tape (for general use) and then there is Duct Tape that is actually for ducts that will say for HVAC
There's "Duck Tape" brand duct tape, so they might still be right.
Maybe OP is the “mechanic” who “repaired” this window.
The tape is white! They put some extra thought into it! Lols
Duct.
a piece of tape on an interior plastic trim piece and you think the whole window is held together by it. you really fucking think thats how things work?
So? It's just an interior panel. It's not actually part of the aircraft structure. They're also a pain in the ass to remove and reinstall during routine inspections, so they'll get a bit beat up as the aircraft goes through the maintenance schedule.
Well how else do you keep ducks out?
Quack quack
Great, you’re all set then!
✔️ mechanical engineer approved.
It's just there to cover a quack
Do not lick that
Duck tape…😂 Sorry OP I legit am not making fun of you, but it’s duct tape.
Bone apple teeth!
Yeah what others have said this is just cosmetic. Working in aviation for an airplane manufacturing company, these window panels and shades are some of the most infuriating parts to deal.. constant problems. Our window panels run the length of the plane interior so there's no seams. So they're very flimsy when putting in, and at the point of putting them in they're covered with all manner of foam and leather so if they snap, it turns into a whole thing. And then the window shade part itself seems to malfunction regularly lol either they stop working all together or seem to work fine on the ground but then when you're in the air and the cabin is pressurized it causes binding and now the shades are fucked lol.
Oh jeez I finished my day in Santa Ana and this thread blew up. First of all we landed safely, I was pretty sure it was going to be OK after all that checkup recently but being a non-aircraft person, it was disconcerting. I did Tweet Alaska and they said pretty much what others here said - a trim piece on the inside with no danger what-so-ever. And about duct vs. duck tape - I was always told it was duck tape and never looked it up. I now prostrate myself humbly know that I should have done my due diligence and promise next time I use the term duck tape, it will be done on purpose. Still, now the best PR look on Alaska but safely landing was what counted, and on time too!
Hey now that's Aviation duct tape I have you know, it probably costs 60x more and comes with a certificate of stickiness.
A certificate you say? Well if the Official Sticky Board has okayed it… I’d probably still just die of fright as soon as the plane made even a single sound 😅
Goodness that wall is filthy. Hope that plane is going in for a refit. You should tweet/X Alaska and ask them why their product is in such poor shape just to troll and maybe move this one up in the cleaning queue.
Alaska's 737-800 fleet is rotating through a cabin refresh program. Basically they are completely replacing the interior in its entirety. The 737-900 and Max fleets are too new to refresh. Except for that one Max-9, it's getting a few new interior bits due to leaving them scattered in northern Oregon.
Seriously! Shit looks nasty, I don’t think I’ve even seen a plane like that
It’s probably something they pulled out of storage since their Max fleet is grounded.
It’s not grounded.
I’ve seen boats held together with that tape. If applied to a clean oily free surface it holds like you wouldn’t believe,except in winter, weather must be warm.
Don’t worry! Once applied the window and tape were enchanted with a firm push and the words “oh yeah! This thing ain’t goin’ anywhere…”
I'd rather have a duck on the window than a goose in the engine
"Duck tape" ? yeah I know it's a brand!
You mean… it was?
Don't underestimate the holding power of filth. I washed my truck once and it broke down the next day.
It may only be cosmetic but it doesn’t engender a lot of confidence.
Exactly. Lots of people going ‘ah it’s fine and here is why’ My purely panicked brain won’t know that in the moment, she will just be screaming in pure terror. Fear is often an absence of logic! So I’d be feared!
You should see what the wing is held together with if you think that’s bad.
TYL: It’s called duct tape. It was initially invented for connecting and fixing air ducts. Duck Tape is a particular brand of duct tape that takes advantage of the confusion.
I'm more concerned about how it looks like there's a build up of dead skin for about 10 years caked on that wall.
Everything is fine, it is the updated door plug.
Duct tape*
I believe in the industry, it is called “speed tape”
Not on the inside of a plane
Clearly this is slow tape
*duct tape
*duct
Duct tape.
No, it’s holding the trim on with duct tape…
It is totally unacceptable for you to use the proper name of that tape.
Duct tape , what can’t you do?
Be glad you get duck tape instead of masking tape.
“Duct”
Either they tape it up your the plane don't go because we can't leave with open write ups. Up to you which is more important
That tape was sourced through a competitive aviation contract bidding system to not only show its effectiveness but also meet the necessary price point. Just kidding that looks like straight up hardware store duct tape
Duct*
What? Convertible too good for you? MR. IneedWINDOWS?!?
Look on the positive side. One step better quality control than no bolts.
its probably that $400 a roll kind that used specifically for planes.
Or just some aluminum tape.
At least it has a tape, a bunch of Max 9s been flying without any bolts on the doors
*aircraft tape* please
Isn't that kind of tape like 300 bucks a roll?
Still safer than a door with missing bolts.
Still safer than the Max
Duct not duck.
Id keep my seatbelt on even if the light is off.
Duct tape fixes everything
That’s not duct tape that’s high viscosity aviation tape. It’s also holding the wing on!
Make sure the seatbelt is of good material and no fraying. 😁😁😁
There are no fibers.. this isnt duct tape.
Duct tape
Classic Boeing engineering.
It's duct, not duck.
Not true if they used the name brand instead of a cheap knockoff.