Connect with us

Business

Why do planes have door plugs? And other questions about the Alaska Airlines blowout, answered

Published

on

Why do planes have door plugs? And other questions about the Alaska Airlines blowout, answered

The landing gear was stowed, the plane was climbing to cruising altitude, and then a segment of the wall exploded out of the rear cabin of Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 on Friday night, just 20 minutes after the plane took off from Oregon’s Portland International Airport airport en route to Ontario, Calif.

No passengers were seriously injured in the incident, which occurred as the Boeing 737-9 Max was 16,000 feet off the ground, and the pilots managed to safely land it back at the Portland airport shortly after.

The event has raised a number of questions. The most crucial is just how this kind of failure, in which a door plug installed to replace an emergency exit was ejected out of the side of the pressurized cabin, could occur in a commercial plane. Federal regulators at the National Transportation Safety Board are actively investigating the incident but have not yet announced any findings.

But what exactly is a door plug in the first place? How did the cockpit voice recording end up being erased before anyone could listen to it? The Boeing 737-9 Max has been grounded worldwide pending the results of the investigation, but how can you figure out what plane your flight is going to be on in the future? And how exactly did an iPhone that got sucked out the gaping hole in the plane survive the fall to Earth?

These questions, at least, can be answered.

Advertisement

What is a door plug? Do a lot of planes have them?

The part of the plane fuselage that failed Friday was called a door plug and is not unique to the 737-9 Max or other Boeing planes.

The number of required emergency exits changes based on the number of passengers a plane can hold. The original design of the 737-9 Max had two additional emergency exits toward the rear of the plane, in addition to the exits over the wings, at the rear, and near the cockpit. Some international customers of the 737-9 Max have been flying the planes at maximum capacity, which requires all the original emergency exits in place.

Alaska Airlines opted to fly its 737-9 Maxes with fewer passengers, which meant it didn’t need those additional emergency doors.

Robert Ditchey, an aviation expert and former airline executive, explained the logic behind replacing the doors with a plug.

“One would think the more the merrier” when it comes to emergency exits, Ditchey said, but exit doors with embedded slides or life rafts add weight to a plane and cost extra to maintain over the life of the craft.

Advertisement

After the airline ordered the modified plane, the company that manufactures its fuselage, Spirit AeroSystems in Wichita, Kan., took out the original door and added the door plug in. That modified fuselage was shipped to Boeing “fitted but not completed,” according to Reuters, which allows Boeing to remove the plug and use the hole in the side to access the cabin of the plane, in order to install interior components. Boeing ultimately reattached the door plug in its facility, then delivered the craft to Alaska Airlines.

Why would a door plug just fly off like that?

The NTSB has yet to determine the specific cause of the failure, but one possible culprit is some flaw in the bolts that were holding the door plug onto the rest of the airframe. On Monday, United Airlines announced that it had found loose bolts and other installation issues on the door plugs of its own 737-9 Max planes.

“We don’t know what failed,” Ditchey said, mentioning the possibility that some bolts could have been missing, the wrong size, improperly tightened, or could have mechanical flaws in the metal. He added that there could have been a structural failure in the frame of the craft, but said that he thinks that less likely.

In his view, this points to a design flaw in the door plug itself. The doors in a commercial plane are designed specifically to be un-openable while the cabin is pressurized, and designed to withstand the pressure of the cabin. Even without bolts or a latch holding it in place, a passenger would not be able to open the emergency exit on a plane that was fully pressurized. To ensure that they can’t blow out, like the door plug on the Alaska flight, they are built like wedges: larger on the inside than the outside, so the cabin pressure fits them snugly into place.

“The plug is in my opinion a bad design, because it can blow out and did blow out in this case,” Ditchey said, since it appears to have been bolted on from the outside, rather than wedged against the frame from within. “That troubles me greatly.”

Advertisement

Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems said that they could not comment on the specifics of the door plug assembly given the ongoing NTSB investigation into the failure.

Accidents over the last half a century in which the airplane cabin depressurized have been mostly attributable to baggage hold door failure, particularly with the now-obsolete DC-10 airliner, and fuselage metal fatigue, rather than failures in the main cabin doors.

What’s the deal with the flight recorder?

When Jennifer Homendy, chair of the NTSB, spoke about Friday’s incident at a news conference over the weekend, she brought up a very specific frustration: The cockpit voice recorder in the plane had automatically erased the recording from the incident.

Nobody turned the recorder off for safekeeping, and they are programmed to retain only the most recent two hours of audio, which is then automatically overwritten. As The Times reported:

Homendy was visibly exasperated by the loss of the black box recording. She noted that it was a “very chaotic event” when the plane landed and officials set up an emergency operations center.

Advertisement

“The maintenance team went out to get [the cockpit voice recorder], but it was right at about the two-hour mark,” she said, later adding: “We have nothing.”

The two-hour setup of the recorders strictly follows FAA guidelines, but proposed rules would extend the recording time to 25 hours, in line with current European regulations.

How can I tell what kind of plane I’m about to get on for my next flight?

Most airlines show the type of plane that you’ll be flying in when you view the flight information on their booking site. Third-party websites such as FlightAware and FlightStats also show the model of plane being used for a given flight.

Airlines that have purchased the relatively new 737-9 Max have grounded the plane for the time being, though, so there’s no risk of getting on a similar model to the plane in Friday’s incident. The earlier version of the 737 Max, the 737-8, is in wide use in airline fleets around the world but has a notable blemish on its safety history — those planes were grounded in 2019 after two deadly crashes that killed 346 people, but they were deemed safe to fly in 2021 and have been in heavy use since.

How the heck did an iPhone survive the fall from 16,000 feet?

As Sean Bates took a walk around his home on Sunday, he stumbled upon a remarkable artifact of Friday’s accident: the iPhone of a passenger that had been sucked out the hole in the plane.

Advertisement

The phone appears to have been found in the grass, which made for a soft landing, but still: three miles is a pretty long way to fall.

Luckily, a little physics provides the answer. All objects have a certain terminal velocity that they reach when falling through the air, based on how their size and weight interact with wind resistance. Small, heavy objects reach a higher terminal velocity than big, lightweight ones — think a baseball versus a piece of paper.

As Wired calculated in an article in 2011 after another incident of an iPhone surviving a fall from the skies, the small weight of the handset means that its speed when falling maxes out at between 27 and 95 mph, depending on whether it’s tumbling, falling flat or falling edge-down. As anyone with an iPhone can attest, even a much shorter drop can be fatal for the phones when the target is a concrete sidewalk, but with spongy grass serving as a shock absorber, the iPhone (apparently) just didn’t pick up enough speed to be smashed to smithereens. It can’t hurt that the unlucky passenger had their phone in a protective case.

What happened to the door plug?

At Sunday’s news conference, NTSB Chair Homendy said that the agency had recovered the chunk of airplane from the backyard of a home in Portland, Ore., after the agency was notified by a schoolteacher named Bob.

“Thank you, Bob,” Homendy said. The agency later posted a photo of the debris on its Twitter account.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

Read Nick Bilton’s Letter to Scott Pelley

Published

on

Read Nick Bilton’s Letter to Scott Pelley

Dear Mr. Pelley:

I meant what I said in my letter last week to the 60 Minutes team: joining 60 Minutes is the honor of my career and I am grateful to be working alongside the people who have contributed to the most important television journalism brand this country has ever produced. While I’m new to 60 Minutes, I’ve devoted my career to investigative journalism and storytelling. I started this job excited to collaborate and to benefit from the wisdom and experience of the 60 Minutes veterans, with you among them. For that reason, one of the first things I did in my new role was call you to talk and invite you to dinner. It is a profound disappointment that you rejected that overture and chose ambush instead. Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt. I welcome a diversity of viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but this was nothing of the sort. Yesterday’s performative display of hostility enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation-demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show, or approaching my new tenure with a mind open to collaboration and progress. I am here to deliver first-in-class news programming, not to make headlines about newsroom drama. I am eager to work alongside those who share this goal.

Despite yesterday’s misconduct, I had hoped that in sitting down with you today we could find a path forward together. You made clear that you are not interested in such a path.

Your antipathy to the future of the show has come through loud and clear. And I have heard you. I therefore write on behalf of CBS News, Inc. (“CBS”) to inform you that your employment with CBS is terminated for cause effective immediately. Enclosed is your formal termination letter.

Sincerely,

Nick Bilton

Executive Producer, 60 Minutes

Continue Reading

Business

Aspiration co-founder sentenced to 14 years for fraud

Published

on

Aspiration co-founder sentenced to 14 years for fraud

The co-founder of Aspiration, Joseph Sanberg, was sentenced to 14 years in prison on Monday after defrauding investors and lenders of over $248 million.

The startup, an eco-friendly digital banking company boasting fossil fuel-free investments, carbon offsets for gas purchases, and a debit card with cash-back benefits for shopping at clean companies, was founded by Sanberg and Andrei Cherny. Cherny left the company in 2022 and has not been charged.

Sanberg, an Orange County native, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in October after being arrested in March last year. Aspiration subsequently filed for bankruptcy and liquidated all of its assets by July.

Sanberg and venture capitalist Ibrahim AlHusseini, who also faces charges, together forged a series of bank statements in order to obtain loans. From 2020 to 2021, the pair forged AlHusseini’s bank statements to show millions of dollars in assets in order to obtain millions of dollars from lenders.

Advertisement

Additionally, they forged a letter from their audit committee stating that $250 million in funds were available, when in reality Aspiration had less than $1 million. The amount of loans defrauded exceeded $248 million.

In 2021, Sanberg artificially inflated Aspiration’s 2021 revenue by $44 million by recruiting 27 fake customers to sign letters of intent pledging tens of thousands of dollars per month for tree planting services. Sanberg himself funded the contracts and used the inflated revenue numbers to obtain more loans.

The charges sparked an NBA investigation into salary cap allegations due to Aspiration’s connections with Clippers owner Steve Ballmer.

Ballmer personally invested $60 million in Aspiration, all of which was lost. He is now the target of a civil lawsuit alleging his participation in the scheme. Ballmer denies the allegations.

The team announced a $300-million sponsorship deal with Aspiration, and Clippers player Kawhi Leonard signed a four-year, $28-million marketing contract with the company, which reportedly performed no duties. The issue has raised concerns about how players are circumventing the NBA’s salary cap.

Advertisement

The team lost the $300-million sponsorship deal and an additional $20 million paid for carbon offset purchases.

Continue Reading

Business

Monterey Park takes landmark vote on banning data centers

Published

on

Monterey Park takes landmark vote on banning data centers

Residents in the city of Monterey Park will be the first in the nation to vote on a permanent ban on data centers Tuesday.

If approved, Measure NDC would prohibit data centers within the city limits and could only be overturned by another vote.

Yard signs saying “No Data Center” in English and Chinese with images of dragons line sidewalks in the San Gabriel Valley city.

As a wave of data center opposition sweeps the country, numerous towns and counties across the U.S. have instituted temporary moratoria and other restrictions on the facilities. But only a handful have instituted indefinite bans, and just four other towns have sent related matters to the ballot.

Advertisement

Supporters are hoping the vote will set a precedent for the rest of the region, where residents are fighting proposals in Vernon and City of Industry.

“This is about as permanent a ban as we can get,” said Steven Kung, co-founder of the group No Data Center Monterey Park. “Winning Measure NDC would send a huge message to the rest of the San Gabriel Valley about how residents don’t want data centers.”

The ballot measure emerged from the fight against a 247,000-square-foot center proposed in 2024 by the Australian-owned investment firm HMC StratCap for a residential area in Monterey Park.

The facility would have sat less than 500 feet away from the nearest home and used three times the electricity of the 60,000-person, predominantly Asian American city.

While the developer touted the potential for jobs and tax revenue, residents expressed concerns about noise and air pollution, rising electricity rates and a potential to lower property values.

Advertisement

The company pulled its plans in late March following public outcry and a March 4 city council vote to extend a temporary data center moratorium and place a ban on Tuesday’s ballot.

In a letter to the city council, HMC StratCap said it would pursue a different use for the land and would not engage in a ballot measure fight.

The city council later banned data centers indefinitely, the first in California to do so, said Mayor Elizabeth Yang. But she’s still been out campaigning for the measure with all four other council members.

“If a council puts in an ordinance, a future council can reverse it too,” said Yang. “With the ballot measure, unbanning it is a lot harder because you need the entire city to vote on it.”

The measure proposes the ban “to protect air quality, drinking water resources, and public health” and “prevent impacts to electricity and water rates.”

Advertisement

While California places third in the country for existing data centers with about 300 facilities, it hasn’t been a hot spot in the recent AI-driven data center boom. High electricity rates, expensive land and regulatory hurdles mean that fewer, and smaller, facilities are currently planned than in Virginia, Texas, Georgia, Illinois or Arizona.

“Most of California’s data centers are small by today’s standards,” said Shaolei Ren, an engineering professor at UC Riverside who studies how to reduce the environmental impacts of data centers. “Ten years ago, they would be medium-sized, but the power demand for new AI data centers has increased a lot.”

The average operating data center demands 45 megawatts, according to the Washington Post, while the average planned one would draw 430 MW. The one proposed for Monterey Park would have required about 50 MW at peak demand.

As proposals crop up in SoCal, they’re met with fierce opposition. Montebello, El Monte and Baldwin Park have all enacted temporary moratoria, and Alhambra recently banned data centers as part of a zoning code update. City of Industry, Vernon, City of Commerce and Santa Fe Springs are moving in the other direction, trying to court developers and streamline data center approvals. Community groups are fighting that.

Outside the San Gabriel Valley, residents of Coachella and Imperial County are showing up in droves to protest local proposals.

Advertisement

Matthew Shaw, a volunteer with the Coalition for Responsible Data Center Development, who recently published a report on opposition to AI data centers, said a vote to ban them in Monterey Park “would lead to copycats, partially because so many groups are just opposed to any data center development at all.”

While there is no formal opposition to Measure NDC, some building trades like Ironworker Local 433 supported the Monterey Park data center when it was still live before city council. Those in the data center industry are lamenting the state of public opinion.

“These are multi-billion-dollar assets that are built by multi-trillion-dollar companies. These things will get done,” said Mehdi Paryavi, chairman of the International Data Center Authority. “My biggest problem is that our industry does not invest enough in community engagement.”

Paryavi said towns that seek to limit data centers are missing out on thousands of jobs generated by data center construction, operations and customers, as well as faster artificial intelligence speeds and better performance.

Kung said local community organizers are “looking at the empirical evidence” and seeing a ban as a win.

Advertisement

“We’ve never seen a city that embraces a data center and is like, ‘Look how our quality of life has increased, look how all the revenue has gone into citywide improvements,’” he said. “That just doesn’t exist.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending