Last week, an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max 9 aircraft was forced to make an emergency landing in Portland, the United States, when a cabin panel blew off in midair leaving a gaping hole in the aircraft’s fuselage. Just days before, a Japan Airways Airbus collided with a smaller coastguard plane, resulting in the Airbus catching fire.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has ordered an inquiry into the incident and several passengers filed a class action lawsuit against Boeing in Washington state on Thursday.
So, is it really safe to travel by air? Here is what we know about the Alaska Airlines incident and the general safety of aviation:
What happened to the Alaska Airlines flight?
On January 5, just moments after takeoff, a cabin door panel blew off in midair during an Alaska Airlines flight from Portland to Ontario, leaving one side of the aircraft’s body with a gaping hole, reducing cabin pressure and prompting an emergency landing. The blown-out door panel was later discovered by a Portland teacher, in his garden.
Advertisement
Federal officials in the US ordered the temporary grounding of all Boeing 737 Max 9 jetliners until they can be inspected.
The cabin panel that flew out was a “door plug” installed over an extra emergency exit door, which had been removed.
(Al Jazeera)
Thankfully, no one was seated next to the gaping hole. Additionally, the plane was only 16,000 feet (4,876 metres) above the ground. Planes typically fly more than 31,000 feet (9,448 metres) when they are at their highest. Had the aircraft been much higher, the pressure difference could have become large enough to suck passengers out of the aircraft, former FAA accident investigator Jeff Guzzetti told The Washington Post.
The aircraft, which had departed from Oregon and was heading for California, landed safely in Portland with all 174 passengers and six crew members mostly unharmed. Some passengers sustained minor injuries.
The aircraft is a new Boeing 737 Max 9 which had been delivered to Alaska Airlines in late October and certified as safe by the FAA in early November. It had been in service for just eight weeks.
Advertisement
London-based independent aviation expert John Strickland told Al Jazeera that the panel which flew off is supposed to be a secure part of the aircraft’s structure. “That’s why it’s more surprising and a matter of concern that this blowout happened,” he said.
London-based aviation analyst and consultant Alex Macheras agreed: “This should not be downplayed, that’s for sure. Because in modern commercial aviation, we do not see sections of an aircraft body, of fuselage, becoming separated from the rest of the aircraft, certainly not mid-flight.”
Has Boeing taken responsibility?
As more than 170 planes remained grounded last week, Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun acknowledged errors made by Boeing and provided reassurance. He told staff that the company would ensure an incident like the Alaska Airlines blowout could never happen again. It has not been confirmed what the actual fault in the aircraft was, although experts told Al Jazeera it is most likely down to a manufacturing flaw rather than a design flaw. There has also been speculation about parts coming loose after both Alaska Airlines and United Airlines reported incidents of needing to tighten loose hardware last Monday.
Earlier, the US chief accident investigator, The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), said it had received reports that warning lights had been triggered on brand-new Boeing 737 Max 9 crafts on three flights. Two of these alerts happened on consecutive days before the Alaska Airlines blowout.
Richard Aboulafia, aviation industry analyst and managing director of Washington-based AeroDynamic Advisory, told Al Jazeera that the warning lights were likely the result of a technical glitch. “They ignored it because, strangely, the pressure differential came on while it was on the ground, which means it was a glitch. There’s no pressure differential while you’re on the ground,” he explained. The cabin pressure can only vary when the aircraft is in the air, which is why it was acceptable to ignore the warning and fly the plane over land, he said.
Advertisement
The company stopped flying the aircraft over the Pacific Ocean to Hawaii due to the warnings, yet kept it flying over land, the NTSB said.
Who checks the safety of an aircraft?
Aboulafia explained that the FAA typically certifies an aircraft, approving its operations and production.
However, since the Boeing 737 Max has had safety issues before, the FAA announced that it would inspect every single aircraft in the Max series under these unusual circumstances. The details about the exact checks that were carried out are not public.
Once the aircraft is in use by an airline, regular maintenance checks called A, B, C and D checks are carried out, Aboulafia explained. While an A check is typically a cursory investigation of a plane’s moving parts, exterior wear and tear and of oil and fuel, a D-check is rigorous and involves a teardown and detailed inspection of the aircraft.
These checks are carried out at dedicated intervals based on the number of years an aircraft has been in service or its number of flight hours. Some airlines have their own in-house capabilities to carry out these checks and while many airlines are able to do A or B checks, only certain airlines are able to do C or D checks themselves. Others use third-party services.
Advertisement
“This is an unprecedented production ramp and, clearly, there needs to be more resources provided for it, whether it’s at the manufacturing level or the inspections level,” Aboulafia added, referring to how aeroplanes are now manufactured in large numbers. He called for a greater number of people to be assigned more time for inspections.
Aboulafia added that it is imperative to identify where and how the Alaska aircraft passed its safety checks, and whether it was Boeing, Spirit Aerosystems or the FAA that cleared the jetliner without detailed inspection. There is no information about the level of detail of inspection that took place before the plane was cleared for flying.
At some or at multiple stages in the process, there needed to be more time allowed for workers or inspectors to “do their job”, however, Aboulafia said, adding: “We don’t know yet, but clearly, there was a gap in how things should have been done.”
A Portland resident found the blown-out door plug from Alaska Air Flight 1282 in his garden [Handout/NTSB via Reuters]
Have Boeing 737 aircraft had problems before?
Yes. The jets were grounded worldwide for about two years after a crash killed 189 people in Indonesia in October 2018 and another killed 157 in Ethiopia five months later.
In both instances, a design flaw was found in the automated flight control software, which activated erroneously. Boeing 737s were cleared to fly again once the aircraft had been revamped with an improved flight control system.
Aboulafia said the crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia had been caused by design defects in the flight control system, while the recent incident was a defect in manufacturing, with loose hardware on aircraft, however.
Advertisement
United Airlines and Alaska Airlines have both reported loose hardware that needed additional tightening on multiple grounded Boeing 737 Max 9 aircraft on Monday, raising new concerns among industry experts about the manufacturing process.
If a design issue occurs, the design defect must be fixed on the aircraft before the plane model is cleared to fly again, he explained.
For manufacturing defects, “you have to identify where the mistakes were made, and then it’s an easy inspection, especially since it’s structural rather than software or anything like that”, he added.
Why is turbulence on the rise?
A June 2023 study by the UK’s Reading University showed that severe air turbulence had increased by 55 percent at an average point over the North Atlantic between 1979 and 2020.
The study concluded that turbulence will become worse with climate change, and the calculated rise is consistent with the expected effects of changes in climate. Hence, the rise in turbulence is not due to poor design or the manufacturing of aircraft.
Advertisement
Is air travel still the safest mode of transportation?
Harvard University research has found that the odds of being in a plane crash are one in 1.2 million, while the odds of dying in such a crash are one in 11 million. Meanwhile, the odds of dying in a car accident are significantly higher at one in 5,000.
“Is any form of transport always safe? No, but if you choose not to fly and instead take a car, that’s a far more dangerous way of travelling,” said Aboulafia.
vpso crop generic village public safety officer (Loren Holmes / ADN)
Under Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s leadership and with reliable funding from the Alaska Legislature, Alaska’s Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO) program has experienced substantial growth, reflecting Alaska’s commitment to public safety across its communities. The number of VPSOs working in our remote communities was once at 42 officers in January 2020 and has grown to a current total of 79, along with the introduction of Regional Public Safety Officers (RPSOs) and competitive wage adjustments, the VPSO program has become more robust and better equipped to serve the needs of rural Alaska.
Advertisement
This increase in officer numbers is a significant accomplishment, expanding the safety network across Alaska’s rural communities. Each new VPSO represents not only an additional first responder but also a vital resource for residents in need of emergency response, search and rescue, and community safety support. By nearly doubling the number of officers in just a few years, the program has strengthened statewide readiness and improved the capacity to address Alaska’s unique rural challenges.
A key initiative supporting this growth has been the addition of Regional Public Safety Officers (RPSOs). RPSOs enhance the effectiveness of local VPSOs by providing a layer of specialized regional support, acting as a resource that multiple communities can rely on in times of need. They can respond quickly with the Alaska State Troopers to large-scale incidents, provide backup to VPSOs during demanding situations, and share essential resources across multiple villages. This novel regional approach ensures that communities have comprehensive public safety coverage including their local VPSO, regional RPSO, and the Alaska State Troopers.
Another major factor in the VPSO program’s expansion has been the increase in wages, making the role more competitive and sustainable as a career. Recognizing the high costs of living and the challenges of public safety work in rural Alaska, recent adjustments to VPSO compensation have made these positions more appealing to qualified candidates and have strengthened officer retention. This increase underscores the commitment required of VPSOs, who serve as the primary responders for some of Alaska’s most isolated communities. By offering competitive pay, the program attracts skilled individuals committed to public safety, building a more dedicated workforce equipped to serve Alaska’s rural residents.
These improvements in staffing, regional support through RPSOs, and wage enhancements have created a VPSO program that is more resilient and adaptable than ever before. VPSOs provide critical services to safeguard the well-being of residents, and the increased investment in personnel and resources underscores Alaska’s dedication to supporting its rural communities.
Looking ahead, the VPSO program will continue to focus on these priorities to ensure that Alaska’s rural communities have the support they need. We remain committed to working closely with Dunleavy, the Legislature, the regional VPSO grantees and Alaska’s villages to ensure that every village that wants a VPSO can have a VPSO.
Advertisement
James Hoelscher is currently the director of the Alaska Department of Public Safety’s Village Public Safety Officer Operations Division. He previously worked as the chief of police in the Village of Hooper Bay, as a Village Public Safety Officer in Hooper Bay, and for the Alaska Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office.
The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.
Butter clams, important to many Alaskans’ diets, are notorious for being sources of the toxin that causes sometimes-deadly paralytic shellfish poisoning.
Now a new study is providing information that might help people harvest the clams more safely and monitor the toxin levels more effectively.
The study, led by University of Alaska Southeast researchers, found that the meat in larger butter clams have higher concentrations of the algal toxin that causes PSP, than does the meat in smaller clams.
“If you take 5 grams of tissue from a small clam and then 5 grams of tissue from a larger clam, our study suggested that (in) that larger clam, those 5 grams would actually have more toxins — significantly more toxins — than the 5 grams from that smaller clam,” said lead author John Harley, a research assistant professor at UAS’ Alaska Coastal Rainforest Center.
Advertisement
Partners in the study were the Sitka Tribe of Alaska, which operates one of only two laboratories in the state that test shellfish for algal toxins, and with other organizations.
It is one of the few studies to examine how toxin levels differ between individual clams, Harley said.
The findings came from tests of clams collected from beaches near Juneau on five specific days between mid-June and mid-August of 2022.
The 70 clams collected, which were of varying sizes, yielded a median level of saxitoxins of 83 micrograms per gram, just above the 80-microgram limit. Toxin concentrations differed from clam to clam, ranging from so low that they were at about the threshold for detection to close to 1,100 micrograms per gram.
And there was a decided pattern: Toxin concentrations “were significantly positively correlated with butter clam size,” the study said.
Advertisement
A woman sorts though a pile of butter clams on a dock in Alaska in 1965. Butter clams have long been harvested for personal consumption in Alaska. (Photo provided by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game)
Among the tested clams in the top 25% size, 81% had concentrations above the regulatory threshold, while among the quartile with the smallest size, only 19% came in at above the threshold.
The typical butter clam has a shell that is about 3 inches wide and up to 5 inches in length; clams in the study ranged in shell width from less than 1.5 inches to more than 4 inches. The mass of meat inside the shells of tested clams ranged from 3.87 grams to 110 grams, the study said.
The detections of toxins were in spite of the lack of significant algal blooms in the summer of 2022 – making that year an anomaly in recent years.
In sharp contrast, the summer of 2019 — a record-warm summer for Alaska — was marked by several severe harmful algal blooms. Near Juneau, toxin concentrations in blue mussels, another commonly consumed shellfish, were documented at over 11,000 micrograms per gram, and the toxins killed numerous fish-eating Arctic terns in a nesting colony in the area.
Advertisement
Just why the butter clams tested for the new study showed concentrations of toxins in a low-bloom year is a question for further review.
Butter clams are known to pose special risks because they retain their algal toxins much longer than do other toxin-affected shellfish. Like other species, butter clams do detoxify over time, but they do so much more slowly, Harley said. The clams in the study were all at least a few years old, and there are some possible explanations for why they still retained toxins in the summer of 2022, he said.
“Maybe these larger clams, because they’ve been consistently exposed to harmful algal blooms several years in a row, maybe they just haven’t had a chance to detoxify particularly well,” he said.
The unusual conditions in the summer of 2022 mean that the results of this study may not be the same as those that would happen in a summer with a more normal level of harmful algal blooms, he said. “It still remains to be seen if this relationship between size and toxin is consistent over different time periods and different sample sites and different bloom conditions,” he said.
Research is continuing, currently with clams collected in 2023, he said. That was a more typical year, with several summer algal blooms.
Advertisement
The algal toxin risks in Alaska are so widespread that experts have coined a slogan that reminds harvesters to send samples off for laboratory testing before eating freshly dug clams and similar shellfish: “Harvest and Hold.”
Harley said the fact that there are toxins in clams even when an active bloom is not present “is a very real concern” for those who have depended on harvest. The Southeast Alaska Tribal Ocean Research Network, known as SEATOR, has been monitoring shellfish in winter and other times beyond the usual months of algal blooms, he noted.
That monitoring has turned up cases of toxin-bearing shellfish well outside of the normal summer seasons. Just Tuesday, SEATOR issued an advisory about butter clams at Hydaburg, collected on Saturday, that tested above the regulatory limit for safe consumption.
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (KTUU) – David Honeycutt expected one of his appliances to be repaired — not a complete home renovation.
Members of the Home Depot Foundation’s Operation Surprise campaign have spent days working to improve Honeycutt’s home.
Honeycutt said he sustained a spinal injury during his Army service, resulting in a permanent disability that prevented him from navigating his home safely for years. A friend and fellow veteran reached out and nominated Honeycutt for some outside help.
“I was in getting in a bad place and they realized that,” Honeycutt said. “And they’d given me hope.”
Advertisement
Visiting with the team before they began working in his home, it became clear Honeycutt’s house was inaccessible and inconvenient for its owner.
Eric Rangel, district captain for Team Depot — Home Depot’s volunteer force — said when they first met, they were mostly concerned about difficult-to-use appliances.
“Well, that very quickly grew, and we wanted to give him something a little bit more,” Rangel said.
Initial plans to deal with appliances then turned into a multiple-day project; team members built a 12-by-12 woodshed outside Honeycutt’s back door to give him access to firewood, repaired his deck to keep him safe getting in and out of his vehicle, added doggy doors for Honeycutt’s companion Misty, grab irons throughout the house, and installed new stairs for Honeycutt to exit his sunken living room without hurting himself.
Before the changes, Honeycutt said his life was heading in a dark direction. Even traversing the stairs in his home became impossible, preventing him from sleeping in his own bedroom for two years.
Advertisement
Honeycutt said he ruined his own couch by sleeping on it rather than trying to get to bed.
“It became my pit, kind of hard to get in and out,” he said. “Kind of, ‘Do I bother hurting myself getting out again?’ … The house got worse. I got worse.”
Following the repairs, Rangel believes they’ve turned some things around.
“He can navigate his home, and be the independent veteran that he’s been his whole life.”
The improvements to Honeycutt’s home were made by employees at the Home Depot in Kenai, who said they’re motivated by knowing they’re helping those who served the country.
Advertisement
“Just, like, ‘Wow, I helped this gentleman,’ I feel so happy,” one volunteer said as the large group huddled in the soon-to-be complete kitchen they were working on. “It makes me want to just keep driving forward and help out the community.”
The team installed an entirely new kitchen and accessible cabinets, which Rangel said will give Honeycutt the ability to cook for himself once again — a passion Honeycutt is looking to share once everything is complete.
“I won $1,000 for my chili in a chili cookoff in Oklahoma,” he said. “So I am gonna make them — the Home Depot Store — five gallons of my special chili.”
See a spelling or grammar error? Report it to web@ktuu.com
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/adn/VO3A23G6X5DG5BD2YOPOCUAV54.jpg "OPINION: VPSO growth strengthens Alaska public safety")
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25739950/247386_Elon_Musk_Open_AI_CVirginia.jpg "Inside Elon Musk’s messy breakup with OpenAI")
