Thank you for your work to make aviations safer.

“I have fought corporate greed and FAA hesitancy to take action.”

I am sorry that you had to do that. Our society should have more respect for the value of human-life. But I am glad you were there to fight for public-saftey. Again, thank you for doing that.

You also wrote: “For people like myself, who know more things about aviation, than the-general-public, we can easily discuss what most likely went wrong and how to fix the respective problem. The following information has just come from a “PBS”-news-report.” In response: I am an A&P. I have been involved in the development, design, manufacture and support of aircraft for over fifty-five years. I am a FAASteam member. I have fought corporate greed and FAA hesitancy to take action. I have been a Part 91 Chief of Inspections. I have participated in the review of numerous aircraft incidents and crashes. I have also learned that we cannot ‘easily discuss what most likely went wrong…’ until we are sure all the data is in. And that means all data must be vetted thoroughly from reliable sources, not just a PBS news item.

My concern in the larger sense, is the potential focus on shareholder value as opposed to an emphasis on aviation enthusiasm. There may be a culture that extends from the boardroom down to the shop floor that concerns itself more with just being another job. There are many questions needing to be asked and answered that address every aspect of the aviation community. Throwing Boeing management under the bus is a simple and inadequate solution. The problem may extend well beyond them. Witness the continuing posts that have already found the source of the problem in a rush to judgement. Again, it takes the NTSB more than just a quick glance at the problem.

“Firstly, I cautioned about jumping to conclusions. You have put blame squarely on Boeing management. That is usually the first suspect. However, this might be premature and even the captain of a ship cannot be cognizant of every single action taking place on their vessel. They do ultimately assume responsibility, especially when things go wrong.“

Victor Craft, you have been proven correct. I do not know if you read my latest response! but it appears that “Alaska Airlines” is also responsible for what happened.

“The Boeing 737 Max 9 jetliner was not being used for flights over large bodies of water, after a warning light related to a pressurization problem lit up on three different flights. Alaska Airlines restricted the aircraft so it could land quickly if the warning light reappeared.“

Here is the whole “PBS”-news-report from which the quote was sourced.
https://www.opb.org/article/2024/01/08/portland-teacher-recounts-finding-boeing-door-plug-in-yard/

Here are two news-articles which is more in-depth, and well-worth-reading.

https://www.cnn.com/business/boeing-737-max/index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/maker-boeing-door-plugs-sued-quality-failures-midair-alaska-airlines-b-rcna133291

I think you miss the overall problem. The very-existence of a ‘plug’ that can pop-off an aircraft, is the major-problem. If the plug could not pop-off, then ‘the accident’ would not have happened based on the condition of the door-plug when it was found in the teacher’s backyard. One should design things so certain ‘accidents’ cannot happen. You are correct that we should not jump to conclusions, but with the recent-history of “The Boeing Company”, giving them the common-curtesy of ‘not jumping to conclusions’ when one of their products fails-miserably, has long-since-passed. For people like myself, who know more things about aviation, than the-general-public, we can easily discuss what most likely went wrong and how to fix the respective problem. The following information has just come from a “PBS”-news-report.

“The Boeing 737 Max 9 jetliner was not being used for flights over large bodies of water, after a warning light related to a pressurization problem lit up on three different flights. Alaska Airlines restricted the aircraft so it could land quickly if the warning light reappeared.“

Here is the whole “PBS”-news-report from which the quote was sourced.

https://www.opb.org/article/2024/01/08/portland-teacher-recounts-finding-boeing-door-plug-in-yard/

Kindly note that ATL to HNL is 4,502 in miles, but not in nautical miles.

Questions in future may center on an understanding of the reasoning behind the replacement of the exit door with the fuselage plug. Who made the decision that this was necessary? What was the purpose? I agree with your sentiments with regards to following accepted processes and procedures for designing and testing. Did it meet or exceed company and FAA requirements? That remains to be verified. What I mean by did it meet or exceed the specs, what was written in the engineering and the manufacturing planning? Could this incident have been the result of material failure?

Subsequent to your response, it has been found that there were several United aircraft that had bolts holding the plug that were loose. Does this mean 1) the planning was incorrect (meaning engineering failed to ensure proper torque callouts were included) 2) were workers on the assembly line in a hurry, if so 3) what was the QA inspection called for and finally 4) were assembly people coerced to get the job done?

Your emphatic rebuttal to what I had written goes against the pattern we have learned to follow. That is why it takes the National Transportation Safety Board months before it can make pronouncement on its findings. It takes time to collect all the data and analyze it. It is not clearly anyone’s responsibility at this time.