I put this in the pub because that's where it probably belongs.  I need some help from the statistics wonks out there...  Apparently, there are 178 seats in the Alaska Air with the blown door plug.  There were 171 passengers on the plane.  The plane had been relegated to flights over land because of a cabin pressurization alarm.  The 2 seats right next to the blown plug were empty, probably saving a couple of passengers from injury (or worse)

 

Here's the question for the statistics gurus:  What are the odds that those 2 seats would be among the 7 on the plane that were empty, given random seat allocation?

 

The wingnut in me suspects the seats were empty because of a whooshing noise on previous flights.  And subsequent investigation showed that the 4 bolts holding the plug on that plane were missing.  Not loose, apparently...missing.

 

I haven't seen any discussion here of this incident, which I would think would be of interest to the globetrotters here on an Expat website.  Please, tell me how wrong I am...  Or any other thoughts on the incident...

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/08/us/alaska-airlines-plug-door-found-investigation-monday/index.html

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/08/us/what-happened-alaska-airlines-flight-1282/index.html

 

 

 

 

 

If you are correct in what you have posted then it was not a random choice that left those seats vacant, it was a conscious decision by the captain, crew and maintenance…

Which would raise some VERY big questions.

31 minutes ago, impulse said:

The wingnut in me suspects the seats were empty because of a whooshing noise on previous flights.  And subsequent investigation showed that the 4 bolts holding the plug on that plane were missing.  Not loose, apparently...missing.

I highly doubt it. For one, an airline is not going to risk losing millions in a law suit and fines and loss of revenue due to a maintenance issue of a plane that can be swapped out.

 

A pilot is not going knowingly fly a faulty aircraft, they want to get home just as everyone else.

 

Its illegal to knowingly fly a faulty passenger aircraft.

10 minutes ago, HighPriority said:

If you are correct in what you have posted then it was not a random choice that left those seats vacant, it was a conscious decision by the captain, crew and maintenance…

Which would raise some VERY big questions.

 

Just to be clear, my question was mostly tongue in cheek.   But I'm looking forward to the investigation results coming out.  Because I like a good wingnut conspiracy theory.

 

And I don't work for the airlines, so I don't know what it would take to block off a couple of seats in the computer because, for instance, the seat had problems.  I've been on several flights where the seat recliners were broken and nobody was assigned that seat.

 

BTW, the last person I'd suspect is the captain.  He doesn't assign seats, and he goes down if the plane does.

 

30 minutes ago, impulse said:

I haven't seen any discussion here of this incident, which I would think would be of interest to the globetrotters here on an Expat website.  Please, tell me how wrong I am...  Or any other thoughts on the incident...

Sadly, I think that you are correct.

Boeing have a reputation for hiding defects. They all get swept under the table or Boeing blame someone else and it is not just the 737 Max.

Would you volunteer to be a crew member on the Starliner?

 

Quote

Boeing was supposed to start flying astronauts for NASA 2 years ago. Now its glitching spaceship may not do so until 2023.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-software-errors-jeopardized-starliner-spaceship-737-max-planes-2020-2?op=1

17 minutes ago, novacova said:

I highly doubt it. For one, an airline is not going to risk losing millions in a law suit and fines and loss of revenue due to a maintenance issue of a plane that can be swapped out.

 

It's not recent, but Alaska has lost at least one plane due to schlock maintenance to cut costs.  There was an incident where a nut on an elevator shaft wasn't lubricated and the plane went down.  (someone help me with the terminology...)

 

https://mustreadalaska.com/ah-here-we-go-jan-31-2000-the-day-flight-261-bound-for-seattle-plunged-into-the-pacific-ocean-all-88-lost/

 

The investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board led to problems with a two-foot-long jackscrew, and a lack of grease on the jackscrew, which had caused the threads to be stripped, resulting in the horizontal stabilizer jamming and putting the aircraft in a nose-down position. The aircraft had no backup system to protect it in the event of a loss of the function of the jackscrew.

 

Jackscrew is the word I was looking for...

18 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Just to be clear, my question was mostly tongue in cheek.   But I'm looking forward to the investigation results coming out.  Because I like a good wingnut conspiracy theory.

 

And I don't work for the airlines, so I don't know what it would take to block off a couple of seats in the computer because, for instance, the seat had problems.  I've been on several flights where the seat recliners were broken and nobody was assigned that seat.

 

BTW, the last person I'd suspect is the captain.  He doesn't assign seats, and he goes down if the plane does.

 

The captain would be aware of any and all issues with the plane and as you already understand, he makes the ultimate decision on “to fly, or not to fly”.

Id suspect that it may not be unusual for those seats to be the last filled ?

I always decline those seats, I’m 6”2’ and wouldn’t mind the legroom but dislike the non reclining seats.

1 minute ago, HighPriority said:

The captain would be aware of any and all issues with the plane and as you already understand, he makes the ultimate decision on “to fly, or not to fly”.

Id suspect that it may not be unusual for those seats to be the last filled ?

I always decline those seats, I’m 6”2’ and wouldn’t mind the legroom but dislike the non reclining seats.

 

It may be that simple and innocent.  I was just surprised to see the window seat vacant on a scenic route.  But the videos from the flight do show it was dark out...  So maybe nobody asked for a window.

 

29 minutes ago, impulse said:

I don't know what it would take to block off a couple of seats in the computer because, for instance, the seat had problems. 

If the seat itself had a problem, there would be no mechanical issue to flag. If there was an issue with a port then the plane would be grounded for inspection. Every part of on aircraft’s are scheduled for maintenance inspection or replacement by hours of operation, example: auxiliary fuel pump relay needs to be inspected every x amount of hours, and needs to be replaced every x amount of hours of operation.

42 minutes ago, impulse said:

Because I like a good wingnut conspiracy theory

 

1 hour ago, impulse said:

The wingnut in me suspects the seats were empty because of a whooshing noise on previous flights.  And subsequent investigation showed that the 4 bolts holding the plug on that plane were missing.  Not loose, apparently...missing.

If it was a deliberate oversight or an ignored issue, maybe it has something to do with their warped DEI policy? Maybe the incident it will inspire the CEO’s and managers to woke down and wake up.

National Transportation Safety Board Chair Jennifer Homendy, said that the seats were empty by sheer luck.

 

The OP will not believe it, as it does not fit his conspiracy theory rubbish.

 

Took 30 seconds to find the answer if you google it.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/alaska-airlines-plane-door-plug-two-most-damaged-seats-empty-2024-1

3 hours ago, impulse said:

The wingnut in me suspects the seats were empty because of a whooshing noise on previous flights. 

in many planes, the seats leading to an exit, have a wider space between seats and the airline charges more for those seats.and consequently they are often empty. 

I don't know if that was the case here because the door was plugged, but the above might be a contributing  reason why these seats were empty

24 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

National Transportation Safety Board Chair Jennifer Homendy, said that the seats were empty by sheer luck.

 

The OP will not believe it, as it does not fit his conspiracy theory rubbish.

 

Took 30 seconds to find the answer if you google it.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/alaska-airlines-plane-door-plug-two-most-damaged-seats-empty-2024-1

 

It'll be months before they finish their investigation.

 

Even then, it's not unheard of for pilots and experts to contest the NTSB results after they're released.

 

Edit:  And if it was sheer luck, my OP asks how lucky was it?  Was it 1 in 10 lucky or 1 in 10,000 lucky that those seats were empty.

 

 

25 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

It'll be months before they finish their investigation.

 

Even then, it's not unheard of for pilots and experts to contest the NTSB results after they're released.

 

Edit: And if it was sheer luck, my OP asks how lucky was it? Was it 1 in 10 lucky or 1 in 10,000 lucky that those seats were empty.

 

 

5555 See I post to you the facts and a credible link, and you still think you guess/comment it right.

 

What are your qualifications, training and experience of air crash investigations?

 

So you do not believe the head of the NTSB. She would not have issued a statement if she was not sure.

 

Do you think see was lying? Protecting the airline? Protecting Boeing?

 

Bye and gave a good day. I will not waste my time on conspiracy theory nu###bs.

7 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

What are your qualifications, training and experience of air crash investigations?

 

 

Same as yours I assume

14 minutes ago, BenStark said:

Same as yours I assume

 

That's close to true. 

 

Though I was a 45 year mechanical engineer responsible for DIFA's on multi-million dollar systems.  That's Disassembly Inspection Failure Analysis.  I've done hundreds, but that's in the oilfield.

 

So I don't claim any special skills in the aviation world.  Just curiosity... 

 

And I still remember the NTSB trotting out parts of TWA 800 that they claimed had explosive residue.  (and not just the seat cushions)  That's a risk when you jump the gun.  Like the lady in his story.

 

 

19 minutes ago, BenStark said:

 

Same as yours I assume

55555 What would you know?

 

I can state my experience, qualifications are training are far more than you and the OP together.

 

I have been involved in a few air crash investigations, please lots other investigations , as the lead fire investigator.

 

I posted facts, what problems do you have with that?

6 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

That's close to true. 

 

Though I was a 45 year mechanical engineer responsible for DIFA's on multi-million dollar systems.  That's Disassembly Inspection Failure Analysis.  I've done hundreds, but that's in the oilfield.

 

So I don't claim any special skills in the aviation world.  Just curiosity... 

 

And I still remember the NTSB trotting out parts of TWA 800 that they claimed had explosive residue.  (and not just the seat cushions)  That's a risk when you jump the gun.  Like the lady in his story.

 

 

So zero experience in avaition!

29 minutes ago, BenStark said:

 

Same as yours I assume

Don’t let your inferiority complex and arrogance get in the way of your ignorance.

1 hour ago, impulse said:

And if it was sheer luck, my OP asks how lucky was it?  Was it 1 in 10 lucky or 1 in 10,000 lucky that those seats were empty.

It was ~4.09% or ~4.09/100 luck, given the numbers you posted.

Just now, novacova said:

It was ~4.09% or ~4.09/100 luck, given the numbers you posted.

 

I'm not doubting you, but I'd appreciate you showing the math.

 

1 in 25 isn't as lucky as I thought.  But that's why I asked for a statistics guru...

 

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

It'll be months before they finish their investigation.

 

Even then, it's not unheard of for pilots and experts to contest the NTSB results after they're released.

 

Edit:  And if it was sheer luck, my OP asks how lucky was it?  Was it 1 in 10 lucky or 1 in 10,000 lucky that those seats were empty.

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

55555 What would you know?

 

I can state my experience, qualifications are training are far more than you and the OP together.

 

I have been involved in a few air crash investigations, please lots other investigations , as the lead fire investigator.

 

I posted facts, what problems do you have with that?

Investigations take a long time, they have to investigate the hardware of the aircraft, investigate the manufacturer of the parts, go through bureaucracy of the unions for interviews and so forth. They may already have the key answers, but the final report will take time and won’t be published to the public until then. 

11 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I'm not doubting you, but I'd appreciate you showing the math.

 

1 in 25 isn't as lucky as I thought.  But that's why I asked for a statistics guru...

 

What are the statistics of getting sucked out of an aircraft in midair sitting next to a blown out port without a seatbelt fastened? I’d say nearly 100%. Typically airliners fill emergency door seating last or for those that request them at the counter, though I haven’t read the article so I don’t know if it was an emergency door that blew out. You called it a plug, not really aviation terminology.

29 minutes ago, novacova said:

 

Investigations take a long time, they have to investigate the hardware of the aircraft, investigate the manufacturer of the parts, go through bureaucracy of the unions for interviews and so forth. They may already have the key answers, but the final report will take time and won't be published to the public until then. 

So you do not believe the NTSB statement?

 

Where did I talk about the final report?

 

The OP was about the empty seats,I answered that with facts and the Dunning Kruger crowds will not want to believe.

7 minutes ago, novacova said:

You called it a plug, not really aviation terminology.

 

Facts, on this link

 

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA24MA063.aspx

If you want opinions try these forums

 

https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/656760-alaska-airlines-737-900-max-loses-door-flight-out-pdx-54.html

 

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/alaska-airlines-mileage-plan/2146904-section-max-9-blows-out-during-ascent-1282-pdx-ont-4.html
 

 

5 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

If you want opinions try these forums

 

https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/656760-alaska-airlines-737-900-max-loses-door-flight-out-pdx-54.html

 

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/alaska-airlines-mileage-plan/2146904-section-max-9-blows-out-during-ascent-1282-pdx-ont-4.html

 

 

Good info.  Thanks for those.  And as a bonus, they're not blocked where I am, like Google and half of the news sites are.

 

Honest to gosh, I tried to tee this up like I would a bigfoot sighting, and keep the discussion light natured.   I know there are some pilots, mechanics and and other aviation people tuned in here from previous threads.  I was hoping for their insights.

 

And I am genuinely curious why they chose to fly the plane, but not over water.  Was it just the pressurization alarms?

 

 

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

in many planes, the seats leading to an exit, have a wider space between seats and the airline charges more for those seats.and consequently they are often empty. 

I don't know if that was the case here because the door was plugged, but the above might be a contributing  reason why these seats were empty

I was thinking that too but in this case there is not necessarily extra wide passage no exit just looks like a window over optional the door plug. It might still be a premium seat. 

6 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Good info.  Thanks for those.  And as a bonus, they're not blocked where I am, like Google and half of the news sites are.

 

Honest to gosh, I tried to tee this up like I would a bigfoot sighting, and keep the discussion light natured.   I know there are some pilots, mechanics and and other aviation people tuned in here from previous threads.  I was hoping for their insights.

 

And I am genuinely curious why they chose to fly the plane, but not over water.  Was it just the pressurization alarms?

 

 

 

 

Maybe if you had looked at my posts on the Japan crash, it may have given you an insight that I have an interest in these subjects.

 

Alaska Airlines restricted long flights over water so plane could divert and return to an airport quickly if required, as the plane had suffered a pressurisation warning light on 3 previous flights.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/08/business/boeing-max-9-plane-grounded.html#