Dramatic footage shows the moments after a window and chunk of fuselage blew out of a passenger plane in mid-air, leaving a gaping hole in the side of the Boeing 737-9 MAX.
One Alaska Airlines passenger on the affected flight said a boy and his mother were sitting in the same row as the damage and the boy’s shirt was torn off him and sucked out of the plane.
While only minor injuries were reported, the situation could have been “very dangerous,” according to David Learmount, consulting editor at Flightglobal. “If there were people near it who were not wearing the seatbelts they would have disappeared,” he told Sky News.
Alaska Airlines grounded all of its Boeing 737-9 MAX planes in response to the incident, which caused the cabin to depressurise and resulted in the plane making an emergency landing in the US state of Oregon.
The Federal Aviation Administration later said it would order the temporary grounding of some Boeing 737-9 MAX aircraft operated by some US airlines or in US territory.
Boeing said it “fully supports” the administration’s decision to require inspections of 737-9 MAX planes “with the same configuration” as the aircraft that was forced to land.
It is the latest issue for Boeing, the world’s largest aerospace company, after its 737 MAX aircraft were grounded for a year and a half following two crashes in 2018 and 2019.
Image: A gaping hole could be seen in the side of the aircraft. Pic: Kyle Rinker
Could the Boeing 737 MAX be grounded again?
Aviation experts said the incident involving the Alaska Airlines 737-9 MAX is “extremely unlikely” to lead to all planes of the same type being grounded.
Advertisement
“The issue with grounding aeroplanes is not the problem, the issue is ungrounding them,” Tim Atkinson, a pilot and aviation consultant, told Sky News. “Once you ground an aeroplane how you unground it is the really difficult piece. For that reason, groundings are vanishingly rare and they are always for something way more significant than this.”
He added: “Aviation safety works by statistics, what I call rolling the sky dice. So far nobody has been killed, remember it took the second MAX crash before the planes were grounded [in 2019].”
Image: Exterior photos suggest the rear mid-cabin exit door came off during the flight. Pic: KGW
The MAX, the latest version of Boeing’s 737, is a twin-engine single-aisle plane which went into service in May 2017.
Mr Learmount said airlines running the planes would likely react by launching inspections of their fleets.
“The MAX is getting a bit of a caning. Just when you thought everything is fine,” he said. “If I was in charge of an airline with any MAXs in it I would be inspecting the area where this happened.”
The National Transportation Safety Board and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have announced they will investigate the event, while the British Civil Aviation Authority is monitoring the situation.
The FAA announced the temporary grounding of some 737-9 MAX planes on Saturday afternoon.
Mr Learmount said Alaska Airlines and Boeing would be looking to find out “exactly what the problem was”, adding: “Is this a design or a manufacturing fault or has the aircraft suffered damage which has shown itself later?”
He said he doubted the incident would dent passenger confidence in Boeing 737 MAX planes, but added: “There may be some nervous fliers who will shy away from flying on MAXs.”
Mr Atkinson said it is unlikely the issue with the Alaska Airlines flight could have been catastrophic for an entire aircraft – but that it could still have been deadly.
He said: “This is the kind of thing that might cause at worse one or two fatalities from people being sucked out of the aeroplane. It’s never going to be worse than that.”
He added the board of Alaska Airlines may be “kicking themselves all the way down the yard” for grounding its fleet.
“I think largely this is about a minor technical problem on a plane and a significant overreaction,” he said.
After the Alaska Airlines incident, a Boeing spokesperson said: “We are aware of the incident involving Alaska Airlines Flight 1282. We are working to gather more information and are in contact with our airline customer.
“A Boeing technical team stands ready to support the investigation.”
Image: Boeing 737 MAX planes were stored during the previous grounding
Why were Boeing’s 737 MAX aircraft grounded in 2019?
All of Boeing’s MAX passenger jets were grounded in March 2019 for 20 months after two crashes in Ethiopia and Indonesia which killed 346 people between them.
Both disasters were caused by an automated flight-control system that pushed the aircraft’s nose down based on faulty sensor readings, with the pilots unable to regain control.
Image: Wreckage from the Ethiopia Airlines crash in 2019. Pic: AP
After its planes were grounded Boeing worked on software upgrades and new safety precautions to the flight control system linked to both crashes and the jets returned to service in December 2020.
The company also implemented flight control updates, maintenance work, fresh pilot training and meetings with flight crews to explain its changes and address concerns.
Mr Learmount said Boeing “worked very hard” to fix problems with the 737 MAX.
The company “went back to square one”, he said, adding: “The MAX has made them completely start again from the ground up with their whole philosophy about what it is to be a world-class designer and manufacturer of aeroplanes.”
Image: Wreckage from the Lion Air crash in Indonesia in 2018. Pic: AP
What other problems have there been with the Boeing 737 MAX?
Boeing has had to work to fix other manufacturing flaws with its 737 MAXs which have interrupted deliveries of the planes.
Last year the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) told pilots flying the MAX 8 and MAX 9 to limit the use of an anti-ice system in dry conditions over concerns inlets around the engine could overheat and break away, possibly striking the plane and causing rapid decompression.
An engine fan blade broke off an older 737 during a Southwest Airlines flight in 2018, striking and shattering a window, and killing a woman.
Last month Boeing told airlines to inspect the planes for a possible loose bolt in the rudder-control system.
The leaders went home buoyed by the knowledge that they’d finally convinced the American president not to abandon Europe. He had committed to provide American “security guarantees” to Ukraine.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:49
European leaders sit down with Trump for talks
The details were sketchy, and sketched out only a little more through the week (we got some noise about American air cover), but regardless, the presidential commitment represented a clear shift from months of isolationist rhetoric on Ukraine – “it’s Europe’s problem” and all the rest of it.
Yet it was always the case that, beyond that clear achievement for the Europeans, Russiawould have a problem with it.
Trump’s envoy’s language last weekend – claiming that Putinhad agreed to Europe providing “Article 5-like” guarantees for Ukraine, essentially providing it with a NATO-like collective security blanket – was baffling.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:50
Trump: No US troops on ground in Ukraine
Russia gives two fingers to the president
And throughout this week, Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has repeatedly and predictably undermined the whole thing, pointing out that Russia would never accept any peace plan that involved any European or NATO troops in Ukraine.
“The presence of foreign troops in Ukraine is completely unacceptable for Russia,” he said yesterday, echoing similar statements stretching back years.
Remember that NATO’s “eastern encroachment” was the justification for Russia’s “special military operation” – the invasion of Ukraine – in the first place. All this makes Trump look rather weak.
It’s two fingers to the president, though interestingly, the Russian language has been carefully calibrated not to poke Trump but to mock European leaders instead. That’s telling.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:02
Europe ‘undermining’ Ukraine talks
The bilateral meeting (between Putin and Zelenskyy) hailed by Trump on Monday as agreed and close – “within two weeks” – looks decidedly doubtful.
Maybe that’s why he went along with Putin’s suggestion that there be a bilateral, not including Trump, first.
It’s easier for the American president to blame someone else if it’s not his meeting, and it doesn’t happen.
NATO defence chiefs met on Wednesday to discuss the details of how the security guarantees – the ones Russia won’t accept – will work.
European sources at the meeting have told me it was all a great success. And to the comments by Lavrov, a source said: “It’s not up to Lavrov to decide on security guarantees. Not up to the one doing the threatening to decide how to deter that threat!”
The argument goes that it’s not realistic for Russia to say from which countries Ukraine can and cannot host troops.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:57
Sky’s Mark Stone takes you inside Zelenskyy-Trump 2.0
Would Trump threaten force?
The problem is that if Europe and the White House want Russia to sign up to some sort of peace deal, then it would require agreement from all sides on the security arrangements.
The other way to get Russia to heel would be with an overwhelming threat of force. Something from Trump, like: “Vladimir – look what I did to Iran…”. But, of course, Iranisn’t a nuclear power.
Something else bothers me about all this. The core concept of a “security guarantee” is an ironclad obligation to defend Ukraine into the future.
Future guarantees would require treaties, not just a loose promise. I don’t see Trump’s America truly signing up to anything that obliges them to do anything.
A layered security guarantee which builds over time is an option, but from a Kremlin perspective, would probably only end up being a repeat of history and allow them another “justification” to push back.
Among Trump’s stream of social media posts this week was an image of him waving his finger at Putin in Alaska. It was one of the few non-effusive images from the summit.
He posted it next to an image of former president Richard Nixon confronting Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev – an image that came to reflect American dominance over the Soviet Union.
Image: Pic: Truth Social
That may be the image Trump wants to portray. But the events of the past week suggest image and reality just don’t match.
The past 24 hours in Ukraine have been among the most violent to date.
At least 17 people were killed after a car bombing and an attack on a police helicopter in Colombia, officials have said.
Authorities in the southwest city of Cali said a vehicle loaded with explosives detonated near a military aviation school, killing five people and injuring more than 30.
Image: Pics: AP
Authorities said at least 12 died in the attack on a helicopter transporting personnel to an area in Antioquia in northern Colombia, where they were to destroy coca leaf crops – the raw material used in the production of cocaine.
Antioquia governor Andres Julian said a drone attacked the helicopter as it flew over coca leaf crops.
Colombian President Gustavo Petro attributed both incidents to dissidents of the defunct Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
He said the aircraft was targeted in retaliation for a cocaine seizure that allegedly belonged to the Gulf Clan.
Who are FARC, and are they still active?
The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, a Marxist guerrilla organisation, was the largest of the country’s rebel groups, and grew out of peasant self-defence forces.
It was formed in 1964 as the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party, carrying out a series of attacks against political and economic targets.
It officially ceased to be an armed group the following year – but some small dissident groups rejected the agreement and refused to disarm.
According to a report by Colombia’s Truth Commission in 2022, fighting between government forces, FARC, and the militant group National Liberation Army had killed around 450,000 people between 1985 and 2018.
Both FARC dissidents and members of the Gulf Clan operate in Antioquia.
It comes as a report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime found that coca leaf cultivation is on the rise in Colombia.
The area under cultivation reached a record 253,000 hectares in 2023, according to the UN’s latest available report.
Follow The World
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday