Update on the Boeing 737 Max 9

Yeah, that is reassuring First, and most important, it was not an emergency exit that blew out, it was a window.

On some models of the 737 Max 9 it is an emergency exit, but only on models with higher seat densiuty which are required to have additional exits. 

Second, and more important, is that the F.A.A. has grounded a fair number of these aircraft as a result: 

The Federal Aviation Administration on Saturday ordered U.S. airlines to stop using some Boeing 737 Max 9 planes until they are inspected, less than a day after one of those planes lost a chunk of its body in midair “with an extremely loud pop,” terrifying passengers before the jet safely returned to ground.

Those on board Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 described an unnerving experience during the 20 minutes of the flight, which was destined for Ontario, Calif., but returned to Portland International Airport in Oregon on Friday night. As yellow oxygen masks dangled above their heads, a powerful wind tore through a gaping hole that showed the night sky and the city lights below. No one aboard the plane was seriously injured.

………

While the F.A.A. has yet to publicly discuss the cause of the incident, in its grounding order to the airlines, it asked that they inspect what it called a “mid cabin door plug.” Some of the Boeing 737 Max 9s are configured with fewer seats and, therefore, do not need all the emergency exits originally designed for the plane. The unneeded exits are filled with a plug.

Alaska Airlines confirmed in a statement on Saturday afternoon that it had started inspecting the door plugs and cleared 18 of its 65 Max 9s to return to service. The airline said it expected to complete the inspections in the next few days.

In case you are wondering,this should never happen, either with the plug or with the functional emergency door.

To paraphrase the Mississippi Supreme Court from Pillars v. R.J. Reynolds, (1918) "We can imagine no reason why, with ordinary care, the door of an aircraft should remain on that aircraft during flight, and if a door exits an aircraft in mid flight, it seems to us that somebody has been very careless."

The actual case decision that I am paraphrasing has nothing to do with airlines or flight, it had to do with an individual who was made ill by the presence of human toes in some chewing tobacco, and the actual quote is, "We can imagine no reason why, with ordinary care human toes could not be left out of chewing tobacco, and if toes are found in chewing tobacco, it seems to us that somebody has been very careless."