Kathmandu University

Department of Computer Science and Engineering

Dhulikhel, Kavre

Case Study: Aloha boeing 737 incident

Submitted by:
Junth Basnet(05)
Bigyan Ghimire(18)
Bhanu Bhakta Joshi(22)
Sanjiv Gautam(17)
Pritam suwal Shrestha(52)

Submitted to :
Satyendra lohani
Department of Computer Science and engineering
Submission Date:21st Jun,2019
Introduction:
The Boeing 737 is an American short- to medium-range twinjet narrow-body airliner developed
and manufactured by Boeing Commercial Airplanes. The 737 was originally envisioned in 1964.
The initial 737-100 made its first flight in April 1967 and entered airline service in February
1968 with Lufthansa. Next, the lengthened 737-200 entered service in April 1968. In the 1980s
Boeing launched the longer 737-300, -400, and -500 variants (referred to as the Boeing 737
Classic series) featuring CFM56 turbofan engines and wing improvements. Aloha Airlines
Flight 243 (IATA: AQ243, ICAO: AAH243) was a scheduled Aloha Airlines flight between
Hilo and Honolulu in Hawaii.
On April 28, 1988, Aloha Airlines Flight 243, a Boeing 737-297 airliner, FAA registration
N73711, named Queen Liliuokalani, was route from Hilo International Airport (IPO) to Honolulu
International Airport (HNL) with a crew of 5 and 89 passengers. The aircraft commander was
Captain Robert L. Schornstheimer .First Officer Madeline Lynn Tompkins also held an Airline
Transport certificate. She had flown 8,000 hours with 3,500 in the B-737. A Federal Aviation
Administration air traffic controller was on the flight deck as an observer. First Officer Tompkins
made the takeoff at 1:25 p.m. and climbed in visual conditions to Flight Level 240 (24,000
feet/7,315 meters), reaching that altitude at about 1:48 p.m. On April 28, 1988, at 1346, a Boeing
737-200, N73711, operated by Aloha Airlines Inc., as flight 243, experienced an explosive
decompression and structural failure at 24,000 feet, while en route from Hilo to Honolulu, Hawaii.
The damage to Aloha Airlines Flight 243 estimated to be about $5 million, it was beyond repair
after being dismantled it was sold for parts and scrap. Due to an explosive decompression of the
cabin the upper crown skin and structure of section 43 separated during the flight, the damaged
area which was near the main cabin entrance door extended all the way up to the forward of the
wings (about 18 feet) and from the left side of the cabin at floor level to the right side window
level.
The National Transport Safety Board in its report said that the probable causes for the accident
were two reasons, (i) Fuselage Attachment Fatigue and (ii) Fuselage Attachment Separation.
A few of the reasons for this was – Maintenance, Inspection, Improper Company Maintenance
Personnel, Inadequate Operator Management and Inadequate Surveillance of Operation by FAA.

Mechanical and Structural :

The NTSB stated in its report that the accident was caused by metal fatigue exacerbated by
crevice corrosion which means that the aircraft was operating in salt water conditions. The main
cause being the failure of an epoxy adhesive which is used to bond aluminum sheets of the
fuselage together. Two sheets not bond properly creates a gap through which water seeps in and
corrosion begins, as the corrosive parts have a greater volume than the underlying metal, the two
sheets are forced apart resulting in the increase of stress on the rivets (which are also used) for
holding them together. Taking into account that the aircraft was 19 years old at the time of the
accident it had already surpassed its takeoff-landing cycles , it should have been subjected to a
full uninterrupted inspection rather that the longer and extensive “D Check” which was
performed in morning installments, furthermore “eddy-current testing’ inspection on the
fuselage skin was lacking. A crack was noticed by a passenger who didn’t notify anyone, as the
aircraft had already surpassed its takeoff-landing cycles (compression and decompression
cycles), this crack inevitable due to metal fatigue.

Alternate explanation:

Matt Austin came up with another reason for the accident after studying the disintegration of the
fuselage of the aircraft. This states that at first the fuselage failed opening a 10 inch vent through
which the cabin air escaped at 700mph, flight attendant C.B.Lansing got sucked into the vent
instead of being thrown off the aircraft. This blockage instantly caused an increase in pressure
which inadvertently acted as a fluid hammer and tore the jet apart.

Conclusion:

The structural failure of the 19year old Boeing 737 stressed on creating awareness of aging
aircraft throughout the aviation industry. The multiple site fatigue was the cause for the structural
damage which primarily was due to the failure and negligence of the operator maintenance
program which is supposed to track and detect corrosion damage. A similar incident occurred in
1981 where the aircraft was damaged in-flight resulting in more than one hundred fatalities.
Corrosion accelerated fatigue of the fuselage skin panels was the reason behind the accident even
then.

To avoid such mishaps in future the aviation industry needs to take the aging aircraft problem
seriously considering the safety issues and the necessary safety programs need to be put into
practice and adhered to consistently for safety measures.
Works Cited:

Wikipedia The free encyclopedia. 18th May, 2008. Aloha Airlines Flight 243.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243

1988 - The Aloha Incident. 26th May, 2008. http://www.corrosion-

doctors.org/Aircraft/Aloha.htm