Just a few hours before the scheduled check-in, the Boeing MAX of Alaska Airlines experienced a blowout.

Engineers and technicians from Alaska Airlines had planned a maintenance inspection for the Boeing 737 MAX 9 on the day that a section of the fuselage blew off the aircraft midair.

Two pressurization system warning signals and another warning the month prior were received by the aircraft, which was traveling from Portland to Ontario, California, when the component burst out at 16,000 feet. As a result, Alaska forbade the aircraft from passing over wide areas of water and set the night of January 5 for an overnight maintenance check.

However, the fuselage component blew out hours before the planned examination, creating a huge hole in the aircraft's side.

The aircraft returned to Portland International Airport without incident.

Although the plane returned to Portland International Airport without incident, many people were left wondering what went wrong and who was responsible. Both the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board are looking into the incident and Boeing's quality control procedures. A criminal investigation into the incident has also been launched by the US Justice Department.

The majority of the blame has been placed on Boeing and its supplier Spirit AeroSystems, a Wichita, Kansas-based business that assembles the complete fuselage of 737 MAX aircraft at Boeing's Renton facilities, in the weeks following the rupture.

However, the planned safety check on January 5, which The New York Times first revealed on Tuesday, would make Alaska the subject of fresh attention. Employees at Alaska Airlines "were so concerned about the mounting evidence of a problem that they wanted the plane to come out of service... and undergo maintenance," according to a report published in The New York Times.

The Seattle Times was informed by an Alaska Airlines representative that the aircraft's maintenance plan and timetable were "in line with all processes and procedures."

The official went on, "Nothing required or suggested that the aircraft needed to be pulled from service." "That is necessary for some maintenance work, but not in this case."

In addition to the passenger door's stiff handle, the pressurization warning lights were to be examined during the safety inspection.

The warning lights had activated twice in the previous ten days, according to Donald Wright, Alaska Airlines' vice president for engineering and maintenance, who spoke with The New York Times. According to Wright, if the alerts are activated three times during that period, the airline may take more drastic measures.

Vice president of safety and security of Alaska Airlines Max Tidwell told The New York Times, "As the safety guy, looking at all the data, all the leading indicators, there was nothing that would drive me to make a different decision."

At the outset of the NTSB's investigation, chair Jennifer Homendy stated that she was not concerned about the pressurization warning lights and that it made sense for Alaska to continue operating the aircraft while forbidding it from flying over oceans. She stated that more maintenance had been ordered to examine the warning lights at a news briefing in January.

As Homendy stated in January, "at this time, we have no indications whatsoever that this correlated in any way" with the fuselage blowout, but investigators would review the pressurization data.

Four bolts that were supposed to secure the fuselage section were taken out of Boeing's Renton assembly plant and were not put back in, according to an early report from NTSB investigators. An extra emergency exit can be fitted in the hole in the fuselage that the fuselage section, a door plug, fills.

Today News