B737 MAX 8 flight crew reported the cockpit windshield cracked inflight at FL370. Flight crew diverted and landed uneventfully.
Synopsis
B737 MAX 8 flight crew reported the cockpit windshield cracked inflight at FL370. Flight crew diverted and landed uneventfully.
Narrative
In cruise at; 37;000 ft. from ZZZ to ZZZ1. I (FO/First Officer) was the Pilot Flying. Our cruise altitude was filed 39;000 ft. but we chose to maintain 37;000 ft. for a time in order to avoid a less desirable ride condition at 39;000 ft. for a short time. At 37;000 ft. in visual meteorological conditions; about 30 miles northeast of ZZZ2 airport; the R1 (FO side front) windshield developed a spidering crack engulfing most of the glass. The Captain and I noticed the malfunction and he immediately took control of the aircraft; and I requested a lower altitude with ZZZ Center; which they granted to 25;000 ft. accompanied by a left turn about 40 degrees left due to traffic below us. A short time after we were cleared back enroute now at 25;000 ft. Once established in the descent with the Captain at the controls he asked for the associated QRH. Upon running the QRH we were able to determine with our own physical touch the affected windshield pane was the outer pane. The QRH allowed us to continue to the destination if desired. We also [requested priority handling] with ZZZ ARTCC.With the aircraft under control; the Captain returned aircraft control to me; and they consulted the AOM for guidance on determining how to technically tell which pane of the windshield is broken. This is where some confusion with the guidance came in. After both the Captain and I read over the instructions multiple times our original thought that it was the outer pane stood but the wording on the instructions wasn't exactly clear.We started hearing another unidentified noise coming from the area around my oxygen mask. It sounded like some kind of airflow and both of us could clearly hear it and identify it as something that sounded abnormal. Although no noticeable pressurization abnormalities were occurring at the time; we chose to request a lower altitude in order to mitigate issues if a slow pressurization issue was occurring. ZZZ ARTCC granted us 14;000 ft. We were able to alert the Cabin Crew there was an abnormality. The Captain and I decided to divert to ZZZ3; as it was closer in front of us after running the QRH and AOM guidance. This decision was derived from the only acceptable airports being ZZZ1; over the Mountains and ZZZ4 prior to more mountains. ZZZ3 was decided for distance as well as Company presence and current altitude. We alerted the Passengers of an issue with the aircraft that could affect pressurization so we will be diverting as an abundance of caution. As we prepared for the new approach to ZZZ3 I noticed part of the black seal around the right side of the windshield was detaching and flapping freely in the wind. The Captain conducted the approach and landing as my windshield was obscuring my view and the rest of the approach was uneventful. Airport rescue and firefighting equipment met us upon landing. We taxied to the gate with no further issues noted. The wording could be modified in terms of how to determine which pane (inner and outer) is affected. The pointed object on the window and moving to determine if the crack moves was confusing to me; and also to the extremely experienced Captain I was flying with.
Second reporter narrative
We had an event flying at FL370 from ZZZ to ZZZ1. After a 'pop'; our R1 windshield instantaneously exhibited excessive cracking. Not knowing the extent of the damage; and a possible pressurization event; I asked ATC for an immediate lower altitude until we had a chance to diagnose the problem. Cabin pressurization did not change. ATC was swamped working multiple frequencies and initially did not want us to descend due to traffic. After stating that we would take a turn to descent he eventually gave us clearance to a slightly lower altitude. After trying to get much lower; ATC implied that the only way we would get it in a timely manner would be to [request priority handling]. We did so and were finally able to get a much lower altitude. During the descent; I had my FO (First Officer) accomplish the 'Window Damage-Forward' QRH. Upon executing the checklist; we came to the decision tree in which you choose damage to either the outer pane or inner pane. There was no information on how to determine that; so we referred to Section 5.2.1 Window Damage; of the Non-Normal section of the AOM for an amplified explanation. Upon reading that section; both FO and I took several minutes trying to interpret the meaning of the 'pencil test' to determine inner or outer pane damage. That language is confusing and not intuitive at all. Eventually; we determined that we had outer pane damage and completed the rest of the QRH. After sharing 'mental models' and applying RRM (Risk Resource Management); we came to the determination that diverting to ZZZ3 was the best solution to minimize unnecessary risk. We landed successfully and without incident. There is a detailed summary of our decision making process and more amplifying information on a report that I also submitted for this incident. Several things could be improved upon for any future people that might encounter this situation. AOM Window Damage - the summary describing how to determine if windowpane damage is inner or outer is very confusing and not very well written. Both my FO and I read it several times; wasting precious minutes on how to determine whether the damage is inner pane or outer pane. This determination is absolutely crucial as it defines a decision branch point in the QRH - both with vastly different outcomes. For something so critical in a checklist; more information/emphasis needs to be written in this section or better yet; incorporate it into the QRH where it is easily accessible. Since this is so crucial and somewhat time critical; perhaps the first step on the 'Window Damage-Forward' might be to start a descent until a determination is made whether it is inner pane or outer pane damage. Also; maybe consideration should be to make this a new QRC checklist item? There are also other ways to determine inner pane vs outer pane than just the complicated 'pencil test'. After landing; the Maintenance person told us to look at the crack and see where it intercepted the window frame. From there it is apparent whether it is inner pane or outer pane damage. Perhaps in the AOM in this section; or somewhere else in training; show pictures delineating an example of inner vs outer pane damage. Pictures are always great visual learning tools. General unhappiness with ATC. I've noticed a degradation overall of ATC services in the U.S.; post-Covid. ATC Personnel are less qualified; less experienced; and generally seem to be very 'snappy'; short-tempered and not pleasant to deal with. Talking extremely fast - a 'mile a minute' - while doing a transcon from coast to coast is very fatiguing for us Pilots. ATC is often working multiple frequencies; and is unable to give good service; while we are only hearing part of the conversation. The initial; high ATC Person working our event at FL370 is one example of this general degradation of service. He was task saturated and more or less forced us to [request priority handling] earlier than I had liked to in order to get a lower altitudein an expeditious manner. All of ATC needs a total revamp. The service is not good; most of the Personnel are inexperienced; overworked; and have short tempers and unpleasant attitudes when working with Pilots. Some of them (none on this event) are borderline unprofessional. Please compel the FAA to spend more money on Air Traffic Control Services!
More incidents for this aircraft family →
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.