Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion • Hacker News Board

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#121

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 10:02 PM UTC

lsc wrote: post #114

sajomojo wrote: post #18

It just seems like a very bad idea that twin-engine planes can fly so far from an air strip. If the #1 engine had failed as well it would have been game over. There's no possibility of gliding a 787 for 2+ hours and hundreds of miles. If the FAA wanted to prioritize safety, it would still require the use of four-engined planes, as it used to for most long ocean routes. The desire to fly twin-engine planes over the oc…

I dunno, man; I think it is deeply weird how we put so much effort in to airline safety, but let anyone drive essentially anything on the road, without even requiring more than homeopathic liability insurance, and only the most cursory of skill tests. (In California, it's totally legal to drive with $35K in liability insurance; and not all of that needs to cover personal injury!) I personally think that any additiona…

[deleted]

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#122

Post by t0mas88 » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 10:07 PM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #70

I was wondering why didn't the crew elect to divert directly to Anchorage, reading the event description http://avherald.com/h?article=49f44548 it seems they were 2h from CDB and ANC would be another hour from there. Not sure what's the ETOPS rating of that aircraft but it might not have been 180min (though even longer times are common now)

No sane pilot would fly an extra hour in a twin with a failed engine if it's not necessary for safety (e.g. weather and runway length are considerations, the rest isn't really important in case of an engine failure)

The plane doesn't just fly nicely with one engine, it will yaw and become much less stable. You will also usually be descending (drift down procedure) because the single engine service ceiling is lower than normal cruise. And the autopilot doesn't work so you're flying manually, for all of the diversion.

You really don't want to be doing that any longer than necessary. You have also no redundancy left, so continuing means you're increasing risks. Even more so because you'll increase your remaining engine to max continuous power stressing it more than usual.

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#123

Post by keyme » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 10:13 PM UTC

andr wrote: post #73

If you enjoyed this story, you might enjoy the story of a seaplane having to get back to LaGuardia from New Zealand the day after Pearl Harbor: https://medium.com/s/story/the-long-way-round-the-plane-that...

Wow! They should really make a movie out of this

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#124

Post by jsjohnst » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 11:11 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #14

dehrmann wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might get some of the backstory halfway off, but my grandfather was in Alaska during WWII for the construction of the Alaska Highway. They tried to never turn off truck and equipment engines because if you did, you had to build a fire under them to get them warm enough to start again.

My family was stationed near London for a time. My father told me later that once an airline pilot mistook a WW2 strip for the Heathrow runway (!) and landed there, using every inch of it to get it to stop. The strip was too short to take off from, so what to do? They stripped everything off the airplane they could. Seats, interiors, galleys, everything. They put in just enough fuel to hop over the trees to Heathrow.…

Sorta similar situation happened a few years back in Wichita Kansas. A 747 Dreamlifter (what Boeing uses to fly 787 fuselages) landed at Jabara airport (corporate jet airport) instead of the Air Force base 9 miles south of it. The videos online don’t give it justice, but from folks I know there, it was a frightful takeoff.

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#125

Post by uxhack » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 11:50 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #14

dehrmann wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might get some of the backstory halfway off, but my grandfather was in Alaska during WWII for the construction of the Alaska Highway. They tried to never turn off truck and equipment engines because if you did, you had to build a fire under them to get them warm enough to start again.

My family was stationed near London for a time. My father told me later that once an airline pilot mistook a WW2 strip for the Heathrow runway (!) and landed there, using every inch of it to get it to stop. The strip was too short to take off from, so what to do? They stripped everything off the airplane they could. Seats, interiors, galleys, everything. They put in just enough fuel to hop over the trees to Heathrow.…

I think you referring to a Pan Am 707 landing at RAF Northolt in 1960 https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1001607

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#126

Post by matt_the_bass » Sun, Jan 05, 2020, 12:49 AM UTC

andr wrote: post #73

If you enjoyed this story, you might enjoy the story of a seaplane having to get back to LaGuardia from New Zealand the day after Pearl Harbor: https://medium.com/s/story/the-long-way-round-the-plane-that...

Yeah! John Bull (author of that article) has a lot of great articles.

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#127

Post by _trampeltier » Sun, Jan 05, 2020, 12:49 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #107

ethbro wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because some people will always want to be the best. And one of the more difficult things when you're that sort of person is finding a rewarding challenge up to your skills. Or as a president once quipped, "Why does Rice play Texas?" Because it is hard.

Exactly right. It's no fun getting the easy jobs. It's very sweet getting something done that everyone else said couldn't be done.

It's not about getting an easy or hard job. I talked about the social life.

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#128

Post by matt_the_bass » Sun, Jan 05, 2020, 12:58 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #20

fnbr wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, it's all cars in Canada- I've never seen one that doesn't have it (other than imports). I guess you could probably get away without it on the west coast. Most cars do start though. It’s really a maintenance issue, where it’s bad for your car to start it at -30 (as the linked article says). In my experience, a newer car in decent shape will start consistently.

You'd have a very hard time starting a diesel without a block heater. When I lived in Canada I kept an older Ford (a 1949 one!) around for winter use because the diesel tractor was that much harder to start. You can make things a bit better by mixing about 5% gasoline in with the diesel to avoid the diesel becoming flaky but that has limits too and the Canadian winters can throw -40 Celsius at you with some regularit…

Fun fact: -40C == -40F

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#129

Post by ncmncm » Sun, Jan 05, 2020, 2:50 AM UTC

peterwwillis wrote: post #115

kmbond wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I understand that Microsoft has a similar crew they can dispatch to any customer to get their business software working again. Yikes well I work for a large corporation that uses tons of Microsoft software, and we use their dispatch team constantly. Granted, we are probably one of their largest customers. It's great to have such a resource. But the fact that we need it doesn't speak well for Microsoft -- I would pr…

The fact that most people don't need to call said team might say more?

What, that they are used to failures, expect them, and live with them?

Before Microsoft, computers crashing was not considered an ordinary, everyday occurrence. I still recall my shock, back in the '90s, when I remarked to a Windows user that Unix didn't crash all the time, and he remarked that he went months without reinstalling. I learned that "crash" had been redefined!

Microsoft really needs that emergency crew. What says more is that most people who call them don't need to call other crews.

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#130

Post by ncmncm » Sun, Jan 05, 2020, 3:06 AM UTC

Denvercoder9 wrote: post #74

raverbashing wrote: post #70

I was wondering why didn't the crew elect to divert directly to Anchorage, reading the event description http://avherald.com/h?article=49f44548 it seems they were 2h from CDB and ANC would be another hour from there. Not sure what's the ETOPS rating of that aircraft but it might not have been 180min (though even longer times are common now)

If you're down to one engine, you opt for the nearest safe haven, independent of how long you're rated to fly on one engine. You don't tempt fate.

You can rarely be sure the failure wasn't something also experienced by the other engine.

Wasn't long ago a 747 flying over the North pole had all four engines fail simultaneously. Fortunately, conditions at 20,000 ft were better, and they got them restarted.

GE actually managed to figure out what went wrong and made sure it couldn't happen again. Makes me think they sort of knew it could happen, but the conditions seemed too unlikely.