Live data from Hacker News

Crisis over The Atlantic: The near crash of Air Transat flight 236

admiralcloudberg.medium.com

31–40 of 151 posts

Re: Crisis over The Atlantic: The near crash of Air Transat flight 236

#31
post #27
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make it broader - before take-off, pilots enter the expected destination (or expected distance). During cruising, computers keep track of how much fuel is being used (lost) per unit of time, and projects forward to see if they can still make their expected destination or not. If the number does not reach within expected margins, then show an error. This protects against leaks, but also miscalculation of fuel needed b…

Garmin G1000 units (popular in small planes) show this, as a circle around the current position, including fuel reserve. However, it depends on an accurate fuel level, which is mostly dead-reckoned from integrating fuel consumption. Measuring the actual fuel level in wing tanks is imprecise and the sensors sometimes get stuck and give bogus readings. Perhaps the big innovation needed is accurate fuel quantity measure…

I think a plane can measure an approximation of weight loss from its own airspeed and angle of attack, won't give you exact weight measurement because weight at take off is an approximation, but might give a estimate of weight loss. Depends on the precision of the aoa sensor tho.

Re: Crisis over The Atlantic: The near crash of Air Transat flight 236

#32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume OP’s position is more like never buying a book from a publisher they perceive as being problematic.

YouTube is much closer to a "medium" than an a publisher.

"Books" don't get a cut of all book sales, whereas YouTube gets a cut of all video profits. "Books" don't have editorial control over what goes in them, YouTube does. It's clearly closer to a publisher than a medium. Maybe you meant platform instead of medium?

Re: Crisis over The Atlantic: The near crash of Air Transat flight 236

#33
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To cross the Atlantic between NA and Europe you need to be able to travel 138 minutes from an airport, although for almost the entire area it’s 120 minutes. This is accomplished by having air strips which can take massive planes like A350s at remote places which can’t justify planes of that size normally like Newfoundland, Greenland and the Azores While these are mainly there for military and temporary emergency use,…

To cross the Atlantic with a twin-engined plane has that requirement (ETOPS).

This was a fun rabbit hole to go down, with the ETOPS [1] hint.

I enjoyed the history of ETOPS-138 [0]. ETOPS-120 leaves some small triangles of the Atlantic inaccessible, particularly if one emergency airfield is unavailable. A 15% increase to 138 minutes covers it.

Anecdotally, though, my experience as a commercial passenger feels like airlines fly almost directly over pacific islands rather than within X minutes of diversion. My memory may be anchored in bygone years.

[0] https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/30979/why-etops...

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

Re: Crisis over The Atlantic: The near crash of Air Transat flight 236

#34
post #9

Interesting that they call Lajes a “military airfield”. On the Azorean island of Terceira, Lajes (TER) is a mixed use airfield that is the commercial landing strip of the island since the 1930s, as well as having a multi-national military base on the other side since the 1940s. There is a picture in the story. The NTSB report called it a military airbase, and other reports say “Military air traffic controllers guided…

One of the coolest emergency airfields I can think of is, literally, Uruguay Route 9, along the coast of the country, where a 2-lane highway becomes an enormous runway that you continue driving along. I don't know if there were any famous landings there; I heard it's only used rarely by the Presidential jet.

Here's where it is: https://goo.gl/maps/fpwxuPzGVDtDEKmB8

and what it looks like when you drive on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C5LSrRkFyU

Re: Crisis over The Atlantic: The near crash of Air Transat flight 236

#35
post #5

Against my own inclination to never watch YouTube, I've become a bit obsessed with this one fellow who does excellent reconstructions and analyses of aviation incidents. He covers this one here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9becqrhsedE

Seems a bit weird to say "never watch youtube". It's like never reading a book anymore because someone gave you a bad one. It's up to you to filter out content you dislike, just like with everything else.

Nothing weird about it. I don’t watch Youtube except the rare cases, and when I have to I download videos. I can't stand getting interrupted for ads during watching so I opted out of youtube completely.

Re: Crisis over The Atlantic: The near crash of Air Transat flight 236

#36
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems a bit weird to say "never watch youtube". It's like never reading a book anymore because someone gave you a bad one. It's up to you to filter out content you dislike, just like with everything else.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: Crisis over The Atlantic: The near crash of Air Transat flight 236

#37
post #21

I think if you asked the engineers who designed the airbus in question, could you create a "leak" warning, using just the existing sensor suite, they'd say "sure". You know the fuel level in each tank, and have a good estimate or actual flow data on engine fuel usage. Simple math says "leak" or "no leak". If that would work, it is surprising it isn't in the software.

This is why a graph of a quantity over time is much superior to just seeing the realtime number. Had they had a graph of fuel remaining they would have been able to see that fuel level had started dropping faster.

In monitoring IT systems seeing metrics like this over time is super valuable.

Re: Crisis over The Atlantic: The near crash of Air Transat flight 236

#40
For some reason I'm a little obsessed with airline incidents and crashes. Admiral Cloudberg produces outstanding write-ups, and of course the videos of Mentour Pilot on YT are also excellent.

While this is in no way scientific, it seems that what most catastrophes have in common are bad CRM (crew intra-communication) and lower-than-average airmanship. In most cases, for a catastrophe to occur there must be an initial problem, sometimes very small, that is made worse and worse by bad communication and a series of misunderstandings. And ultimately, in some cases, pilots fail to fly the plane.

For poor airmanship, AF 447 comes to mind (very minor initial incident, plane working perfectly fine, disaster caused by incompetence), as well as a comparable problem on AirAsia 8501 (the captain decided to reboot the computers in flight (!) and the first officer was unable to fly the plane properly without autopilot). Disasters caused by poor CRM include the Tenerife Airport disaster (deadliest accident in aviation history).

But I find incidents that don't result in a catastrophe often more interesting. Incidents and problems are impossible to avoid when using machines as complex as modern airplanes; what's fascinating is how humans, working together and using all of their skill, are able to save the day.

This is the case here. The problem was caused by the maintenance team who didn't use the proper hydraulic tube when replacing an engine, because they didn't have immediate access to the text of the service bulletin that described the procedure, and they thought they could do without. (The wrong hydraulic tube didn't have the proper clearance; when under pressure, it wore away at the fuel line beneath it, until it cracked and leaked.) The actions of the pilots in flight compounded the problem but this was completely excusable given the information and training they had, and the checklists as they were written. Ultimately, disaster was averted by excellent airmanship.

There were other events like that. The most famous one is of course US Airways 1549 ("miracle on the Hudson"), but a less well-known, very similar, and possibly more impressive one, happened in 1988. On TACA Flight 110, the pilot landed the plane on a patch of grass with no engines, with no injuries to the passengers or damage to the plane.

That pilot, Carlos Dardano, had only one eye, having been shot in the face while landing in El Salvador a few years prior and being caught in a cross fire. He had started flying when he was a toddler, on the knees of his father. At the time of the incident, he was 29 but he had already amassed 13,410 flight hours, with almost 11,000 of these as pilot in command.

Another amazing story is the Air Astana flight 1388, in 2018. A heavy maintenance operation had resulted in the inversion of the aileron cables, but not the spoilers, making the plane utterly impossible to control. This problem escaped detection until the plane was in flight. The pilots, after calmly discussing how to ditch the plane in the sea to minimize the number of victims on the ground (it was a test flight with only 6 people on board, all pilots or engineers), managed to regain a semblance of control and landed safely, after 90 minutes of the wildest roller coaster imaginable. It looks like Kazakhs can fly.

It seems the modern world doesn't hold skills in high esteem (what used to be called tradecraft before the word became associated with espionnage); the MBA culture essentially regards workers as interchangeable; and of course we have all these machines!

But the opposite is true. What will save your life is not the machine, it's the experience, professionalism and competence of the people using the machine.

Post reply on HN