Live data from Hacker News

A Matter of Millimeters: The story of Qantas flight 32

admiralcloudberg.medium.com

231–240 of 307 posts

Re: A Matter of Millimeters: The story of Qantas flight 32

#231
post #141

I don't know about others, but I can't help but smile when I read the detailed series of events in aviation postmortems. To be able to zero in on what turned out to be a single faulty part and then trace the entire provenance and environment that led to that defective part entering service speaks to the robustness of the industry. I say that sincerely since mistakes are going to happen and in my view robustness has l…

The Checklist Manifesto (2009) is a great short book that shows how using simple checklists would help immensely in many different industries, esp. in medical (the author is a surgeon). Checklists of course are not the same as detailed post-mortems but they belong to the same way of thinking. And they would cost pretty much nothing to implement. Also CRM: it's very important to have a culture where underlings feel th…

Yes, but they do have one critical failure mode: that the checklist failed to account for something (or that an expected reaction to a step being performed didn’t occur).

I was a submarine nuclear reactor operator, and one of my Commanding Officers once ordered that we stop using checklists during routine operations for precisely this reason. Instead, we had to fully read and parse the source documentation for every step. Before, while we of course had them open, they served as more of a backstop.

His argument – which I to some extent agree with – was that by reading the source documentation every time, we would better engage our critical thinking and assess plant conditions, rather than skimming a simplified version. To be clear, the checklists had been generated and approved by our Engineering Officer, but they were still simplifications.

Re: A Matter of Millimeters: The story of Qantas flight 32

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember there was this video of a plane in Russia that was on fire, multiple people died. And you see people walking away with their luggage, can’t help it think people would still be alive if it wasn’t for those who so urgently needed their suitcases.

People don’t follow the rules when they don’t trust their government for providing sane rules. Case in point when you provide an example with Russia. Other example is Covid.

People don’t follow the rules because they are self-centered assholes who believe they are the main character of a movie, and they value their own personal convenience and comfort over the lives of other people they see as NPCs.

People aren't taking their luggage with them during an airplane fire because of their distrust of The Deep State.

Re: A Matter of Millimeters: The story of Qantas flight 32

#233
post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla people always try to reduce any critique to some metric on deaths per x. The fact is, there’s a lot of history and best practice around building safety critical systems that Tesla doesn’t follow. Additionally, even with the practices they follow, they call a consumer facing product that isn’t really an autopilot “autopilot”, while focusing outbound comms on a beta product that is more like an autopilot, but not…

I agree with most of this but the naming of "autopilot" seems fine. Nobody expects commercial aircraft to fly on autopilot without a pilot's supervision, the same _should_ be true of Tesla vehicles (especially considering their tendency to jump into the wrong lane and phantom brake on the highway etc.)

What matters is what the user of the system thinks because that’s where confusion can be dangerous.

A plane pilot knows very well what the limits of the autopilot are and what the passenger believes is irrelevant.

Conversely if too many/most car “autopilot” users believe it does more than what it really does then it’s dangerous.

In electrical engineering 600V is still “low voltage”. Any engineer in the field knows that so that’s fine right? But if someone sells “low voltage” electric toothbrush or hand warmer no normal person will think “it’s 600V, it will probably kill me”. When you sell something, what your target audience takes away from your advertisement matters. If they’re clearly confused and you aren’t clearing it up after so many years then “confusion” and misleading advertising are part of your sales strategy.

Re: A Matter of Millimeters: The story of Qantas flight 32

#234

To a half-competent machinist or manufacturing metrologist, half a millimetre of concentricity error on a part of that size might as well be half a mile. It's a huge, grievous error that can be seen with the naked eye. You don't get an error of that scale through normal variation, it's a clear sign of a serious problem with your setup. This part of the article really leapt out at me: The tolerance for this bore was s…

The article said it wasn’t visible because that stub was machined after it was placed in the hub. Which begs the question “why would you weld a tube in place and then finish machining it after?” Maybe it was easier/faster to machine it while it was on a hub. Also, wasn’t there an oil filter that had to go in there? Wouldn’t the oil filter experience interference if the counterbore was offset?

Closing comment: damn I thought people paid more attention when building turbines.

Re: A Matter of Millimeters: The story of Qantas flight 32

#235
post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure about GPT, but it's hella overwrought - it's like someone took the investigation PDF and tried to make the cheesiest Lifetime movie out of it. Far too many superfluous adjectives and embellishments; barely readable IMO. eg "The red-hot, wildly spinning disk instantly fractured into several sections, which rocketed outward in multiple directions at incomprehensible speed"

Well the whole point of articles like this is that they are more "literary" than the investigation reports and therefore more entertaining and engaging to read. There's a time and place for reading dry technical investigation reports and this is not one of them. Also, none of the adjectives you highlighted are beyond human comprehension or usage or even rare so it's certainly not an example of what parent was trying…

Taking a sentence and doubling the world count with folksy-sounding adjectives does not actually make the prose more "literary". It's just bad copy...

Re: A Matter of Millimeters: The story of Qantas flight 32

#236
post #234

To a half-competent machinist or manufacturing metrologist, half a millimetre of concentricity error on a part of that size might as well be half a mile. It's a huge, grievous error that can be seen with the naked eye. You don't get an error of that scale through normal variation, it's a clear sign of a serious problem with your setup. This part of the article really leapt out at me: The tolerance for this bore was s…

The article said it wasn’t visible because that stub was machined after it was placed in the hub. Which begs the question “why would you weld a tube in place and then finish machining it after?” Maybe it was easier/faster to machine it while it was on a hub. Also, wasn’t there an oil filter that had to go in there? Wouldn’t the oil filter experience interference if the counterbore was offset? Closing comment: damn I…

Yes, but what the poster meant is that it would be and that is confirmed in the images.

Re: A Matter of Millimeters: The story of Qantas flight 32

#237
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree in principle, but I don't think industries should be looking at current-day Boeing's engineering practices except for an example of how a proud company's culture can rot from the inside out with fatal consequences.

I think Boeing has had some difficulties. They have also had some undeniable successes. The 777 and 787 programs have no in-service passenger fatalities attributable to engineering errors to date. That's a monumental achievement.

The 787 has no hull losses at all right? And it’s been flying for 10 years now.

Re: A Matter of Millimeters: The story of Qantas flight 32

#238
post #54
post #31

One thing that jumped out at me was the narrow range of safe airspeeds on the landing approach--only three or four knots between stall and max speed not to overrun the runway. Quite a good piece of flying to get the plane down safely, not to mention all the other things the crew had to do.

Yep, they were very heavy and needed to land essentially at stall speed - which they basically did seeing as the stall warning chimed in moments before touch down - in order to allow for as much space as possible to stop the plane. I took from the article that their calculations were kind of hacked together with a number of overrides, so I guess they erred on the side of caution in case any of the assumptions needed…

This is definitely arm-chair quarter-backing, but wouldn't ground effect allow for a lower stall-speed?

Re: A Matter of Millimeters: The story of Qantas flight 32

#239
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, they were very heavy and needed to land essentially at stall speed - which they basically did seeing as the stall warning chimed in moments before touch down - in order to allow for as much space as possible to stop the plane. I took from the article that their calculations were kind of hacked together with a number of overrides, so I guess they erred on the side of caution in case any of the assumptions needed…

This is definitely arm-chair quarter-backing, but wouldn't ground effect allow for a lower stall-speed?

> wouldn't ground effect allow for a lower stall-speed?

Slightly lower, yes, but since, as the GP pointed out, the stall warning sounded just before touchdown, it looks like their calculations already took that into account.

Re: A Matter of Millimeters: The story of Qantas flight 32

#240
post #77
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agree - I think it can go one of two ways. Software is more malleable than airplanes are and that also comes with downsides (like how much time and effort it takes to bring a new plane to the market)

I was just thinking of this metaphor today. Try drawing the software monstrosity you work on / with as an airplane. 100 wings sticking out all different directions, covered with instruments and fins, totally asymmetrical and 5 miles long. Propellers, jets, balloons, helicopter blades. Yep, it flies. When it crashes, just take off again.

So software is my son's Bad Piggies flying monstrosity! You only left out the crates of TNT.
Post reply on HN