Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 384 posts

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#221

Post by rainbowzootsuit »

baq wrote: post #206
jimmysnuka wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unreal. Do people not go deaf from the sound of the air coming into the exposed fuselage like that? I would have thought they'd be covering their ears or something.

Air is going out at that height, not in! Pressure falls so rapidly that it should be rather quiet after a short while.

400MPH with an open window plausibly causes some loud noise due to turbulent flow across the opening. The turbofan engines are also reasonably close to the opening and ground crew wear hearing protection to mitigate the effects of the noise.

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#222

Post by postingawayonhn »

zeusk wrote: post #178
realusername wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Internationally yes. In the US, Boeing has their guaranteed government contracts, it's not a market anymore.

They are still competing defence contracts with Lockheed, General Dynamics and Northrop.

For small aircraft. Not for major transports or tankers.

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#223

Post by pneumonic »

kaelinl wrote: post #67
shreezus wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren’t maintenance protocols handled by the FAA? Otherwise it would be implied that budget carriers like Spirit or Alaska would be “less” safe (which isn’t the case AFAIK).

In what way is Alaska a "budget carrier"? Maintenance protocols are a mix of manufacturer recommendations and carrier/maintenance contractor SOPs, which are then approved by the manufacturer and FAA.

In 2000, an Alaska MD-80 went down, killing all 88 onboard. The NTSB found that it was apparently due to failing to adequately lubricate the tail jackscrew, as required by manufacturer documentation, not just once, but in at least two successive scheduled maintenance periods. Also, Alaska had been increasing, with FAA approval, the period between scheduled maintenence. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#224

Post by QuibbleQuota »

yread wrote: post #215
nimbius wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not much choice. Boeing is practically the only US manufacturer of widebody passenger jets and enjoys a privileged position as such. there is literally no other American competition for passenger air. Alternatives include the Chinese Comac 929, Sukhoi SSJ100, or A320 from Airbus. the first two are non-starters as most north american politicians are furiously opposed to the idea of carriers so much as looking at chine…

Why do people with no insight write walls of text on things they don't understand?

It’s rather ironic that by claiming their comment lacks credibility without including any counterpoints it makes your comment itself lack credibility too.

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#225

Post by shaoonb »

nimbius wrote: post #48
Morte42 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man.. if I hadnt seen it I wouldn't have believed it.That is absurd. How the FAA keeps approving this junk from Boeing is even more concerning than how bad Boeing manufacturing has become.

not much choice. Boeing is practically the only US manufacturer of widebody passenger jets and enjoys a privileged position as such. there is literally no other American competition for passenger air. Alternatives include the Chinese Comac 929, Sukhoi SSJ100, or A320 from Airbus. the first two are non-starters as most north american politicians are furiously opposed to the idea of carriers so much as looking at chine…

Was this screed written by an AI?

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#226

Post by irrational »

gigatexal wrote: post #44
Morte42 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man.. if I hadnt seen it I wouldn't have believed it.That is absurd. How the FAA keeps approving this junk from Boeing is even more concerning than how bad Boeing manufacturing has become.

Yeah … I kinda wanna make sure we fly airbus planes now cuz what is going on with Boeing’s QA?

Went from an engineering company to an MBA company.

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#227

Post by ahartmetz »

nimbius wrote: post #48
Morte42 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man.. if I hadnt seen it I wouldn't have believed it.That is absurd. How the FAA keeps approving this junk from Boeing is even more concerning than how bad Boeing manufacturing has become.

not much choice. Boeing is practically the only US manufacturer of widebody passenger jets and enjoys a privileged position as such. there is literally no other American competition for passenger air. Alternatives include the Chinese Comac 929, Sukhoi SSJ100, or A320 from Airbus. the first two are non-starters as most north american politicians are furiously opposed to the idea of carriers so much as looking at chine…

Airbus has never been a Boeing joint venture. It is a politically desired united European aircraft company (doesn't sound good so far?) that somehow took off (heh).

Maybe it worked because the predecessor companies' main problem was "just" scale - they made some decent planes already.

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#228

Post by fsckboy »

carbocation wrote: post #32
TylerE wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aviation is very careful to use specific phraseology. It's a Big Deal(tm) to avoid ambiguity.

Isn't this phrase generating ambiguity, in this circumstance, where a better description would not be ambiguous?

>Isn't this phrase generating ambiguity

it's not generating ambiguity for the people who need to know

for example, air traffic control and other pilots listening on the radio will know that this aircraft needs to be cleared to descend to a lower altitude and other traffic needs to get out of the way, be alert, etc.

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#230

Post by Grimburger »

danpalmer wrote: post #108
Grimburger wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the Boeing Dreamliner for example is shockingly uncomfortable to fly in Struggling with this comment, I do a lot of long-haul and the dreamliner is a clear differentiator on arrival due to cabin pressure and humidity. Boeing seems to have made a lot of mistakes over the years but I seek out a dreamliner for anything over 8 hours. Perhaps you are the victim of the airline more than the aircraft itself?

The 787 is nice, but the competing A350 and A380 both have similar pressurisation and I haven't noticed humidity issues on either. I think the 787 was a significant step up on the 777, but compared to modern alternatives I think it probably is slightly less comfortable.

> Park praised three aircraft types in particular: the Airbus A380, the Boeing 787 and the Airbus A350.

> The 787 and A350 nudge the humidity up to approximately 25% — an incremental upgrade, to be sure, but an upgrade nonetheless. That's because their composite-materials fuselages won't rust like metal ones would under increased humidity.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/the-healthiest-planes-in-the-a...

Haven't been on an A350 but definitely enjoyed the other two for long-haul. There's a noticeable difference when you spend enough time in that tube, Sydney to London is 24hr's straight with a short time off the plane halfway in the middle of the night. Long-haul is the default for Australians travelling internationally.

Post reply on HN