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

261–270 of 384 posts

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

#261

Post by cf1241290841 »

throwaway51104 wrote: post #207
colechristensen wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is Boeing’s aircraft. Absent a sophisticated act of intentional sabotage, Boeing is at least partially responsible. The physical design, manufacturing, assembly, qualification, maintenance plans, and maintenance training are all responsibilities of the prime contractor. If a damn door falls off in flight more than one of those definitely contributed. It isn’t only Boeing. The FAA is also reasonable for verifying a…

If one door falls of the aircraft, it's most likely a service tech didn't do the job properly, not that there is a systematic issue. That'd require much more fallen doors.

>If one door falls of the aircraft, it's most likely a service tech didn't do the job properly

More or less what both Boeings predecessor and the FAA took away last time such a thing occurred. Crew didnt close the door properly and a warning sign was installed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_96

>Injuries 11 (2 crew, 9 passengers)[1]

>That'd require much more fallen doors.

That happened last time that happened

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_981

>Fatalities 346

I think its fair to argue you dont have a very sensible perspective here. We tried the approach you proposed in the past and it didnt work.

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

#262

Post by jillesvangurp »

vlovich123 wrote: post #65

Is the FAA going to drag their feet again grounding this plane until the problem is root caused?

Grounding is a heavy measure. They're more likely to just inspect other planes with similar doors to see if there's anything obviously wrong with them.

Planes are complicated machines and the processes for inspecting them are highly detailed. Once they figure out what happened, the fix might be simply to include some simple check for whatever happened. Just another line item for a routine inspection. And probably the list of things to check for doors is quite long already.

In any case, flailing your arms and panicking is not part of the process. This incident seems completely unrelated to previous incidents and it happened many years after the first max flew. Which suggests it's an isolated incident. It's quite possible that the door has not been redesigned for the max (quite likely even, because why would they?) in which case they might have to look at all 737s going back 50 or so years.

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

#263

Post by passwordoops »

sandworm101 wrote: post #259
sccxy wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but 2 months old aircraft failure should not get any credit.

Aircraft are not minivans. Whether a ship, large truck, aircraft, power plant, datacenter, or new house, its is normal for complex systems to suffer more faults when brand new. This was a dramatic and unacceptable fault, but the idea that brand new planes sould have fewer faults than those a few years older doesnt mesh with the reality of such complex and dynamic products.

737 MAX is no longer "brand new"

737 MAX was already grounded for fatal safety issues that should have prevented it from being deemed airworthy in the first place.

Boeing recently argued safety shouldn't be a concern for the 737 MAX

Boeing clearly appreciates shareholder value above safety and quality. Which you cannot have for systems this complex

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

#264

Post by Kwpolska »

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…

> American Airlines replaced a chunk of their fleet with the A320 because the Dreamliner was literally killing about as many people as it managed to transport when it wasnt down for loose bolts or reboots due to battery issues.

From Wikipedia:

> The Boeing 787 has been involved in seven accidents and incidents as of November 2023, with zero fatalities and no hull losses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner#Accident...

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

#265

Post by junofan »

_heimdall wrote: post #258

I can only assume that this is going to lead to a ton of noise and anger with very little change, unfortunately. Boeing will investigate, regulators will rattle sabers, and the public will be very loud about this for a week until the next news cycle rolls around. We prioritize convenience above all else. The easy answer here is people could just not fly if we're actually concerned with Boeing or the industry in gener…

For the same reason I can’t operate an orbital rocketry program out of my backyard. Dangerous stuff in the sky is dangerous to everybody on the ground, too.

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

#266

Post by sorokod »

sandworm101 wrote: post #259
sccxy wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but 2 months old aircraft failure should not get any credit.

Aircraft are not minivans. Whether a ship, large truck, aircraft, power plant, datacenter, or new house, its is normal for complex systems to suffer more faults when brand new. This was a dramatic and unacceptable fault, but the idea that brand new planes sould have fewer faults than those a few years older doesnt mesh with the reality of such complex and dynamic products.

When you say that its is normal for complex systems to suffer more faults when brand new can you share the stats that apply to airliners?

Also, what makes 737 Max a dynamic product ?

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

#267

Post by sandworm101 »

passwordoops wrote: post #263
sandworm101 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aircraft are not minivans. Whether a ship, large truck, aircraft, power plant, datacenter, or new house, its is normal for complex systems to suffer more faults when brand new. This was a dramatic and unacceptable fault, but the idea that brand new planes sould have fewer faults than those a few years older doesnt mesh with the reality of such complex and dynamic products.

737 MAX is no longer "brand new" 737 MAX was already grounded for fatal safety issues that should have prevented it from being deemed airworthy in the first place. Boeing recently argued safety shouldn't be a concern for the 737 MAX Boeing clearly appreciates shareholder value above safety and quality. Which you cannot have for systems this complex

The 737 max product line is not new. This individual aircraft is only two months out of certification. By large aircraft standards, that is showroom new.

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

#268

Post by adrian_b »

throwaway51104 wrote: post #207
colechristensen wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is Boeing’s aircraft. Absent a sophisticated act of intentional sabotage, Boeing is at least partially responsible. The physical design, manufacturing, assembly, qualification, maintenance plans, and maintenance training are all responsibilities of the prime contractor. If a damn door falls off in flight more than one of those definitely contributed. It isn’t only Boeing. The FAA is also reasonable for verifying a…

If one door falls of the aircraft, it's most likely a service tech didn't do the job properly, not that there is a systematic issue. That'd require much more fallen doors.

As many others have pointed, the aircraft was too new for that door plug to have ever been inspected by maintenance.

There is no doubt that Boeing is guilty of either negligent assembly or of using wrong parts, such as inappropriate bolts.

The fact that any of these two has happened indicates bad procedures used during production at Boeing.

It could indicate a design problem, if for instance better bolts used in the past have been replaced with cheaper bolts.

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

#269

Post by philwelch »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #82

Boeing is playing off its role as being so vital to national security that the government will keep it from suffering too much loss. Fair enough. However, if that is the case, then the bean counting management is guilty of sabotaging US national security by running Boeing into the ground for short term profits. The entire C-Suite of Boeing should be sentenced to multi-decade prison terms at IDF SuperMax for their sel…

> Boeing is playing off its role as being so vital to national security that the government will keep it from suffering too much loss.

I don’t actually think this is true. Boeing has a terrible track record with defense contracts in recent years. They lost the KC-X tanker competition to Airbus before Boeing lobbied to overturn the decision, they lost the JSF competition to the Lockheed Martin F-35, and they (in partnership with Sikorsky) lost the Black Hawk replacement competition to Bell. Super Hornet production is ending next year and Osprey production could probably be turned over to Bell.

No, it’s less that Boeing is vital to national security and more that Boeing is a government jobs program. It’s the jobs—not Boeing’s importance to national security—that has influenced powerful senators like Patty Murray and Lindsay Graham to put their thumbs on the scale.

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

#270

Post by tim333 »

_heimdall wrote: post #258

I can only assume that this is going to lead to a ton of noise and anger with very little change, unfortunately. Boeing will investigate, regulators will rattle sabers, and the public will be very loud about this for a week until the next news cycle rolls around. We prioritize convenience above all else. The easy answer here is people could just not fly if we're actually concerned with Boeing or the industry in gener…

Me not spending a flight will have zero effect on Boeing. The FAA threatening to ground their planes will however get their attention.

The FAA actually do quite a good job and if anything are maybe a bit over the top in enforcing saftey given that for most people there is near zero risk of dying in a plane crash compared to a lot of stuff that people do die regularly from.

Post reply on HN