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

271–280 of 384 posts

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

#271

Post by baq »

rainbowzootsuit wrote: post #221
baq wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My assumption was that the air pressure at that height is low enough to not be loud. Yeah it’s moving fast but there isn’t much of it. Different story on the ground.

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

#272

Post by sandworm101 »

sorokod wrote: post #266
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.

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 ?

It is dynamic because almost no two aircraft will be identical. Between the innumerable customization options, constant small changes in construction and inspection proceedures mean each aircraft is in some ways a unique product. This is an imporant consideration when, like here, a failure appears to have occured amongst one of the optional/customizable subsystems (emergency exit configs).

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

#273

Post by cf1241290841 »

nvy wrote: post #126
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #117

Do you think there will be any accountability from Boeing executives? Boeing hasn't had a lot of good press in the last few years, will leadership ever be held accountable? There was a time when Boeing was considered a very trustworthy and reliable company, is this the result of a decline in an engineering-focused culture? Edit: Many of the comments in this thread mention that they avoid the 737 MAX whenever possible…

[flagged]

> ITT: software people think they're experts in airworthiness and aircraft maintenance.

You mean working with safety critical systems with hardware software co design and human interaction through complex processes? Yes last i checked we do have a bunch of safety focused computer engineers who do that for a living.

That you think this is a matter of simple engineering might be the problem here. "Just maintenance/installation" is a legit error case somebody should have planed for and you thinking in terms of conspiracies has me rather worried.

edit: I wouldnt assume i could tell when a design is airworthy, maybe reconsider if you are qualified to make general statements about safe operations. The two are very much not the same.

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

#275

Post by roelschroeven »

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.

Once pressure is equalized, you have the same situation as an open car window, except at much higher speeds. I don't know about other people, but to me the noise of an open car window is really annoying even at 120 km/h. I can't image what it must be like at airliner speeds.

Plus increased noise from the engines (or at least the engine on that side of the plane), as a sibling comment notes.

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

#276

Post by cthalupa »

depereo wrote: post #76
aurareturn wrote: post #71

Last month, I consciously chose a flight from the same airline that used an Airbus plane over a Boeing plane. I wonder if airlines have data showing that their Airbus flights are more popular than Boeing flights after adjusting differences.

I know myself and a couple other people who do the same, would be fascinating to see if it's common enough to show up in statistics. It's not even just the safety, the Boeing Dreamliner for example is shockingly uncomfortable to fly in.

I've flown a good amount in the 787, 350, and 380. I found them all to be of similar comfort levels.

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

#278

Post by roelschroeven »

anderiv wrote: post #153
cm2187 wrote: post #147

What strikes me with the ATC recording is that I can barely hear what they say (and that's the case with almost every ATC recording I heard before). And that's without being in a noisy environment (plane in flight). Is the quality really that bad? Doesn't that cause miscommunications? It seems like a fairly fixable problem in 2024.

The receivers for LiveATC and the like are frequently somewhat compromised in terms of quality and location. This can cause poor quality reception depending on the location and distance away of the transmitter. The radios and antennas on both the aircraft and for ATC are not only of much higher quality but are also positioned as perfectly as possible so as to maximize Tx/Rx performance. All that to say, the pilots an…

Not long ago I took a short trip in a small Cessna (I think it was a 152). The audio quality in the headphones wasn't any better than what I hear on those ATC YouTube channels. I didn't understand a word of it (well, that's not quite true, I understood some words here and there; not nearly enough to be able to safely fly).

A Cessna 152 is not an airliner, obviously, but I would think audio quality shouldn't differ all that much between them.

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

#279

Post by _heimdall »

tim333 wrote: post #270
_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.

One vote won't make a difference either, should people not vote?

I'm not saying the FAA shouldn't also intervene, I'm simply pointing out that consumers almost always seem to ignore their own power in the situation.

What you're describing feels much like a tragedy of the commons problem. If I chose not to fly everyone else still will and I'll be left driving around like a schmuck. I might as well fly too, and when I'm worried about safety I'll just call for more regulation.

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

#280

Post by _heimdall »

junofan wrote: post #265
_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.

I'm not quite sure the connection here. What does running a rocketry program have to do with whether one chooses to fly on someone else's plane?
Post reply on HN