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

321–330 of 384 posts

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

#321

Post by nonfamous »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #7

Lost a window and an unoccupied seat per https://old.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/18znz5p/as_1282_k... > According to FAA record posted online, the Boeing 737-9 MAX rolled off the assembly line just two months ago, receiving its certification in November 2023. Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38882358 (“HN: Boeing wants FAA to exempt MAX 7 from safety rules to get it in the air“)

According to the NYT report, there was no one seated in the seat by the window (which is still there in pictures). That is very lucky. The child seated in the aisle of that row had his shirt ripped off by the depressurization.

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

#322

Post by charles_f »

Schiendelman wrote: post #310
blindriver wrote: post #119

The other article today about Boeing trying to exempt themselves from safety regulations for the 737 MAX is pretty timely. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38882358

Unfortunately, it’s kind of overblown. That particular exemption already exists for the 8 and 9, they just haven’t granted it specifically for the 7 yet. It’s not clear that there’s any issue there.

It might be related to the crash of two MAX-8 (albeit not American ones), after the same exemption was given to it. It would be understandable that the FAA would be more cautious.

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

#323

Post by bitwidget »

qxfys wrote: post #154

For the past two months, I have been avoiding 4 737max flights already. This is to the extent that one of them was to transit for 10 hours (without max), compared to a 2-hour convenient layover with 737max. I guess this will stay as my personal rule of thumb for the foreseeable future.

You're spending an extra 8 hours to marginally (at best) improve safety? I'd be willing to bet good money that you partake in wildly more risky activity (such as driving or even walking down the street). This feels almost like virtue signaling without it being virtue signaling.

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

#324

Post by ramesh31 »

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.

>Aircraft are not minivans

Indeed. The delivery of a commercial airliner from the manufacturer is nothing like buying a new car. It is a months long process, involving multiple safety checkoffs and test flights. Just about every nut and bolt is checked and double checked, and hours of inflight verifications are made. To get through that process with such a glaring defect boggles the mind.

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

#325

Post by fieldcny »

Schiendelman wrote: post #310
blindriver wrote: post #119

The other article today about Boeing trying to exempt themselves from safety regulations for the 737 MAX is pretty timely. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38882358

Unfortunately, it’s kind of overblown. That particular exemption already exists for the 8 and 9, they just haven’t granted it specifically for the 7 yet. It’s not clear that there’s any issue there.

Nice summary of the comments from that post, unfortunately zero people there actually know what differences or mitigations are in place for the 8 & 9 that aren’t relevant for the 7 & 10.

Given Boeings absolutely atrocious safety record with the Max, I’m not similarly inclined to believe a bunch of speculation about regulators being dumb

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

#326

Post by dh2022 »

colechristensen wrote: post #162
raverbashing wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not standing by comments that go against the safety culture of aviation No, nobody should be "frothing at the mouth", that's an ignorant and unhelpful behaviour. Air travel didn't get safer by doing that > A plane that loses a big chunk is indeed “fucked” It landed fine and it is in principle repairable. No, it is not fucked > There should have been many many redundant safety systems and procedures here with eith…

Aerospace was my field before tech was. Reliability is still my field. A door got sucked out of a plane in flight. That is not a matter of unavoidable human error but can only be the consequence of a concert of cascading failures of the type that should never happen which is why it’s a 10/10, if the flight had been full at least one passenger would have likely been sucked out. It is dumb luck that this did not happen…

From the sound bites in these videos it seems sitting on the seat next to that empty seat was a child. I am thinking how each we fly my son always asks to sit next to the window.this accident was so close to having a fatality…

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

#327

Post by zug_zug »

bombcar wrote: post #307
Rapzid wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Err, maybe that was there perception but isn't the 737 line responsible for the vast majority of all airline fatalities? It's basically the grim reaper of the skies!

That could also result from it simply being the most flown plane.

Agreed, you'd want accident numbers adjusted per-passengers-per-flight.

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

#328

Post by throwaheyy »

colechristensen wrote: post #162
raverbashing wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not standing by comments that go against the safety culture of aviation No, nobody should be "frothing at the mouth", that's an ignorant and unhelpful behaviour. Air travel didn't get safer by doing that > A plane that loses a big chunk is indeed “fucked” It landed fine and it is in principle repairable. No, it is not fucked > There should have been many many redundant safety systems and procedures here with eith…

Aerospace was my field before tech was. Reliability is still my field. A door got sucked out of a plane in flight. That is not a matter of unavoidable human error but can only be the consequence of a concert of cascading failures of the type that should never happen which is why it’s a 10/10, if the flight had been full at least one passenger would have likely been sucked out. It is dumb luck that this did not happen…

It wasn’t a door.

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

#329

Post by charles_f »

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.

> The FAA actually do quite a good job and if anything are maybe a bit over the top in enforcing saftey

There's a funny thought experiment on undesired side effects there: the MAX is flawed because it was designed to maximize updates while playing the fine line to avoid re-certification. One has to wonder if getting the certification requirements easier to pass might have resulted in the MAX not existing, and instead having a more "natural" and safer plane created instead.

(no it would not, seeing as Boeing was already cutting it short, lowering the standard would lower safety. Still, interesting thought experiment)

Post reply on HN