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

Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

channelnewsasia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 126 posts

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#101

Post by Retric »

onetimeuse92304 wrote: post #96
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The MAX had to be a 737 for certification and crew training. I don't believe that this is correct. They could have called it anything, it's the type rating that matters.

That's absolutely not true. 737 MAX IS 737, lengthened. It is not a completely new plane, it is not a plane that just accidentally or by design looks like 737. It IS 737, with slightly different behaviour because of the fact it is lengthened and it has engines moved. And the story of the MCAS is that Boeing needed this system to make 737 MAX to behave in entire envelope. But introducing new major system would require…

The point is they could have called it “Blueberry” instead of “737 MAX” and have it still share the same type rating as the 737.

Which is perfectly reasonable as changing the branding alone isn’t particularly meaningful from a safety, airworthiness, or training perspective.

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#102

Post by callalex »

eterm wrote: post #2

This is one of those stories that wouldn't be noticed if not for the attention on anything Boeing related right now. Instead it's near the top of the front-page. This hyper selective attention is very bad. It leads to all kinds of wrong inference about the background frequency of events, because suddenly when under the microscope we notice all kinds of things that would have previously gone unnoticed.

Kinda like how every train derailment was evidence of a failed society a few months ago and now nobody cares again.

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#103

Post by smdyc1 »

lolinder wrote: post #34

The plane in question was JA56AN [0], which according to PlaneSpotters.net was delivered in June 2009 [1]. Forbes [2] indicates that the service life of a fight deck window is ten years (it's not clear if that applies to the windshield as well as passenger windows)—if that's accurate, it's likely that this is completely unrelated to Boeing's significant manufacturing problems lately. Unfortunately for Boeing it doesn…

Window cracking isn't uncommon. Cockpit windows are typically made of layers of acrylic glass sandwiched together, with heating elements in the middle. They are exposed to incredible forces, the forward airflow on the outside, positive pressure from the inside, cold on the outside and warmer on the inside, then there's the internal temp when the anti icing elements are on. And despite all of this, they're so strong that a crack can be discovered on one side and the aircraft can still be safely landed.

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#104

Post by eastbound »

notahacker wrote: post #98
lolinder wrote: post #34

The plane in question was JA56AN [0], which according to PlaneSpotters.net was delivered in June 2009 [1]. Forbes [2] indicates that the service life of a fight deck window is ten years (it's not clear if that applies to the windshield as well as passenger windows)—if that's accurate, it's likely that this is completely unrelated to Boeing's significant manufacturing problems lately. Unfortunately for Boeing it doesn…

Cockpit windows are also manufactured by a third party specialist glass company (i.e. PPG Aerospace, not Boeing), cost about the same as a new car precisely because they get subject to the sort of stress that is inclined to break a layer, and subject to regular inspection. Plus in this case it appears the other layers of the window did their job and avoided anything more than an annoyingly expensive but routine retur…

So in summary, Boeings break down like MacDonnells[1], but it’s not Boeing’s fault, it’s the fault of the entire ecosystem, but not Boeing, just everyone involved with Boeing, we get it. Entire denial of ownership of problems should be patented as a business model. So that no other manufacturer can copy it for 20 years.

[1] McDonnell planes were known for falling apart, doors flying in the air, lengthened planes which didn’t adapt the airframe for the new length, or just pieces falling off. Remember the Concorde getting pierced in the fuel tanks by a metal frame dropped on the airstrip by the previous plane and crashing into a hotel? Yup, it was a piece that fell off a McDonnell.

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#105

Post by tiahura »

oneplane wrote: post #26
jsiepkes wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This hyper selective attention is very bad. > because suddenly when under the microscope we notice all kinds of things that would have previously gone unnoticed. They knew that was a risk when they started cutting corners. Now they are paying the price. Can't say I feel for them. It's a nice deterrent.

In the context of just Boeing, that makes sense. In the broader 'news' context, it's bad, because there are a crapton of things that really aren't as significant as they are made out to be to the layman. It's not a firehose we should be drinking from, instead, the most significant things are supposed to be selected by specialists so we have enough space in our heads to focus on things we choose to instead of just wha…

Yep.

Another example is the stranger kidnapping scare of the ‘80s.

There’s an unhealthy paradox at work: The rarer a highly emotional event occurs, the more media attention attention it gets. The more media attention something gets, the more people think it’s actually common.

Another example is police killing unarmed black men.

Trying explaining to someone that something is in the news because it’s rare is futile.

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#106

Post by lolinder »

eastbound wrote: post #104
notahacker wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cockpit windows are also manufactured by a third party specialist glass company (i.e. PPG Aerospace, not Boeing), cost about the same as a new car precisely because they get subject to the sort of stress that is inclined to break a layer, and subject to regular inspection. Plus in this case it appears the other layers of the window did their job and avoided anything more than an annoyingly expensive but routine retur…

So in summary, Boeings break down like MacDonnells[1], but it’s not Boeing’s fault, it’s the fault of the entire ecosystem, but not Boeing, just everyone involved with Boeing, we get it. Entire denial of ownership of problems should be patented as a business model. So that no other manufacturer can copy it for 20 years. [1] McDonnell planes were known for falling apart, doors flying in the air, lengthened planes whic…

Their point is that cracked windshields are neither uncommon nor (typically) dangerous. They happen regularly across all manufacturers and have redundancy in place to make sure they don't hurt anyone.

Boeing has a lot of problems, more so than other manufacturers, but this isn't a good example.

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#107

Post by tiahura »

EGG_CREAM wrote: post #58
whynotmaybe wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you new here? (Jokingly...) I don't know what percentage of HN is about AI & LLM in the past few months but it's like nothing else important is happening in the ICT world.

It’s not just HN, you all seem to be upset with basic human nature here. Something happens, and then you notice related events more often because they feel more salient. You might as well be upset that people recognize patterns, it’s just part of how people are wired.

Some of us choose HN to receive our preciously minuscule free time on because we expect it to be of a higher signal to noise ratio than average.

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#108

Post by Dylan16807 »

onetimeuse92304 wrote: post #96
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The MAX had to be a 737 for certification and crew training. I don't believe that this is correct. They could have called it anything, it's the type rating that matters.

That's absolutely not true. 737 MAX IS 737, lengthened. It is not a completely new plane, it is not a plane that just accidentally or by design looks like 737. It IS 737, with slightly different behaviour because of the fact it is lengthened and it has engines moved. And the story of the MCAS is that Boeing needed this system to make 737 MAX to behave in entire envelope. But introducing new major system would require…

> 737 MAX IS 737, lengthened.

That wasn't under dispute. The question you responded to is whether they had to use the 737 brand.

And personally, I think that once you lengthen it and move the engine, it would not be weird at all to give it a different number. Even just 738 would give it better distinction than "MAX".

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#109

Post by Mainan_Tagonist »

ginko wrote: post #54
Mainan_Tagonist wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as it doesn't remind us all of the ill fated JL123 flight...

Reading the wikipedia page on that one is horrific.

Indeed, i used to work for ANA, and my colleagues used to bring this up fromt time to time, with assorted creepy anecdotes. This disaster somehow struck a nerve in the Japanese psyche.

There were even novels written on this topic with a boarding pass for flight 123 included as a bookmark.

Re: Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

#110

Post by alpaca128 »

tekla wrote: post #90
supernova87a wrote: post #18

"... Flight 1182 was en route to Toyama airport but headed back to the Sapporo-New Chitose airport after the crack was found on the outermost of four layers of windows surrounding the cockpit, the spokesperson said ..." Hopefully people can tell routine maintenance issues from newsworthy improper design and implementation / manufacturing problems.

On HN? Never. This entire thread is proof of it.

No reason to pretend like HN is some special noteworthy kind of echo chamber. You won't find any large online community where the majority reads more than the headline.
Post reply on HN