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

Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 87 posts

Re: Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal

#21

Post by klabb3 »

cqqxo4zV46cp wrote: post #8

Sigh, something that would be much less likely to even make it to HN if not for the fact that everyone is hungry to find the next thread to post their pre-canned “damn MBAs!!” rant on. It’s not a Max.

It’s already obvious from the comments that it’s sensationalism and this is an older plane that didn’t crash. So at least HN is working that way.

The fact that there is a negative sentiment against a company which have degraded their engineering is very understandable on HN. And yes that is due to MBAs and other bean counters, it’s not exactly a secret.

For the last part, pre-canned or lazy responses, yes that’s a problem everywhere, but the most upvoted comments are rarely one-liners unlike eg Reddit. And maybe not cast the first stone if your own comment is a meta-complaint directed at nobody in particular?

Re: Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal

#22

Post by ceejayoz »

resolutebat wrote: post #20
IndySun wrote: post #6

Can the BBC reign in its news headline writers and reverse a fairly recent (5-10 years?) policy of juicing up what was 'unbiased' news? But in fact, I have a rose-tinted view of the BBC so I should just reign in my reactions instead.

What exactly is "juiced up" about "Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal"? I'd be hard put to craft a more neutral/factual/boring summary of what just happened. Update: Apparently "crash" is misleading here since the plane was never airborne, it aborted takeoff but veered off the runway and likely hit something since the wing caught fire.

I’d probably have used “skids off runway” or “leaves runway” instead of “crashes”.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-guernsey-68886071.amp

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-67174117.amp

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42680238.amp

Re: Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal

#23

Post by ceejayoz »

chefkd wrote: post #19
orbital-decay wrote: post #2

https://avherald.com/h?article=51867a11 > the crew rejected takeoff due to a hydraulic defect but veered left off the runway. The aircraft came to a stop on soft ground next to the Presidential Pavillion (about 2000 meters/6000 feet down the runway), the left wing briefly caught fire. All occupants evacuated via slides

question for a book I'm writing: how easy would planes be to mess up in such a way no issues appear until plane takes off?

Very. Examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Airlines_Flight_102

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_Flight_123

The last one was caused by a bad repair from a tail strike seven years earlier.

Re: Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal

#25

Post by bombcar »

chefkd wrote: post #19
orbital-decay wrote: post #2

https://avherald.com/h?article=51867a11 > the crew rejected takeoff due to a hydraulic defect but veered left off the runway. The aircraft came to a stop on soft ground next to the Presidential Pavillion (about 2000 meters/6000 feet down the runway), the left wing briefly caught fire. All occupants evacuated via slides

question for a book I'm writing: how easy would planes be to mess up in such a way no issues appear until plane takes off?

The harder part would be a way that isn’t traceable afterwards.

Read some NTSB documents about crashes especially ones where “maintenance” appears.

Re: Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal

#26

Post by notahacker »

ceejayoz wrote: post #22
resolutebat wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly is "juiced up" about "Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal"? I'd be hard put to craft a more neutral/factual/boring summary of what just happened. Update: Apparently "crash" is misleading here since the plane was never airborne, it aborted takeoff but veered off the runway and likely hit something since the wing caught fire.

I’d probably have used “skids off runway” or “leaves runway” instead of “crashes”. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-guernsey-68886071.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-67174117.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42680238.amp

And the referencing the essentially unrelated Max production issues in an article about the fairly routine case of a 30 year old aircraft in a developing country experiencing issues which might be related to maintenance is probably more egregious. It's like suggesting that the stakes in whatever the latest Microsoft scandal is have been raised by someone installing malware on their XP system

Re: Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal

#27

Post by kvetching »

resolutebat wrote: post #18

Unsurprisingly, it's an old airframe (built 1994), operated by a state-owned African carrier: rarely a recipe for good maintenance. It's quite unlikely that Boeing is in any way to blame for this. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/387749

Boeing is a money maker now for news outlets. We will hear absolutely everything going wrong with a Boeing plane for the foreseeable future. Honestly, I am surprised there isn't more failures given the current narrative.

Re: Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal

#28

Post by huygens6363 »

resolutebat wrote: post #18

Unsurprisingly, it's an old airframe (built 1994), operated by a state-owned African carrier: rarely a recipe for good maintenance. It's quite unlikely that Boeing is in any way to blame for this. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/387749

One, that’s not that old and shouldn’t be crashing on take-off and two, the narrative that it’s shady African carriers that are to blame is getting old.

In fact, it’s exactly what Boeing always says right before they are in fact to blame.

Re: Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal

#29

Post by fnord77 »

resolutebat wrote: post #20
IndySun wrote: post #6

Can the BBC reign in its news headline writers and reverse a fairly recent (5-10 years?) policy of juicing up what was 'unbiased' news? But in fact, I have a rose-tinted view of the BBC so I should just reign in my reactions instead.

What exactly is "juiced up" about "Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal"? I'd be hard put to craft a more neutral/factual/boring summary of what just happened. Update: Apparently "crash" is misleading here since the plane was never airborne, it aborted takeoff but veered off the runway and likely hit something since the wing caught fire.

the brand of aircraft seldom used to be used in headlines. Usually the airline's name was used.

Re: Boeing 737 crashes during take-off in Senegal

#30

Post by Grimburger »

huygens6363 wrote: post #28
resolutebat wrote: post #18

Unsurprisingly, it's an old airframe (built 1994), operated by a state-owned African carrier: rarely a recipe for good maintenance. It's quite unlikely that Boeing is in any way to blame for this. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/387749

One, that’s not that old and shouldn’t be crashing on take-off and two, the narrative that it’s shady African carriers that are to blame is getting old. In fact, it’s exactly what Boeing always says right before they are in fact to blame.

Air travel disaster rates are basically the same across the entire planet except Africa.

You are 15x more likely to die in a plane crash there than anywhere else on Earth.

GP comment is on point.

Post reply on HN