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

Boeing Shares Sink on Reports of Dreamliner Fire

blogs.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 25 posts

Re: Boeing Shares Sink on Reports of Dreamliner Fire

#11

Post by dragonwriter »

stcredzero wrote: post #2

Arrivals and departures suspended at Heathrow? How isn't this a complete overreaction? EDIT: And why downvote someone asking a question? I learned something by asking this question.

> Arrivals and departures suspended at Heathrow? How isn't this a complete overreaction?

The runways and taxiways that planes would normally be using arriving and departing are being used, or may need to be used, without delay by emergency vehicles.

The simplest and safest way to assure that this can be done, and done safely, is to not have aircraft using them for landings, takeoffs, and taxiing.

Re: Boeing Shares Sink on Reports of Dreamliner Fire

#12

Post by kintamanimatt »

stcredzero wrote: post #9
kintamanimatt wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes perfect sense. If the emergency crews are attending to a situation somewhere else in the airport, there's now no emergency facilities available in the event of another emergency happening to another plane that's departing or landing. This poses a serious risk. It's safer to just stop operations and divert inbound flights to one of London's other airports, Gatwick being a prime candidate due to its distance and…

> there's now no emergency facilities available in the event of another emergency happening They only have the ability to deal with one emergency at a time? That strikes me as sub-optimal, especially if the "emergency" is contained within a single parked aircraft. Diversion is probably costing all the airlines involved a ton. I think it would be worthwhile for emergency facilities to have a backup.

I'd imagine they'd send all their resources to any given emergency, no matter what size they think it is at the outset rather than be faced with a situation in which they've responded inadequately. This would mean that if there were another emergency on one of the active runways (burning plane with passengers, for example), they'd not be able to respond with their usual full force which could lead to deaths and bad PR. I can see in this situation they'd rather temporarily suspend operations than have a diminished emergency crew.

As for the cost, yes, but airlines are fairly risk adverse creatures and I'd imagine they'd have adequate insurance to cover such eventualities.

Re: Boeing Shares Sink on Reports of Dreamliner Fire

#13

Post by stcredzero »

ceejayoz wrote: post #10
stcredzero wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's now no emergency facilities available in the event of another emergency happening They only have the ability to deal with one emergency at a time? That strikes me as sub-optimal, especially if the "emergency" is contained within a single parked aircraft. Diversion is probably costing all the airlines involved a ton. I think it would be worthwhile for emergency facilities to have a backup.

I can deal with two servers being down at once at work, but I'd prefer to only have to deal with one. Same thing with airports, I'd imagine.

Yes, but you're not diverting traffic with one server down, "just in case," are you?

Re: Boeing Shares Sink on Reports of Dreamliner Fire

#14

Post by kintamanimatt »

stcredzero wrote: post #13
ceejayoz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can deal with two servers being down at once at work, but I'd prefer to only have to deal with one. Same thing with airports, I'd imagine.

Yes, but you're not diverting traffic with one server down, "just in case," are you?

If a server goes down it might be an inconvenience and a bad day, but if a plane goes down it could be a fire and hundreds of deaths.

Re: Boeing Shares Sink on Reports of Dreamliner Fire

#15

Post by ceejayoz »

stcredzero wrote: post #13
ceejayoz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can deal with two servers being down at once at work, but I'd prefer to only have to deal with one. Same thing with airports, I'd imagine.

Yes, but you're not diverting traffic with one server down, "just in case," are you?

I might avoid running an upgrade on the rest of my servers while I troubleshoot the broken one.

Re: Boeing Shares Sink on Reports of Dreamliner Fire

#16

Post by kevin818 »

GlennCSmith wrote: post #7

I'm curious whether if the fire is again battery related whether Elon Musk will reiterate his offer to help with the battery technology. Tony Stark (who in the movie version is partly based on Elon) surely would...

Why even bother flying? Let's just give everyone suits :)

Re: Boeing Shares Sink on Reports of Dreamliner Fire

#17

Post by stcredzero »

kintamanimatt wrote: post #14
stcredzero wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but you're not diverting traffic with one server down, "just in case," are you?

If a server goes down it might be an inconvenience and a bad day, but if a plane goes down it could be a fire and hundreds of deaths.

I'm not sure your analogy fits. The plane was already "down" and there was already a fire. However, it should have been apparent there was not to be hundreds of deaths.

Re: Boeing Shares Sink on Reports of Dreamliner Fire

#18

Post by stcredzero »

dragonwriter wrote: post #11
stcredzero wrote: post #2

Arrivals and departures suspended at Heathrow? How isn't this a complete overreaction? EDIT: And why downvote someone asking a question? I learned something by asking this question.

> Arrivals and departures suspended at Heathrow? How isn't this a complete overreaction? The runways and taxiways that planes would normally be using arriving and departing are being used, or may need to be used, without delay by emergency vehicles. The simplest and safest way to assure that this can be done, and done safely, is to not have aircraft using them for landings, takeoffs, and taxiing.

> not have aircraft using them for landings, takeoffs, and taxiing.

Okay, that makes sense now: The regular infrastructure is needed for the emergency infrastructure. The analogy would be, that an admin could log in unless the site were taken down. That would be terrible for a website, but it makes sense for physical infrastructure.

Re: Boeing Shares Sink on Reports of Dreamliner Fire

#19

Post by jccooper »

stcredzero wrote: post #9
kintamanimatt wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes perfect sense. If the emergency crews are attending to a situation somewhere else in the airport, there's now no emergency facilities available in the event of another emergency happening to another plane that's departing or landing. This poses a serious risk. It's safer to just stop operations and divert inbound flights to one of London's other airports, Gatwick being a prime candidate due to its distance and…

> there's now no emergency facilities available in the event of another emergency happening They only have the ability to deal with one emergency at a time? That strikes me as sub-optimal, especially if the "emergency" is contained within a single parked aircraft. Diversion is probably costing all the airlines involved a ton. I think it would be worthwhile for emergency facilities to have a backup.

Why would you size for multiple incidents? One is rare enough, but you have to deal with it. Two guarantees a whole set of people and equipment that will never have a use.

Anyway, I suspect the real reason is that an emergency is a dynamic situation, and an airport is a large complex barely-controlled environment. Sure, probably parts of the airport could stay in use, but it would take a lot of coordination and analysis to do so safely, and there's really no time to do that. So you just shut it down.

You know what's going on now, so it's easy to say; but if you're running the airport and all you know is "aircraft on fire", what do you do?

Post reply on HN