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

Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident

rnz.co.nz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 158 posts

Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident

#111

Post by sandworm101 »

I don't understand why so many people refuse to wear seatbelts unless demanded. Had everyone been buckled in I doubt anyone would have been injured. You are in a metal tube doing almost the speed of sound tens of thousands of feet in the air. Keep the belt on.

If you have to get up, keep a hand on something. An airliner cannot pull serious negative gs. You aren't going to be "pinned" to the ceiling. But you should hold to something solid just in case things get a little floaty for a few seconds. Most longtime fliers have witnessed their drinks lift of their trays. The floating doesn't hurt. The issue is when things stop floating and come crashing down.

Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident

#112

Post by flohofwoe »

enlyth wrote: post #74
lm28469 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably the same reason people don't use seatbelts in buses, I'm very often the only one wearing a seatbelt when I travel by bus I've seen aftermath videos and photos, I'm not taking my chances

Interesting, I've never seen a bus with seat belts

In Germany at least it depends on the type of bus. Long distance / travel busses (Google translates it to "coach") are required to have seatbelts, regular "city busses" don't.

Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident

#113

Post by p_l »

abadpoli wrote: post #95
p_l wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And an issue where if not regularly rebooted, preferably with staggered (by days) reboots, they lose all power, including instrumentation and controls, after 248 days of uptime. Additionally an Airworthiness Directive from 2020 requires, at least in europe, to reboot more often than 51 days due to stale data in common core system, with various network packets being dropped and system showing incorrect data to pilots.

The Airbus A350 has almost the exact same issue, but requiring a reboot after only 148 _hours_ or the avionics shut off.

Not exact same issue, but one with similar symptoms to the "reboot every 51 days" one for 787.

Reading deeper, I'm more worried about how there's no patch for the Boeing issue still, at least I can't find one in FAA AD database, I assumed there would be one already... (the affected A350 had a software patch available at the time AD for "reboot before 148 hours" was issued)

Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident

#114

Post by Tor3 »

zerkten wrote: post #83
lostlogin wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely required on takeoff/landing?

Absolutely at takeoff, but the emphasis is often missing for the remainder of your time onboard. It's noticeable when crew add extra reminders. I've never looked for stats on these incidents involving clear air turbulence. The impression I got as a European was that this was a transatlantic and transpacific problem. It's obviously not, but those were the incidents reported on.

There are occasionally "air holes" happening near my local airport. A friend onboard a particularly severe one told me that the captain said that they'd "fallen" some 160 meters. I also have another friend who, a long time ago, didn't use the seatbelt on a domestic flight - sudden turbulence made him hit his head and injure his neck badly. That's very dangerous. Personally the "worst" I've seen was just enough to break wine bottles in the overhead in front of me. Flight attendants gave out blankets for all of us nearby, as protection for dripping wine..

Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident

#115

Post by rayiner »

ulfw wrote: post #26
nomilk wrote: post #14

For anyone else wondering, the plane was a > Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner (Boeing, but not the 737 Max that has been in the headlines the past few years) Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/3/11/50-people-injur...

As if the 787 was any better. Just see the history of issues and reports about manufacturing.

The 787 is one of the best airliners ever made. It's been flying more than a decade without a single hull loss. In the first decade the 747 had several non-terrorism related hull losses. The 737 MAX is newer and already has two hull losses.

Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident

#116

Post by numpad0 »

Tor3 wrote: post #5

What I don't get is why people are not using seatbelts. The only time I'm not using it is when I'm on the way to and from the bathroom. If I'm seated I'm using the seatbelt.

I wear masks in public and I use seatbelts on airplanes, but that's not the shortest path to the boss ape of the town status, and I would guess a lot of people care more about that than their own life.

Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident

#117

Post by jajko »

lostlogin wrote: post #62
HL33tibCe7 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the half dozen (European) airlines I’ve flown, it’s always been “seatbelts are recommended at all times”. Never a requirement.

Surely required on takeoff/landing?

Its expected that crew will light seat belt signs when they asses its required. Its literal on/off or yes/no, lets not add some 3rd state to it that will confuse people.

This of course doesn't mean one shouldn't wear it as often as possible, but ie with small kids thats nigh impossible, or for some folks on 10 hour flights (I still used to put it on me when I slept, but mainly to not be woken up by crew when they switch it on and check everybody).

Very similar topic is bus seat belts. All intercity buses (at least in Europe) have them, nobody clips in (apart from driver). I think at this point everybody knows about some horrible bus tragedy which would be a set of minor scratches if all folks had seat belts on. Yet our subconsciousness keeps changing perceived risks and consequences to keep us happy/content instead of worried about everything all the time (makes some sense, cluttered mind ain't best performing in life & death scenarios of bygone era).

Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident

#119

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #105
jwildeboer wrote: post #15

Not turbulence related. Plane (Boeing 787-9) lost instrumentation according to the captain, followed by rapid loss of altitude. When instrumentation came back, flight continued to a safe landing. 12 people were sent to hospital. S always, see avherald.com for the most reliable, non-speculative info.

I disagree, the physics of large planes make extreme movements on the plane's z-axis like this via just it's control surfaces near impossible. All the control surfaces can really do is tilt the plane, which in absolute terms will change verticality but relative to the plane is still a longitudinal acceleration. The only thing that can overwhelm the momentum of something with the mass of a small building fast enough t…

You can induce multiple Gs when pushing hard enough. Negative Gs and everything and everyone not strapped in flies into the ceiling. Which then must at some point come down.

Injuries from first crashing headfirst into the ceiling and then out of control falling back into your chair is a given when you have hundreds of passengers on board.

Especially on a Boeing which does not limit the flight envelope like an Airbus does.

Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident

#120

Post by cdelsolar »

mangamadaiyan wrote: post #102
johnny_canuck wrote: post #13

Reminds me of this Air Canada flight years ago where the pilot confused Venus with an oncoming plane. https://www.cnn.com/2012/04/17/travel/canada-disoriented-pil...

It isn't all that far-fetched, really. Venus is the brightest object in the night sky after the Moon. ... as to _how_ bright it can be - I was once in an area with dark skies, setting up my telescope just before sunset. After dark, I was taking in the beauty of the Cigar Galaxy and then looked up and behind from the scope. My eyes were assaulted by a bright light on the top of the hill behind, and I was cursing the i…

It always shocks me how bright Venus is. A few months ago I was wondering what the hell that blinding light was, and even though I’m an amateur astronomer I was sure it had to be something artificial. My star app told me it was Venus, and i decided to see it in my telescope for the first time. So I lugged out the 4-inch refractor and no matter what I could not manage to make out its shape. It was supposed to be a crescent but there was too much glare. Next time I’ll try it with the moon filter :)
Post reply on HN