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

Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

flightradar24.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–139 of 139 posts

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#131

Post by tamaharbor »

fulafel wrote: post #113
sajomojo wrote: post #18

It just seems like a very bad idea that twin-engine planes can fly so far from an air strip. If the #1 engine had failed as well it would have been game over. There's no possibility of gliding a 787 for 2+ hours and hundreds of miles. If the FAA wanted to prioritize safety, it would still require the use of four-engined planes, as it used to for most long ocean routes. The desire to fly twin-engine planes over the oc…

If we are concerned about loss of life resulting from air travel, the main issue is co2 emissions. We should drastically refuce especially long distance air travel.

And stop driving trucks and automobiles as well.

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#132

Post by D-Coder »

Piskvorrr wrote: post #64
DuskStar wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And my point was that motivation is irrelevant, and I would find it quite plausible that a two engined airliner would be safer than a four engined jet. Two fewer things to explode, after all. The president flies a 747 for size and prestige more than safety. Safest option would be to recommission an Iowa and use it as an armed ocean liner or something and skip planes entirely. Or just to stay home.

If we're talking about a command center, "stay at home" is not safe at all. Even Google Maps knows the coordinates and elevation for 2600 Pennsylvania Avenue (or Cheyenne Mountain, or Area 51, or whatever). Hence, Air Force One.

Pedant note: 1600 Pensylvania Avenue. 2600 Pennsylvania Avenue appears to be an apartment building, or maybe Hacker Haven.

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#133

Post by WalterBright »

uxhack wrote: post #125
WalterBright wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My family was stationed near London for a time. My father told me later that once an airline pilot mistook a WW2 strip for the Heathrow runway (!) and landed there, using every inch of it to get it to stop. The strip was too short to take off from, so what to do? They stripped everything off the airplane they could. Seats, interiors, galleys, everything. They put in just enough fuel to hop over the trees to Heathrow.…

I think you referring to a Pan Am 707 landing at RAF Northolt in 1960 https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1001607

Wow! That looks like it. Thanks!

How did you find it?

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#134

Post by dekhn »

ncmncm wrote: post #129
peterwwillis wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that most people don't need to call said team might say more?

What, that they are used to failures, expect them, and live with them? Before Microsoft, computers crashing was not considered an ordinary, everyday occurrence. I still recall my shock, back in the '90s, when I remarked to a Windows user that Unix didn't crash all the time, and he remarked that he went months without reinstalling. I learned that "crash" had been redefined! Microsoft really needs that emergency crew.…

Many people who worked on UNIX for years had plenty of experience with the kernel dumping core. I ran LINUX in the mid-90s and it wasn't extremely stable.

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#135

Post by Piskvorrr »

D-Coder wrote: post #132
Piskvorrr wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're talking about a command center, "stay at home" is not safe at all. Even Google Maps knows the coordinates and elevation for 2600 Pennsylvania Avenue (or Cheyenne Mountain, or Area 51, or whatever). Hence, Air Force One.

Pedant note: 1600 Pensylvania Avenue. 2600 Pennsylvania Avenue appears to be an apartment building, or maybe Hacker Haven.

Oh. Right. Silly me.

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#136

Post by jacquesm »

ethbro wrote: post #103
WalterBright wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being WW2, these were piston engines running avgas.

I guess the sole redeeming thermodynamic property of the operation would be that most seals would expand as they heated? Still, I imagine that was a "light fire, move away" procedure!

The bigger reason is to make the oil fluid again!

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#137

Post by kmbond »

ncmncm wrote: post #129
peterwwillis wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that most people don't need to call said team might say more?

What, that they are used to failures, expect them, and live with them? Before Microsoft, computers crashing was not considered an ordinary, everyday occurrence. I still recall my shock, back in the '90s, when I remarked to a Windows user that Unix didn't crash all the time, and he remarked that he went months without reinstalling. I learned that "crash" had been redefined! Microsoft really needs that emergency crew.…

Well put. I think that with Microsoft products (at least for us) it's assumed that we will experience crashes, bugs, data loss, etc. At work we are all Microsoft (bringing in your own hardware is not permitted anyway). At home, I'm mostly macOS and Linux. While those aren't perfect either, I do not expect issues, whereas with Microsoft products I've simply learned to expect them.

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#138

Post by ncmncm »

dekhn wrote: post #134
ncmncm wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, that they are used to failures, expect them, and live with them? Before Microsoft, computers crashing was not considered an ordinary, everyday occurrence. I still recall my shock, back in the '90s, when I remarked to a Windows user that Unix didn't crash all the time, and he remarked that he went months without reinstalling. I learned that "crash" had been redefined! Microsoft really needs that emergency crew.…

Many people who worked on UNIX for years had plenty of experience with the kernel dumping core. I ran LINUX in the mid-90s and it wasn't extremely stable.

I ran Linux, too, starting from Slackware on a CD, graduating to Debian.

I don't know about your experience, but in my circles there was real tension between upgrading to a current kernel release, vs. maintaining your 180+ days uptime. I "apt dist-upgrade"-ed for well over a decade without a failure, through a half-dozen generations of host hardware.

Only during the period when the i915 display driver was still buggy did I ever have failures. Even then, I could SSH in.

So, compared to needing to reboot twice a day (common) or twice a week (lucky), and never once needing to reinstall, yes, it was extremely stable.

Re: Getting a 787 back in the air after a diversion

#139

Post by miniman1337 »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #10
Waterluvian wrote: post #2

I'm going to bet those GE Aviation technicians that they charter anywhere to fix planes are unbelievably talented, experienced and well paid. I bet they've got all the best stories. Also: on the first page, second paragraph of the special coverage, what does "Check Airman" mean?

I'm going to bet those GE Aviation technicians that they charter anywhere to fix planes are unbelievably talented, experienced and well paid. Airframe manufacturers like Airbus and Boeing have similar teams (AOG – Aircraft on Ground). The logistics and skills are just staggering. Delta dented a 757 pretty hard in Azores last year and had it patched up and back in the US pretty darn quickly. Stuff like this is exactly…

This is one of the reasons that Panasonic has a stronghold on IFE/Sat Connectivity equipment. They have service teams to support the airlines around the world.
Post reply on HN