Live data from Hacker News

Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

bbc.com

211–220 of 223 posts

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#211
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember something similar happening to my squadron; an unopened can of oil was sitting in the engine compartment and we found it during our acceptance inspection. We were all like, WTF. Photos were taken and sent; I really hope someone got fired. This also led us to taking the aircraft completely apart and checking every nook and cranny. Found FOD and such in random places.

Usually people don't get fired for stuff like that. It can almost always be traced back to a process, documentation, or training issue. It sounds insulting but you need to treat humans like dumb lazy animals that require strict guidance on how to get things done. Having safeguards like toolbox checks and FOD checks reinforce processes. Expecting technicians to police themselves is ridiculous so you need people who's…

""It sounds insulting but you need to treat humans like dumb lazy animals that require strict guidance on how to get things done.""

As a vet, this frustrates the hell out of me. We are trained to look out for one another and, especially in the case of aircraft maintenance, we are trained to police ourselves and each other.

Yes, we also had strict guidance and checklists, and we followed them (sometimes only as best as we could depending on the situation, like combat zones, lack of supplies, etc). But, paramount above all that was safety and making sure whatever we did impacted safety in a positive way.

Going into the civilian world, it frustrates the hell out of me how lazy everyone could be with things that could literally kill somebody if maintained incorrectly.

And honestly it really surprises me a little how much of this about Boeing is coming out into the lime light. I thought their standards would be higher.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#212
post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course alerting could and was improved, but the Turkish accident wouldn't have happened if pilots had done the bare minimum of what's expected of them and monitored airspeed and altitude while they were flying close to ground and preparing to land any minute. The TAM wreck wouldn't have happened had the pilots flown the plane either. vOv unlike the recent Airbus case where a bumpy landing led to loss of flight con…

> The TAM wreck wouldn't have happened had the pilots flown the plane either. Pilots were actively engaged, made a minor mistake by setting wrong thrust lever position on one engine, which caused the aircraft to disregard any other input and assume the aircraft to be airborne even when it was on the ground, spoilers and auto-braking armed, brakes manually slammed and one engine in reverse. > That was quite a bit more…

I was referring to the 2018 incident. Pilots did everything by the book, yet lost elevator control.

You mentioned LH2904 and TAM3054. In both cases the pilots fucked up. Full stop.

Both flights were deemed pilot error by the respective investigative agencies. In the Lufthansa flight, they touched down too far down the runway.

A320 incorrectly determining its state and overriding correct input from pilots

The A320 pilots did not provide correct inputs.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally spend most long haul flights standing in the aisle. It's much better for your back and butt.

Good luck when the turbulence comes. I've seen people suddenly up against the ceiling. It is rare, but extreme turbulence sometimes happens very suddenly.

It has crossed my mind on occasion.never been in truly violent turbulence yet but generally wary when flying over the Indian Ocean. Can be quite rough.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#214
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good riddance. Despite being so big, its fuel efficiency is unimpressive. Something must be wrong with the design.

Yeah, the A380 designed for a longer fuselage so it's inefficient in the -800 variant.

Makes sense. It looks too bulky, and not slender enough.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#215

The market would benefit massively from another entrant to the space, eliminating this Boeing + Airbus duopoly. If there's any entity that's proven they can tackle capital intensive aerospace markets as a new player, it's SpaceX. I know they're waiting for battery energy density to improve so that they can launch supersonic electric jets, but regular jets that use jet fuel wouldn't be a horrible stopgap.

We already have several other players that have experience building aircraft: Bombardier and Mitsubishi come to mind, and China has a manufacturer that's keen on challenging the duopoly with their jet too.

Don't forget, building a jet isn't that big a deal. Boeing doesn't even make the 737MAX fuselage! It's built by a company called Spirit in Kansas. Boeing doesn't make the engines either, of course (no aircraft manufacturer builds engines, which are surely the most complex and technically challenging part of the plane). Boeing does the engineering, the wings I suppose, and the final assembly.

It seems like it shouldn't be that hard for a smaller competitor to get a capital infusion and scale up to building larger jets.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#216
post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The TAM wreck wouldn't have happened had the pilots flown the plane either. Pilots were actively engaged, made a minor mistake by setting wrong thrust lever position on one engine, which caused the aircraft to disregard any other input and assume the aircraft to be airborne even when it was on the ground, spoilers and auto-braking armed, brakes manually slammed and one engine in reverse. > That was quite a bit more…

I was referring to the 2018 incident. Pilots did everything by the book, yet lost elevator control. You mentioned LH2904 and TAM3054. In both cases the pilots fucked up. Full stop. Both flights were deemed pilot error by the respective investigative agencies. In the Lufthansa flight, they touched down too far down the runway. A320 incorrectly determining its state and overriding correct input from pilots The A320 pil…

> You mentioned LH2904 and TAM3054.

This whole thread started from description of the 2018 SmartLynx accident.

> The A320 pilots did not provide correct inputs.

They did. Read the 2018 report. Simple touch-and-go's on a training day led to loss of elevator due to timing of a single light bounce after touchdown.

> Both flights were deemed pilot error by the respective investigative agencies.

Both reports also concluded that design of the aircraft contributed to the accident (instead of preventing) and recommended revising it.

In addition, the 2018 SmartLynx crash showed that the A320 still can't tell whether it's on the ground or not. This time pilots did everything by the book, and found themselves locked out of elevator control due to poor design of A320 SEC computers.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Foreign Object Debris

We always called it "Foreign Object Damage" but yeah, "Debris" would technically be more correct. Gotta keep the FOD out of the aircraft and the flight lines!

Both are kind of correct. If it's laying where it shouldn't be it's debris, but if it's plowed through the windshield it's damage.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#218
post #178
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you fly with a 787 now?

Yes, I would as I consider depressurisation an extreme event. I believe the pilots have a separate oxygen supply, so a double failure is even more unlikely.

But depending on the altitude you're at getting that mask on is wishful thinking. Don't bet on your pilots being conscious after a plane depresses.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally spend most long haul flights standing in the aisle. It's much better for your back and butt.

Good luck when the turbulence comes. I've seen people suddenly up against the ceiling. It is rare, but extreme turbulence sometimes happens very suddenly.

I remember this on a flight to an airbase in Catania, Sicily. Overnight flight, we were given drinks, then turbulence hit with the hand of Thor.

I'm pretty sure we dropped about 500 feet straight down, but all I remember was being amazed how my cup of pepsi stayed on my tray and didn't fall over.

Re: Boeing whistleblower raises doubts over 787 oxygen system

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck when the turbulence comes. I've seen people suddenly up against the ceiling. It is rare, but extreme turbulence sometimes happens very suddenly.

I remember this on a flight to an airbase in Catania, Sicily. Overnight flight, we were given drinks, then turbulence hit with the hand of Thor. I'm pretty sure we dropped about 500 feet straight down, but all I remember was being amazed how my cup of pepsi stayed on my tray and didn't fall over.

If the pepsi was still in your cup, you were still at some degree of positive "g". Anything below about 0.5 will cause people to start screaming. True falling is 0g. But things suddenly get very bad at even the slightest negative g. At -0.1g your pepsi is levitating out of the cup, the 100lb drink cart is now airborne, and a second later it all comes crashing down.
Post reply on HN