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

Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 384 posts

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#251

Post by cf1241290841 »

Animats wrote: post #87
arrakeenrevived wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pictures clearly show that the seat is still there. It also wasn't a window... that's a plug for an unused emergency exit location. Planes have spots in the fuselage where emergency exits can be placed if the aircraft is configured with enough seats where it needs more exits. This one wasn't, so instead of an emergency exit, there's a plug bolted into the spot instead. Would have to guess that there was a defect…

It's not a plug door. It's an outward-opening door, apparently. [1] Usually, those things are plugs, and have to be pulled inward to open them, which is not possible when the cabin is pressurized. But there are B-737 configurations where it's an outward-opening door. For those, when there's a door installed, there's a single solenoid to prevent opening it in flight.[2] Is there some kind of dummy door that's installe…

The Turkish airlines crash was even worse. And it happened almost two years later after the FAA was fine with a gentlemen's agreement instead of an airworthiness directive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_981

For anyone that doesnt know, McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing.

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#252

Post by sccxy »

sandworm101 wrote: post #246

Credit where credit is due. This plane obvisouly suffered a massive rapid decompression. But it didn't crash. All the other engineering and safety systems functioned to absorb and mitigate this damage, getting everyone back on the ground safely. That is saying something. Airliners have survived much much worse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243

Sorry, but 2 months old aircraft failure should not get any credit.

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#253

Post by _heimdall »

junofan wrote: post #238
yread wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, software engineers should take over airplane maintenance because their track record at safety is just sooooo much better, right? Airline industry has processes that work well and made flying ridiculously safe - there hasn't been a major plane crash in the whole of 2023! - maybe they know more about maintenance, accidents, investigations and corrective actions than a bunch of HN users?

Members of the public should be encouraged to ask how this happened because they’re the ones who trust their lives to these planes. The airline industries in places where the public couldn’t ask questions did not make flying ridiculously safe.

People can make a much better motivator by simply not flying.

The general public really isn't particularly well suited for asking the right questions to get to the bottom of this, but they are well suited for not being customers if trust in the industry is lost.

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#254

Post by philwelch »

stouset wrote: post #213
cjbprime wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A maintenance issue on a ten week old plane?

That plane was literally at their OKC facility for maintenance on Dec 31, so… yes? Planes are not cars. They don’t go in once a year to change the oil filter and tighten a few bolts.

You should probably get your oil changed more frequently than once a year…but yes, aircraft do need a lot of maintenance.

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#255

Post by cf1241290841 »

cwillu wrote: post #168
Animats wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a plug door. It's an outward-opening door, apparently. [1] Usually, those things are plugs, and have to be pulled inward to open them, which is not possible when the cabin is pressurized. But there are B-737 configurations where it's an outward-opening door. For those, when there's a door installed, there's a single solenoid to prevent opening it in flight.[2] Is there some kind of dummy door that's installe…

This was the (regular) rear door that Alaska effectively papers over.

Even if that is the case, it shouldnt been an issue. The DC10 problem was due to insufficient safety mechanism that allowed for crew to unknowingly close the door without engaging the safety lock.

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#256

Post by bilekas »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #197
bilekas wrote: post #183

"So Alaska airlines don't want that extra emergency door" Boeing - "Hold my beer, I think I have some duct tape around here somewhere"

Why would they? For the number of seats they had, the extra emergency exits aren't required. Installing the extra doors would mean more things to inspect or go wrong. If you want to get hung up on the emergency exits, consider why every modern airliner has doors that are easier (power assist) to open in an emergency but the 737 has doors that are more difficult to open in an emergency.

I don't have an issue with not taking the extra emergency exit. I have a problem with Boeing's implementation

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#258

Post by _heimdall »

I can only assume that this is going to lead to a ton of noise and anger with very little change, unfortunately.

Boeing will investigate, regulators will rattle sabers, and the public will be very loud about this for a week until the next news cycle rolls around.

We prioritize convenience above all else. The easy answer here is people could just not fly if we're actually concerned with Boeing or the industry in general.

We don't have to fly, but it is convenient so we'd rather make a lot of noise about the headline without making any meaningful change. It sounds nice to expect the FAA or Boeing or whoever else to fix this, why do we so often skip the actual power we have by simply not spending our money there?

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#259

Post by sandworm101 »

sccxy wrote: post #252
sandworm101 wrote: post #246

Credit where credit is due. This plane obvisouly suffered a massive rapid decompression. But it didn't crash. All the other engineering and safety systems functioned to absorb and mitigate this damage, getting everyone back on the ground safely. That is saying something. Airliners have survived much much worse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243

Sorry, but 2 months old aircraft failure should not get any credit.

Aircraft are not minivans. Whether a ship, large truck, aircraft, power plant, datacenter, or new house, its is normal for complex systems to suffer more faults when brand new. This was a dramatic and unacceptable fault, but the idea that brand new planes sould have fewer faults than those a few years older doesnt mesh with the reality of such complex and dynamic products.

Re: Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

#260

Post by leadingthenet »

josemanuel wrote: post #257

I really want badly to boycott Boeing. It's seems impossible that on some routes we do not have alternative to Boeing planes. Consumers should be allowed to decide with their wallet. Isn't that the whole purpose of the Capitalist system?!

Weeelll, it's a duopoly, and consumers rarely get details about the aircraft prior to booking their tickets. So we have at best an indirect say in what planes get acquired and used by the airline.

Booking sites like Kayak let you filter flights by aircraft model, but it's a pretty rare feature from what I've seen.

Post reply on HN