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

31–40 of 384 posts

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

#31

Post by carbocation »

function_seven wrote: post #22
carbocation wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nomenclature is interesting. In my mind, a "depressurization event" would imply that the biggest problem was the depressurization. In other words, that there was not a big gaping structural hole. If there can be a big hole in the plane and we can call that a "depressurization event", I would like to advocate for changing how we describe this.

Man gets shot in the leg. Femoral artery hit. Cause of death: "hypotensive event"

I know you're kidding, but we're trained to avoid making that mistake in assignment of cause of death (and in states where I've lived, they give clear instructions on the death paperwork to remind you not to make that kind of mistake)!

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

#32

Post by carbocation »

TylerE wrote: post #23
carbocation wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nomenclature is interesting. In my mind, a "depressurization event" would imply that the biggest problem was the depressurization. In other words, that there was not a big gaping structural hole. If there can be a big hole in the plane and we can call that a "depressurization event", I would like to advocate for changing how we describe this.

Aviation is very careful to use specific phraseology. It's a Big Deal(tm) to avoid ambiguity.

Isn't this phrase generating ambiguity, in this circumstance, where a better description would not be ambiguous?

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

#33

Post by pinewurst »

tigeroil wrote: post #24
ceejayoz wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a two-month old plane. That's not much time to fall into disrepair.

Yeah must admit I think I jumped the gun a bit there. Reading about it a bit more it seems like this is a major manufacturing cock-up that this was even possible.

https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/boeing-must-inspect-...

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

#34

Post by pengaru »

carbocation wrote: post #20
mjevans wrote: post #5

Alternate, non Twitter, link. https://katu.com/news/local/alaska-airlines-flight-1282-retu...

The nomenclature is interesting. In my mind, a "depressurization event" would imply that the biggest problem was the depressurization. In other words, that there was not a big gaping structural hole. If there can be a big hole in the plane and we can call that a "depressurization event", I would like to advocate for changing how we describe this.

> not a big gaping structural hole.

It's an exit door opening, not some random part of the fuselage developing a potentially structure-compromising hole...

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

#35

Post by carbocation »

pengaru wrote: post #34
carbocation wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nomenclature is interesting. In my mind, a "depressurization event" would imply that the biggest problem was the depressurization. In other words, that there was not a big gaping structural hole. If there can be a big hole in the plane and we can call that a "depressurization event", I would like to advocate for changing how we describe this.

> not a big gaping structural hole. It's an exit door opening, not some random part of the fuselage developing a potentially structure-compromising hole...

Bad wording on my part since I implied but didn't state the alternative. In my mind, the alternative scenario that would create a depressurization event would be a small hole or a hole that is not visible from the passenger compartment. I.e., a hole from which a passenger or attendant could not exit the plane.

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

#36

Post by SonicScrub »

tmpz22 wrote: post #18
randycupertino wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If it's Boeing, I'm not going." I was on a flight that made and emergency landing once, it was TERRIFYING. The pilot circled once then we went down at a very steep angle. What was even worse was the three days we were stranded in Gander Newfoundland while they fixed the plane and then flew in a new crew. It was basically an refueling/military base and not a real airport, no food or facilities. After that I never fle…

Thats a decent setup for a Hallmark movie - two travelers stranded and isolated find love through the zaney activities used to pass time in a remote locale.

Pretty sure that's exactly one of the subplots of Come from Away

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

#37

Post by [deleted] »

markdown wrote: post #19
randycupertino wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If it's Boeing, I'm not going." I was on a flight that made and emergency landing once, it was TERRIFYING. The pilot circled once then we went down at a very steep angle. What was even worse was the three days we were stranded in Gander Newfoundland while they fixed the plane and then flew in a new crew. It was basically an refueling/military base and not a real airport, no food or facilities. After that I never fle…

> After that I never flew without my toothbrush, change of clothes and contact solution in my carry on. You used to fly without those things? :O

[deleted]

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

#38

Post by pengaru »

carbocation wrote: post #35
pengaru wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not a big gaping structural hole. It's an exit door opening, not some random part of the fuselage developing a potentially structure-compromising hole...

Bad wording on my part since I implied but didn't state the alternative. In my mind, the alternative scenario that would create a depressurization event would be a small hole or a hole that is not visible from the passenger compartment. I.e., a hole from which a passenger or attendant could not exit the plane.

I'm no expert, but I've always assumed these pressurized cabins aren't exactly hermetically sealed, so a small invisible hole wouldn't noticeably depressurize the plane.

My assumption has been there's always fresh air actively added continuously at a rate that can compensate for such small leaks, and that it's just an automatically regulated thing. Maybe a gauge/alarm visible to the pilots would indicate an out of spec level of fresh air entering to maintain pressure, without actually being a "depressurization event"...

But a door-sized hole is a whole (har har) different story.

Edit: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/53831/are-press...

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

#39

Post by notatoad »

carbocation wrote: post #20
mjevans wrote: post #5

Alternate, non Twitter, link. https://katu.com/news/local/alaska-airlines-flight-1282-retu...

The nomenclature is interesting. In my mind, a "depressurization event" would imply that the biggest problem was the depressurization. In other words, that there was not a big gaping structural hole. If there can be a big hole in the plane and we can call that a "depressurization event", I would like to advocate for changing how we describe this.

if the big gaping hole is only a problem because it causes a "depressurization event", then categorizing it as a depressurization event make sense?

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

#40

Post by cjbprime »

carbocation wrote: post #32
TylerE wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aviation is very careful to use specific phraseology. It's a Big Deal(tm) to avoid ambiguity.

Isn't this phrase generating ambiguity, in this circumstance, where a better description would not be ambiguous?

Yes. I think the aviation community would use something like "explosive uncontrolled depressurization", to distinguish from e.g. someone forgetting to arm the pressurization system.
Post reply on HN