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

Smoke in the cabin of two 737 MAX caused by Load Reduction Device system [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 84 posts

Re: Smoke in the cabin of two 737 MAX caused by Load Reduction Device system [video]

#31

Post by MBCook »

Sakos wrote: post #24
sho_hn wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are the most comparable times in the history of Airbus: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/one-hundred-seconds-of-c... https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/thinking-like-a-computer... Unlike with Boeing they didn't feature intentional obfuscation and fraud, but very similar themes of the airplane's software model of what's going on diverging from the pilots' and resulting in disaster. Along with stories like th…

From the article: > Although it got off to a rocky start, the A320 went on to achieve a better safety record than most traditional aircraft types. And although there have been a couple of close calls, no Airbus has ever crashed because of the sort of computer failure that skeptics so deeply feared. Airbus didn't just fight the need to improve their designs. They just kept improving on their designs and fixed what nee…

Which is what Boeing used to do.

Wasn’t the original 737 the plane that had a number of early accidents and people literally didn’t want to fly on it? Maybe I’m thinking of a different model.

But they fixed it and treated it properly. And it became one of the most popular planes ever. Everyone trusts them.

Then they made the MAX version and made obviously stupid decisions like not having redundancy on the MCAS sensors. Things that the history of aviation tells you will go wrong. And they lied about it and covered it up, and lied about and covered up and obstructed the investigation into their plants not finishing planes correctly. And…

Boeing had a great reputation for a reason.

Re: Smoke in the cabin of two 737 MAX caused by Load Reduction Device system [video]

#32

Post by cduzz »

hypothesis wrote: post #5

I wonder what was the thought process there: hey we save an engine maybe, but everyone inside the plane gets cooked in 39 seconds. Ship it! Comments on that youtube video are filled with industry insiders and it’s just wild. They even think someone has died from a similar fuming event back in December…

Not cooked -- poisoned.

As far as I understand, the people in the cabin or the cockpit will breath the oil that's now been aerosolized -- in the cockpit it's really hazardous because it's such a small air volume. The oil's full of all kinds of things you wouldn't ever want to breathe in, and in the cockpit it's enough to poison you really fast.

Re: Smoke in the cabin of two 737 MAX caused by Load Reduction Device system [video]

#33

Post by V99 »

MBCook wrote: post #30
apical_dendrite wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've read, CFM and Boeing committed back in December to making the software fix that's suggested in the video. https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/bird-strike-incident-se... Why FAA and EASA didn't require any procedure changes in the interim to prevent the issue is a very good question.

Can they force an install? Or will it be a choice? I like Mentor Pilot and Air Disasters, so I know I’ve heard of a few where the problem that caused an accident was already known and a fix was available but the airline just chose not to do it because they had that option. Or it was scheduled but hadn’t been performed yet because it wasn’t thought to be that critical. Having the FAA mandate the fix seems like it woul…

Yes the FAA can issue what are called Airworthiness Directives and require an issue be resolved in the timeframe and manner they specify.

The timeframe could be anything, but common forms are like:

- Within the next X (flight) hours or Y calendar days

- You don't have to, but additional inspection needed every X hours or Y days until you do

- At next annual inspection

- Immediate/before flying again (usually called an Emergency AD)

Re: Smoke in the cabin of two 737 MAX caused by Load Reduction Device system [video]

#34

Post by sgtlaggy »

hypothesis wrote: post #5

I wonder what was the thought process there: hey we save an engine maybe, but everyone inside the plane gets cooked in 39 seconds. Ship it! Comments on that youtube video are filled with industry insiders and it’s just wild. They even think someone has died from a similar fuming event back in December…

> everyone inside the plane gets cooked in 39 seconds

From the video, the 39 second figure is for the cockpit if the pilots don't get their masks on in time. The passenger cabin would be uncomfortable but wouldn't (or just didn't in that case) reach lethal levels given the volume.

Re: Smoke in the cabin of two 737 MAX caused by Load Reduction Device system [video]

#35

Post by TheRealPomax »

V99 wrote: post #33
MBCook wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can they force an install? Or will it be a choice? I like Mentor Pilot and Air Disasters, so I know I’ve heard of a few where the problem that caused an accident was already known and a fix was available but the airline just chose not to do it because they had that option. Or it was scheduled but hadn’t been performed yet because it wasn’t thought to be that critical. Having the FAA mandate the fix seems like it woul…

Yes the FAA can issue what are called Airworthiness Directives and require an issue be resolved in the timeframe and manner they specify. The timeframe could be anything, but common forms are like: - Within the next X (flight) hours or Y calendar days - You don't have to, but additional inspection needed every X hours or Y days until you do - At next annual inspection - Immediate/before flying again (usually called a…

That is to say, they used to. Whether they still do is rather entirely up in the air (wahey).

Re: Smoke in the cabin of two 737 MAX caused by Load Reduction Device system [video]

#36

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

hypothesis wrote: post #9
K0balt wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t save the engine, it keeps it from ripping the wing off. It’s a good system. The part about filling the cabin with smoke because they couldn’t be bothered to make the software that detects the extreme vibration tell the AC units from that engine to shut down (which they already do if the rpm drops, indicating an engine failure-just not soon enough or reliable enough to prevent the smoke issue) - not so much…

> It doesn’t save the engine, it keeps it from ripping the wing off. It’s a good system. Sure, I get that it was added to prevent plane from disintegrating, but like you said integration thinking is gone and now we have those individual components that sure look homicidal from outside. The other issue is that regulators are missing in action or worse. It’s no way to run the industry by relying on concerned youtubers.…

I think a lot of the problem here is that all of the forward looking design is looking at the 787 dreamliner where the air conditioning is done electrically rather than with bleed air. It seems entirely plausible to me that this situation arose due to a descoping halfway through the project, where an initial version of the design wasn't going to use bleed air, they then decided that doing that much design work would be expensive, and put the bleed air system back in "because it's exactly the same as what we've been doing for the past 100 years" and no one realized that in the meantime, someone else on the engine team had designed a system that would dump a couple gallons of oil into the bleed air system if there was an engine failure.

Re: Smoke in the cabin of two 737 MAX caused by Load Reduction Device system [video]

#37

Post by schiffern »

hypothesis wrote: post #5

I wonder what was the thought process there: hey we save an engine maybe, but everyone inside the plane gets cooked in 39 seconds. Ship it! Comments on that youtube video are filled with industry insiders and it’s just wild. They even think someone has died from a similar fuming event back in December…

  > They even think someone has died from a similar fuming event back in December…
Interesting, I hadn't heard of this before. Looks like it's a different type of engine failure (not related to LRD), but the same basic problem.

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

I wonder if they just need formaldehyde sensors in the bleed air line...

Re: Smoke in the cabin of two 737 MAX caused by Load Reduction Device system [video]

#38

Post by lukevp »

cduzz wrote: post #32
hypothesis wrote: post #5

I wonder what was the thought process there: hey we save an engine maybe, but everyone inside the plane gets cooked in 39 seconds. Ship it! Comments on that youtube video are filled with industry insiders and it’s just wild. They even think someone has died from a similar fuming event back in December…

Not cooked -- poisoned. As far as I understand, the people in the cabin or the cockpit will breath the oil that's now been aerosolized -- in the cockpit it's really hazardous because it's such a small air volume. The oil's full of all kinds of things you wouldn't ever want to breathe in, and in the cockpit it's enough to poison you really fast.

Yeah but there’s 2 people in there, and 180 people in the rest of the plane. Isn’t the volume of air relative to the amount of people breathing it relevant as well?

Re: Smoke in the cabin of two 737 MAX caused by Load Reduction Device system [video]

#39

Post by cjbprime »

lukevp wrote: post #38
cduzz wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not cooked -- poisoned. As far as I understand, the people in the cabin or the cockpit will breath the oil that's now been aerosolized -- in the cockpit it's really hazardous because it's such a small air volume. The oil's full of all kinds of things you wouldn't ever want to breathe in, and in the cockpit it's enough to poison you really fast.

Yeah but there’s 2 people in there, and 180 people in the rest of the plane. Isn’t the volume of air relative to the amount of people breathing it relevant as well?

Why do you think it would be? If 200 humans share enough air to dilute the relative concentration of poison in that air effectively, none of those humans will receive lethal doses of poison.

Re: Smoke in the cabin of two 737 MAX caused by Load Reduction Device system [video]

#40

Post by MBCook »

V99 wrote: post #33
MBCook wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can they force an install? Or will it be a choice? I like Mentor Pilot and Air Disasters, so I know I’ve heard of a few where the problem that caused an accident was already known and a fix was available but the airline just chose not to do it because they had that option. Or it was scheduled but hadn’t been performed yet because it wasn’t thought to be that critical. Having the FAA mandate the fix seems like it woul…

Yes the FAA can issue what are called Airworthiness Directives and require an issue be resolved in the timeframe and manner they specify. The timeframe could be anything, but common forms are like: - Within the next X (flight) hours or Y calendar days - You don't have to, but additional inspection needed every X hours or Y days until you do - At next annual inspection - Immediate/before flying again (usually called a…

I know the FAA can, I was referring to the manufacture. If Boeing makes a software patch do they have any way of forcing everyone to install it other than asking the FAA to issue a directive?
Post reply on HN