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

Several injured in Boeing 787 nose-gear collapse in Frankfurt

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 89 posts

Re: Several injured in Boeing 787 nose-gear collapse in Frankfurt

#41

Post by netsharc »

wvbdmp wrote: post #34
cwizou wrote: post #19

Same thing happened to British Airways a few years ago on a 787, a misplaced security pin that was inserted in the wrong place during a maintenance operation. There are two very similar holes next to one another that can receive the pin, there's a picture at the bottom here : https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/318989 Wondering if the same mishap is behind it again.

Yikes, mojibake in 2021. edit: actually, how did that happen? The apostrophes show up correctly, they’re just all preceded by a  that doesn’t seem to represent anything?

They're probably Microsoft's "Smart Quotes", which are Unicode. They were presumably stored in UTF-8 but retrieved as ASCII (or ISO-8859-1).

Re: Several injured in Boeing 787 nose-gear collapse in Frankfurt

#42

Post by vr46 »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #3

Can someone tell me if this is just confirmation bias or is Boeing really going down this hard? I mean management was obviously tanking since the McDonnell Douglas takeover, but did it really take almost 30 years for this to shine through? Or were these things underreported in the last decades?

"If it's Boeing, we ain't goin'"

Re: Several injured in Boeing 787 nose-gear collapse in Frankfurt

#43

Post by PyWoody »

buredoranna wrote: post #16
dragontamer wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a joke about "The Front Fell Off", a classic comedy video from a few decades ago.

If you haven't experienced the awesomeness of "The Front Fell Off", do yourself a favor and seek it out on youtube... you won't be disappointed.

Also check out All Birds Are Cats by the same duo.

Re: Several injured in Boeing 787 nose-gear collapse in Frankfurt

#45

Post by netsharc »

focusgroup0 wrote: post #14

Given that it's their turf, is it reasonable to consider sabotage by an Airbus-affiliated entity?

"reasonable"...

How insane do you want to sound?

"Yeah, let's sabotage a competitor's plane, I'm sure it won't cause a major scandal and millions of dollars of lawsuits if one of them falls out of the sky and kills ~300 people, and they caught us as the cause...".

What the hell dictionary are you using where you're asking if the word "reasonable" could apply to this idea? Is your hovercraft full of eels?

Re: Several injured in Boeing 787 nose-gear collapse in Frankfurt

#46

Post by cwizou »

stefan_ wrote: post #38
cwizou wrote: post #19

Same thing happened to British Airways a few years ago on a 787, a misplaced security pin that was inserted in the wrong place during a maintenance operation. There are two very similar holes next to one another that can receive the pin, there's a picture at the bottom here : https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/318989 Wondering if the same mishap is behind it again.

The report on that incident says there was a hardware modification to make this impossible, to be incorporated before Jan 2023. (It also says this happened to Boeing in 2018 and they ignored it, of course)

I missed that part, and since it's a newly delivered plane (this January), it's safe to assume the mitigation was in place. Preliminary report will be interesting here.

Re: Several injured in Boeing 787 nose-gear collapse in Frankfurt

#47

Post by netsharc »

cwizou wrote: post #19

Same thing happened to British Airways a few years ago on a 787, a misplaced security pin that was inserted in the wrong place during a maintenance operation. There are two very similar holes next to one another that can receive the pin, there's a picture at the bottom here : https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/318989 Wondering if the same mishap is behind it again.

The aircraft is 1 year old and was delivered in January...

But, fucking hell, apparently Boeing "engineers" are so dumb they never learned about Murphy's law.

Re: Several injured in Boeing 787 nose-gear collapse in Frankfurt

#48

Post by red_admiral »

midiguy wrote: post #6

So a plane which has withstood probably countless landings, had its nose gear collapse while sitting statically at a gate of all times and places? Weird.

There's a story that during the testing of a fighter plane - I think the F-35 but not sure - the "developers" claimed the new computer systems made most pilot errors all but impossible.

QA engineer's first check was, what happens if I try and retract the wheels while the plane is sitting on the ground and not moving. Oops.

Re: Several injured in Boeing 787 nose-gear collapse in Frankfurt

#50

Post by layer8 »

wvbdmp wrote: post #34
cwizou wrote: post #19

Same thing happened to British Airways a few years ago on a 787, a misplaced security pin that was inserted in the wrong place during a maintenance operation. There are two very similar holes next to one another that can receive the pin, there's a picture at the bottom here : https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/318989 Wondering if the same mishap is behind it again.

Yikes, mojibake in 2021. edit: actually, how did that happen? The apostrophes show up correctly, they’re just all preceded by a  that doesn’t seem to represent anything?

The page is declared as ISO 8859-1, but the actual bytes of the text appear to be UTF-8. In UTF-8, characters from U+0080 to U+00AF happen to be encoded as C2 . For example, U+0092 is encoded as C2 92.

C2 in ISO 8859-1 is ””. U+0092 is the control code Private Use 2 in Unicode, and 92 is the same in ISO 8859-1. However, the standard Western Windows code page 1252 extends ISO 8859-1 by assigning “’” (right single quotation mark) to 92.

HTML5/WHATWG requires an ISO 8859-1 charset declaration to be interpreted as Windows-1252 (https://blog.whatwg.org/the-road-to-html-5-character-encodin...), hence the displayed result is “Â’”.

The original Windows-1252 content must have previously been converted to UTF-8 under the assumption that the source is ISO 8859-1, i.e. mapping 92 to U+0092 (Private Use 2) instead of to U+2019 (Right Single Quotation Mark). The resulting UTF-8 encoding was placed in the web page, which however is declared as ISO 8859-1.

Post reply on HN