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

Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident

rnz.co.nz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 158 posts

Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident

#61

Post by Vecr »

xattt wrote: post #54
H8crilA wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very easy to get to slightly below 0g by just pushing on the stick or yoke, and that would be enough to cause what the passengers describe here. You could even get well below 0g. Almost all turbulence of the sort that you can experience in flight are not even 10% of the durability limits of the airframe. EDIT: I was also thinking about "well why should the airplane allow the pilot for such movements then?". And…

What about flight laws/flight control modes that prevent this thing from happening? Unless the aircraft was flying in a degraded state, these limits are supposed to prevent the aircraft from suffering damage during flight.

It's a Boeing, that's not really how it works. What airplane refuses to let you do negative gs anyway?

Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident

#62

Post by lostlogin »

HL33tibCe7 wrote: post #51
beAbU wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression that seatbelts are basically mandatory at all times. On my recent turkish airlines flight the safety video requested you put it on and leave it on, ans the staff would come by and ask you to put your seatbelt on, even when theres no turbulence. The "seat belt" indicator light should actually be changed to "dont get up and walk around"

On the half dozen (European) airlines I’ve flown, it’s always been “seatbelts are recommended at all times”. Never a requirement.

Surely required on takeoff/landing?

Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident

#63

Post by RandomBacon »

thelastparadise wrote: post #7
Tor3 wrote: post #5

What I don't get is why people are not using seatbelts. The only time I'm not using it is when I'm on the way to and from the bathroom. If I'm seated I'm using the seatbelt.

My god could you imagine if this happened when you were in the bathroom?

They should install a gravity switch. A simply contact that uses gravity to either remain normally-open or normally-closed, and then when the opposite is true, automatically flush.

Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident

#65

Post by notpeter »

AlexandrB wrote: post #34
ztetranz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're optional for adults in cars here in New Hampshire where the official state motto is "Live free or die".

NH doesn't get enough credit for how weird it is. Between the state motto, the lack of sales or income tax, and stuff like this seatbelt rule it's like we're talking about a totally different country.

I also like their Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) record retention period (3 minutes):

> Records of number plates read by each LPR shall not be recorded or transmitted anywhere and shall be purged from the system within 3 minutes of their capture in such a manner that they are destroyed and are not recoverable, unless an alarm resulted in an arrest, a citation, or protective custody, or identified a vehicle that was the subject of a missing person or wanted broadcast [...]

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/2022/title-xxi/ti...

Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident

#66

Post by infecto »

Staple_Diet wrote: post #42
infecto wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Latam is Chilean. I am not as well traveled in all SA countries but the exposure I have had suggested that seatbelts in cars are fairly optional still, I suspect on a plane you have less incentive.

While there was most definitely South Americans on that journey, having made that flight myself I can honestly say it would have been well over 50% Aussies on their way to NZ, Santiago, Buenos Aires etc.

Certainly but I am not suggesting its entirely on the passengers but the culture of safety in a given region. In the US you have a before flight belt check and sometimes mentions during flight. In a lot of other countries I notice that flights are not as concerned about those belt checks.

Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident

#67

Post by ztetranz »

AlexandrB wrote: post #34
ztetranz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're optional for adults in cars here in New Hampshire where the official state motto is "Live free or die".

NH doesn't get enough credit for how weird it is. Between the state motto, the lack of sales or income tax, and stuff like this seatbelt rule it's like we're talking about a totally different country.

The other thing about cars in NH is that insurance is optional. I'm not sure what happens if someone legally driving in NH without liability insurance drives over the border into a neighboring state. I asked a lawyer friend once and he mumbled something about interstate commerce making it legal. I'm not how that debate would go when stopped by a cop in MA and asked to show proof of insurance.

Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident

#68

Post by resolutebat »

ulfw wrote: post #26
nomilk wrote: post #14

For anyone else wondering, the plane was a > Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner (Boeing, but not the 737 Max that has been in the headlines the past few years) Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/3/11/50-people-injur...

As if the 787 was any better. Just see the history of issues and reports about manufacturing.

Dreamliners have been flying for 13+ years now with zero hull loss accidents or fatalities. There were some teething issues with fuel leaks and batteries, but AFAICT those have long since been ironed out.

Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident

#69

Post by tyingq »

AlexandrB wrote: post #34
ztetranz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're optional for adults in cars here in New Hampshire where the official state motto is "Live free or die".

NH doesn't get enough credit for how weird it is. Between the state motto, the lack of sales or income tax, and stuff like this seatbelt rule it's like we're talking about a totally different country.

It's also often incorrectly thought of as heavily democrat or liberal, perhaps due to association with neighbors like Massachusetts and Vermont. It's somewhat true, but the balance is much closer to 50/50 than those neighbors. And the largest newspaper is very Republican centric.

Re: Latam Airlines SYD to AKL flight: 50 people treated after mid-air incident

#70

Post by stby »

fabian2k wrote: post #6

This seems to be attributed to a technical problem and not turbulence so far. Probably should be a bit skeptical about any explanation this early, but I'm wondering which systems would be powerful enough to cause something like this. For example, would a pilot be able to manually fly the airplane and cause this kind of incident? Or would the control surfaces of the plane be able to cause this assuming that any safety…

If the captain of this LATAM flight didn't report that all systems went down for a short while, I'd bet some money on a malfunctioning ADIRU [0]. The Wikipedia page even includes a nice list of incidents caused by it, mostly with similar results.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_data_inertial_reference_un...

Post reply on HN