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

91–100 of 158 posts

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

#91

Post by icegreentea2 »

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.

Briefly going slight negative G will not damage the airplane.

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

#92

Post by iamtheworstdev »

jwildeboer wrote: post #87
alamortsubite wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's rephrase that as, this is the story as relayed by one of the passengers to RNZ. If non-speculative info is what you're after, perhaps it's better to wait for the official report.

The captain has been quoted with that info of loss of instrumentation and that is on the avherald page. Avherald is quite known for only handing out vetted information, so I do trust this to be true.

From what I've read - a person is claiming the captain said. The captain himself hasn't explicitly admitted to anything yet.

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

#93

Post by loceng »

ceejayoz wrote: post #82
mschuster91 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've, technically, eaten food that was at zero gravity once for a short period of time.

Free-fall isn't zero-gravity, and anyone who observes the five-second rule has had a similar experience.

If you're wanting to be so perfectionistic, five-second rule experiences is an apples to oranges comparison.

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

#94

Post by pc86 »

progbits wrote: post #20
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.

> What I don't get is why people are not using seatbelts. The terrible UX doesn't help. There is a seatbelt icon on the sign, they announce it as "fasten seatbelt sign", which makes it sound like when it is off you don't have to have it fastened. But it really should be "remain seated" sign. Also some people don't wear seatbelts in cars as some idiotic macho thing. I assume there is no helping those.

Every single flight I've ever been on except LATAM says to keep your seatbelt fastened when seated even when the seatbelt sign is off. UX isn't the issue, people ignoring common sense things like "maybe my seatbelt should be on when I'm flying through the air at 500mph" is.

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

#95

Post by abadpoli »

p_l wrote: post #73
resolutebat wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And an issue where if not regularly rebooted, preferably with staggered (by days) reboots, they lose all power, including instrumentation and controls, after 248 days of uptime. Additionally an Airworthiness Directive from 2020 requires, at least in europe, to reboot more often than 51 days due to stale data in common core system, with various network packets being dropped and system showing incorrect data to pilots.

The Airbus A350 has almost the exact same issue, but requiring a reboot after only 148 _hours_ or the avionics shut off.

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

#96

Post by stuff4ben »

p_l wrote: post #73
resolutebat wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And an issue where if not regularly rebooted, preferably with staggered (by days) reboots, they lose all power, including instrumentation and controls, after 248 days of uptime. Additionally an Airworthiness Directive from 2020 requires, at least in europe, to reboot more often than 51 days due to stale data in common core system, with various network packets being dropped and system showing incorrect data to pilots.

Nice cherry-picking. You can do the same for Airbus. Feel free to search https://drs.faa.gov/search

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

#97

Post by ThePowerOfFuet »

jgalt212 wrote: post #60
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.

What I don't get is why they serve hot coffee on planes with these ever present risks.

The coffee is generally not hot enough to cause burns, especially given that you will be drinking it immediately upon serving.

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

#98

Post by p_l »

stuff4ben wrote: post #96
p_l wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And an issue where if not regularly rebooted, preferably with staggered (by days) reboots, they lose all power, including instrumentation and controls, after 248 days of uptime. Additionally an Airworthiness Directive from 2020 requires, at least in europe, to reboot more often than 51 days due to stale data in common core system, with various network packets being dropped and system showing incorrect data to pilots.

Nice cherry-picking. You can do the same for Airbus. Feel free to search https://drs.faa.gov/search

Not cherry picking, simply pointing out that 787 isn't as flawless as painted by some.

A350 has avionics bug requiring regular reboots too. Arguably even more embarassing, because while 787 was Boeing's first AFDX plane, Airbus pretty much invented AFDX for A380

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

#99

Post by bloomingeek »

beAbU wrote: post #30
koolba wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After the recent incidents, I’d love to see zip line style safety lines in planes. When you get up to use the lavatory, you’d connect your carabiner to the aisle ceiling and floor lines to keep you level in case of a sudden movement.

I think you can forget about using the loo succesfully if you can't even walk down the aisle without incident...

This is a great point, I've often wondered why there are no seat belts on airplane toilets. Yes, there would be many obstacles to overcome (please, no course jokes) but there have been several times when I was using the facilities on a plane and turbulence ensued and I almost panicked thinking about all the possible bad things that could happen.

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

#100

Post by pc86 »

gomox wrote: post #88
chrisweekly wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my 5 decades of flying regularly (US-based flights), this is made crystal clear by flight attendants and repeated PA announcements.

It needs to be safe and clear by design, not confusing to the point where systematic PA announcements are needed to clarify the fact that "seat belt sign is off" actually means "you should wear your seatbelt".

And maybe on new planes they'll change the iconography (which would probably require FAA rules to be rewritten), but let's not downplay the role of just having common sense.
Post reply on HN