9 ms·
Missing windows discovered on U.S.-bound plane after departing London
- StrangeSmells01 3y agoSounds like somebody shipped a bug into production.
- Supermancho 3y agoThis was a hardware problem or, more specifically, a process problem. The outside inspection should have occurred or the indoor inspection should have caught it. There is no "bug". People are imperfect and failures of all sorts, happen due to that.
- HeyLaughingBoy 3y agoSounds more like a Customer Use Error. Speculation is that the panes only fell off during the takeoff roll/climbout so inspection wouldn't have caught it.
- Supermancho 3y ago> A U.S.-bound plane took off from London last month with four damaged window panes, including two that were completely missing, Doesn't "sound" like that at all. Inspection could have caught it after the plane was modified...which should have never happened without an engineer present and a full post-filming inspection anyway. Their insurance is going to go up because they compromised a plane then let it fly with an immediate mechanical failure. The crew are not customers nor did the customer passengers affect the failure. It's a process failure, not a bug or "customer" error.
- StrangeSmells01 3y agoSounds like someone shipped a bug to me and QA didn't catch it
- Galacta7 3y agoI'm curious, how does a flight crew not notice a window entirely missing?!? I get that most of the passengers were near the middle of the craft, but wouldn't it still have been fairly noticeable as the flight attendants were walking down the aisle? Or immediately upon takeoff? Why did it take them reaching 13,000 before it was obvious a window was not there? TFA doesn't really say. My only guess is that the shades pulled down on most of the windows, not making the situation apparent. But even then, it one would imagine a substantial rattle from wind. Even cracking the window of my car at high speed is incredibly noisy, and my car can only go the fraction of the speed of an airplane. This whole thing is confusing.
- jahnu 3y agoOnly the outside panes were missing. Hard to notice.
- Galacta7 3y agoAh, that makes much more sense. I must have missed that. Thanks for the clarification!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ASalazarMX 3y agoThe window's windows, you could say.
- ericfrazier 3y agoThe windows weren't missing during inspection. They were lost during takeoff and in flight. The article says the plane was used in a theatrical production that involved very hot lights that melted the the window seals. No one noticed the melted seals and when the plane took off the windows came out. They found the windows on the runway.
- philk10 3y agoThat's a very obscure test case...
- VohuMana 3y agoI’m really surprised lights used to simulate sunrise placed 20-30ft away could completely melt the foam holding the exterior windows in place.
- javawizard 3y agoOh I don't know. The aircraft appears to be painted with a dark colored paint; that would naturally absorb any heat energy from the lights, and film set lights are really bright.
- llsf 3y agoYes, but what about the same place, sitting on the tarmac in hot latitude airport (Singapore, Doha, Las Vegas, etc.) ? It is a bit puzzling to know that heat from lights could damage windows of an airplane.
- reactordev 3y agoStage lights can reach 90c.
- yreg 3y agoWhy don't they bake the actors then?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- reactordev 3y agoSPF 200. Also the heat will dissipate over distance. At a rock concert where the ambient temperature is 32c due to being packed with humans, the heat can’t dissipate at well and so you get 60c on stage. Melt cables. Input jacks. Doc Martin soles. You’ll often see those giant fans blowing all over the stage. It’s not just for big hair stances, it’s to keep humans alive. On sets, less humans, more space, so the lights heat will dissipate pretty well after 5-10 feet. However I suspect that a simulator that is simulating the sun using a physical lamp would be using higher power lights to mimic the suns bloom. Even keeping it within operating normals it will get hot.
- zwieback 3y agoLights do deliver a lot of energy, even in the day and age of LED. I worked on machine vision projects back in the pre-LED days and the heat on anything used for high-speed, especially with line scan cameras, where the photon density is higher, can be a real problem. I remember some fish inspection project that failed because the fish was cooked by the time it passed under the lights.
- niccl 3y agoyup. and back in my rock'n'roll days, we used to toast bread for breakfast using two of the 1kW lights that are in the maxibrute
- OJFord 3y agoThe linked AAIB report is pretty interesting, and surprisingly easy reading. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6544b3089e05fd0014be7c9b/S2-2023__Airbus_A321-253NX_G-OATW.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6544b3089e05f... Also interesting from the article: > An engineer and co-pilot went back to take a look at the window Is that the same person? Or would they ordinarily be flying with 2/3 pilots and also an engineer? Or did they just happen to have an engineer among the nine passengers on board to call upon like they might a doctor? Although, with 11 crew and 9 passengers, maybe they do just routinely fly with a doctor, engineer, dentist, therapist, ...?! (It's not actually stated, but seems like maybe it is the film studio or whatever's plane, not that it just happened to be loaned out for filming beforehand. So maybe a funny crew list is more likely than otherwise.)
- dbcurtis 3y agoI assume they mean “flight engineer” , the 3rd flight deck crew member on planes that require 3 person crew. Although those are rare these days.
- thecosmicfrog 3y agoThe aircraft involved was an Airbus A321, so definitely not a "Flight Engineer". Likely a maintenance engineer (please correct me on the job title if I'm wrong here). Basically people who have to know the intricate details of a specific aircraft's systems inside-out.
- Pasorrijer 3y agoIn Europe they use Engineer interchangeably with Aviation Mechanic. If this is a tour company, moving a plane, it's not unreasonable that they'd bring a mechanic along in case they needed an inspection on the way. It's cheaper than contracting out a lot of the time.
- danielvf 3y agoThis was a repositioning flight of a smaller airline, and so everyone on board the airliner was in the industry / worked for the airline. Not a normal flight of passengers.
- tlrobinson 3y agoI don’t understand how these two statements are both possible: > "Several passengers recalled that after takeoff the aircraft cabin seemed noisier and colder than they were used to," investigators wrote … > the plane had remained "pressurized normally," investigators wrote.
- josephcsible 3y agoIsn't that just because the pressurization system had enough capacity that it could keep up with the extra loss of air?
- melevittfl 3y agoAirplanes are not airtight, so the system is designed to continue to pressurise the cabin as the air escapes. As they didn’t go above 14,000 feet, I’m guessing it could keep up with the pressure loss from the windows.
- mmcconnell1618 3y agoAt up to 10,000 feet I imagine the pressurization system could keep pace with the differential from the missing windows. If they had gone much higher, it might not have been able to keep pace. If the cabin loses pressure at higher altitude, the procedure is to descend to 10,000 feet or less where pressurization is not needed for passenger survival. In this case, the problem was detected around the time they were crossing above 10,000 feet.
- Xcelerate 3y agoShouldn’t that fire an alert of some sort that the system is having to work at higher capacity than normal to maintain pressure for the current altitude?
- sokoloff 3y agoOn a modern airliner, you'll get an alarm when the cabin pressure exceeds the pressure equivalent 10K feet. A few thousand feet of cabin altitude higher and the rubber jungle of masks appears. You won't get an alarm for just cabin pressure differential begin lower than usual.
- chasil 3y agoStrangely funny, that was the fate of the De Havilland Comet. https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/de-havilland-comet-1---2 https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/de-havilland-comet-1-...
- actionfromafar 3y agoNot very similar, the design error of the Comet made the entire cabin fail.
- defparam 3y agoIs it a common practice for commercial airliners to alternate between being used on a Hollywood set and for regular commercial air travel? Given how important failure analysis is in the airline industry, wouldn't this added complexity in the usage patterns of a commercial jet be a concern?
- dylan604 3y agoNot in my experience. It's typically an older body sitting on a back lot somewhere that they dress up as needed to make shooting easier. If you think lugging your carry-on luggage through the aisle is rough, just imagine trying to move cinema cameras through. They move the seats out of the way, so all of the support gear can be put in place.
- throwaheyy 3y agoShots inside an aircraft usually use a set. If you watch any Netflix series at all, you start to see the same A320-based aircraft cabin set used over and over again in different shows. It looks just like an A320 cabin interior, but split in two lengthways and the aisle widened, with a flat panel added in the ceiling to fill in the gap from the widening. Once you know what to look for you realize it’s the same set every time. It’s possible they used the actual aircraft in this case because they were filming an ad or some other promotional material for the tour company, perhaps.
- danielvf 3y agoJust to add some color on this from a lighting point of view. The film lights used look like Maxibrutes[1], which are 12,000 watts of old school, non-LED power per fixture. Looks like they used six lights, so 72,000 watts. Now in a past life, I've stood a similar distance in front of a giant, super diffuse 72,000 watt light, while wearing full body welding protective gear/goggles, and it was cooking hot right through all the leather gear. However, this looks even worse - it looks like they are using very tight beams on those fixtures. From the photos on the ground with the lights, it looks like only three and half windows are getting lit up. That's an insane amount of power being concentrated into a small space, and yeah, I'd believe it could wreck some damage. (Hah, just read the AAIB report[2], yes, they are indeed Maxibrutes) [1] https://www.filmgear.net/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=841 https://www.filmgear.net/index.php?route=product/product&pro... [2] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6544b3089e05fd0014be7c9b/S2-2023__Airbus_A321-253NX_G-OATW.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6544b3089e05f...
- exabrial 3y agoNot to diminish your valuable insight, but if they were simulating a sunrise, I doubt they had these at full throttle. My guess is they used old school lightning panels because of the orangey filament glow at lower wattages. WDYT?
- oasisbob 3y agoOftentimes a simulation will involve "overpowering the sun". You're not doing the lighting in the dark, you're adding light to an existing scene to simulate the sun being where you want it to be. Day for night shooting is a similar idea - by changing color balance and adding more light to emulate the moon - it's possible to give the impression of darkness.
- this_steve_j 3y agoEven with the lights operating at half throttle, there is also a significant amount of energy in the non-visible spectrum from 6 of them focused on a small area for 5 hours. It’s amazing the acrylic windows didn’t melt, only the foam seal around them.
- yread 3y agoThe AV Herald article is also enlightening (hah) https://avherald.com/h?article=50faa50b&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=50faa50b&opt=0
- this_steve_j 3y agoThe studio lamps were placed much closer to the aircraft windows than the minimum safe distance of 10m, and there were a lot of them. According to the spec sheet for the Maxibrute 12 lamp head [1], it has 12 1000W PAR64 halogen lamps and the surface external can reach 400 C. The data sheet for an Osram PAR64 1000W lamp [2] has the following safety advice: “To prevent personal injury or damage to property, halogen lamps may only be operated in suitable luminaires designed with suitable mechanisms (cover panel etc.) to ensure that in the event of a lamp bursting no parts/shards can escape and that during operation no ultraviolet radiation can escape. Because of the heat produced only heat-resistant lamp connections (holders) may be used. Do not operate near people, or any materials that are flammable, sensitive to heat or affected by drying out. [1] https://www.filmgear.net/image/catalog/Spec/01Maxibrute/info_02Maxibrute%2012_eng20230822.pdf https://www.filmgear.net/image/catalog/Spec/01Maxibrute/info... [2] https://www.osram.com/appsj/pdc/pdf.do?cid=GPS01_1044353&vid=PP_EUROPE_Europe_eCat&lid=EN&mpid= https://www.osram.com/appsj/pdc/pdf.do?cid=GPS01_1044353&vid...
- ashleyn 3y agoSecond lighting-related incident I've heard about in a week (after the Bored Apes UV incident). Seems proper lighting engineers are unsung heroes?
- this_steve_j 3y agoI’d love to read an AAIB report for that accident! It sounds like there were some significant eye injuries.
- r2_pilot 3y agoProbably won't be an AAIB report as it was at a crypto conference in Hong Kong I believe.
- this_steve_j 3y agoIndeed, the AAIB report I had in mind is purely hypothetical. There are other organizations better-positioned to publish a visually appealing, well-written preliminary report of a non-aircraft accident. But I like the AAIB style of having concise descriptions, clear illustrations, and succinct tabular data. I prefer it to the NTSB’s standard format, and do believe I will read some more of these.
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago> and several window panes appeared to have been warped by the thermal heat that's the worst kind of heat. They were lucky.
- smallerfish 3y agoThe headline seems like a great unit test for an NLP system (and, it is badly written). We all got the gist, but reading it literally it means the opposite of what it's trying to convey.
- rwmj 3y agoI think I failed the captcha, as I had a picture in my head of literal windows being found inside the cabin and was trying to guess why that would be so important. Stained glass? Stolen from an English country house?
- cameronh90 3y agoSame for me. At first I thought maybe it meant historical versions of Windows that had been assumed lost.
- wg0 3y agoSuch word order shuffle German language can afford maybe but English cannot tolerate that much. I really had to read the headline multiple times and assumed that some windows of historical value were being stolen from London and were probably heading to some museum.
- jakewins 3y ago> window panes appeared to have been warped by the thermal heat Are there kinds of heat that are not “thermal”?
- TriangleEdge 3y ago"Discovered" is an abuse of language IMO.