30 ms·
Air Accident Investigation Branch: film lights caused window damage on A321neo
- photoGrant 3y agoDuh. These lights are frightening to work around sometimes. The UV alone you'll get a sunburn working inside a studio lit by them. The black-body radiation is the true heat coming from them
- theyinwhy 3y agoOf course no idea what you are using, but the industry's leader seems to have it figured out: https://www.arri.com/en/lighting/professional-lighting-accessories/lamps https://www.arri.com/en/lighting/professional-lighting-acces...
- photoGrant 3y agoUs industry professionals that use these tools beg to differ https://cml.news/g/cml-general/topic/89024886#10533 https://cml.news/g/cml-general/topic/89024886#10533
- theyinwhy 3y agoThank you for the link. I am pretty sure following comment is more on the side of reality: https://cml.news/g/cml-general/message/10540 https://cml.news/g/cml-general/message/10540 But good there is awareness about using equipment with old, faulty hardware and the need for measuring uv levels as part of technical checks.
- photoGrant 3y agoThink of production and rental companies like airlines. Some are the safest and well respected, some are a death trap. Most operate middle to right. A lot of salt has to be taken with a comment like that as it's more a legal response than a valid one. i.e. he worked for ARRI. To clarify, ARRI can only speak on behalf of what they legally aim to sell. Not what the factory reality lets out the door, or what any production does with their equipment. They aren't evil, just a company.
- theyinwhy 3y agoI deem the chances Arri tinkering with their equipment to circumvent legal requirements to be zero. This "every company is having a big, mischievous plan" theme is very boring.
- jacquesm 3y agoThat's true, but there is such a thing as component variation and there is also aging. It may well be that the specified product is well within the safety limits but the aging border case is no longer and if there isn't enough margin that may well lead to trouble. Depending on the amount of variation that trouble may arrive sooner rather than later.
- theyinwhy 3y agoI totally agree uv filter fitness should be part of the equipment checks happening before an extensive filming.
- jacquesm 3y agoI wonder to what degree the UV filter coating wears because of the UV. After all it is made to absorb precisely the most energetic component, that can't be without consequences over the longer term.
- atoav 3y agoI have worked as a light guy on well above 20 film sets, this is wrong. All lamps that have a fixture which would be capable of emitting UV lights (mostly HMI lamps) must have UV filters in front of them. Typically they are part of the fresnel lense. For LED this is a non-issue. If you got a sunburn in a studio, that means they either used shit lamps (non-industry standard), or the filters have been removed. Either way this is a work safety violation and any study worth their salt wouldn't stand for it. The lamps are of course still something that you need to treat carefully. First because it is a ton of power and heat, but also because they are heavy. But if you use them in the way intended by the manufacturer they are not more dangerous than anything else. A typical Arri HMI will even have a diagram with safe distances for heat radiation engraved somewhere on the body of the lamp. So you don't even need a manual to know you are doing it wrong. I once had a HMI with a broken lense through which UV radiation would leak on a outdoor set. We noticed this because a fist-sized pile of insects started to accumulate right at the spot where the leak was. The smoke from that was quickly noticed.
- photoGrant 3y agohttps://cml.news/g/cml-general/topic/89024886#10533 https://cml.news/g/cml-general/topic/89024886#10533 You'd be surprised what shortcuts budgets end up creating... Source: A decade+ on film/photography sets as DIT. p.s. Work on macro phantom stuff. You'll see.
- nashashmi 3y agoBoth of your posts are informative. I think we go back to the parent comment that implies UV radiation is a general affect, versus a result of shoddy manufacturing, near these lamps. Is UV a standard thing to avoid at every case, or just in exceptional cases?
- photoGrant 3y agoIn every case bar working with infra sensors/aesthetics.
- qingcharles 3y ago
- petee 3y agoThey aren't (edit)carbon* arc lights, they are regular 1000w par bulbs, which should all have UV filtering unless its a knockoff. If you're too close you may get burned from the heat, but actors spend hours under them and don't get tanned. But yeah, 72000 watts is alot of heat to pump at an object for 9 hours
- photoGrant 3y agoCarry a UV meter and tell me they do their job!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- petee 3y agoSure, when I'm back to work I'll definitely try carrying one. I'm not opposed to knowing for sure, though personal experience has shown it never to be an issue. I've never gotten burned, nor heard of anyone burned; and with the intensities we run you would at minimum expect eye burns, but doesn't happen even on 14hr days.
- loansindi 3y ago"Film lights" are pretty likely to be 5kW+ arc lamps. Lighting fixtures definitely include filters to keep the UV out of the beam, but film still loves giant HMI fresnels.
- petee 3y agoI should have been more specific, i had mean to say carbon arc, as those were alot different that todays technology, though I'm not sure about the level of UV protection offered back in the 70-80s
- loansindi 3y agoCarbon arc was definitely a whole different ball game. I'd think the fixtures were filtering at least most of it, or else everyone on set would have pretty much the same problems as someone doing arc welding without a mask and sleeves in short order.
- juanse 3y agoI would expect that those windows be more resistant to heat considering the distance they have from the engines, in case something went wrong.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y agoI imagine if the engine bursts into flames they are probably going to want to land the plane anyways.
- jacquesm 3y agoAssuming you're over land, which definitely isn't always the case. You better hope the integral fire suppression system works. If it doesn't you're about to have your day - and possibly much more - ruined solidly.
- whalesalad 3y agothe A350 can fly with one engine, not sure about the 321neo.
- jacquesm 3y agoAnything over water can fly with one engine out. https://www.caa.co.uk/commercial-industry/aircraft/operations/navigation-approvals/etops/ https://www.caa.co.uk/commercial-industry/aircraft/operation... A321 Neo LR is approved for that. https://simpleflying.com/a321neo-long-range-approval/ https://simpleflying.com/a321neo-long-range-approval/
- HPsquared 3y agoAny twin engine can fly with one engine out. The over-water part is that it can fly on one engine for a long distance to get back to an airport - which tends to be further away if you're flying over the ocean. Basically having a bit more margin in the design for extended endurance with an engine out.
- GlenTheMachine 3y agoMy research group used to use a Hollywood spotlight to simulate the lighting in orbit. These lights take a long time to power cycle, so once they're on you kind of want to keep them on, otherwise it's 15-30 minutes once you turn them off before they fully power up again. So we left it on. After one test we left it pointed at our test article, which was made of styrofoam. After a couple of minutes it started smoking and melting. If we hadn’t smelled the smoke I'm certain it would have caught on fire. We made very sure we never left it pointed at a fire sprinkler after that.
- cge 3y ago>We made very sure we never left it pointed at a fire sprinkler after that. The one time we had an inadvertent discharge of a fire sprinkler in the historic building we're in was when a film crew had a light positioned too close to one. It was not close enough that someone without specific experience looking at it would have thought it was too close. The light wasn't even a high-powered outdoor film spotlight; it was for an indoor shoot. Film lights can just be very bright, and very hot.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- LeifCarrotson 3y agoSince it's that time of year again for my fellow northerners with SAD, film lights can be wonderfully bright, and the heat is a welcome side benefit! Screw Verilux with their overpriced "10,000 lux" 10W panel (only at less than 6 inches from your face), instead get a high-CRI studio light over my reading chair and I'll be happy all winter.
- tjoff 3y agoI'm intrigued, any recommendations?
- LeifCarrotson 3y ago
- ironmagma 3y agoDid they at least get some good footage out of it?
- codedokode 3y agoI don't understand, if those lights are so powerful then how do actors survive under their light?
- buildbot 3y agoHumans are actively cooled, and I think these lights were much higher power and much closer than typical film lights are to actors.
- dmitrygr 3y agoYour cells will multiply to heal damage. Most polymers will just crumble.
- tjohns 3y agoFirst, stage lighting is already uncomfortably hot for anyone working under them for any length of time. Second, these weren't ordinary stage lights. These were lights for use outdoors to simulate natural sunlight, which is much brighter (and hotter) than what you'd normally use indoors. Third, they were probably positioned too close, and left on for too long. Just a guess on this one.
- wkat4242 3y agoStill, if they are sunlight stimulators, wouldn't that mean that the heat from real sunlight could cause this also? These lights were too far for air heating to be an issue. So it must have been all IR. Maybe this kind of foam isn't entirely up to the spec either.
- WalterBright 3y agoWhen I lived in Arizona, one quickly learned not to leave vinyl records near the car windows! Or crayons.
- wkat4242 3y agoYes my ex' glasses broke on their own while lying on the dash in Australian summer. I still have them lol
- gnabgib 3y agoPreviously: "Missing windows discovered on U.S.-bound plane after departing London" [0] (125 points, 91 comments, 6 days ago) [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38221121 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38221121
- LASR 3y agoSo basically, this could have been a serious incident if they used a lower power light that did not cause the window to fail so obviously. I bet with a full pressure differential at cruising alt, this might have blown up catastrophically. Quite scary what kinds of causes trigger such incidents. As a frequent flier, I would have never imagined something like this. How are there no regulations that should have prevented or caught this? I bet there will be now.
- jacquesm 3y agoSince it has happened before I don't think there will be any such regulations.
- buildsjets 3y agoAircraft fuselages are not balloons, and they do not catastrophically pop if the fuselage is punctured in discrete locations. Relevant recommended viewing is "operation guillotine fuselage test" on YouTube, where large steel blades are dropped through pressurized aircraft fuselage sections to validate no explosive decompression. In the late 1950s, BTW. Commercial aircraft are required to be designed to maintain 15,000 foot equivalent cabin altitude after any probable failure, which includes multiple missing windows, per the requirements of 14 CFR 25.841 and it's EASA equivalent. There is already regulation in place that should have caught this but did not. The captain is required to perform an external visual inspection of the aircraft before departure, which follows a checklist that includes looking at the windows. It appears that did not happen.
- scarby2 3y ago> There is already regulation in place that should have caught this but did not. The captain is required to perform an external visual inspection of the aircraft before departure, which follows a checklist that includes looking at the windows. It appears that did not happen. We've no idea if the damage was visible prior to takeoff. It may have easily passed a visual inspection on the ground before moving at speed with a pressure differential. As per the article at least one of them appears to have detached in flight and struck the horizontal stabilizer.
- closeparen 3y agoIs this significantly more heat than you would get from a tarmac delay in Phoenix?
- jacquesm 3y agoOverall less energy but locally much more due to the fact that it is focused. By comparison: a lighter doesn't have a whole lot of energy, but it outputs that energy in a tiny volume resulting in combustion. The lights they used are not quite lighters but they can cause fires if you concentrate their output in a small enough area. A tarmac radiating heat is an enormous amount of output but on a W/sqm basis for delivered power it is a fraction of what those lights can do.
- gomox 3y agoCan someone explain how: * Damage to the left leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer was noted as well. Investigators found acrylic in the puncture, consistent with a window pane. And: * The aircraft remained properly pressurized throughout the flight. Are not mutually incompatible? (i.e. a window pane hit the tail in flight and somehow the aircraft remained pressurized?)
- reportingsjr 3y agoAircraft windows have multiple, separate panes. Presumably only the outer pane dislodged and the inner ones remained in place.
- fsckboy 3y agothe cabins of airplanes are actively pressurized by pumping air in, and constantly removing some air so carbon dioxide doesn't build up. The pumping that feeds the replacement air could be higher capacity than the flow through a missing window. pressurization of aircraft is not required till 12,500 ft (3810m) so the air pressure differential at 15000 is not likely to be that great.
- epcoa 3y ago> pressurization of aircraft is not required till 12,500 ft Well, no. I don't think cabin altitude for passenger airliners has ever been that high, so you need pressurization much lower than that (typically starting around 6000 ft for modern aircraft). Edit: Even the Boeing 307 Stratoliner was pressurized to 8000 ft.
- mwint 3y agoPilot here - it's legal to fly at 12,500 in an unpressurized aircraft indefinitely. See https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-C/section-91.211 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F.... Cabin pressurization is set to a lower altitude, but that's not for a legal requirement. It's just nicer to be at higher pressurization. And, I mean, think about it - there are _towns_ at 9k+ feet.
- OJFord 3y agoDiscussed recently here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38221121 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38221121 That article isn't as good (less technical/more 'pop' audience) but they both link the actual AAIB report which I found quite interesting and surprisingly readable, and I don't think either article has anything extra to offer. I'd suggest skipping straight to it: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6544b3089e05fd0014be7c9b/S2-2023__Airbus_A321-253NX_G-OATW.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6544b3089e05f...
- foota 3y agoSounds expensive.
- userbinator 3y agoI'm a little surprised that the window panes aren't so much physically bigger than the opening such that even if the seal failed they'd still be held in place by cabin pressure.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wkipling 3y agoThey are generally plug type
- davidhyde 3y agoI just don't understand why all movie set lights haven't instantly been replaced by their LED equivalent. Why do people still use these things that are crazy expensive to run and can set things on fire?
- usefulcat 3y agoColor temperature, I would guess.
- rtpg 3y agoCan an LES array nicely reproduce similar color spectrums? If I had to guess I imagine the film lamps emit a pretty broad range of color.
- SkyPuncher 3y agoLight quality.
- KennyBlanken 3y agoThe cost of running them isn't relevant. What is relevant: being able to get more light from a limited amount of house/set/generator power, and the control over them. They don't require a dimmer pack, just power and DMX (wired or wireless) to control their brightness, color temperature, activate special in-light effects like flickering/strobing, etc. Some directors prefer the spectrum completeness and profile from tungsten (or the ultimate, carbon-arc, which is virtually indistinguishable from the sun.) I also think there are levels of light that aren't really feasible except with carbon arc because LEDs don't like heat and that limits power density. I don't remember what movie it was, but there's a photo of an enormous balloon light - larger than an entire house - over a farmhouse somewhere in the midwest, at night. Pretty sure it wasn't LEDs as the source, but I could be wrong.
- _kb 3y agoPossibly the set of Nope: https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/xmdx0o/lighting_up_the_set_of_jordan_peeles_nope/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/xmdx0.... Not a balloon, but a big diffuser with a whole bunch of Cineo 410 LED sources.
- NKosmatos 3y agoI'm curious to see what kind of photos they took. Having so many of these huge lights, blasting out 12KWs each, for 4-5.5 hrs just to get a few photos of a plane sounds a little bit too much, but hey who am I to judge :-)
- alexpotato 3y agoI went to college in the late 1990s and I distinctly remember my university had banned halogen lamps. The reasoning was that: - college students are busy/forgetful so will leave the light on - there are times of day where no one would be in a dorm room - BUT that dorm room is a bigger dorm with potentially lots of other students - an unattended halogen lamp could set fire to an object on a desk etc this post feels like a much bigger version of the above