3 ms·

So 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 pre

by LASR 3y ago

So 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 ago
Since it has happened before I don't think there will be any such regulations.
buildsjets 3y ago
Aircraft 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.
- wkipling 3y ago
  The walk around is not required to be done by the captain. It's not a checklist but a visual inspection of the aircraft as per the FCOM. Also the engineer who signed off the aircraft will do a walk around. The location of these windows might have made it hard to spot the damage.
nomel 3y ago
> How are there no regulations that should have prevented or caught this? I bet there will be now. I would think a pressure check would be trivial. I would also assume a visual inspection is part of takeoff (camera or human). I assume this sort of thing is rare enough to not warrant the extra time/cost of these trivialities.

by LASR 3y ago

jacquesm 3y ago

Since it has happened before I don't think there will be any such regulations.

buildsjets 3y ago

Aircraft 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.
wkipling 3y ago
The walk around is not required to be done by the captain. It's not a checklist but a visual inspection of the aircraft as per the FCOM. Also the engineer who signed off the aircraft will do a walk around. The location of these windows might have made it hard to spot the damage.

nomel 3y ago

> How are there no regulations that should have prevented or caught this? I bet there will be now. I would think a pressure check would be trivial. I would also assume a visual inspection is part of takeoff (camera or human). I assume this sort of thing is rare enough to not warrant the extra time/cost of these trivialities.