19 ms·

Alaska Airlines 737 Max makes emergency landing due to depressurization

• I_Am_Nous 3y ago
  Yeah, sure Boeing, let's just give your planes a pass to get them in the air...this is literally the last headline they needed.
  • ShakataGaNai 3y ago
    If it's Boeing, I ain't going.
  • randycupertino 3y ago
    "If it's Boeing, I'm not going." I was on a flight that made and emergency landing once, it was TERRIFYING. The pilot circled once then we went down at a very steep angle. What was even worse was the three days we were stranded in Gander Newfoundland while they fixed the plane and then flew in a new crew. It was basically an refueling/military base and not a real airport, no food or facilities. After that I never flew without my toothbrush, change of clothes and contact solution in my carry on.
    • tmpz22 3y ago
      Thats a decent setup for a Hallmark movie - two travelers stranded and isolated find love through the zaney activities used to pass time in a remote locale.
      • ceejayoz 3y ago
        There's real-life precedent. In the same Gander, Newfoundland, even. https://people.com/human-interest/couple-who-met-because-of-9-11-are-marking-19-years-of-marriage/ https://people.com/human-interest/couple-who-met-because-of-...
        • TylerE 3y ago
          That's a very common (emergency) stopping point because it's the last major airport for Eastbound planes headed to Europe, at least until you get to Greenland.
        • tempestn 3y ago
          And a fantastic musical based on that grounding of planes in Gander: https://comefromaway.com/ https://comefromaway.com/
      • kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
        Perfect for a Broadway play.
        • tempestn 3y ago
          Indeed: https://comefromaway.com/ https://comefromaway.com/
      • SonicScrub 3y ago
        Pretty sure that's exactly one of the subplots of Come from Away
      • randycupertino 3y ago
        Heh. Although was it was a very NON-ROMANTIC situation!! We all were in the same clothes for four days and people were getting majorly drunk and throwing up because the flight crew gave away all the alcohol from the plane to apologize for the delay. I've never felt more gross in my life or had a nicer shower in my life than that first one after we finally landed, got to the location and finally relaxed. Mainly it was not having a toothbrush that was the worst!
      • nikau 3y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planes,_Trains_and_Automobiles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planes,_Trains_and_Automobiles
      • amatecha 3y ago
        Oh yeah, they thought of that! https://www.hallmarkchannel.com/christmas-island https://www.hallmarkchannel.com/christmas-island
    • markdown 3y ago
      > After that I never flew without my toothbrush, change of clothes and contact solution in my carry on. You used to fly without those things? :O
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      • abracadaniel 3y ago
        Some people check everything, but it’s a good idea to have enough stuff in your carry on to get you through a lost bag situation.
      • krisoft 3y ago
        It is more common than you can think of. Especially when people have a “base” both in their departure and destination locations. For example i know a couple living a long distance relationship. They both have enough stuff at each others place so that they can travel very light. Now of course it sucks if you suddenly get stranded in between, but it is not life threatening just an inconvenience. And from then on it is just a tradeoff. You can gain a small bit of regular convenience for the cost of risking a rare but moderate inconvenience.
      • numpad0 3y ago
        People go everywhere all the time without a couple of Snickers bars and/or Walkers style shortbreads or equivalents, some wet wipes, a disposable fork, a 3-port power strip, and a bottle of unsweetened beverage. Unbelievable by my standards, because those items had saved me time and again from my frequent time mismanagements, but not everyone is on an exact same standard.
    • camel_gopher 3y ago
      Holy shit I know someone who was in that flight
      • randycupertino 3y ago
        Ha, maybe I know you irl. Although it's a pretty common emergency landing and refueling spot for cross Atlantic flights. I think a lot of the 9-11 planes got grounded there, there's a nice book about how the local population of Canadians in Gander supported the giant sudden influx of population from the grounded flights. https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/148775 https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/148775
    • bombcar 3y ago
      If it makes you feel any better, planes can operate much “wider” than they normally do for the comfort of the passengers. If you ever watch the takeoff profile of a FedEx or UPS plane compared to the airlines, they turn much harder because they’ve no passengers to complain.
    • thesnide 3y ago
      in the context of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38882358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38882358 i'll soon opt out of boeing operated flights indeed
  • pxeboot 3y ago
    Especially if this happened because they left the anti-icing system on too long.
• mjevans 3y ago
  Alternate, non Twitter, link. https://katu.com/news/local/alaska-airlines-flight-1282-returns-to-pdx-after-a-depressurization-just-after-takeoff-boeing-737-max https://katu.com/news/local/alaska-airlines-flight-1282-retu...
  • carbocation 3y ago
    The nomenclature is interesting. In my mind, a "depressurization event" would imply that the biggest problem was the depressurization. In other words, that there was not a big gaping structural hole. If there can be a big hole in the plane and we can call that a "depressurization event", I would like to advocate for changing how we describe this.
    • function_seven 3y ago
      Man gets shot in the leg. Femoral artery hit. Cause of death: "hypotensive event"
      • carbocation 3y ago
        I know you're kidding, but we're trained to avoid making that mistake in assignment of cause of death (and in states where I've lived, they give clear instructions on the death paperwork to remind you not to make that kind of mistake)!
      • bananapub 3y ago
        this is extremely common in the US, look at almost any headline in a mainstream newspaper about the police murdering someone.
    • TylerE 3y ago
      Aviation is very careful to use specific phraseology. It's a Big Deal(tm) to avoid ambiguity.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
• toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Lost a window and an unoccupied seat per https://old.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/18znz5p/as_1282_kpdx_to_kont_diverted_for_rapid/ https://old.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/18znz5p/as_1282_k... > According to FAA record posted online, the Boeing 737-9 MAX rolled off the assembly line just two months ago, receiving its certification in November 2023. Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38882358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38882358 (“HN: Boeing wants FAA to exempt MAX 7 from safety rules to get it in the air“)
  • arrakeenrevived 3y ago
    The pictures clearly show that the seat is still there. It also wasn't a window... that's a plug for an unused emergency exit location. Planes have spots in the fuselage where emergency exits can be placed if the aircraft is configured with enough seats where it needs more exits. This one wasn't, so instead of an emergency exit, there's a plug bolted into the spot instead. Would have to guess that there was a defect in this one though...
    • ceejayoz 3y ago
      > Would have to guess that there was a defect in this one though... "The Front Fell Off" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM
    • toomuchtodo 3y ago
      My citation could be inaccurate, Reddit post edit indicates only partial seat loss. > Second photo shows it wasn’t the full seat. Still couldn’t imagine sitting next to a gaping hole in the aircraft.
    • Animats 3y ago
      It's not a plug door. It's an outward-opening door, apparently. [1] Usually, those things are plugs, and have to be pulled inward to open them, which is not possible when the cabin is pressurized. But there are B-737 configurations where it's an outward-opening door. For those, when there's a door installed, there's a single solenoid to prevent opening it in flight.[2] Is there some kind of dummy door that's installed if that location is not set up as an exit? I'd thought that outward-opening doors on passenger aircraft had gone away after the DC-10 disasters with them.[3] Apparently not. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFNU0cc29OQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFNU0cc29OQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Zyxy3naQh0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Zyxy3naQh0 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_96 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_96
• voisin 3y ago
  Rolled off the assembly line just two months ago.
• mustardboy 3y ago
  Tiktok video of the event posted to twitter. https://twitter.com/avgeekjake/status/1743474494411608489?s=20 https://twitter.com/avgeekjake/status/1743474494411608489?s=...
  • Morte42 3y ago
    Man.. if I hadnt seen it I wouldn't have believed it.That is absurd. How the FAA keeps approving this junk from Boeing is even more concerning than how bad Boeing manufacturing has become.
    • gigatexal 3y ago
      Yeah … I kinda wanna make sure we fly airbus planes now cuz what is going on with Boeing’s QA?
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      • irrational 3y ago
        Went from an engineering company to an MBA company.
        • bonestamp2 3y ago
          Sadly, that's the story of most great technology and manufacturing companies of the past. Maximizing profit is a good thing that a healthy company should do, but if it wants to remain a healthy company in the future then it should not be done "at all costs"... Profit needs to be balanced with: safety, quality, and the humans who research, create, and manufacture the products. Too much emphasis is put on the one person at the very top who often makes decisions that sacrifice safety, quality, and the humans who research, create, and manufacture the products.
    • nimbius 3y ago
      not much choice. Boeing is practically the only US manufacturer of widebody passenger jets and enjoys a privileged position as such. there is literally no other American competition for passenger air. Alternatives include the Chinese Comac 929, Sukhoi SSJ100, or A320 from Airbus. the first two are non-starters as most north american politicians are furiously opposed to the idea of carriers so much as looking at chinese or russian passenger jets. the A320 on the other hand, while arguably a better widebody jet than anything Boeing has ever produced, has the same political hand-wringing and strong arming from lobbyists and airline executives alike. American Airlines replaced a chunk of their fleet with the A320 because the Dreamliner was literally killing about as many people as it managed to transport when it wasnt down for loose bolts or reboots due to battery issues. Given enough time and without meaningful reform and intervention by Washington, Boeing will literally hand the win over to these 3 other competitors just like AT&T handed over 5G to Huawei. Ironic considering Airbus was originally a Boeing joint venture.
• amluto 3y ago
  Better link: https://old.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/18znz5p/as_1282_kpdx_to_kont_diverted_for_rapid/ https://old.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/18znz5p/as_1282_k... (The tweet is just referencing this and a flighradar track, poorly.)
  • dang 3y ago
    Thanks! a mod changed the URL to that from https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1743460035135476030 https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1743460035135476030 above.
• tigeroil 3y ago
  It's Alaska Airlines. I wouldn't read too much into Boeing's reliability from this, given Alaska's previous maintenance record...
  • ceejayoz 3y ago
    It's a two-month old plane. That's not much time to fall into disrepair.
    • tigeroil 3y ago
      Yeah must admit I think I jumped the gun a bit there. Reading about it a bit more it seems like this is a major manufacturing cock-up that this was even possible.
      • pinewurst 3y ago
        https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/boeing-must-inspect-thousands-of-holes-on-some-165-stored-737-max/154855.article https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/boeing-must-inspect-...
    • tass 3y ago
      If an inspection done after going into service involved removing/replacing that door, it could have been done incorrectly. There really is no way to know what happened without more research, and I’m confident the priority will be to understand if this was a one off or widespread issue.
  • shreezus 3y ago
    Aren’t maintenance protocols handled by the FAA? Otherwise it would be implied that budget carriers like Spirit or Alaska would be “less” safe (which isn’t the case AFAIK).
    • kaelinl 3y ago
      In what way is Alaska a "budget carrier"? Maintenance protocols are a mix of manufacturer recommendations and carrier/maintenance contractor SOPs, which are then approved by the manufacturer and FAA.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• drewcon 3y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38882358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38882358 From today on HN.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• dotcoma 3y ago
  I am not flying airlines that buy this crap airplane anymore.
  • gnulinux 3y ago
    Is there a list of airlines with MAX? I seriously don't want to fly in this death machine ever.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • sakjur 3y ago
      From elsewhere in this conversation, asimpleusecase linked https://www.alternativeairlines.com/airlines-not-flying-boeing-737-max https://www.alternativeairlines.com/airlines-not-flying-boei...
    • whitepoplar 3y ago
      I'd recommend searching Google Flights with the "Legrooms for Google Flights" Chrome extension. Not only does it visibly list each aircraft type in the list of search results, but it also shows you how many inches of legroom each one has. One of the most useful Chrome extensions, IMO.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• pinewurst 3y ago
  It wasn’t just a window, the whole exit door plug blew out.
  • adamredwoods 3y ago
    And a child lost their shirt.
    • peteradio 3y ago
      [flagged]
• hindsightbias 3y ago
  They’re building like one of these a day, mistakes get made. There’s nothing comparable to this assembly complexity in the computer world.
  • lxgr 3y ago
    Aviation safety culture is indeed not comparable to that in software, and arguably that’s a very good thing (for aviation).
  • panick21_ 3y ago
    Except, you know, this thing called the Airbus A320 NEO. You know the thing that is more modern and produced at a higher rate. Somehow that doesn't seem to have doors falling of. So your statement is objectively wrong.
• addicted 3y ago
  > The Boeing 737-9 MAX rolled off the assembly line just two months ago, receiving its certification in November 2023, according to FAA record posted online. It’s 2 months old, so poor maintenance, wear and tear, etc are not even minor factors. This is just a poorly made plane with awful quality control. And that’s even before we get into some of the design issues, both the shortcuts they’ve taken and ones that are more fundamental.
  • russdill 3y ago
    It's not even an operable door.
  • supportengineer 3y ago
    Was it made at the plant in North Carolina? Or in Seattle?
    • plegresl 3y ago
      Fuselage assembled by Spirt AeroSystems in Wichita, KS with final assembly by Boeing in the Seattle area
    • MilStdJunkie 3y ago
      Stan and the gang will try and pawn this off on Spirit, but Renton is supposed to do high blow[1]. It's one of the last things that gets done, with hydraulics and suchlike. I'm just guessing here, but I bet someone waived a batch of Spirit stuff through the process to get more units out the door. "Eh, this whole block is probably fine". False Equivalence strikes again[2]. [1] Simulated full pressurization, often many of them [2] And yeah. Spirit's got problems. But those problems wouldn't be problems if Boeing didn't sell off BCA's Wichita fuse fab to investment bankers back in 2005 as "Spirit". It's a pretty good name, since it's what some religions think is left behind after you're dead.
      • 19h 3y ago
        Please, Stan the Man will blame the pilots, the passengers, the Wright brothers themselves before admitting Boeing screwed up again. Accountability left that company years ago.
• vlovich123 3y ago
  Is the FAA going to drag their feet again grounding this plane until the problem is root caused?
  • dclowd9901 3y ago
    I’d be willing to bet all planes built in the last year or so will be grounded immediately. As for others, possibly if they determine the issue is long standing and we’ve just been lucky.
    • inferiorhuman 3y ago
      Alaska just grounded all their MAX-9s. http://web.archive.org/web/20240106075153/https://news.alaskaair.com/alaska-airlines/operations/as-1282/ http://web.archive.org/web/20240106075153/https://news.alask...
      • stouset 3y ago
        Because it makes sense to double check your maintenance when you just experienced an issue overwhelmingly likely to be related to maintenance. These same exact exit plugs have been in service without issue since at least 2007. > Each aircraft will be returned to service only after completion of full maintenance and safety inspections. We anticipate all inspections will be completed in the next few days.
        • inferiorhuman 3y ago
          > you just experienced an issue overwhelmingly likely to be related to maintenance What maintenance? The plane was barely two months old and the part that failed was meant to be something installed permanently, not an emergency exit door that would probably see regular inspections. It's probably "just" sloppy assembly from Boeing/Spirit, which, yes, merit a grounding and inspection.
          • stouset 3y ago
• perihelions 3y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38887840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38887840 (53 comments)
• ro_bit 3y ago
  > Alaska flight 1282 left Portland just after 5pm local time on Friday when an emergency door blew out at 16,000 feet. If this happened at cruising altitude with a higher pressure differential, would the plane survive? (I know generally the door won't open at that altitude since they open inward, but I assume the same forces wouldn't do anything to prevent a window blowout)
  • sitic 3y ago
    Southwest Airlines Flight 1380's window was broken at 32,000 feet, the plane survived but one passenger was sucked part way out the broken window and died of her injuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380 https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/falling-through-the-cracks-the-near-crash-of-southwest-airlines-flight-1380-e81ea2aff7fb https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/falling-through-the-crac...
  • DavidPastrnak 3y ago
    The Aloha Airlines Flight 243 incident took place at 24,000 feet. > The captain felt the aircraft roll to the left and right, and the controls went loose; the first officer noticed pieces of grey insulation floating in the cockpit. The cockpit door had broken away and the captain could see "blue sky where the first-class ceiling had been. > The crew declared an emergency and diverted to Kahului Airport for an emergency landing. During the approach to the airport, the left engine failed, and the flight crew was unsure if the nose gear was lowered correctly. Nevertheless, they were able to land normally on Runway 2, thirteen minutes after the incident. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243
    • bell-cot 3y ago
      Admiral Cloudberg's account is far better: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/falling-to-pieces-the-near-crash-of-aloha-airlines-flight-243-18f28c03f27b https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/falling-to-pieces-the-ne...
• aurareturn 3y ago
  Last month, I consciously chose a flight from the same airline that used an Airbus plane over a Boeing plane. I wonder if airlines have data showing that their Airbus flights are more popular than Boeing flights after adjusting differences.
  • fatnoah 3y ago
    I absolutely refuse to book any flight with a MAX aircraft.
    • aurareturn 3y ago
      I chose a flight using an Airbus 350 over a 787. I remember reading an article about how some Boeing employees are surprised the 787 planes don’t have more issues because their warnings about quality issues are ignored.
      • dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
        Besides not being a deathtrap, the A350 also has wider seats in economy due to a wider fuselage.
        • arcticbull 3y ago
          Same with the A318/319/320/321 vs the 737. The widest appear to be the C-Series/A220 - in my experience pretty consistently 19"+.
        • brigade 3y ago
          Not for long, 10 abreast will almost certainly become the standard configuration with the NPS models
        • Aeolun 3y ago
          It can also survive a colision with another aircraft while landing, and people can survive inside it for 20 minutes while it is literally on fire. That’s pretty compelling.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• dylan604 3y ago
  Did they shoot a movie with the plane before take off? https://www.npr.org/2023/11/10/1212144515/plane-missing-window-london-us https://www.npr.org/2023/11/10/1212144515/plane-missing-wind...
  • jascination 3y ago
    Jesus, that's bad.
  • tgv 3y ago
    That just shows: you never know. Perhaps something had been done to this plane too, indeed. The only thing I would exclude at this point is bad maintenance. It's so unlikely that that part needed maintenance in less than 2 months. But your example shows we really should wait for the report. And inspect similar planes in the mean time.
• RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
  Boeing is playing off its role as being so vital to national security that the government will keep it from suffering too much loss. Fair enough. However, if that is the case, then the bean counting management is guilty of sabotaging US national security by running Boeing into the ground for short term profits. The entire C-Suite of Boeing should be sentenced to multi-decade prison terms at IDF SuperMax for their selling out US National security for profit.
  • ametrau 3y ago
    > The entire C-Suite of Boeing should be sentenced to multi-decade prison terms at IDF SuperMax for their selling out US National security for profit. 100%
  • philwelch 3y ago
    > Boeing is playing off its role as being so vital to national security that the government will keep it from suffering too much loss. I don’t actually think this is true. Boeing has a terrible track record with defense contracts in recent years. They lost the KC-X tanker competition to Airbus before Boeing lobbied to overturn the decision, they lost the JSF competition to the Lockheed Martin F-35, and they (in partnership with Sikorsky) lost the Black Hawk replacement competition to Bell. Super Hornet production is ending next year and Osprey production could probably be turned over to Bell. No, it’s less that Boeing is vital to national security and more that Boeing is a government jobs program. It’s the jobs—not Boeing’s importance to national security—that has influenced powerful senators like Patty Murray and Lindsay Graham to put their thumbs on the scale.
• lessbergstein 3y ago
  [flagged]
• justsomeoldguy 3y ago
  These guys gotta get away from windows. The procedure of opening and closing your windows is just not a good idea at altitude. Switch to Linux today :)
• hipadev23 3y ago
  Boeing is so fucked as a company. How many critical failures are we at now?
• TheAceOfHearts 3y ago
  Do you think there will be any accountability from Boeing executives? Boeing hasn't had a lot of good press in the last few years, will leadership ever be held accountable? There was a time when Boeing was considered a very trustworthy and reliable company, is this the result of a decline in an engineering-focused culture? Edit: Many of the comments in this thread mention that they avoid the 737 MAX whenever possible. Maybe if enough people start to boycott these unsafe airplanes that would result in more economic pressure and lead to improvements?
  • nvy 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • Hamuko 3y ago
      >This is probably "just" a maintenance issue. >The Boeing 737-9 MAX rolled off the assembly line just two months ago, receiving its certification in November 2023, according to FAA record posted online. How does the maintenance crew fuck up a plane this badly in the span of two months?
      • nvy 3y ago
        Well, this is my field so let's calm down for a sec and dispense with the hyperbole. The plane itself is not "fucked"; my understanding is the aircraft landed safely and nobody was injured. The door/window that departed the aircraft is a serious incident that will be investigated. There will be a report produced that identifies the root cause(s). >How does the maintenance crew fuck up a plane this badly in the span of two months? Are you under the impression that aircraft maintenance works like car maintenance, where you just change the oil every so often? Lots and lots of things get removed and replaced on a regular basis. It's entirely possible somebody just didn't install the door properly after removing it for a routine inspection. It's a big deal and a serious incident but these things do happen from time to time, even at name-brand airlines. I'm all for lambasting Boeing but let's stop frothing at the mouth until we see the report.
• isuckatcoding 3y ago
  Is there a way to know when booking flights what whether this plane is going to be used?
  • pxeboot 3y ago
    It is usually listed somewhere during the reservation process, but they reserve the right to switch aircraft type, and frequently do.
• blindriver 3y ago
  The other article today about Boeing trying to exempt themselves from safety regulations for the 737 MAX is pretty timely. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38882358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38882358
  • Schiendelman 3y ago
    Unfortunately, it’s kind of overblown. That particular exemption already exists for the 8 and 9, they just haven’t granted it specifically for the 7 yet. It’s not clear that there’s any issue there.
    • charles_f 3y ago
      It might be related to the crash of two MAX-8 (albeit not American ones), after the same exemption was given to it. It would be understandable that the FAA would be more cautious.
    • fieldcny 3y ago
      Nice summary of the comments from that post, unfortunately zero people there actually know what differences or mitigations are in place for the 8 & 9 that aren’t relevant for the 7 & 10. Given Boeings absolutely atrocious safety record with the Max, I’m not similarly inclined to believe a bunch of speculation about regulators being dumb
    • wavemode 3y ago
      This is true, though one could argue the exemption shouldn't have been granted to 8 and 9 in the first place.
• asimpleusecase 3y ago
  How to find a flight Without a 737-Max https://www.alternativeairlines.com/airlines-not-flying-boeing-737-max https://www.alternativeairlines.com/airlines-not-flying-boei...
  • odiroot 3y ago
    This website doesn't work so well. Didn't filter out any of LOT flights with B737-MAX8.
• chris-orgmenta 3y ago
  This might be the one. Doesn't matter what turns out to be root cause here. The Max might finally get the critical mass of brand damage here. Especially if Daily Mail et al are reporting it in the headlines. Boeing might be properly held accountable* for their previous mistake, now. IMO the previous outcome did not seem fair to 'consumers' / victims, and did not seem to be an appropriate deterrent / incentive for future QC/QA improvements. *The company - I don't hold hope for holding execs accountable.
• cm2187 3y ago
  What strikes me with the ATC recording is that I can barely hear what they say (and that's the case with almost every ATC recording I heard before). And that's without being in a noisy environment (plane in flight). Is the quality really that bad? Doesn't that cause miscommunications? It seems like a fairly fixable problem in 2024.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • anderiv 3y ago
    The receivers for LiveATC and the like are frequently somewhat compromised in terms of quality and location. This can cause poor quality reception depending on the location and distance away of the transmitter. The radios and antennas on both the aircraft and for ATC are not only of much higher quality but are also positioned as perfectly as possible so as to maximize Tx/Rx performance. All that to say, the pilots and ATC nearly always experience more clear comms than the general public has access to.
    • elygre 3y ago
      Is there any particular liveatc channel/location that offers a representative view of actual quality?
      • bombcar 3y ago
        Find one quite close to an airport. From my experience as a small plane pilot, radio comms is almost always quite clear. The antennas and radios are aimed “at the planes” not at receivers on the ground, after all.
    • roelschroeven 3y ago
      Not long ago I took a short trip in a small Cessna (I think it was a 152). The audio quality in the headphones wasn't any better than what I hear on those ATC YouTube channels. I didn't understand a word of it (well, that's not quite true, I understood some words here and there; not nearly enough to be able to safely fly). A Cessna 152 is not an airliner, obviously, but I would think audio quality shouldn't differ all that much between them.
• qxfys 3y ago
  For the past two months, I have been avoiding 4 737max flights already. This is to the extent that one of them was to transit for 10 hours (without max), compared to a 2-hour convenient layover with 737max. I guess this will stay as my personal rule of thumb for the foreseeable future.
  • bombcar 3y ago
    If we “assume” the eight hour distance is “life lost” and based on your age and average life expectancy, I wonder what the mathematical actuarial tables say.
  • bitwidget 3y ago
    You're spending an extra 8 hours to marginally (at best) improve safety? I'd be willing to bet good money that you partake in wildly more risky activity (such as driving or even walking down the street). This feels almost like virtue signaling without it being virtue signaling.
    • MaxBarraclough 3y ago
      Correct, this isn't rational. Had the same discussion yesterday in another thread - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38886355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38886355
    • bormaj 3y ago
      Statistically it might be safe, but the vast majority of people are still going to make decisions based on perceived risk. As a customer, how else can you send your feedback to Boeing (and the airlines) that this level of perceived risk is unacceptable? It's clear there are issues at the company and Boeing is unlikely to respond unless there are financial consequences.
      • bitwidget 3y ago
        Call me a betting man, but I'd be willing to bet yet even more money that at least 95% of people don't even know what plane they're getting on during their trip. And of that 5% left, only a handful people would rebook their flights at an increased expense of money/time to signal to Boeing that 737 max is unsafe. The handful of people doing it are bordering on virtue signaling. With that said, however, I really dislike Boeing's recent decisions and the safety issues that have come up. I do agree that Boeing needs to face financial consequences, but I don't believe that customers have any power in this situation. Realistically, airlines and governing authorities would have the most impact and if they don't see issues big enough with Boeing to stop ordering planes, there isn't much else to do.
• amatecha 3y ago
  Hearing stories like this over the years is why I always wear the seatbelt during the entirety of any flight... Just one of those small things that could make all the difference in a sudden emergency situation.
  • bombcar 3y ago
    Always wear the seatbelt! Even if nothing happens, turbulence can throw you out of your seat, and there’s really no comfort difference.
• talldatethrow 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • protastus 3y ago
    In the US, tech sucks all the oxygen out of the room (no pun intended). When so much top talent is locked up by big tech, who's left to design planes at Boeing, write software for GM, run for office?
    • talldatethrow 3y ago
      I have a feeling there was a decent mechanical engineer also applying to work at boeing at the same time. But my friend did check that diversity box. The same one that helps you earn your bonus at Microsoft.
    • panick21_ 3y ago
      This is nonsense in my opinion. SpaceX exists and did a lot of work with young engineers. The problem isn't the engineers but the management. There are plenty of smart and hard working people in the US. Its ridiculous to believe that GM is fundamentally unable to recruit software people. Tesla did it just fine, as a small company with less money. Its rather management that systematically for 30+ years has considered software to be unnecessary and pushed it as far down the supply chain as they could.
      • protastus 3y ago
        I think my thesis is non-controversial and entirely obvious. So I suspect we diverge on definitions rather than have a factual disagreement. Tesla is big tech (today). SpaceX isn't only because it is niche, and hasn't gone public. Both are 20 years old, and have for the last two decades been the most exciting companies in their respective segments, by far. This allows them to compete very favorably. GM is boring, slow and makes many public mistakes. GM filed for bankruptcy in 2009. It has to pay a significant premium to hire equivalent talent and offers significant career risk, especially to young employees.
  • 3y ago
• talldatethrow 3y ago
  Video of open hole mid flight on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@strawberr.vy/video/7320798084869393710?_t=8inX18wC2Cw&_r=1 https://www.tiktok.com/@strawberr.vy/video/73207980848693937...
  • drtgh 3y ago
    @strawberr.vy/elizabethle videos on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaONLEa8LFE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaONLEa8LFE Note: different cuts from the above TikTok video, it is not exactly the same edit. ( From related https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38889774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38889774 )
• leemailll 3y ago
  Bolts on the rudder could be loose and now this, would it required for grounding all the max for safety examination?
• bilekas 3y ago
  "So Alaska airlines don't want that extra emergency door" Boeing - "Hold my beer, I think I have some duct tape around here somewhere"
  • inferiorhuman 3y ago
    Why would they? For the number of seats they had, the extra emergency exits aren't required. Installing the extra doors would mean more things to inspect or go wrong. If you want to get hung up on the emergency exits, consider why every modern airliner has doors that are easier (power assist) to open in an emergency but the 737 has doors that are more difficult to open in an emergency.
    • baq 3y ago
      > Installing the extra doors would mean more things to inspect or go wrong. Yeah, I guess. Facts don’t agree though.
    • bilekas 3y ago
      I don't have an issue with not taking the extra emergency exit. I have a problem with Boeing's implementation
• Havoc 3y ago
  Getting harder to trust Boeing by the day - clearly a pervasive culture problem
• kingTug 3y ago
  I always wonder if passengers are compensated for like.. the trauma? The videos going around on Twitter show the oxygen masks dropped and people chatting in their seats about thinking they were going to die. Seems like a fine line between manufacturing "shortcuts" and criminal negligence.
• trenchgun 3y ago
  I am never going to set foot on a 737 MAX.
• edward 3y ago
  There's a write up on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_1282 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_1282
• jedisct1 3y ago
  Is it the same plane as the one with software that was outsourced to $9/hour engineers that had no experience with aeronautics? https://www.industryweek.com/supply-chain/article/22027840/boeings-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9anhour-engineers https://www.industryweek.com/supply-chain/article/22027840/b...
• sandworm101 3y ago
  Credit where credit is due. This plane obvisouly suffered a massive rapid decompression. But it didn't crash. All the other engineering and safety systems functioned to absorb and mitigate this damage, getting everyone back on the ground safely. That is saying something. Airliners have survived much much worse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243
  • sccxy 3y ago
    Sorry, but 2 months old aircraft failure should not get any credit.
    • sandworm101 3y ago
      Aircraft are not minivans. Whether a ship, large truck, aircraft, power plant, datacenter, or new house, its is normal for complex systems to suffer more faults when brand new. This was a dramatic and unacceptable fault, but the idea that brand new planes sould have fewer faults than those a few years older doesnt mesh with the reality of such complex and dynamic products.
      • passwordoops 3y ago
        737 MAX is no longer "brand new" 737 MAX was already grounded for fatal safety issues that should have prevented it from being deemed airworthy in the first place. Boeing recently argued safety shouldn't be a concern for the 737 MAX Boeing clearly appreciates shareholder value above safety and quality. Which you cannot have for systems this complex
        • sandworm101 3y ago
          The 737 max product line is not new. This individual aircraft is only two months out of certification. By large aircraft standards, that is showroom new.
      • sorokod 3y ago
• tw1984 3y ago
  Nice title, the airplane lost one of its doors, there is thus a huge hole on the body. Yeah, depressurized. Very accurate description.
• josemanuel 3y ago
  I really want badly to boycott Boeing. It's seems impossible that on some routes we do not have alternative to Boeing planes. Consumers should be allowed to decide with their wallet. Isn't that the whole purpose of the Capitalist system?!
  • leadingthenet 3y ago
    Weeelll, it's a duopoly, and consumers rarely get details about the aircraft prior to booking their tickets. So we have at best an indirect say in what planes get acquired and used by the airline. Booking sites like Kayak let you filter flights by aircraft model, but it's a pretty rare feature from what I've seen.
• _heimdall 3y ago
  I can only assume that this is going to lead to a ton of noise and anger with very little change, unfortunately. Boeing will investigate, regulators will rattle sabers, and the public will be very loud about this for a week until the next news cycle rolls around. We prioritize convenience above all else. The easy answer here is people could just not fly if we're actually concerned with Boeing or the industry in general. We don't have to fly, but it is convenient so we'd rather make a lot of noise about the headline without making any meaningful change. It sounds nice to expect the FAA or Boeing or whoever else to fix this, why do we so often skip the actual power we have by simply not spending our money there?
  • junofan 3y ago
    For the same reason I can’t operate an orbital rocketry program out of my backyard. Dangerous stuff in the sky is dangerous to everybody on the ground, too.
    • _heimdall 3y ago
      I'm not quite sure the connection here. What does running a rocketry program have to do with whether one chooses to fly on someone else's plane?
      • djbusby 3y ago
        Stuff in the air is the connection.
  • tim333 3y ago
    Me not spending a flight will have zero effect on Boeing. The FAA threatening to ground their planes will however get their attention. The FAA actually do quite a good job and if anything are maybe a bit over the top in enforcing saftey given that for most people there is near zero risk of dying in a plane crash compared to a lot of stuff that people do die regularly from.
    • _heimdall 3y ago
• nemo44x 3y ago
  So, with the window open does that mean it’s ok to smoke?
• friedaanton 3y ago
  [dead]
• chaostheory 3y ago
  Alaska Airlines only has the 2nd largest fleet of 737 Max planes in the US. United Airlines has the largest fleet of airlines in the US.
• foverzar 3y ago
  Can't help but remember a recent discussion about Russian planes and how it all sucks "because alcoholism". Wonder if those full-of-themselves people will blame fentanyl and weed here, hehehehe. Feels kind of karmic.
  • savanaly 3y ago
    Why carry on a toxic and flame-war prone conversation in a new thread?
    • foverzar 3y ago
      Why not have some sense of humor? What kind of policing is this anyway? Does pointing out the irony of the fact that Boeing forgot how to build planes feels kinda butthurt compared to being supremacist about technology? Well it actually should. And this topic SHOULD be inflammatory and provocative. It would be totally weird if everyone is fine with this. Its not like supremacist outlook on tech has nothing to do with deteriorating quality of that tech anyway.
• tobinfekkes 3y ago
  ...as I board an Alaska 737-9 (not Max). Phew!!
• tedd4u 3y ago
  The Air Current reports [1] that the same aircraft experienced pressurization warnings on two flights the prior day. [1] https://theaircurrent.com/feed/dispatches/alaska-737-max-9-that-lost-deactivated-exit-had-recent-pressurization-issues/ https://theaircurrent.com/feed/dispatches/alaska-737-max-9-t...
  • Tylast 3y ago
    I'm surprised that this aspect isn't discussed more. Alaska Airlines knew this plane had a problem, but chose to fly it anyway. Ughhh!
• Waterluvian 3y ago
  Was everyone wearing seatbelts or did they have a chance to get them on? I’m curious how vaccuumy it was.