5 ms·

Tiktok video of the event posted to twitter. https://twitter.com/avgeekjake/status/1743474494411608489?s=20 https://twitter.com/avgeekjake/status/1743474494411

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.
  - pinewurst 3y ago
    Not that I have much respect for modern Boeing, but quoting Wikipedia re Dreamliner: “The Boeing 787 has been involved in seven accidents and incidents as of November 2023, with zero fatalities and no hull losses.”
  - chrisbolt 3y ago
    This makes no sense. The Comac 929 is a widebody that is still in the prototype stage, the SSJ100 is a regional jet that competes with the A220 or Embraer (a market where Boeing doesn’t even have a product), and the A320 is not a widebody. No airline replaces Dreamliners with A320s.
  - yread 3y ago
    Why do people with no insight write walls of text on things they don't understand?
    - QuibbleQuota 3y ago
      It’s rather ironic that by claiming their comment lacks credibility without including any counterpoints it makes your comment itself lack credibility too.
- jacurtis 3y ago
  Honestly this might lead to another 737 Max grounding, which will shoot up the cost of airfare. At this point, the 737 Max seems cursed.
  - smackeyacky 3y ago
    It’s not cursed, it’s the inevitable outcome of regulatory capture. That Boeing have suffered little to no consequences from the Max failures is a symptom of an FAA that desperately needs a purge of corrupt processes and officers.
  - postingawayonhn 3y ago
    Not cursed, just poorly designed. They needed to go to clean sheet design.
  - charles_f 3y ago
    From what I remember from the first 737 max incidents, the 737 max was designed as an iteration of 737 limited to the updates that would allow Boeing to bypass re-certification. The upgrades were significant and some, like engine placement, un-natural and clearly driven by regulation bypass. I think it is quite logical that the added complexity results in additional failures. It's going to be quite hard for the public to regain confidence in that aircraft, especially when (as noted elsewhere) Boeing was just now trying to get an exception from the FAA re: certification of the max 7.
  - cm2187 3y ago
    But was that door specific to the max? I would assume previous generations of B737 had the exact same door. It seems to me that this is more an indictment of Boeing's manufacturing than a design flaw specific to the max (well, we will see what actually caused it). If that's the case, this would curse all boeing models.
    - zippergz 3y ago
      I don't think we know that yet. Yes, I have seen many reports that the Max has the "exact same door" as the 737-900, but how confident are we that there wasn't some cost-cutting or "simplification" measure done on newer models, or a change to a cheaper subcontractor building a crucial part, or whatever? There's enough complexity there that I think there could be significant differences while still theoretically staying within the "same design."
higeorge13 3y ago
Wow I couldn’t believe it the first time I watched that video, had to watch it multiple times. Crazy and scary!
jimmysnuka 3y ago
Unreal. Do people not go deaf from the sound of the air coming into the exposed fuselage like that? I would have thought they'd be covering their ears or something.
- baq 3y ago
  Air is going out at that height, not in! Pressure falls so rapidly that it should be rather quiet after a short while.
  - rainbowzootsuit 3y ago
    400MPH with an open window plausibly causes some loud noise due to turbulent flow across the opening. The turbofan engines are also reasonably close to the opening and ground crew wear hearing protection to mitigate the effects of the noise.
    - baq 3y ago
      My assumption was that the air pressure at that height is low enough to not be loud. Yeah it’s moving fast but there isn’t much of it. Different story on the ground.
      - rainbowzootsuit 3y ago
        That's a good thought. Initially the density is pretty normal and I'm sure there's a loud sound, but once pressure drops the air wouldn't transmit as much sound. I don't see enough detail to really know how high they fly once the depressurization happens. I'm guessing that, if possible, they descend to an altitude where the supplementary oxygen is not critical for preserving life so the loudness could go back up. I couldn't find if there's a "typically safe" maximum altitude that is used in depressurization or it's situational. Probably someone with better flightradar knowledge could figure out the altitude with time.
      - rainbowzootsuit 3y ago
        I found this video of the cockpit communications and it looks like they quickly go to 10,000 feet then down to 7,000 feet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29ghXy6O2dc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29ghXy6O2dc FUSELAGE BLOWN OUT MID-AIR | Alaska Emergency at Portland
bonestamp2 3y ago
Fun fact: they dim the interior lights when you're landing at night so your eyes are already adjusted to the darkness if an evacuation is required. It's not always noticeable since they are sometimes already dim (especially on later flights when people might be trying to sleep, but they will turn the lights on for their safety check and then turn them off again).

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.
- pinewurst 3y ago
  Not that I have much respect for modern Boeing, but quoting Wikipedia re Dreamliner: “The Boeing 787 has been involved in seven accidents and incidents as of November 2023, with zero fatalities and no hull losses.”
- chrisbolt 3y ago
  This makes no sense. The Comac 929 is a widebody that is still in the prototype stage, the SSJ100 is a regional jet that competes with the A220 or Embraer (a market where Boeing doesn’t even have a product), and the A320 is not a widebody. No airline replaces Dreamliners with A320s.
- yread 3y ago
  Why do people with no insight write walls of text on things they don't understand?
  - QuibbleQuota 3y ago
    It’s rather ironic that by claiming their comment lacks credibility without including any counterpoints it makes your comment itself lack credibility too.
jacurtis 3y ago
Honestly this might lead to another 737 Max grounding, which will shoot up the cost of airfare. At this point, the 737 Max seems cursed.
- smackeyacky 3y ago
  It’s not cursed, it’s the inevitable outcome of regulatory capture. That Boeing have suffered little to no consequences from the Max failures is a symptom of an FAA that desperately needs a purge of corrupt processes and officers.
- postingawayonhn 3y ago
  Not cursed, just poorly designed. They needed to go to clean sheet design.
- charles_f 3y ago
  From what I remember from the first 737 max incidents, the 737 max was designed as an iteration of 737 limited to the updates that would allow Boeing to bypass re-certification. The upgrades were significant and some, like engine placement, un-natural and clearly driven by regulation bypass. I think it is quite logical that the added complexity results in additional failures. It's going to be quite hard for the public to regain confidence in that aircraft, especially when (as noted elsewhere) Boeing was just now trying to get an exception from the FAA re: certification of the max 7.
- cm2187 3y ago
  But was that door specific to the max? I would assume previous generations of B737 had the exact same door. It seems to me that this is more an indictment of Boeing's manufacturing than a design flaw specific to the max (well, we will see what actually caused it). If that's the case, this would curse all boeing models.
  - zippergz 3y ago
    I don't think we know that yet. Yes, I have seen many reports that the Max has the "exact same door" as the 737-900, but how confident are we that there wasn't some cost-cutting or "simplification" measure done on newer models, or a change to a cheaper subcontractor building a crucial part, or whatever? There's enough complexity there that I think there could be significant differences while still theoretically staying within the "same design."

higeorge13 3y ago

Wow I couldn’t believe it the first time I watched that video, had to watch it multiple times. Crazy and scary!

jimmysnuka 3y ago

Unreal. Do people not go deaf from the sound of the air coming into the exposed fuselage like that? I would have thought they'd be covering their ears or something.

baq 3y ago
Air is going out at that height, not in! Pressure falls so rapidly that it should be rather quiet after a short while.
- rainbowzootsuit 3y ago
  400MPH with an open window plausibly causes some loud noise due to turbulent flow across the opening. The turbofan engines are also reasonably close to the opening and ground crew wear hearing protection to mitigate the effects of the noise.
  - baq 3y ago
    My assumption was that the air pressure at that height is low enough to not be loud. Yeah it’s moving fast but there isn’t much of it. Different story on the ground.
    - rainbowzootsuit 3y ago
      That's a good thought. Initially the density is pretty normal and I'm sure there's a loud sound, but once pressure drops the air wouldn't transmit as much sound. I don't see enough detail to really know how high they fly once the depressurization happens. I'm guessing that, if possible, they descend to an altitude where the supplementary oxygen is not critical for preserving life so the loudness could go back up. I couldn't find if there's a "typically safe" maximum altitude that is used in depressurization or it's situational. Probably someone with better flightradar knowledge could figure out the altitude with time.
    - rainbowzootsuit 3y ago
      I found this video of the cockpit communications and it looks like they quickly go to 10,000 feet then down to 7,000 feet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29ghXy6O2dc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29ghXy6O2dc FUSELAGE BLOWN OUT MID-AIR | Alaska Emergency at Portland

bonestamp2 3y ago

Fun fact: they dim the interior lights when you're landing at night so your eyes are already adjusted to the darkness if an evacuation is required. It's not always noticeable since they are sometimes already dim (especially on later flights when people might be trying to sleep, but they will turn the lights on for their safety check and then turn them off again).