4 ms·

Frothing at the mouth is exactly what is called for here. A plane that loses a big chunk is indeed “fucked”, the only reason someone didn’t die is that that pa

Frothing at the mouth is exactly what is called for here. A plane that loses a big chunk is indeed “fucked”, the only reason someone didn’t die is that that particular seat wasn’t occupied. There should have been many many redundant safety systems and procedures here with either didn’t exist or failed. People should be out for blood because there are obviously serious problems at both Boeing and the FAA. This was not a near miss, this was a 10 out of 10 failure of the kind which should never happen. The NTSB report will indeed show much but there is no reason to not demand congressional hearings and criminal investigations immediately. Everyone on that plane should start a class action suit against the FAA and Boeing immediately.

raverbashing 3y ago
I'm not standing by comments that go against the safety culture of aviation No, nobody should be "frothing at the mouth", that's an ignorant and unhelpful behaviour. Air travel didn't get safer by doing that > A plane that loses a big chunk is indeed “fucked” It landed fine and it is in principle repairable. No, it is not fucked > There should have been many many redundant safety systems and procedures here with either didn’t exist or failed Again someone who doesn't know nothing about the subject and thinks that experts haven't thought about their first conclusion after 5 seconds of thinking. > this was a 10 out of 10 failure 5 out of 10 wrong on that comment. The seal failed and everything else worked. The masks, the procedures, the emergency landing. But yes, either the installation of that door seal was faulty or there is a systemic issue with that seal (not sure how many customers are flying with it as opposed to just having the door there) - or a combination of factors with something else in between. > Although a door is available for that row in the plane's design Alaska chose not to exercise that option, having the doors deactivated by Boeing before delivery. > It therefore appears from the inside of the cabin like a regular window seat, although from the outside the frame of the deactivated door remains visible
- colechristensen 3y ago
  Aerospace was my field before tech was. Reliability is still my field. A door got sucked out of a plane in flight. That is not a matter of unavoidable human error but can only be the consequence of a concert of cascading failures of the type that should never happen which is why it’s a 10/10, if the flight had been full at least one passenger would have likely been sucked out. It is dumb luck that this did not happen. Your attitude of derating a disaster like this is a strong indicator of the type of problem in the industry. In the end if we don’t get executives resigning and major operating overhauls with the responsible entities, it will be a terrible miscarriage of justice.
  - dh2022 3y ago
    From the sound bites in these videos it seems sitting on the seat next to that empty seat was a child. I am thinking how each we fly my son always asks to sit next to the window.this accident was so close to having a fatality…
  - throwaheyy 3y ago
    It wasn’t a door.
    - colechristensen 3y ago
      Whatever. It was the large plug put in place of where an optional door would be. This is not an important distinction.
throwaway51104 3y ago
How do you know it's related to Boeing's actions in any way? Why do you think there weren't any safety procedures, and again, how do you know it's Boeing's fault they weren't followed? Do you think it's only Boeing itself doing aircraft service? It's not.
- anonymousab 3y ago
  > How do you know it's related to Boeing's actions in any way? With all of their actions in recent memory, they currently have negative benefit of the doubt; problems and issues should be assumed, and if/when they occur, public blame and shame will generally start on them until proven otherwise. That's the consequence of throwing caution to the wind and repeatedly trashing their own reputation for a few more short-term dollars.
- colechristensen 3y ago
  It is Boeing’s aircraft. Absent a sophisticated act of intentional sabotage, Boeing is at least partially responsible. The physical design, manufacturing, assembly, qualification, maintenance plans, and maintenance training are all responsibilities of the prime contractor. If a damn door falls off in flight more than one of those definitely contributed. It isn’t only Boeing. The FAA is also reasonable for verifying and requiring Boeing do all the right things and they will share blame as well as likely one or more of the several groups that will have contributed to the failure.
  - throwaway51104 3y ago
    If one door falls of the aircraft, it's most likely a service tech didn't do the job properly, not that there is a systematic issue. That'd require much more fallen doors.
    - ReflectedImage 3y ago
      What you mean to say throwaway51104 is that it is completely Boeing's fault and you work on minimal wage in a hired PR firm trying to defend them on social media. There have been warnings for years that Boeing has lost the plot and abandoned their safety culture.

raverbashing 3y ago

I'm not standing by comments that go against the safety culture of aviation No, nobody should be "frothing at the mouth", that's an ignorant and unhelpful behaviour. Air travel didn't get safer by doing that > A plane that loses a big chunk is indeed “fucked” It landed fine and it is in principle repairable. No, it is not fucked > There should have been many many redundant safety systems and procedures here with either didn’t exist or failed Again someone who doesn't know nothing about the subject and thinks that experts haven't thought about their first conclusion after 5 seconds of thinking. > this was a 10 out of 10 failure 5 out of 10 wrong on that comment. The seal failed and everything else worked. The masks, the procedures, the emergency landing. But yes, either the installation of that door seal was faulty or there is a systemic issue with that seal (not sure how many customers are flying with it as opposed to just having the door there) - or a combination of factors with something else in between. > Although a door is available for that row in the plane's design Alaska chose not to exercise that option, having the doors deactivated by Boeing before delivery. > It therefore appears from the inside of the cabin like a regular window seat, although from the outside the frame of the deactivated door remains visible

colechristensen 3y ago
Aerospace was my field before tech was. Reliability is still my field. A door got sucked out of a plane in flight. That is not a matter of unavoidable human error but can only be the consequence of a concert of cascading failures of the type that should never happen which is why it’s a 10/10, if the flight had been full at least one passenger would have likely been sucked out. It is dumb luck that this did not happen. Your attitude of derating a disaster like this is a strong indicator of the type of problem in the industry. In the end if we don’t get executives resigning and major operating overhauls with the responsible entities, it will be a terrible miscarriage of justice.
- dh2022 3y ago
  From the sound bites in these videos it seems sitting on the seat next to that empty seat was a child. I am thinking how each we fly my son always asks to sit next to the window.this accident was so close to having a fatality…
- throwaheyy 3y ago
  It wasn’t a door.
  - colechristensen 3y ago
    Whatever. It was the large plug put in place of where an optional door would be. This is not an important distinction.

throwaway51104 3y ago

How do you know it's related to Boeing's actions in any way? Why do you think there weren't any safety procedures, and again, how do you know it's Boeing's fault they weren't followed? Do you think it's only Boeing itself doing aircraft service? It's not.

anonymousab 3y ago
> How do you know it's related to Boeing's actions in any way? With all of their actions in recent memory, they currently have negative benefit of the doubt; problems and issues should be assumed, and if/when they occur, public blame and shame will generally start on them until proven otherwise. That's the consequence of throwing caution to the wind and repeatedly trashing their own reputation for a few more short-term dollars.
colechristensen 3y ago
It is Boeing’s aircraft. Absent a sophisticated act of intentional sabotage, Boeing is at least partially responsible. The physical design, manufacturing, assembly, qualification, maintenance plans, and maintenance training are all responsibilities of the prime contractor. If a damn door falls off in flight more than one of those definitely contributed. It isn’t only Boeing. The FAA is also reasonable for verifying and requiring Boeing do all the right things and they will share blame as well as likely one or more of the several groups that will have contributed to the failure.
- throwaway51104 3y ago
  If one door falls of the aircraft, it's most likely a service tech didn't do the job properly, not that there is a systematic issue. That'd require much more fallen doors.
  - ReflectedImage 3y ago
    What you mean to say throwaway51104 is that it is completely Boeing's fault and you work on minimal wage in a hired PR firm trying to defend them on social media. There have been warnings for years that Boeing has lost the plot and abandoned their safety culture.