6 ms·

Ryanair Boeing 737 MAX plunges 2,000ft in 17 seconds

37 points by jb1991 2y ago

david422 2y ago
Investigation not complete yet.
Molitor5901 2y ago
[flagged]
- ThalesX 2y ago
  > Flight data reveals that on December 4 last year, flight FR1269 dropped more than 2,000ft in a mere 17 seconds. It's data from last year.
- nac_ler 2y ago
  The article is about an event which took place in December of 2023.
  - Molitor5901 2y ago
    Thank you I missed that, still.. 7 months? Too many incidents in 7 months. If those incidents were spread over 5 years ok, but 7 months.. Nah, ground the Max.
    - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
      Do you think that would be worth the cost?
      - Molitor5901 2y ago
        As opposed to injury and the loss of life by a company which is clearly experiencing severe management and safety challenges? Absolutely.
    - rootusrootus 2y ago
      Don't let yourself get caught up in media focus on events that are usually not reported beyond the aviation enthusiast community. Boeing headlines get clicks. The 737 MAX flies thousands of time every day. A couple incidents in 7 months which don't appear to be specific to the model are not really compelling evidence of anything.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  You are really going to try to draw a parallel between this event from last year and the Oklahoma incident? Everything about the Southwest airlines flight suggests pilot error. The plane did not dive unexpectedly at a high rate, it executed a dead perfect final approach, the right descent rate, the right speeds ... 9 miles before the runway it was lined up with.
baby_souffle 2y ago
That's ~ 35 meters per second!
- PaulWaldman 2y ago
  Anyone want to take a guess of the terminal velocity of a 737 Max?
  - its_ethan 2y ago
    Way higher than 35 m/s... Using V = sqrt(2ma/pAC) you'd get: V = sqrt(2(80000 kg)(9.81 m/s^2)/((1.225 kg/m^3)(210 m^2)(0.03))) V = 451 m/s
  - itishappy 2y ago
    According to this random Quora response: ~250m/s (mach 0.75). Note this assumes an aerodynamically favorable configuration (e.g. nose pointed down) which is not how planes are typically flown. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-terminal-velocity-of-an-aircraft https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-terminal-velocity-of-an-ai...
- wk_end 2y ago
  Apparently human terminal velocity is just a bit over 50m/s - I doubt there’s much of a perceptible difference between this and full-on free fall. Yikes.
  - itishappy 2y ago
    The physics doesn't work out quite that way. Humans perceive acceleration. You will experience the same acceleration at terminal velocity that you do on the ground: none. The main thing you would perceive at terminal velocity is wind. There will not be wind in the cabin, even in these flight conditions.
    - baby_souffle 2y ago
      > You will experience the same acceleration at terminal velocity that you do on the ground: none. That's correct and all but the lizard part of my brain would be _far_ more concerned with the sudden change in direction/speed and not super concerned with "at least we're not continuing to fall faster!" (assuming I wasn't standing by the bathrooms and thus thrown into the ceiling; then who knows what i'd be thinking)
wiseowise 2y ago
Why are 737 MAX still flying?
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  Because the regulators are less emotional than the media and general public.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    Do you think if these planes were manufactured by e.g. SpaceX, or another company with a less cozy relationship with the government they'd still be flying? It seems me to that Boeing can do no wrong by regulators even though they can do no right in terms of competence. And it's not only in airplanes but also rockets. For those who only casually followed the maiden manned spaceflight of the Boeing Starliner, the astronauts barely made it to the ISS after numerous malfunctions, the exact sort of malfunctions that have been repeatedly cropping up in literally every single testflight, but NASA gave them the green-light anyhow. The astronauts were scheduled to return on June 16. That was delayed to June 26th as Boeing tried to figure out a way to make their craft safe to fly in. And their return has now been delayed indefinitely. [1] There's a real chance either SpaceX or Roscosmos will need to come rescue them. I just think the government actions following these degrees of ongoing and serious failures would be so starkly different if it was a company other than Boeing. [1] - https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/nasa-indefinitely-delays-return-of-starliner-to-review-propulsion-data/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/nasa-indefinitely-dela...
    - rootusrootus 2y ago
      I don't think SpaceX is a great example. They have incidents of all kinds but the community has accepted that as the price of advancing the technology. This is probably okay given their goal. They are not a passenger airliner manufacturer. It also sounds like you are misinformed as to why the astronauts have not returned. Granted, the media is not really doing a commendable job explaining it, because clicks matter more. But it has been discussed accurately here on HN a few times. Spoiler: the astronauts can leave anytime they want, on the Starliner, and nobody (aside from laypersons unfamiliar with the situation) thinks otherwise. Nobody is going to need to 'rescue' them, because they are staying voluntarily.
RedShift1 2y ago
In unrelated news, underwear store near airport sells out in a mere hour, shop owners puzzled but not complaining about record profits.
jmward01 2y ago
'plunges', 'alarming speed', 'The shocking incident' but in the end 'none of the passengers or crew aboard the 197-seat aircraft were harmed' Once again we have a non-story overflowing with hyperbole. These types of articles increase unreasonable fear and do an injustice to journalism. I am flat out done with bad journalism that gets its viewership by hyping fear. 'The Standard' is off my list of credible news outlets.
- hipadev23 2y ago
  So the malfunctions only count when people die?
- maxverse 2y ago
  Why can't all these things be true? Something highly abnormal and dangerous can happen, and thankfully not result in any harm. And what's the alternative: only addressing issues after tragedy strikes?
  - jmward01 2y ago
    Do these stories come out for cars? The level of unreasonable fear in flying is past the point where actual harm is happening. My wife is so afraid to fly that she cries at even the smallest turbulence. Is flying unsafe? No. It is incredibly safe. Does the occasional uncomfortable event happen? Yes. So? This article fails on many levels. Where is the context in this article? Where does it discuss what is normal to see and how often things like this happen to give an idea of how dangerous and abnormal this was or wasn't? Where does it compare aviation to other transportation sectors to give an idea of how dangerous the industry is or isn't? None of this happened. Instead it used bombastic terms to get a quick headline. This was bad journalism and caused real harm and should be called out.
- epsilonic 2y ago
  Yeah… let’s just strap you to a plunging plane, then invalidate your experience as “overflowing with hyperbole”.
coldpie 2y ago
I'm tired of flying. It's a miserable experience to begin with, and getting worse, and now all this junk is happening. Next year my wife and I are planning to try out a train trip to NYC, from Minnesota. It will take quite a bit longer, but I hope it will be a more pleasant trip.
- josu 2y ago
  Related information: In the US (maybe everywhere?) air travel is safer than railroad travel. The railroad experience is usually much better though, I agree (compared to economy class). https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/deaths-by-transportation-mode/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics...
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    That commonly repeated datum is one of those that falls under the lies, dirty lies, and then statistics - type of lies. Because most people would think this means that if you instead had a private jet and just started flying literally everywhere (instead of driving) then it'd be much more safe, right? Nope - it'd be dramatically more dangerous in fact. This owes to the fact that the stat compares deaths per mile, but the real risk in a plane is not measured in miles, but in takeoff/landing/pressurization cycles. Whether the plane then flies for 10 miles or 5000, the risk is pretty much the same. And so if you mask out the danger by looking at deaths/mile then yeah - they're safer. But if you look at it in terms of 'what are my odds of dying on an average trip' - then they're much less safe than driving. You can really intuit this by imagining some ultra-high risk interstellar starship. If it traveled quadrillions upon quadrillions of miles, but 99% of them randomly blew up and killed everybody on board, then it'd still be far safer than driving in terms of deaths/mile. The deaths/mile datum is not really very useful for modes of transport where the risk models are very different, and that's very much the case for driving vs flying.
    - coldpie 2y ago
      This would be a great point to support with some sources with hard numbers! > But if you look at it in terms of 'what are my odds of dying on an average trip' - then they're much less safe than driving. But is that an interesting stat to look at? You would need to multiply that number by the number of trips, to get a useful measure of risk.
EugeneOZ 2y ago
2000ft = 609 m.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
boomboomsubban 2y ago
Why make a story about this six months after it happened but before the cause has been identified?
jwkpiano1 2y ago
7000 fpm is not all that unusual during a descent. What’s unusual here is the proximity to the ground. Nothing in this story indicates there is necessarily anything wrong with the aircraft, and I think more likely this is pilot error. I’m as much of a 737 MAX critic as anyone, but nothing indicates the aircraft is the cause as of now.
qwertox 2y ago
Somewhat related topic: Is Clear Air Turbulence becoming more common? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40819784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40819784 58 comments, 4 hours ago But the incident of this post here really sounds concerning, according to The Aviation Herald [0]: > The aircraft accelerated and climbed through about 4000 feet at 197 knots over ground when the aircraft began to rapidly descend to 2175 feet MSL (1825 feet AGL) within 17 seconds accelerating to 280 knots over ground, climbed and descended a second time reaching a minimum height of about 1700 feet AGL. The aircraft subsequently climbed to and stabilized at 3000 feet, positioned for another approach and landed without further incident about 12 minutes after the initiation of the go around. > The British AAIB reported they have opened an investigation stating: "High speed and high nose down pitch attitude during go-around, London Stansted." [0] https://avherald.com/h?article=51a75639&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=51a75639&opt=0
its_ethan 2y ago
It seems interesting that they aren't coming out with any clear indicator that it was an issue with the plane itself? If there was some faulty sensor/software override that caused the nose dive, it feels like they would've mentioned that was a suspect.
BoumTAC 2y ago
Something I don't understand, Boeing 737 have been flying for years without no issue. Why since a few month are they a lot of problem with them ? Why did these problems not appear before ?
BenoitP 2y ago
At some point there has to be acknowledgement that the design envelope is unsound. Newly fitted engines have moved the center of thrust far away off the center of mass. This creates huge torque; especially as is it often done in emergency situations: stalling avoidance advises to push thrust to the maximum. If you've practiced a bit with plane simulators (the ones where you design your planes), you know these things are uncontrollable. And us software engineers should know better: software-patching design errors sometimes just doesn't work. You can't just "polish it". Without active control you can't do it (which by law is reserved for the military casualty risk tradeoff) MCAS-patching it yet another time isn't the answer.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  > Newly fitted engines have moved the center of thrust far away off the center of mass. Perhaps so. Do you have any evidence that leads you to think that that's related to this incident?
tomcam 2y ago
For once Ryanair gives customers more than they bargained for
- cassianoleal 2y ago
  Soon enough they will offer the "no plunge" option as an add-on.

37 points by jb1991 2y ago

david422 2y ago

Investigation not complete yet.

Molitor5901 2y ago

[flagged]

ThalesX 2y ago
> Flight data reveals that on December 4 last year, flight FR1269 dropped more than 2,000ft in a mere 17 seconds. It's data from last year.
nac_ler 2y ago
The article is about an event which took place in December of 2023.
- Molitor5901 2y ago
  Thank you I missed that, still.. 7 months? Too many incidents in 7 months. If those incidents were spread over 5 years ok, but 7 months.. Nah, ground the Max.
  - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
    Do you think that would be worth the cost?
    - Molitor5901 2y ago
      As opposed to injury and the loss of life by a company which is clearly experiencing severe management and safety challenges? Absolutely.
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    Don't let yourself get caught up in media focus on events that are usually not reported beyond the aviation enthusiast community. Boeing headlines get clicks. The 737 MAX flies thousands of time every day. A couple incidents in 7 months which don't appear to be specific to the model are not really compelling evidence of anything.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rootusrootus 2y ago
You are really going to try to draw a parallel between this event from last year and the Oklahoma incident? Everything about the Southwest airlines flight suggests pilot error. The plane did not dive unexpectedly at a high rate, it executed a dead perfect final approach, the right descent rate, the right speeds ... 9 miles before the runway it was lined up with.

baby_souffle 2y ago

That's ~ 35 meters per second!

PaulWaldman 2y ago
Anyone want to take a guess of the terminal velocity of a 737 Max?
- its_ethan 2y ago
  Way higher than 35 m/s... Using V = sqrt(2ma/pAC) you'd get: V = sqrt(2(80000 kg)(9.81 m/s^2)/((1.225 kg/m^3)(210 m^2)(0.03))) V = 451 m/s
- itishappy 2y ago
  According to this random Quora response: ~250m/s (mach 0.75). Note this assumes an aerodynamically favorable configuration (e.g. nose pointed down) which is not how planes are typically flown. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-terminal-velocity-of-an-aircraft https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-terminal-velocity-of-an-ai...
wk_end 2y ago
Apparently human terminal velocity is just a bit over 50m/s - I doubt there’s much of a perceptible difference between this and full-on free fall. Yikes.
- itishappy 2y ago
  The physics doesn't work out quite that way. Humans perceive acceleration. You will experience the same acceleration at terminal velocity that you do on the ground: none. The main thing you would perceive at terminal velocity is wind. There will not be wind in the cabin, even in these flight conditions.
  - baby_souffle 2y ago
    > You will experience the same acceleration at terminal velocity that you do on the ground: none. That's correct and all but the lizard part of my brain would be _far_ more concerned with the sudden change in direction/speed and not super concerned with "at least we're not continuing to fall faster!" (assuming I wasn't standing by the bathrooms and thus thrown into the ceiling; then who knows what i'd be thinking)

wiseowise 2y ago

Why are 737 MAX still flying?

rootusrootus 2y ago
Because the regulators are less emotional than the media and general public.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Do you think if these planes were manufactured by e.g. SpaceX, or another company with a less cozy relationship with the government they'd still be flying? It seems me to that Boeing can do no wrong by regulators even though they can do no right in terms of competence. And it's not only in airplanes but also rockets. For those who only casually followed the maiden manned spaceflight of the Boeing Starliner, the astronauts barely made it to the ISS after numerous malfunctions, the exact sort of malfunctions that have been repeatedly cropping up in literally every single testflight, but NASA gave them the green-light anyhow. The astronauts were scheduled to return on June 16. That was delayed to June 26th as Boeing tried to figure out a way to make their craft safe to fly in. And their return has now been delayed indefinitely. [1] There's a real chance either SpaceX or Roscosmos will need to come rescue them. I just think the government actions following these degrees of ongoing and serious failures would be so starkly different if it was a company other than Boeing. [1] - https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/nasa-indefinitely-delays-return-of-starliner-to-review-propulsion-data/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/nasa-indefinitely-dela...
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    I don't think SpaceX is a great example. They have incidents of all kinds but the community has accepted that as the price of advancing the technology. This is probably okay given their goal. They are not a passenger airliner manufacturer. It also sounds like you are misinformed as to why the astronauts have not returned. Granted, the media is not really doing a commendable job explaining it, because clicks matter more. But it has been discussed accurately here on HN a few times. Spoiler: the astronauts can leave anytime they want, on the Starliner, and nobody (aside from laypersons unfamiliar with the situation) thinks otherwise. Nobody is going to need to 'rescue' them, because they are staying voluntarily.

RedShift1 2y ago

In unrelated news, underwear store near airport sells out in a mere hour, shop owners puzzled but not complaining about record profits.

jmward01 2y ago

'plunges', 'alarming speed', 'The shocking incident' but in the end 'none of the passengers or crew aboard the 197-seat aircraft were harmed' Once again we have a non-story overflowing with hyperbole. These types of articles increase unreasonable fear and do an injustice to journalism. I am flat out done with bad journalism that gets its viewership by hyping fear. 'The Standard' is off my list of credible news outlets.

hipadev23 2y ago
So the malfunctions only count when people die?
maxverse 2y ago
Why can't all these things be true? Something highly abnormal and dangerous can happen, and thankfully not result in any harm. And what's the alternative: only addressing issues after tragedy strikes?
- jmward01 2y ago
  Do these stories come out for cars? The level of unreasonable fear in flying is past the point where actual harm is happening. My wife is so afraid to fly that she cries at even the smallest turbulence. Is flying unsafe? No. It is incredibly safe. Does the occasional uncomfortable event happen? Yes. So? This article fails on many levels. Where is the context in this article? Where does it discuss what is normal to see and how often things like this happen to give an idea of how dangerous and abnormal this was or wasn't? Where does it compare aviation to other transportation sectors to give an idea of how dangerous the industry is or isn't? None of this happened. Instead it used bombastic terms to get a quick headline. This was bad journalism and caused real harm and should be called out.
epsilonic 2y ago
Yeah… let’s just strap you to a plunging plane, then invalidate your experience as “overflowing with hyperbole”.

coldpie 2y ago

I'm tired of flying. It's a miserable experience to begin with, and getting worse, and now all this junk is happening. Next year my wife and I are planning to try out a train trip to NYC, from Minnesota. It will take quite a bit longer, but I hope it will be a more pleasant trip.

josu 2y ago
Related information: In the US (maybe everywhere?) air travel is safer than railroad travel. The railroad experience is usually much better though, I agree (compared to economy class). https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/deaths-by-transportation-mode/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics...
- somenameforme 2y ago
  That commonly repeated datum is one of those that falls under the lies, dirty lies, and then statistics - type of lies. Because most people would think this means that if you instead had a private jet and just started flying literally everywhere (instead of driving) then it'd be much more safe, right? Nope - it'd be dramatically more dangerous in fact. This owes to the fact that the stat compares deaths per mile, but the real risk in a plane is not measured in miles, but in takeoff/landing/pressurization cycles. Whether the plane then flies for 10 miles or 5000, the risk is pretty much the same. And so if you mask out the danger by looking at deaths/mile then yeah - they're safer. But if you look at it in terms of 'what are my odds of dying on an average trip' - then they're much less safe than driving. You can really intuit this by imagining some ultra-high risk interstellar starship. If it traveled quadrillions upon quadrillions of miles, but 99% of them randomly blew up and killed everybody on board, then it'd still be far safer than driving in terms of deaths/mile. The deaths/mile datum is not really very useful for modes of transport where the risk models are very different, and that's very much the case for driving vs flying.
  - coldpie 2y ago
    This would be a great point to support with some sources with hard numbers! > But if you look at it in terms of 'what are my odds of dying on an average trip' - then they're much less safe than driving. But is that an interesting stat to look at? You would need to multiply that number by the number of trips, to get a useful measure of risk.

EugeneOZ 2y ago

2000ft = 609 m.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

boomboomsubban 2y ago

Why make a story about this six months after it happened but before the cause has been identified?

jwkpiano1 2y ago

7000 fpm is not all that unusual during a descent. What’s unusual here is the proximity to the ground. Nothing in this story indicates there is necessarily anything wrong with the aircraft, and I think more likely this is pilot error. I’m as much of a 737 MAX critic as anyone, but nothing indicates the aircraft is the cause as of now.

qwertox 2y ago

Somewhat related topic: Is Clear Air Turbulence becoming more common? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40819784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40819784 58 comments, 4 hours ago But the incident of this post here really sounds concerning, according to The Aviation Herald [0]: > The aircraft accelerated and climbed through about 4000 feet at 197 knots over ground when the aircraft began to rapidly descend to 2175 feet MSL (1825 feet AGL) within 17 seconds accelerating to 280 knots over ground, climbed and descended a second time reaching a minimum height of about 1700 feet AGL. The aircraft subsequently climbed to and stabilized at 3000 feet, positioned for another approach and landed without further incident about 12 minutes after the initiation of the go around. > The British AAIB reported they have opened an investigation stating: "High speed and high nose down pitch attitude during go-around, London Stansted." [0] https://avherald.com/h?article=51a75639&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=51a75639&opt=0

its_ethan 2y ago

It seems interesting that they aren't coming out with any clear indicator that it was an issue with the plane itself? If there was some faulty sensor/software override that caused the nose dive, it feels like they would've mentioned that was a suspect.

BoumTAC 2y ago

Something I don't understand, Boeing 737 have been flying for years without no issue. Why since a few month are they a lot of problem with them ? Why did these problems not appear before ?

BenoitP 2y ago

At some point there has to be acknowledgement that the design envelope is unsound. Newly fitted engines have moved the center of thrust far away off the center of mass. This creates huge torque; especially as is it often done in emergency situations: stalling avoidance advises to push thrust to the maximum. If you've practiced a bit with plane simulators (the ones where you design your planes), you know these things are uncontrollable. And us software engineers should know better: software-patching design errors sometimes just doesn't work. You can't just "polish it". Without active control you can't do it (which by law is reserved for the military casualty risk tradeoff) MCAS-patching it yet another time isn't the answer.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
> Newly fitted engines have moved the center of thrust far away off the center of mass. Perhaps so. Do you have any evidence that leads you to think that that's related to this incident?

tomcam 2y ago

For once Ryanair gives customers more than they bargained for

cassianoleal 2y ago
Soon enough they will offer the "no plunge" option as an add-on.