5 ms·

The ashtrays are there, even today, because it is suspected that this flight [0] went down when someone disposed a cigarette butt in the lavatory trash, causing

by elteto 5mo ago

The ashtrays are there, even today, because it is suspected that this flight [0] went down when someone disposed a cigarette butt in the lavatory trash, causing a fire. A reminder that aviation regulations are written in blood. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varig_Flight_820 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varig_Flight_820

WalterBright 5mo ago
> A reminder that aviation regulations are written in blood. It's enormously expensive for an airframe manufacturer to deal with the fallout of a crash. There aren't any engineers in an airframe manufacturer willing to sign off on a faulty design. Some good engineers are so worried about that they get shifted to working on conceptual projects. I took a loooong time for Boeing to convince the FAA that a twin engine jet was safer than a 4 engine for ocean crossings.
- xethos 5mo ago
  > took a loooong time for Boeing to convince the FAA that a twin engine jet was safer than a 4 engine for ocean crossings I don't believe they convinced the FAA twin is safer, just that it meets the necessary safety margins. Airlines want them to meet that regulation for fuel efficiency, but I'd want a source that they're actually safe-er, instead of simply safe enough
  - WalterBright 5mo ago
    Boeing proved it safer. The reason is the increased complexity of more engines increased the risk of a major problem. My source is I was told this by the engineers who where involved.
    - xethos 5mo ago
      Now see, the worst part is, I believe you. Your username pops up frequently enough, and is recognizable enough, that I consider you a reasonable, thoughtful person. And the rationale makes sense - juggling multiple engines is extremely complex But now way in hell can I, in good conscience, repeat that without a source
      - WalterBright 5mo ago
        > But now way in hell can I, in good conscience, repeat that without a source googling "why are twin engine jets safer than quad engine jets?" should provide the needed information.
- thesumofall 5mo ago
  Not necessarily safer but safe enough. A modern 4 engine jet should still be safer than the 2 engine equivalent
fsckboy 5mo ago
tldr for the wikipedia article: this plane did not crash, it made an emergency landing 2 miles from the airport in an onion field. Only 10 crew and 1 passenger survived. The other 123 souls aboard died of smoke/CO inhalation from the fire. the sole surviving passenger, 21-year-old Ricardo Trajano, disobeyed the instructions to remain in his seat.
shmeeed 5mo ago
Obligatory Admiral Cloudberg blog link (they're strangely hard to google): https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-crash-of-varig-flight-820-9f8f7b14a315 https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-crash-of-varig-fligh...

by elteto 5mo ago

WalterBright 5mo ago

> A reminder that aviation regulations are written in blood. It's enormously expensive for an airframe manufacturer to deal with the fallout of a crash. There aren't any engineers in an airframe manufacturer willing to sign off on a faulty design. Some good engineers are so worried about that they get shifted to working on conceptual projects. I took a loooong time for Boeing to convince the FAA that a twin engine jet was safer than a 4 engine for ocean crossings.

xethos 5mo ago
> took a loooong time for Boeing to convince the FAA that a twin engine jet was safer than a 4 engine for ocean crossings I don't believe they convinced the FAA twin is safer, just that it meets the necessary safety margins. Airlines want them to meet that regulation for fuel efficiency, but I'd want a source that they're actually safe-er, instead of simply safe enough
- WalterBright 5mo ago
  Boeing proved it safer. The reason is the increased complexity of more engines increased the risk of a major problem. My source is I was told this by the engineers who where involved.
  - xethos 5mo ago
    Now see, the worst part is, I believe you. Your username pops up frequently enough, and is recognizable enough, that I consider you a reasonable, thoughtful person. And the rationale makes sense - juggling multiple engines is extremely complex But now way in hell can I, in good conscience, repeat that without a source
    - WalterBright 5mo ago
      > But now way in hell can I, in good conscience, repeat that without a source googling "why are twin engine jets safer than quad engine jets?" should provide the needed information.
thesumofall 5mo ago
Not necessarily safer but safe enough. A modern 4 engine jet should still be safer than the 2 engine equivalent

fsckboy 5mo ago

tldr for the wikipedia article: this plane did not crash, it made an emergency landing 2 miles from the airport in an onion field. Only 10 crew and 1 passenger survived. The other 123 souls aboard died of smoke/CO inhalation from the fire. the sole surviving passenger, 21-year-old Ricardo Trajano, disobeyed the instructions to remain in his seat.

shmeeed 5mo ago

Obligatory Admiral Cloudberg blog link (they're strangely hard to google): https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-crash-of-varig-flight-820-9f8f7b14a315 https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-crash-of-varig-fligh...