[HN Gopher] Sriwijaya Air flight SJ182, a Boeing 737, has disapp...
___________________________________________________________________
Sriwijaya Air flight SJ182, a Boeing 737, has disappeared from
radar
Author : blacktulip
Score : 237 points
Date : 2021-01-09 10:56 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| bdz wrote:
| http://avherald.com/h?article=4e18553c&opt=0
| fblp wrote:
| Very informative article, thank you ^ "The water is about 15 to
| 16 meters deep at the crash site" Although this is tragic, the
| relatively shallow water will make this a faster cleanup and
| investigation compared to other recent crashes.
| [deleted]
| United857 wrote:
| Mods can we change the link to this avherald page instead of a
| tweet which is just a headline?
| arnon wrote:
| 26 year old 737-500. Weather is pretty bad in the area right now.
| raverbashing wrote:
| Not a 737 Max, just to be clear
| arnon wrote:
| It's also not a DC-10, while we're making clarifications
| olliej wrote:
| contextually the 737 vs 737-max distinction is important.
|
| The 737 vs DC-10 distinction is not :D
| arnon wrote:
| "Ubuntu 20.04 caused outage"
|
| - "It's worth mentioning this isn't Ubuntu 16.04"
|
| Feels pointless to me.
| totalZero wrote:
| Fair point, but consider this:
|
| When I first saw this story on Bloomberg, I opened the
| article searching for the variant of 737 aircraft
| involved. Given the accident history of the 737 MAX, it's
| important for people to understand that this aircraft
| does not tie in to the MAX saga.
|
| The fact that this is not a MAX aircraft is relevant both
| to travelers and also to BA stockholders.
| arnon wrote:
| Understood, and as I mentioned, it was a 737-500 that is
| 26 years old.
| sokoloff wrote:
| The difference is not nearly everyone knows the series
| number of the Max (thus doesn't get the full signal you
| intended from saying it was a -500). Precisely the
| lightly informed people whom you were trying to help are
| the ones most prone to this error.
|
| It's more like saying "this article involves Ubuntu
| 16.04" when "Ubuntu Focal Fossa" has been all over the
| news for 18 months.
| arnon wrote:
| Alright. Point taken.
| [deleted]
| tareqak wrote:
| It might be worth adding that to the post title somehow e.g.
| 737 (not Max).
| Erlich_Bachman wrote:
| A well-maintained airplane can work for many more years than
| this. They are not like cars. All the important functional
| parts are being replaced regularly and the structure of the
| frame is checked and repaired if needed.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| The airline has constant safety complaints and was a week
| away from losing the ability to fly over safety concerns some
| time in the last year
|
| https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-
| transport/2019-1...
| jmnicolas wrote:
| Yes if I'm not mistaken B52 bombers are at least twice this
| age!
| dopamean wrote:
| A car could work this way too.
| ThinkingGuy wrote:
| This post on reddit from a few years ago describes what all
| would be required to maintain a car the same way as an
| airplane:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/3v1hzj/how_do_ol
| d...
| manojlds wrote:
| Could is the keyword
| wiz21c wrote:
| Given the little environmental issues we have these days, a
| car _must_ work this way.
| [deleted]
| hedora wrote:
| I was shocked when I saw that what percentage of car
| emissions are due to manufacturing. "Only" driving a car
| for something like 100,000 miles doubles the per-mile
| carbon emissions. (I can't remember the exact number.).
| EV's have more embodied carbon, so they're removing less
| than half the emissions in that part of their life.
|
| This will drastically improve as the grid decarbonizes.
| However, we really should be focusing on swapping out the
| drive trains on 2000-2020's most popular models.
| HPsquared wrote:
| In theory it could, the same principles and judgements are
| in play - it's just that the relative prices of keeping an
| old car vs. replacement are different to that of an
| airliner so the decision tends to be more towards replacing
| old cars. The equation is of course different for valuable
| collector's cars.
| notahacker wrote:
| More importantly, you are _allowed_ to drive a car
| without aircraft-style inspection and part replacement
| regimes and periodic total rebuilds.
|
| If you weren't, few car accidents would occur due to
| poorly maintained vehicles, but fewer people would be
| able to afford to drive.
| quesera wrote:
| As it is already, very few car accidents are caused by
| poorly maintained vehicles.
|
| Humans are the weak link.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Average flight length matters. The airframe wears out based
| on pressurization and depressurization cycles, not just age
| or flight hours. Planes associated with short hop routes tend
| to wear out faster.
| temporallobe wrote:
| Indeed, a regularly maintained older aircraft is a virtual
| Ship of Theseus.
| rtkwe wrote:
| The airframe of the fuselage still remains largely the same
| though right so there's never really the moment where
| there's no original parts left.
| 14 wrote:
| I love the Ship of Theseus story it reminds me of a
| Chrysler I used to own. Always replacing parts. I finally
| named my van Theseus. Then I got rid of it and went into a
| Toyota.
| Aloha wrote:
| A well maintained car can outlast an airplane ;-)
| Daho0n wrote:
| Not in kilometers "driven".
| dehrmann wrote:
| You're still subject to max pressurization cycles, though.
| postingawayonhn wrote:
| The weather looks pretty calm in the pictures of the debris.
| rurban wrote:
| It was only raining. No storm or such.
| cpncrunch wrote:
| METARs at the time from avherald:
|
| WIII 090800Z 28008KT 4000 -RA BKN016 OVC018 26/24 Q1006
| NOSIG= WIII 090730Z 30006KT 5000 -RA FEW017CB OVC018 25/24
| Q1006 NOSIG=
|
| So, light rain and light winds, 4km vis and broken at
| 1600ft. Very benign conditions for any plane, never mind a
| well maintained 737.
| ffpip wrote:
| Sriwijaya Air flight #SJ182 lost more than 10.000 feet of
| altitude in less than one minute, about 4 minutes after departure
| from Jakarta.
|
| https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1347850078644563969
|
| https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/pk-clc#26860e0e
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| If the flightradar route ends where it crashed (and it wasn't
| just when the ADS was turned off) then that is only in 15-20M
| of water so wreckage and black box will be retrievable.
| [deleted]
| K0balt wrote:
| Wow. that rate of descent, and so shortly after takeoff (no
| time/altutude for hypoxia, etc) points strongly to a major
| structural failure or at least a catastrophic failure of flight
| control systems.
|
| In that phase of flight, pressurization would be just starting
| to build, I wonder how many cycles that 26 year old airframe
| has on it?
|
| Also, is it known if there was anyone of major political or
| financial consequence on board? Getting to that altitude is
| also a common trigger for barometric switches.
| wp381640 wrote:
| 25+ yo airframe, Island hopping, budget airline, Indonesia
|
| All points to fuselage maintenance
| numpad0 wrote:
| Did they figure the pickle fork issue?
| HarryHirsch wrote:
| Not applicable, that problem was introduced in 1997 with
| the 737-NG. This aircraft here was manufactured in 1994.
| nealabq wrote:
| https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/01/boeing-7
| 37-...
| xvf22 wrote:
| Or wiring given the 737 history but then again, it's a shot
| in the dark.
| flatiron wrote:
| What wiring issue would get you nose down?
| quattrofan wrote:
| A fire and then damage to control surface connections.
| coredog64 wrote:
| 737 isn't FBW.
| xvf22 wrote:
| Plenty of wiring in and around the fuel system and
| running close to control cables.
|
| Are you implying that fire couldn't interfere with
| control of a non FBW aircraft?
| verelo wrote:
| No fbw on the concord yet they lost control of air
| surfaces seconds after the fire started.
| clon wrote:
| Elevator are hydraulically operated, while trim is
| actuated by steel cables + electric trim. I imagine an
| electrical short with the trim mechanism cannot be ruled
| out. But this is all pointless armchair speculation,
| borderline bad taste.
| cjbprime wrote:
| In case anyone gets the wrong impression: there is
| mechanical control of trim too, and "runaway trim" has a
| checklist item set of responses that every pilot trains
| for. You can lose electric trim without crashing.
| TedShiller wrote:
| True. That happened to Atlas-Air 3591. Investigation
| conclusion was basically bad pilot.
| imaginenore wrote:
| Or an intentional suicide by pilot.
| Reason077 wrote:
| Suicide by pilot is another possibility. It's certainly
| happened before (SilkAir 185, EgyptAir 990, Germanwings 9525,
| possibly Malaysian 370)
| w0utert wrote:
| Judging from the flight path and altitude data that seems
| extremely unlikely, it looks like the plane just fell apart
| and came down like a brick in an instant.
| Reason077 wrote:
| I'm not sure that alone rules anything out. If we look at
| the flight profile of EgyptAir 990, for example, it
| dropped 15,000 feet in about 30 seconds:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990#/media/
| Fil...
| cm2187 wrote:
| Also you wouldn't expect a single pilot to be in the
| cockpit at that stage of the flight.
| e_proxus wrote:
| What damage could a co-pilot cause even with another
| pilot present? A steep enough descent might not be
| recoverable under certain conditions?
| asd4232 wrote:
| Even if another pilot was present, from that altitude a
| suicidal co-pilot could easily cause an unrecovable dive
| and crash. If two pilots pull/push controls to opposite
| directions they kind of neutralize each other, and
| obviously the suicidal one would have element of surprise
| as an advantage.
|
| In fact just that happened on EgyptAir flight 990. A
| suicidal copilot was able to crash the plane even with
| another pilot present, and that happened from a higher
| altitude.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| Aircraft are designed to not enter those "certain
| conditions" by default - I understand the PF needs to
| override the flight-control-law to intentionally crash
| the plane, but I don't think there's a two-person-rule
| before that can happen.
|
| Anyway - this is why I'm glad I'm not involved in safety-
| engineering because supposing that setting sensible
| defaults that reduce accidents in 99.999% of cases
| _would_ lead to horrible terrifying deaths in 0.001% of
| cases (e.g. one-way lockable reinforced cockpit doors)
| would be too much on my mind.
| asd4232 wrote:
| Some more modern aircraft indeed have such protections,
| but this was an old 737 without any such stuff. Simply
| pushing the control column fully forward would send the
| plane into a dive pretty quickly.
| coredog64 wrote:
| The controls are mechanically linked. Unless the
| perpetrator incapacitated the other flier, it's a test of
| strength. There's no method for disconnecting the second
| set of controls in a 737.
| FeeJai wrote:
| That is incorrect. There is a friction clutch between the
| controls in case there is a mechanical jam the other
| pilot can at least control half the control surfaces. It
| needs a significant amount of force to detach, though. It
| is documented on Egypt Air 990 however that both elevator
| surfaces turned into opposite directions.
| RolloTom wrote:
| Like @FeeJai already wrote, that's incorrect. Look up for
| Atlas Air Flight 3591 crash, boeing 767. Spatial
| disorientation, dual imputs on yokes, split elevator.
| https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/628156-atlas-
| air-3591-nt...
| vidanay wrote:
| I am not disagreeing with you, but I just want to point
| out the absolutely stunning safety of modern air travel.
| Using your 99.999% number against the number of FAA
| flights of 16,405,000[1] per year (that's just US FAA,
| not global). This would result in 16405 "incidents" per
| year. Luckily for us, the actual number is far lower than
| 16405.
|
| [1] https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/
| ericbarrett wrote:
| Germanwings Flight 9525[0]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525
| numpad0 wrote:
| That was F/O without another pilot present
| hnarn wrote:
| How does that make a suicidal pilot "extremely unlikely"?
| That's exactly what I'd expect a plane directed downwards
| to look like.
| VLM wrote:
| What an odd time to do it, unless for some crazy reason
| the lat/lon location mattered.
|
| I'm just saying it takes less than a second to hit a
| ditch or another plane or commo tower while taxi-ing on
| the ground. Or suddenly do almost anything when you're 50
| feet off the ground at takeoff surrounded by all sorts of
| interesting ground targets to hit. Drop the landing gear
| or flaps at the wrong speed at a low altitude. I suppose
| someone indecisive or having medical / drug issues could
| take a long time to talk themselves up to it hours into
| the flight.
|
| There is one situation I'd expect a crash halfway thru
| climbout right after takeoff and from military experience
| if a load is incorrectly lashed down in the cargo hold
| and lets say the strapdowns in the front of a tank or
| howitzer are installed correctly but the ones in the back
| snap or were incorrectly attached or the tiedowns rusted
| off LOL (I suppose it happens) then sliding a tank or an
| artillery piece thru the nose of the plane while in
| flight will make quite a mess. Yes I'm well aware a civie
| 737 is not a military C130 but the general case holds
| that's just about the right time in a flight profile for
| something in the cargo hold to start sloshing around if
| not strapped down correctly.
|
| Plenty of opportunity for cascading failure. Trivial to
| engineer a cargo system where one thing breaking loose
| cannot screw up weight/balance enough to crash the plane.
| But one thing breaks loose, slides at high speed into
| another thing breaking it loose, now you got two
| uncontrolled loads sloshing around in turbulence, repeat,
| repeat...
|
| I'm also well aware that a 737 is not a military
| transport in WWII but there was a documented problem with
| sabotage in WWII where enemy agents dumped water into the
| rotary engine oil system and the water eventually boiled
| about ten minutes into flight, steam popped open the oil
| system, the engines seized without oil, the mechanics got
| blamed and the agents continued their work because no
| evidence just water... Obviously almost certainly not the
| situation now, but the general idea of "it gets up to
| full temp a couple minutes into flight" remains valid. I
| wonder what happens to the airframe if an engine bearing
| catastrophically seizes and cold welds itself in flight.
| At minimum I bet the entire engine tears itself off the
| pylon. Worst case maybe the engine takes the wing with it
| even if its not supposed to. AFAIK the shroud around
| engines is supposed to be able to eat a turbine blade
| that snaps off to prevent damage to the wing, but maybe
| there's a freak situation of the engine disassembling
| itself in flight such that the shield shroud thing is
| blown off milliseconds before the turbine blades are shed
| into the wing...
|
| I'd extend my remarks based on radar data from
|
| http://www.b737.org.uk/incident_pk-clc.htm
|
| This is a very low performance aircraft (In the sense of
| not like a F-16) and 11 seconds isn't long enough to
| intentionally maneuver from a normal climbout based on
| radar transponder data into falling out of the sky. A
| F-16 could turn 40 degrees and point straight down in 11
| seconds but a 737 literally can't, so essentially it went
| from a normal climbout to cloud of parts falling from the
| sky slower than the plane at cruise. The radar
| transponder profile looks a lot different for a plane in
| one piece under control pointed at the ground. Pieces of
| aircraft are not aerodynamic at all, which is why parts
| fell at 10K to 20K feet/min but the groundspeed collapsed
| from 300 kts to 100 kts in eleven seconds. I'm honestly
| not sure even a F-16 can drop from 300 kts to 100 kts in
| eleven seconds in a steep dive, although a random
| collection of torn metal falling from the sky can do
| that.
|
| Its interesting that if you google for the flight manual
| data for a 737, best maneuvering speed to handle maximal
| turbulence loads is just a couple knots below best climb
| speed, which the plane was at. So if a pilot was
| suicidal, he tried to pull the wings off at exactly the
| flight condition where the plane was strongest; no pilot
| is uneducated enough to make a noob error that huge. Pull
| up as hard as you can at cruise, sure. Wiggle the rudder
| as hard as humanly possible (usually due to crosswind)
| while landing has torn tails off planes. But try to pull
| the wings off when flying at manuevering speed? That's
| just dumb. So no the pilot almost certainly was not
| suicidal.
| coredog64 wrote:
| The area under the passenger cabin is pretty constrained.
| 737 operators pretty much just chuck luggage into the
| hold. And because it's a manual operation, nobody is
| going to sneak a huge chunk of tungsten or DU onto the
| plane, at least not in quantities that would throw off
| weight and balance on a 737.
| FeeJai wrote:
| There is a documented accident like this of a civilian
| B747 cargo plane carrying military equipment that shifted
| to the back. National Airlines Flight 102
|
| Very scary and impressive videos of the crash on YouTube
| sonofhans wrote:
| This type of comment is one reason I keep coming to HN.
| [deleted]
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| Does the airline have a two-person rule for the flight-
| deck and/or lockable doors though?
|
| What concerns me about the cockpit lockable doors is how
| obviously it would lead to tragedy (e.g. Germanwings) -
| I'd have hoped that the locks would open if unusual
| aircraft attitude changes were detected - because what's
| the point of keeping the cockpit door locked if the
| aircraft is _already_ erratic? Chances are something
| weird is going on in the flight deck and it's in the pax'
| best-interests if the cabin-crew can get in.
| nOObie1 wrote:
| If the plane was in a steep dive, the G-forces would be
| pushing you toward the tail of the aircraft making it
| very hard to get into the cockpit.
| amelius wrote:
| I wonder how "walkable" a plane is after it takes a
| nosedive, and if the type of doors would make any
| difference in one's ability to reach the cockpit.
| lolc wrote:
| Zero-g is very disorienting to humans. But an experienced
| pilot could probably handle it and push themselves
| towards the cockpit.
| [deleted]
| stretchcat wrote:
| An experienced airline pilot almost certainly has zero
| experience moving around in zero-g. Pilots just aren't
| trained for moving around a freefalling airplane. There
| are only a handful of 'vomit comets' in existence that
| could provide such training, and I've never heard of
| airline pilots being trained in them.
| lolc wrote:
| I didn't mean to say that pilots have zero-g training. I
| just assume that most pilots could handle zero-g enough
| to orient themselves towards the cockpit. But maybe
| that's optimistic.
| FeeJai wrote:
| As long as there is air friction complete zero-g is
| highly unlikely. It takes a lot of training to set the
| engines correctly to cause zero g by compensating exactly
| the air friction
| stretchcat wrote:
| A malicious pilot could injure/incapacitate anybody who
| wasn't strapped into a seat with aggressive maneuvering.
| I expect it takes a lot of training for a 'vomit comet'
| pilot to _not_ toss everybody around like ragdolls, but a
| suicidal pilot trying to kill everybody wouldn 't be
| gentle about it..
| twelve40 wrote:
| Apparently, some manage to make it to the cockpit (that
| was before reinforced doors):
|
| > the aircraft suddenly went into a rapid dive nose-
| first, resulting in weightlessness (zero-g) throughout
| the cabin. Despite this, the captain was able to fight
| the zero-g and re-enter the cockpit
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990
| asd4232 wrote:
| Usually when a plane "falls apart" you'll have an
| accident scene with larger pieces intact compared to a
| plane nosediving to the ground in one piece.
| cambalache wrote:
| If you look at my comments you will see that I am generally
| against American powerful institutions and the sadly common
| American arrogance, but in these kind of things I am 100%
| behind the American mindset. How convenient that all these
| clearly suicide-by-pilot incidents are called
| "inconclusive" by the national , non-US, agency. Is saving
| face a price worth paying for? This does not help anybody
| and basically protects a person, who no matter how troubled
| and depressed, was in essence a mass-murderer.
| kepler1 wrote:
| BTW what do you mean by the American mindset?
| cambalache wrote:
| truth over feelings, appearances or face saving. Not
| always true, but pretty much spot on in air disasters
| investigations
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| > How convenient that all these clearly suicide-by-pilot
| incidents are called "inconclusive" by the national ,
| non-US, agency.
|
| The French and German agencies investigating Germanwings
| 9525 ruled it a suicide.
| cambalache wrote:
| I thought about saying "western" mindset, but I didnt
| want to open that can of worms
| dehrmann wrote:
| The 737-Classic is more reliable than humans, so some
| amount of human error would be my first guess.
| TeaDrunk wrote:
| I think this might be ruled out- Indonesian news sources
| have cited sounds of explosions as well as an eyewitness
| account of the plane exploding in midair. If it's pilot
| suicide, it's certainly unconventional.
| clon wrote:
| Please don't. This is unsubstantiated bullshit at this
| point. It is a lot more likely that they fought the plane
| (or their own somatogravic illusion, or ..?) to the bitter
| end. To put pilot suicide out there, requires some
| supporting evidence on your part.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| I think most of speculation in this thread is mostly
| unsubstantiated, as we know nearly nothing. I think it's
| fine that the parent points this out, at the very least
| should not be berated like this.
| asd4232 wrote:
| If the weather was bad it could also be caused by a pilot
| getting disoriented, or perhaps an instrument failure. Plenty
| of aircraft with perfectly working flight controls have been
| nosedived to the ground either due to spatial disorientation,
| or pilots believing a faulty attitude indicator.
|
| Of course suicide is another possibility in such cases.
| mysterydip wrote:
| The flight path shows a sharp right turn before the crash:
| https://twitter.com/omrockett/status/1347856795239292929?s=2...
| based on the curve before that it doesn't seem part of the
| scheduled path. Possibly manul course change or part of losing
| control?
| Shorel wrote:
| Maybe the right turbine had a malfunction.
| bluGill wrote:
| Seems unlikely. All airplanes can take off with one engine
| failed, and pilots generally practice one engine failure
| situations often. Unless you are suggesting the pilots were
| poorly trained?
| cco wrote:
| An engine disintegrating and taking control surfaces with
| it is what I assume they meant.
| damniatx wrote:
| They found the debris
|
| https://twitter.com/HZLABZ/status/1347859200135868418?s=19
| kjakm wrote:
| Anything to back this up? The account tweeting it seems
| unrelated to the people in the images and I can't see a source.
| rurban wrote:
| If you read the proper news, ie avherald, you will read that
| two fisher boats were 5nm from the crash site. They heard two
| explosions, saw the parts falling down, went there, picked up
| the debris. One stayed there, in shallow water, easy to check
| the cause of the explisions, the other went 2hrs to report to
| police. A bomb is very unlikely, lots of better explanations.
| We'll see.
| peteretep wrote:
| > A bomb is very unlikely
|
| Why?
| cjbprime wrote:
| I expect you're overstating how unlikely it is: there are
| not that many better explanations for a plane suddenly
| falling out of the sky.
| [deleted]
| netsharc wrote:
| Now that you wrote "bomb", my brain just chimed with the
| info that the Indonesian government banned an extremist
| Islamist group a week or 2 ago...
| raihansaputra wrote:
| The video is making rounds. Seems like it's legit, the
| Basarnas (Indonesian National SAR) and KNKT (Indonesia's
| NTSB) is still confirming the findings.
| refurb wrote:
| Wow. Considering most airlines are operating at >20% of normal
| volume it's amazing we'd see a crash right now.
| raffraffraff wrote:
| I know two pilots in their 50s (husband and wife, who met
| through their work). Because of covid, they're back in flight
| simulators. For them, it's very very weird to be in a simulator
| unless it's for extreme scenarios like zero visibility,
| treacherous wind, engine failure etc. He's had a handful of
| flights in the last few months so his licence is ok, but she's
| got to fly as co-pilot for a while because she hasn't flown for
| 3 months. There's a critical mass issue though... If an airline
| doesn't have enough pilots who can fly, it takes a while for
| the rest to get the co-pilot fly time. So now she's in the
| simulator, and the instruction is simply "Take off from London,
| touch down in Dublin".
|
| I thought it was like riding a bicycle - you don't forget.
| While that's true to an extent, I was told that you do "lose
| your edge" without constant practice. (I'm sure every developer
| knows what is like to go back to a language after a year of not
| using it).
|
| I'm not suggesting that it's a factor here, just wanted to give
| a different angle to the low flight volume.
| dehrmann wrote:
| I don't feel like I'm as good of a driver after only driving
| a few miles per week. I can do it, but I definitely feel a
| little out of practice.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| It is not like riding a bike at all. A few weeks of not
| flying, and I notice my landings getting sloppier and less
| smooth.
| mulmen wrote:
| This reminds me of Blancolirio speaking of "perishable
| skills" in a recent video:
| https://youtu.be/u19R0zfusiQ&t=14m30s
|
| That was in regard to mid-air refueling but I'm sure it
| extends to other skills as well.
| marcyb5st wrote:
| Wouldn't surprise me if to save some money airlines become more
| lenient in maintenance. Especially in less regulated airspaces.
|
| Not saying this is the reason of the crash, but just it
| wouldn't surprise me if that was the case.
| VLM wrote:
| Beancounters have always been complaining about beans, but
| for the first time in aviation history (well, maybe a couple
| weeks around 9/11) operations is not driving maintenance
| insane with demands to keep em in the air.
|
| There is a valid counter argument that planes are built to
| fly and nothing seems to attract problems like hanger queens
| that just sit there. Seals dry out, birds nest, corrosion is
| arguably worse on the ground that on flying planes...
|
| Its interesting that the linked airline has no documented
| google-able history of maintenance related problems, but
| their pilots have repeatedly historically done some real
| cowboy stuff like land at the wrong airport and several
| episodes of "the weather isn't really that bad" turning out
| to be vastly optimistic. I would guess past performance
| predicting future performance would indicate it is much more
| likely to be an operations failure rather than maint...
| elwell wrote:
| Do you mean '<'?
| siva7 wrote:
| Operating at such a low volume introduces other problems
| similiar like surgeons doing too few procedures and therefore
| not gaining enough routine
| mrandish wrote:
| Agreed. This is an under-appreciated impact of widespread,
| long-term lockdowns. It disrupts basically everything in both
| obvious and non-obvious ways ranging from subtle to severe.
|
| I've been reading some concerning analyses by supply chain
| experts documenting the increasing stresses and failures in
| supply chains throughout the economy. Basically, you can't
| change this much, this fast, across so many interlinked
| systems and not cause significant unexpected failures.
| blantonl wrote:
| Also their equipment sitting idle
| manojlds wrote:
| A reason why I have been avoiding restaurant foods here in
| India due to covid - it's not because of covid per se, but
| due to possible other cuts being done due to lower volumes
| and I just can't rely on quality of food.
| overscore wrote:
| Yeah. I am a SAR medic and due to rolling lockdowns, was only
| able to get to sea for training about 10% of the norm last
| year (4 times vs ~40 in 2019). The same is true for clinical
| placements (0 vs 4), classroom training (2 vs ~50), etc.
|
| They're all perishable skills and it's left me rusty on
| everything from boat handling to nav to CPR (BLS is an
| _extremely_ perishable skill - used to do BLS refreshers
| every two weeks). On call outs, I can the difference in all
| the crew - even those on the job for decades. Things just
| aren 't as smooth.
|
| I can't wait to get vaccinated and back into training.
| Otherwise, I worry we're going to start making mistakes.
| mantap wrote:
| What is BLS?
| FlyMoreRockets wrote:
| BLS = Basic Life Support
|
| https://cpr.heart.org/en/cpr-courses-and-kits/healthcare-
| pro...
|
| From the linked page:
|
| What does this course teach?
|
| High-quality CPR for adults, children, and infants
|
| The AHA Chain of Survival, specifically the BLS
| components
|
| Important early use of an AED [Automated External
| Defibrillator]
|
| Effective ventilations using a barrier device
|
| Importance of teams in multirescuer resuscitation and
| performance as an effective team member during
| multirescuer CPR
|
| Relief of foreign-body airway obstruction (choking) for
| adults and infants
| overscore wrote:
| Sorry - Basic Life Support. It's the certification all
| medical practitioners must keep as a prerequisite for
| working with patients, and covers CPR, advanced airway
| management, defibrillation, and the chain of survival.
| Most countries issue two-year certifications, but every
| frontline service I ever worked with have monthly or
| fortnightly refresher training.
| rdgthree wrote:
| Is this just an assumption? It's an interesting thought, I'm
| curious if there's some sort of data to back it up.
| bigbaguette wrote:
| There is a variety of anticipated risks linked to the
| reduced activity during the pandemic and its effects on air
| travel as a whole. However, this kind of oversight might
| not be equally managed everywhere in the world
|
| https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/review_o
| f...
| raihansaputra wrote:
| I personally don't know about the not enough
| routine/repetition step, but the FAA did have a
| recommendation for pilots to reduce the use of autopilots
| due to similar reasoning.
|
| https://nbaa.org/aircraft-operations/safety/faa-
| recommends-p...
| sokoloff wrote:
| That is from 2013 (not saying it's invalid advice, just
| that it's not related to current flying schedules).
|
| Children of the Magenta Line is a great presentation on
| automation dependence and quite funny at moments.
| https://youtu.be/5ESJH1NLMLs
|
| (The GPS flight plan track is standardized to be drawn in
| magenta.)
| chrononaut wrote:
| Interestingly even though there have been a significant
| decrease in the number of flights and passengers flying, the
| number of absolute fatalities was higher in 2020 than 2019:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-55515525
| woutr_be wrote:
| 2020 did have fewer accidents than 2019 (https://en.wikipedia
| .org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...), with a major
| accident early January. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine
| _International_Airlines...
|
| And most accidents happened before June, which was still
| relatively early on in the pandemic.
| scoopertrooper wrote:
| 2020 was so wild I forgot Iran shot down a Ukrainian
| airliner.
| Recursing wrote:
| As the article says, 176 out of the 299 fatalities in 2020
| were due to the "shooting down of a Ukraine International
| Airlines flight by Iranian armed forces last January". So
| that's the only reason
| [deleted]
| nobrains wrote:
| The area around Indonesia is the new Bermuda Triangle (yes yes,
| while noting that there was nothing significant or statistically
| significant about the Bermuda Triangle)
| [deleted]
| gumby wrote:
| BTW it's a 30-year-old airframe, not a recent 737-Max.
| dirtyid wrote:
| After seeing images of passenger fleets grounded in storage
| outside during covid, Im personally reluctant to fly until air
| travel gets back to pre pandemic levels and all the maintenance
| kinks thoroughly addressed.
| dehrmann wrote:
| I halfway agree, but storing planes in the desert for a while
| is a pretty standard thing, so we know how to do this, and it's
| not like we're bringing the entire fleet back over a month;
| it'll be more gradual.
| pierrefermat1 wrote:
| This is plain stupid, do the maths and you'll realise the cab
| ride over to the airport gives you a higher chance of death
| than flights themselves. You can't just worry endless about low
| probability events
| notwhereyouare wrote:
| During normal travel, I would agree. But planes are meant to
| be flown, not sit grounded like a large number did for 6+
| months
| crubier wrote:
| Not really. If my memory serves me right, Planes are much
| safer than cars in terms of fatalities per km, safer than car
| per hour, and on par with cars in terms of fatal accident per
| flight. Planes flights are faster and longer than car trips.
| [deleted]
| anshumankmr wrote:
| Never flying a Boeing ever again.
| eloff wrote:
| Because Airbus never crashes? Or are you going to drive
| everywhere and accept the much higher risks that involves?
|
| Note this was not a 737 Max, it's unrelated to those crashes.
| That's a knee-jerk emotional reaction.
| sesuximo wrote:
| We cannot be sure it's completely unrelated. We'll know more
| soon enough
| anshumankmr wrote:
| Boeing has been repeatedly undermining its engineers and has
| been finding way to cut costs, that has killed hundreds so
| far. They just settled in a court case a few days ago. And
| you wonder why I don't want to fly Boeing? Source: https://ww
| w.youtube.com/watch?v=EESYomdoeCs&ab_channel=Bloom...
|
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-reaches-2-5-billion-
| sett...
|
| And the cars are in my control. I can choose the best
| possible car I can afford, I can drive responsibly. I can use
| public transport whenever I can. Planes may be statistically
| safer, but when companies cut costs to undermine people's
| lives, they deserve to pay for it.
| netsharc wrote:
| This page says 16+ million flights in the USA occur yearly:
| https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/
|
| Sure, maybe it's pre-COVID info. Let's do a Fermi "how many
| piano tuners" and say subtracting the small private jets
| and Airbus, there are 5 million flights on Boeing hardware,
| in the USA alone. Let's say maybe 20 million worldwide
| (probably way too low a number). There were 20 million
| successful flights with Boeing hardware per year, year
| after year. 1 of them crashes, and you say "Never flying a
| Boeing again?".
|
| Anyway, why should I take some random Internet outburst
| seriously. How about I make a $1000 bet that you'll find
| yourself on a Boeing flight between now and Jan 1, 2026?
| Would you be willing to do that?
| weaksauce wrote:
| in all reality it's probably not on boeing. it's a 26 year
| old plane that operates in a company that had a checkered
| past wrt safety and was in danger of losing their license.
| no plane is safe if they skip out on maintenance or pilot
| training.
| eloff wrote:
| Yeah, let's put it this way, if it is a Boeing problem
| it's surprising that it goes 26 years undetected and it's
| worrying because that's the most popular airframe out
| there today.
|
| This is much more likely to be related to the specific
| maintenance of the plane, actions of the pilots, or a
| terrorist thing - Indonesia is a Muslim country that
| recently banned some extremist groups.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-09 23:02 UTC)