Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I inferred the previous warnings occurred at a more normal cruising altitude. We don't really know enough, do we?
Another problem for Boeing 737 Max
- Thread starter Sonority
- Start date
canonman
pfm Member
Far worse things have fallen from aircraft
www.atlasobscura.com
The U.S. Once Dropped Two Nuclear Bombs on North Carolina by Accident
By sheer luck, neither detonated.
Tony Lockhart
Avoiding Stress, at Every Opportunity
I’ve read they were ‘only’ connected to cabin conditioning. If the system was over-pressuring enough to pop a door off at 16,000ft, my guess is that passengers would have been reporting popping/burst eardrums. But also, the pilot would receive a warning long before any harm could be caused.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I was thinking more the other way, perhaps, that if there was a small leak, the pressurisation system might be working harder than expected, and flagging up warnings. But then again, if that was the case I imagine tests would be done on the ground to find any possible leak.
Tony Lockhart
Avoiding Stress, at Every Opportunity
The system would, if sensors etc are working properly, only try to correct the pressure, not raise it over the set cabin pressure level.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Yes, I know. I'm not suggesting anything different. And I don't know the nature of the warnings the system was giving. But it occurred to me that if there was a small leak around the dodgy door blanking panel, perhaps (as you suggested upthread) due to incorrect fasteners being used, or something, then that might make the pressurisation work harder than expected, to maintain the preset cabin pressure. I know planes vent/leak and I know the rate they do so is accounted for, and the pressurisation system is specced to be able to cope with maintaining a set pressure in light of that. So there are, presumably, normal rates of 'effort' for the pressurisation system to run at, for any given cabin pressure differential. What I was wondering, was whether a leak might have caused it to have to work harder, and this would presumably raise a warning flag, as it could indicate a compromised cabin.
Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
I’ll see your astonishment, and raise you:
And that was NOT down to Boeing.
Aloha Airlines Flight 243 - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
That reminded me of what it was sometimes like in the '80s flying on 'local' airlines in the USA. Friendly and relaxed, but sometimes perhaps a bit 'kick the tyres' before bording!
CageyH
pfm Member
The system probably uses a delta pressure sensor.
The flight crew would see this warning before anything drastic happened, enabling them to descend to a safe altitude.
You would get a cabin pressure warning, and an automatic mask deployment when the pressure got too low.
The fact that this aircraft had already had warnings before are probably linked to the failure of the door.
A pressure test was probably already scheduled to identify the source of the pressure loss, but as it was presumably relatively small, it was deemed as being fit for flight, with restrictions.
They are also relatively lucky that a 23kg door landed in a garden, and not elsewhere.
The flight crew would see this warning before anything drastic happened, enabling them to descend to a safe altitude.
You would get a cabin pressure warning, and an automatic mask deployment when the pressure got too low.
The fact that this aircraft had already had warnings before are probably linked to the failure of the door.
A pressure test was probably already scheduled to identify the source of the pressure loss, but as it was presumably relatively small, it was deemed as being fit for flight, with restrictions.
They are also relatively lucky that a 23kg door landed in a garden, and not elsewhere.
gez
pfm Member
Not diminishing your experience, but do you have visiblity about the decisions made at the top of Airbus by the exec team? Are you privy to every decision made by any layer of Airbus management world wide on how all potential safety concerns have been responded to?
My only point is that I highly doubt any large corporate organisation is 100% blameless when it comes to decision making regarding safety, when profit and self interest come in to conflict. My own 30 years of work experience has proven to me that all senior management teams are morally dubious when push comes to shove and profits are involved.
Tony Lockhart
Avoiding Stress, at Every Opportunity
Boeing's reputation has been severely damaged over the last twenty years or so. They'll hopefully get back to being a well regarded company when it comes to QA, morals, culture etc, but it's a slow process. It's extremely difficult to recruit the very people that you really pissed off in the past, as they'll have either retired or found a new employer who values their experience and skills.
Anyway, I'm off to work. And I'm not on the Boeing Apaches right now
Anyway, I'm off to work. And I'm not on the Boeing Apaches right now
gez
pfm Member
To be fair though, the airlines definition of a near miss isn't the same as what your average person on the street would imagine if you told them there was a near miss between two planes. Just for example. But yes you're right, if one takes the time to do a bit of research in to the subject it would be very easy to be put off flying forever.
Tony Lockhart
Avoiding Stress, at Every Opportunity
gez
pfm Member
The most anxious I've ever been before flying was when my flight was delayed because they had to clear some "icing" off the plane. It was an Easyjet flight so my built in bias/prejudice about the airline kicked in and I started worrying if they knew what they were doing and if the plane was actually safe to fly again etc etc.
gintonic
50 shades of grey pussy cats
you should take internal flights in India/Bangladesh/Pakistan/Nigeria etc etc, to achieve higher than normal anxiety levels......
One flight in India on a cheapo airline fell out of the sky - I was on the same flight the next day on a replacement plane - an exceptionally old 737, internally held together with gaffer tape.
Or in Nigeria, a flight from Abuja to Warri - with an airline called Aero Contractors - I had checked in when I received a call from my employer telling me not to fly or board as the insurance company wouldn't cover me. They arranged a car for the 9 hour drive. They told me to get about $300 in $10 and $20 denominations, so I could pay the militia at their road blocks, particularly when they point a kalashnikov at your head through the window......oh what fun.
or a Kuwait Airways flight from Kuwait City to Bahrain when two ovens in the galley caught fire and filled the cabin with acrid smoke....and we had to make a rapid descent......
Having spent almost a dozen years taking 50-60 flights a year in all sorts of odd locations - think I have a books worth of anecdotes, some funny, some anxiety inducing some downright weird.
Easyjet is the least of your problems
CageyH
pfm Member
The top management team are not involved directly in the certification flight test and development of the aircraft. That is handled by the flight test certification and development flight test teams, and progress is reported to management. If the aircraft is deemed as “not good for flight” due to whatever reason, it does not fly until that reason is corrected. If that delays the program, then so be it.
Other airworthiness issues are assessed outside of the top management teams as well. The CEO or any other member of the management team would not be able to overrule me if I stated that an aircraft is “not good for flight.”
I have never been put under pressure to change my decision in the instances where I have stated that the aircraft is not good for flight.
If anybody spots a potential problem, they are encouraged to speak up about it, and not to hide the issue, even though it may cause delays and loss of profit.
Safety is the number 1 priority.
CageyH
pfm Member
Part of certification flight test involves flying an aircraft in conditions with a simulated anti-ice failure to ensure that the flight control laws behave correctly. The aircraft are also flown with simulated ice shapes attached to the airframe that represent a “worst case“ scenario of ice build up. The crew also go looking for conditions for real ice build up testing.
Deicing an aircraft before take off is pretty common practice when the conditions dictate it. Nothing to be alarmed about, as the flight controls are checked before take off.
gez
pfm Member
Sounds joyous!
I once worked for a company that had sites in Somalia. One of the engineers that was before my time, had to go to do some work on one of the sites there. But he didn't stay in Somalia itself as it wasn't safe. So he stayed in Kenya and travelled in to Somalia each day to site. That required having to organise a Toyota landcruiser with armed guards to get him to site, plus having to pay the local "warlords" money at multiple "checkpoint" road blocks on the route. Then to make things even worse, one place where he stayed was sprayed with bullets the day after he left, so Kenya wasn't that much safer either. I was thankful I was never asked to go myself. I would have resigned before putting myself in that position.
gez
pfm Member
Yeah that's what I kept telling myself. But you know how irrationality works
. Certainly helped that on that particular flight we entered via stairs rather than the usual "tunnel" so I was able to look at the plane myself upon boarding and it all looked fine, which helped enormously with destressing.