Boeing's woes continue as 50 injured on Australia-New Zealand flight(aljazeera.com)
aljazeera.com
Boeing's woes continue as 50 injured on Australia-New Zealand flight
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/11/50-people-injured-by-strong-movement-on-boeing-787-9-dreamliner
14 comments
I like blaming Boeing for the consequences of their greed and recklessness as much as anybody else, but when this story came out, it read pretty much as "in-flight turbulence".
Did any serious new information pop-up suggesting it was a system malfunction? (And it would have to be a pretty worrying and serious one, to throw people against the ceiling, and very, very bad for Boeing if it was so.)
If not, this is nothing more than clickbait.
Did any serious new information pop-up suggesting it was a system malfunction? (And it would have to be a pretty worrying and serious one, to throw people against the ceiling, and very, very bad for Boeing if it was so.)
If not, this is nothing more than clickbait.
https://avherald.com/h?article=51601631&opt=0
> The captain later said they had briefly lost their instrumentation, then it came back all of the sudden.
> The captain later said they had briefly lost their instrumentation, then it came back all of the sudden.
Cause or consequence?
The story, its consequences, (and even the torn ceiling pictures), read very much like this one from December:
https://avherald.com/h?article=51212eb5&opt=0
The story, its consequences, (and even the torn ceiling pictures), read very much like this one from December:
https://avherald.com/h?article=51212eb5&opt=0
does it matter?
under what circumstances is it acceptable for your instrumentation to go away? none is the answer.
If the event was caused by the instrumentation going away it's bad. If the instrumentation went away because of the event, that's also bad.
under what circumstances is it acceptable for your instrumentation to go away? none is the answer.
If the event was caused by the instrumentation going away it's bad. If the instrumentation went away because of the event, that's also bad.
> under what circumstances is it acceptable for your instrumentation to go away? none is the answer.
Instrument failures happen. That's why redundancy is built in.
> If the instrumentation went away because of the event, that's also bad.
That is bad. But not as bad a FBW system bug.
Instrument failures happen. That's why redundancy is built in.
> If the instrumentation went away because of the event, that's also bad.
That is bad. But not as bad a FBW system bug.
lets not split hairs, if the redundancies kick in then the instrumentation didn't go away.
> That is bad. But not as bad a FBW system bug.
The event in question is better than the plane plummeting out of the sky and killing everyone. That doesn't make it ok for the event to have happened.
> That is bad. But not as bad a FBW system bug.
The event in question is better than the plane plummeting out of the sky and killing everyone. That doesn't make it ok for the event to have happened.
The airline itself said it was due to technical issues, right after the plane landed.
Talk is free, but that doesn't say much. It can be a (natural) misguided attempt to deflect blame.
Were there any cockpit warnings? Full loss of instruments? Conflicting information displayed? Stall warnings with overspeed warnings? Altitude holding problems on autopilot? Erratic system inputs? Before and/or after the mishap?
It will take quite an input to push passengers to the ceiling, an acceleration well beyond what the FBW system will allow.
This particular article addresses none of those points, only repeating what the airline said.
So until new information emerges, this mishap reads like a fairly classic inflight turbulence encounter. See, for instance, this event from December:
https://avherald.com/h?article=51212eb5&opt=0
Were there any cockpit warnings? Full loss of instruments? Conflicting information displayed? Stall warnings with overspeed warnings? Altitude holding problems on autopilot? Erratic system inputs? Before and/or after the mishap?
It will take quite an input to push passengers to the ceiling, an acceleration well beyond what the FBW system will allow.
This particular article addresses none of those points, only repeating what the airline said.
So until new information emerges, this mishap reads like a fairly classic inflight turbulence encounter. See, for instance, this event from December:
https://avherald.com/h?article=51212eb5&opt=0
It doesn't appear to have been reported in Al Jazeera but the pilot did in fact report a total loss of instrumentation for a few seconds. That being said, no I would not say a sudden drop of a few hundred feet, both preceeded and succeeded by steady and level flight, sounds like a "classic inflight turbulence encounter". That would be quite unusual.
No, wind shear exists. And +/-30 meter changes are well within the realms of wind shear drafts.
Never said it didn't. I'm saying that based on the description, the degree of disturbance is far outside of the realm of what I would consider common. This is regardless of cause.
Ah, I see where the misunderstanding came from. In my
Case-in-point being the Emirates flight from December, with similar ceiling damage, and similar passengers/crew injuries.
"this reads like a fairly classic inflight turbulence encounter"
Case-in-point being the Emirates flight from December, with similar ceiling damage, and similar passengers/crew injuries.
The article doesn't explain the cause but it sounds exactly like something that could be turbulence:
> In the incident on Monday, passengers arriving in Aukland told local media that the plane quickly lost altitude, flinging those unsecured towards the ceiling.
> A passenger told radio network RNZ that “people flew through the air because they weren’t wearing their seatbelts”.
Like I said that doesn't mean it was turbulence - but the basic concept of keeping your belt on when seated would have likely prevented most injuries.
> In the incident on Monday, passengers arriving in Aukland told local media that the plane quickly lost altitude, flinging those unsecured towards the ceiling.
> A passenger told radio network RNZ that “people flew through the air because they weren’t wearing their seatbelts”.
Like I said that doesn't mean it was turbulence - but the basic concept of keeping your belt on when seated would have likely prevented most injuries.
Al-Jazeera has really been on fire digging into Boeing. This video (though from 2014) was remarkable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvkEpstd9os