from the how-to-get-your-own-Boeing,-just-wait-near-an-airport-for-falling-parts dept.
Not Boeing again!
An emergency slide falls off a Delta Air Lines plane, forcing pilots to return to JFK in New York:
NEW YORK (AP) — An emergency slide fell off a Delta Air Lines jetliner shortly after takeoff Friday from New York, and pilots who felt a vibration in the plane circled back to land safely at JFK Airport.
Delta said that after takeoff the pilots got an alert about the emergency slide on the plane's right side and heard an unusual sound coming from that area of the Boeing 767 jet, which is listed as having been manufactured in 1990.
The Federal Aviation Administration said the crew reported a vibration.
Pilots declared an emergency so the flight could be be routed quickly back to the airport, and the plane landed and taxied to a gate under its own power, according to the airline.
There were 176 passengers, two pilots and five flight attendants on board the flight, which was scheduled to fly to Los Angeles. Delta said it put passengers on another plane to California.
Delta said the plane was removed from service for evaluation and it was cooperating with investigators and supporting efforts to find the slide.
"As nothing is more important than the safety of our customers and people, Delta flight crews enacted their extensive training and followed procedures to return to JFK," the airline said in a statement.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Barenflimski on Sunday April 28, @08:05PM (3 children)
I love that no one was hurt on the plane, but where is the emergency slide now?
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 28, @11:28PM
A car salesman put a blower under it, now it waves at everyone on the highway, with a 'cars for less' sign.
(Score: 3, Funny) by crm114 on Monday April 29, @12:21AM
It is probably now a slip-and-slide somewhere in Long Island.
https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/north-carolina-police-respond-call-end-joining-slip/story?id=48437620 [go.com]
(Score: 4, Funny) by OrugTor on Monday April 29, @04:23PM
Entrpreneurs put an outboard motor and a bar on it and now it's the Party Slide on the Hudson.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Sunday April 28, @08:22PM (19 children)
Commercial flight with 100+ paying passengers onboard: one little vibration and that's it, emergency land.
Ronnie van Zandt on a private charter that they knew had flames shooting out of the engine a couple of nights prior with no explanation, and faulty fuel gauges since forever: "Welp folks, it's this or 12 hours on the bus, and I ain't takin' the bus, who's with me?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynyrd_Skynyrd_plane_crash [wikipedia.org]
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Sunday April 28, @10:50PM (13 children)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday April 28, @10:59PM (12 children)
John Denver met a related fate: poor fuel management leading to unplanned rapid descent in unfriendly terrain.
I disagree regarding commercial air travel in the late 1970s, they were already much more conservative than J. Denver et al
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Monday April 29, @12:00AM (8 children)
That's specifically because they had to be due to the technology not being as reliable as it is now. An actual crash of the magnitude that kills everybody on board has gotten to be a relative rarity in large part due to improved equipment and regulation. They can do things like land a plane sideways with the appropriate wind when that would have been impossible in the '70s.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday April 29, @12:12AM
Major commercial air crashes (not involving bombs, suicidal pilots etc.) were already rare in the late 70s.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Monday April 29, @12:17AM (6 children)
There's lies, damn lies and statistics:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/aviation-fatalities-per-million-passengers [ourworldindata.org]
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/world-air-passenger-traffic-evolution-1980-2020 [iea.org]
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Touché) by aafcac on Monday April 29, @01:13AM (5 children)
What specifically is the issue, your own links show that it's much lower now? It also fails to support or refute the notion that modern planes are capable of handling conditions that would previously have led to planes being grounded.
Could and would a '70s era jet manage this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jn1xCjqCFE [youtube.com] ?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday April 29, @01:53AM (2 children)
My own links show that there are roughly 1/2 as many commercial air fatalities today as the late 1970s.
My assertion that "commercial air fatalities were already well under control by the late 1970s is borne out by the data - depending on how you choose to view it.
Yes, it's dramatically better today (49 years later) than 1975. Go back to 1965 and its already dramatically worse than 1975.
We also have about 5x as many people flying commercial as we did 50 years ago - outpacing the 3x increase in population.
>Could and would a '70s era jet manage this?
In the 1970s a friend with a Cessna used to do that into headwinds on the active runway at SRQ... the tower was not amused. Did pilots of 1970s 747s have the chutzpah to do that with such a big expensive chunk of aluminum? No, but they did have the skill.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Monday April 29, @02:52AM (1 child)
1/2? It looks closer to 1/20th, and you're skirting the bit about the kind of conditions in which planes could safely fly. Modern planes can fly in conditions that planes of that vintage would have issues with. And you've made my point, the fact that it would take chutzpah to do it does tend to bolster my point that the technology has come a long way over that period. That video was a commercial flight, one where crashing would have been bad. It's not like that Boeing test pilot doing the barrel roll to really test the plane.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday April 29, @12:32PM
>That video was a commercial flight, one where crashing would have been bad. It's not like that Boeing test pilot doing the barrel roll to really test the plane.
We're agreeing from opposite sides of the fence, at least I am.
Another thing about "big commercial jets" is that they've been flying for 50 additional years now. In the mid 1970s the 747 was an unprecedentedly large aircraft that had just started flying in 1968 - call it 7 years in service. Today they're over 50 years in service and there is over 5x as many passengers being carried every year, so roughly 15x as much "experience" with flying the big jets in all kinds of conditions as in 1975.
And, as far as flying with equipment problems goes... that was my original point, and I still believe that commercial operators are far more conservative in their operations decisions than charter - and that's a good thing.
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/airplane-crashes/ [nsc.org]
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 29, @02:28AM
Here's a 747 taking off into a major crosswind, no idea of the date,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzZShKYD2Dk [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 29, @05:55AM
Not disagreeing with you that stuff has got safer.
But regarding:
Likely: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtnL4KYVtDE [youtube.com]
See also B52 (1950s era design - so it's not like crosswinds would be a new thing to 1970s aircraft designers): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhVD3E0-0Wc [youtube.com]
Newer 747: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nniy4rUcV-k [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pt8l1I-8MTA [youtube.com]
For 747-8 landing gear strengthened but max weight increased. But seems like previous versions are about the same:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/10/08/E9-24339/special-conditions-boeing-model-747-8-8f-airplanes-structural-design-requirements-for-four-post-main [federalregister.gov]
From wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-8 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Monday April 29, @08:19PM (2 children)
While flying a home-built experimental aircraft in which he hadn't learned how to switch fuel tanks (what else hadn't he learned?) - that's beyond poor fuel management. Private covers a lot of stuff including some pretty dangerous stuff. One wouldn't expect that flying experimental aircraft that one isn't sufficiently knowledgeable in to be as safe as a passenger jet in 1977 or now.
Later you post links that show that globally air traffic deaths per million passengers dropped enormously (by around two orders of magnitude) which completely destroys your argument that air flight was roughly as safe in 1977 as it is today.
What is the point?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday April 29, @08:32PM (1 child)
There was an additional feature of Denver's experimental aircraft: the fuel gauge was only visible by holding a hand mirror to look behind the pilot's head. So, any early warning that one might need to be finding the fuel tank switch-over control was effectively defeated by dismal pilot-interface design.
>destroys your argument that air flight was roughly as safe in 1977
That would be _your_ argument that you projected onto my statement: "I disagree regarding commercial air travel in the late 1970s, they were already much more conservative" Conservatively operated != safe.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Monday April 29, @09:07PM
I think we see the problem with your assertion just by looking at the link you helpfully provided.
(Score: 2) by EJ on Sunday April 28, @11:12PM (1 child)
In the LS case, the plane wasn't made by Boeing, so they were less worried.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday April 28, @11:27PM
I have seen a lot of "pilot error" in NTSB findings and a lot of crappy user (pilot) interface design getting a pass.
In our industry (med device) we have started documenting usability testing as part of both the early and late development process.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by driverless on Monday April 29, @03:32AM (2 children)
You missed one important detail: Commercial Boeing aircraft flight. If was flying something built by Boeing and something happened that wasn't supposed to I'd play it safe and land as well.
(Score: 5, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Monday April 29, @12:20PM
You know why they're called Boeing? Because that's the sound that the parts make after they fall off and hit the ground.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Monday April 29, @11:26PM
When something you depend on for your life in a hostile environment does something you can't explain, you protect yourself right away.
A fictional illustration that makes the point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatlander_(short_story) [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2, Informative) by anubi on Sunday April 28, @10:22PM (1 child)
https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL520/history/20240426/1125Z/KJFK/KJFK [flightaware.com]
Must have been fun planning its landing at such a busy airport on such short notice.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 29, @03:44PM
While I'm not an air traffic controller, dealing with an emergency call which ultimately ends well for everyone probably does make for a fun day at work.
If they got called the guys in the fire trucks probably had a good time too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 28, @11:37PM (4 children)
This wasn't a 767 Max, was it? Where does Max Headroom work today, anyway? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsDrXc94NGU [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday April 28, @11:47PM (2 children)
It is all in TFA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 29, @03:05AM (1 child)
Whooooosh!
(Score: 3, Funny) by kazzie on Monday April 29, @07:09PM
Low-flying planes? I must be near the airport!
(Score: 3, Informative) by kazzie on Monday April 29, @07:09PM
There is no MAX model of the 767, you're probably thinking of the 737.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 29, @12:56AM