General Aviation Thread

[Ananda]

Found this video shown how the passengers basically stay discipline and not panic even the smoke begin to enter the cabin. Next part of video shown seems the last occupants slide down the emergency flotable chute in also discipline manner and not bringin their cabin baggage.

All done in less then 2 minutes (some say 90 second), but more or less in that time period. Shown how cooperate passagers listening to well treined crew is matter. We can see in the last part of video, the fires has not got into the cabin. Which shows how all passanger evacuate in that very short window. This is really text book evacuation that clearly can happen on keeping discipline environment.

 

[seaspear]

I wonder if the process of emergency evacuation could be helped if the overhead lockers could be automatically locked in these types of situations

 

[John Fedup]

I wonder if the process of emergency evacuation could be helped if the overhead lockers could be automatically locked in these types of situations

Perhaps but there is still the stuff people are allowed to store under the seat.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Yes this was in this was in my local paper. It said that there was a stop light bar across the end of the taxiway that was not working. If this is true and it was dark, the pilot of the CG aircraft may not have been aware that he was on the runway. Early days yet, could be some time for the whole story to come out.

Apparently there was a Notice to Airmen in place about that, so the Coastguard crew should have exercised more caution.

But as I said in my last post, the Coastguard captain has reportedly said he believed he was cleared to enter the runway/take-off.

I wonder if the process of emergency evacuation could be helped if the overhead lockers could be automatically locked in these types of situations

I think the chance of aircraft manufacturers putting that function on their planes is zero because it would cause mayhem if the system malfunctioned when there wasn't an emergency.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

I wonder if the process of emergency evacuation could be helped if the overhead lockers could be automatically locked in these types of situations

Designing and installing such system will bring a lot of costs and maintenance with it. It will also add weight to the aircraft and a lot of stress if all those overhead bins stay locked during a normal flight if the system malfunctions.

Besides that a lot of emergency equipment are stored in these overhead bins.

 

[Ananda]

Watch this video on Facebook

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

LM FB shown video of their supersonic airliner prototype test bed. They are planning to shown this X-59 trial soon. Their skunk work team hope their co-op with Nasa on this X-59 will be game changer tech that make over-continent supersonic travel workable within regulation threshold. Achieving the illusive standard of that quiet supersonic airliner.

 

[Rob c]

Apparently there was a Notice to Airmen in place about that, so the Coastguard crew should have exercised more caution.

But as I said in my last post, the Coastguard captain has reportedly said he believed he was cleared to enter the runway/take-off.

Very few aviation accidents have a single simple cause. Rather there is usually a significant number of factors that lead up to the final result. It is not uncommon for just the removal of any of these factors to have had the ability to stop the accident from happening. I would suggest that that it is probable that this accident falls into this category.

 

[Ananda]

More video taken by passanger during evacuation. This one compilled by Japan ANN TV. For me what most interesting is in minutes 18:45 - 19:00, where ANN shown that basically the evacuation can only be done from 3 exit door from 8. Because that 3 are the only ones that safe enough to be used. For me, that raise the bar of achievement on this evacuation more.

How passangers following Crew instructions to basically crawl on floor to reach emergency exit doors. That really makes me wonder if most passenger are not Japanese, will they are still discipline enough. They see the fires, they must already in panic mode, as it is human instinct after all. Still they follow the instructions in discipline way.

For one thing if this is happen in Indonesia, they are already stampede each other to find exit doors.

 

[John Fedup]

I agree, this is event happening in any other country probably wouldn’t have a happy ending.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Very few aviation accidents have a single simple cause. Rather there is usually a significant number of factors that lead up to the final result. It is not uncommon for just the removal of any of these factors to have had the ability to stop the accident from happening. I would suggest that that it is probable that this accident falls into this category.

First, as I said, if the pilot has been accurately reported as saying he believed he was cleared to enter the runway (and that is why the coastguard plane was on it), the issue of the lighting is irrelevant.

Second, even if the coastguard crew had believed they were at a holding point off the runway, the issue of lighting would still be a minor issue. Airport facilities can come out of service from time to time - ILS is a common one. When aircrew are notified of those problems, they are responsible for taking mitigating action.

It's virtually certain that the captain and his crew didn't mean to act in an unsafe way. So there will have been something we're not currently aware of at play, such as fatigue. It's also fairly certain that the crew will have put themselves under pressure to complete the relief flight because they would want to help people. Their superiors may have suggested that they had to leave by a certain time.

But at the same time I think it's important to focus on what appears to the primary failing, that of the coastguard captain/crew. People have to take personal responsibility, and for me I'm not all that interested in minor contributory factors. That can be saved for the minutiae of the final report.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Again an incident with a Boeing 737MAX. This time the Left Mid Emergency Exit Roor decided to separate from the aircraft shorty after take-off.

Boeing verliest deel romp tijdens vlucht: Alaska Airlines houdt vloot aan de grond | Economie | NU.nl

Alaska Airlines houdt tijdelijk al zijn 65 Boeing 737 MAX 9-vliegtuigen aan de grond voor inspectie. Een vliegtuig moest vrijdag namelijk een noodlanding maken omdat kort na het opstijgen een stuk van de romp van het toestel wegvloog.

www.nu.nl

Boeing 737 MAX van Alaska Airlines verliest nooddeur en keert terug

Een passagiersvliegtuig van Alaska Airlines heeft een noodlanding gemaakt in de Amerikaanse staat Oregon. Tijdens de vlucht verloor het toestel door nog onbekende oorzaak een inactieve nooddeur (een plug), samen met een stuk wandpaneel. De Boeing 737 MAX 9 had 171 passagiers en zes...

www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl

I try to find some English articles.
Edit: i found some...

Alaska Airlines grounds 737 Max 9 planes after section blows out mid-air

Part of the fuselage of the Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max 9 fell off, forcing an emergency landing.

www.bbc.com

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-safety-board-investigating-alaska-airlines-boeing-737-max-9-emergency-landing-2024-01-06/

 

[Ananda]

Alaska Airlines 737-9 MAX exit door separates in flight | Flightradar24 Blog

An Alaska Airlines 737-9 MAX exit door assembly separated from the aircraft after the aircraft departed Portland for Ontario, California.

www.flightradar24.com

Seems Alaska order this exit door to permanently sealed. Thus they call it a plug. Passenger doesn't now this is supposedly a door, as it is from cabin just like another window. There 's going to be questions I believe on Boeing assembly procedure. From Alaska perspective as customer, it should already been sealed.



This photo from United Airlines. Shown how the door being also sealed in their Max 9. Carriers that used their Max 9 for higher density configuration, like Indonesian Budget Airlines Lion Air, operated that door, as additional emergency exit. This configuration also available in 737-900, as I see one when flying on Lion Air 737-900 (one of only two flight I ever take with that carrier). Thus most airlines that using lower densities configuration will mostly choose to seales that door as 'plug' configuration (as United Photo shown).

So this is should not be something new on Boeing assembly practices. Guess they are going to find themselves on another rounds of questioning, scrutiny and reputations damage control.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Alaska Airlines 737-9 MAX exit door separates in flight | Flightradar24 Blog

An Alaska Airlines 737-9 MAX exit door assembly separated from the aircraft after the aircraft departed Portland for Ontario, California.

www.flightradar24.com

Seems Alaska order this exit door to permanently sealed. Thus they call it a plug. Passenger doesn't now this is supposedly a door, as it is from cabin just like another window. There 's going to be questions I believe on Boeing assembly procedure. From Alaska perspective as customer, it should already been sealed.

View attachment 51071

This photo from United Airlines. Shown how the door being also sealed in their Max 9. Carriers that used their Max 9 for higher density configuration, like Indonesian Budget Airlines Lion Air, operated that door, as additional emergency exit. This configuration also available in 737-900, as I see one when flying on Lion Air 737-900 (one of only two flight I ever take with that carrier). Thus most airlines that using lower densities configuration will mostly choose to seales that door as 'plug' configuration (as United Photo shown).

So this is should not be something new on Boeing assembly practices. Guess they are going to find themselves on another rounds of questioning, scrutiny and reputations damage control.

Yes it is the same with the 737-900ER. Lion Air use it as a high density single (economy) class with 213-215 passengers, while Batik use the 737-900ER in lower density with a business class.
In that case it is similar to a "normal" 737-900, which does not has the additional Mid Emergency Exit Doors.

 

[Rob c]

First, as I said, if the pilot has been accurately reported as saying he believed he was cleared to enter the runway (and that is why the coastguard plane was on it), the issue of the lighting is irrelevant.

Second, even if the coastguard crew had believed they were at a holding point off the runway, the issue of lighting would still be a minor issue. Airport facilities can come out of service from time to time - ILS is a common one. When aircrew are notified of those problems, they are responsible for taking mitigating action.

It's virtually certain that the captain and his crew didn't mean to act in an unsafe way. So there will have been something we're not currently aware of at play, such as fatigue. It's also fairly certain that the crew will have put themselves under pressure to complete the relief flight because they would want to help people. Their superiors may have suggested that they had to leave by a certain time.

But at the same time I think it's important to focus on what appears to the primary failing, that of the coastguard captain/crew. People have to take personal responsibility, and for me I'm not all that interested in minor contributory factors. That can be saved for the minutiae of the final report.

I think it is premixture to jump to conclusions at this stage as relying on unofficial reports or supposed sayings is dangerous. ( We must remember that journalists are making a product to be sold and the salability of the product can at times override accuracy).
The safety in the aviation industry is totally based on the "minor contributory factors' as stopping of minor points can stop the accident. In this case for instance, if the pilot had misunderstood the controller and thought that he was clear to enter the runway and the stop light bar had been working he would have realized his mistake and stopped.
Aviation safety is not based on punishing the guilty person, but rather on elimination the reasons for the accident. It is a whole system approach that has worked very well, however nothing and no one is perfect and we all need to learn from ours and others mistakes. Finger pointing and punishing unintended mistakes just leads to these mistakes being hidden away and not learnt from to the detriment of all.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Finger pointing and punishing unintended mistakes just leads to these mistakes being hidden away and not learnt from to the detriment of all.

I disagree. When you're in charge of something like a plane, you have to be responsible for your actions. Don't like the responsibility? Then don't fly, find a job that sits you behind a desk five days a week. Your pay might be lower and the job will be less exciting, but there's much less chance of people being hurt if you make mistakes.

Or to put it another way, should dangerous drivers have immunity from more than a slap on the wrist because they don't "mean" to kill? The vast majority of the public in most countries would say they shouldn't. So why should pilots get a special privilege? I don't accept the captain potentially being prosecuted or recognised as the main reason for the crash (following the report) would "hide away" mistakes.

There will be due process, but I would treat this guy in the same way the driver of a private car, taxi, bus or train would be dealt with if their actions had led to people dying.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

I disagree. When you're in charge of something like a plane, you have to be responsible for your actions. Don't like the responsibility? Then don't fly, find a job that sits you behind a desk five days a week. Your pay might be lower and the job will be less exciting, but there's much less chance of people being hurt if you make mistakes.

Or to put it another way, should dangerous drivers have immunity from more than a slap on the wrist because they don't "mean" to kill? The vast majority of the public in most countries would say they shouldn't. So why should pilots get a special privilege? I don't accept the captain potentially being prosecuted or recognised as the main reason for the crash (following the report) would "hide away" mistakes.

There will be due process, but I would treat this guy in the same way the driver of a private car, taxi, bus or train would be dealt with if their actions had led to people dying.

Yes you are right, but i don't think Rob C means that we should give pilots privileges or immunity. I think he means that safety in aviation is based on "why does this happen and how can we prevent it to happen again?"
But the press/mass media has sadly the tendency to put priority on "who was responsible or who can be blamed and punished?"





And now all american Boeing 737MAX-9 aeroplanes and all foreign ones on american soil are grounded for further inspection, 171 in total.
Required inspections will take around four to eight hours per aircraft.

The UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) confirmed that there were no UK-registered 737 Max 9 aircraft.

In Indonesia Lion Air has three Boeing 737MAX-9 in its fleet, which will be all inspected.

FAA grounds 171 Boeing planes after mid-air blowout on Alaska Airlines jet

It comes after part of the fuselage of an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max 9 fell off, forcing an emergency landing.

www.bbc.com

Update. It seems that N704AL, the Alaska Airlines 737MAX-9 of this incident, was delivered to the airline on 31-10-2023, just 10 weeks ago.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Yes you are right, but i don't think Rob C means that we should give pilots privileges or immunity. I think he means that safety in aviation is based on "why does this happen and how can we prevent it to happen again?"
But the press/mass media has sadly the tendency to put priority on "who was responsible or who can be blame and punish?"

As I said, the investigation needs to take place. However, given we've had detailed investigations into airplane safety for over half a century, I think it's fairly clear that we can't prevent such events happening again - it's not like this is the first time there's been an accident at an airport due to lack of visibility. The only measures that could guarantee safety - e.g. banning night-time operations at airports around the world until every airport has a tracking system for aircraft on the ground - would never be agreed to due to the cost.

So in those circumstances I think handing out blame is certainly appropriate. If anything it helps reassure the common man and woman that justice and accountability are universal principles, and that people aren't treated more favourably because they're part of the elite or associated with the government in some way.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

I understand, thank you for your explanation.




Now something else, an unruly/disruptive passenger became violently on an American Airlines flight.

Also after his arrest he stayed violently and attacked the cops who arrested him. But later claims that he can't remember what he did, probably an attempt to get a lower sentence with the reason that alcohol made him doing this.

 

[Rob c]

I disagree. When you're in charge of something like a plane, you have to be responsible for your actions. Don't like the responsibility? Then don't fly, find a job that sits you behind a desk five days a week. Your pay might be lower and the job will be less exciting, but there's much less chance of people being hurt if you make mistakes.

Yes, but we must find out why the mistake was made. Humans all make mistakes, "contrary too what the pollies want you to believe about themselves.". These mistakes in aviation are attempted to be covered by system's and devices to mitigate the chance of mistakes being a significant problem. As I pointed out that a going stop light bar would have stopped this accident. So a question that must also be answered is why was this not repaired? As the reason it was there in the first place was to stop this type of mistake. Other questions for instance is language, were both the controller and pilot communicating in their second language and a word was mispronounced? Did some bean counter delay the fixing of the stop bar safety feature because the maintenance budget was used up for the month? If so what is their responsibility for what is a deliberate action. If you look further there will be many other questions.
At this stage we know too little to be making a judgment on any one.

Or to put it another way, should dangerous drivers have immunity from more than a slap on the wrist because they don't "mean" to kill?

There is a significant difference between a deliberate action and a mistake. A dangerous driver is a deliberate action and needs the book throw at him. People all make mistakes and often it is pure luck that the outcome is either benign or catastrophic. Have you never made a mistake and just luck or timing saved you? I have and unless you are a hermit living in a cave, most if not all people have.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

As I pointed out that a going stop light bar would have stopped this accident.

Rob, I've said this numerous times. The captain is reported as having said he believed he was cleared to enter the runway. If that's why he was on the runway, the status of the light is irrelevant.

So a question that must also be answered is why was this not repaired?

I'll assume for a moment that the captain thought he was not on on the runway and a working light would have saved the rest of his crew.

You will accept that things take time to repair, especially given there has been a disruption to the global supply chain, yes? Assuming we can agree on that, do you think it would be reasonable to have a global rule that says all night operations must cease at an airport if one of these lights breaks? Or, alternatively, would that be unreasonable and the current procedure of warning pilots about broken equipment is sufficient?

A dangerous driver is a deliberate action and needs the book throw at him.

Presumably a dangerous pilot also needs the book thrown at them, yes?

Have you never made a mistake and just luck or timing saved you?

I can't say as I've made a mistake that is similar in consequence to causing people to die. Let's not conflate forgetting to order a refill for the office coffee machine with causing five people to die and endangering the safety of hundreds more.