They clearly knew there was some kind of problem with the plane, but rather than grounding it & fixing the issue they attempted to “mitigate” the problem. How can you possibly argue that passenger safety is primary consideration here?
Planes fly with snags all the time. Most are very minor, there are multiple redundant backups and life carries on. Same as you might drive a car with a warning light on but avoid motorways.
I suspect that if the airline were required to have a perfectly functioning plane with not a single snag, nothing would ever get off the ground.
Plus it shows that - while there was a hefty dose of luck involved for all on board - aircraft are actually remarkably safe even with a big hole in the side. You'd probably end up with a worse outcome if a door fell off your car while driving along.
I’m sure it’s all in a days work for you but what are you smoking if you think that’s what a paying passenger wants to hear from the pilot, i.e. “don’t worry if the door falls off mid-flight, it’ll be reet’. What we want to hear is “we’ve done everything possible to ensure the door won’t fall off, and we won’t have to make an emergency landing with a hoofing great hole in the plane.”
Of course that goes without saying! Every flight, engineers, pilots and cabin crew do everything possible to make sure it's a safe flight for the passengers. No way am I expecting the "door to fall off" if I was, I would stay in bed.
My point wasn’t a comparison with airlines, just illustrating that peoples perceptions and attitudes to safety are somewhat flexible.
As an aside, I completely agree - SiL is hugely risk averse (child monitors still used on their 11 and 7 year olds) but neither her nor her husband (high up in a nationwide transport company) get their cars (both 16 plate, I think) serviced, they just rely on the MOT to pick up problems. They're too cautious to ever trust a baby sitter but last MOT, her car failed on dangerously worn tyres,
Plus it shows that – while there was a hefty dose of luck involved for all on board – aircraft are actually remarkably safe even with a big hole in the side.
I don't think the absense of fatalities or injuries proves anything, tbh.
If it had happened 5 minutes later at cruising altitude with queues for the toilets and everyone playing with their laptops I think we'd be looking at a very different outcome.
I think there has been significant cost cutting going on for years now. I also think that the fallout from any significant cost cutting generally isn't felt immediately but builds up over a number of years and saying, 'See, no one died this time!' is not a good attitude to take.
Please stop linking the fact the plane flew without its primary cabin pressure controller with the door plug falling off. It’s a complete red herring IMHO. The controller balances airflow in from the packs , with air out via an outflow valve, to maintain the correct pressure schedule. It has a secondary backup (that was being used instead, functioning correctly) and a 3rd manual backup system. Many aircraft just have 1 and a manual backup.
Aircraft have thousands of sensors and systems, all with backups and tertiary workarounds. If they were immediately grounded whenever any component failed you would never fly, or your ticket would quadruple in price.
Next time you buy the cheapest ticket ask yourself what cost that airline has taken out?
Every single component on the aircraft is trialled and tested for its importance and integrity to the whole. Some things are just cosmetic, some nice to have, some essential. Then you have to balance the interface between each component and the impact of multiple failures. These links areall set out by the manufacturer and agreed by the FAA/CAA/EASA.
The final arbiter of safety after all of this is the Captain. If I’m not happy, we aren’t going. End of.
Right. That is the mental gymnastics I’m finding it difficult to follow. They clearly knew there was some kind of problem with the plane, but rather than grounding it & fixing the issue they attempted to “mitigate” the potential consequences of the problem (not the actual problem itself!) How can you possibly argue that passenger safety is primary consideration here?
The fault was saying there was an issue with the pressurisation system, of which there are two. I'm guessing the engineers tested the system and no faults were found but as a precaution Alaska airlines stopped the aircraft flying long distances over water (ETOPS) but knowing airlines as I do it was probably more to do with the fact if the fault occurred down route in Hawaii the aircraft would be stuck there and cause issues with scheduling etc.
Pilots have what's called a minimum equipment list (MEL) and when we get a technical issue on the ground, we consult that to see if we can carry on with a SAFE flight. If we get a fault in flight we look at our quick reference handbook (QRH) to see how we can fix it or what actions to take. There are about 10 faults we need to know by memory as these are time critical, such as a loss of cabin pressure.
But try and be reassured that not one crew member or engineer wants an aircraft to take off in an unsafe condition ever.
Right. The question is then, is this a "minor snag"? How often is this particular protocol employed - i.e. "we trust this plane but not so much that we'll let it fly over water"? Is this a routine thing then?Planes fly with snags all the time. Most are very minor, there are multiple redundant backups and life carries on. Same as you might drive a car with a warning light on but avoid motorways.
Right. The question is then, is this a “minor snag”? How often is this particular protocol employed – i.e. “we trust this plane but not so much that we’ll let it fly over water”? Is this a routine thing then?
See my post above, trust me if it was a major fault no professional pilot would fly that aircraft and definitely would'nt be coerced into it either.
If an engineer tells me the aircraft is safe, I trust them.
This doesn't really tally with this
The final arbiter of safety after all of this is the Captain. If I’m not happy, we aren’t going. End of.
If Pilots didn't trust the engineers, then no aircraft would fly.
Love this place, everyone’s a **** expert except the people that actually do the job.
Of course, it is the way of the world. Those who proclaim 'I was right' when talking about the technical details so confidently are laughable, the reality is they took information from others who are suitably qualified and experienced from around the internet and arrogantly talked with authority as though they had relevant subject matter knowledge and insight, and that they had drawn these conclusions from their deep well of first hand exposure. Even in the face of being told contrary by those who would be considered SME.
Well, in the sense that final responsibility lies with the pilot then yes it does.
However, there are so many factors in any operation that saying that is pretty meaningless. For example, the pilot and ground engineer don't have any say over cost cutting measures that go on at Boeing. Or the decision to outsource maintenance to countries that the aviation authorities don't have easy access to.
We're being told by pilots to just trust them when they must be aware of just how little say they have in the really important decisions that affect overall aircraft safety.
I believe that the ground and air crew are going to do everything in their power to make things as safe as possible.
I also believe that aircraft manufacturers, aircraft maintenance companies, and airlines are going to do everything in their power to maximize profit and safety is very much a secondary consideration compared to profits.
I'm a complete layman here but with an avid interest in aviation, engineering and technical stuff. I crave technical info and love knowing how things work, why things work that way and what procedures are built around things. It's great to hear what the actual pilots have to say on this thread.
I would highly recommend Petter's two youtube channels mentourPilot and mentourNow for anyone curious about the inner workings of the flying side of the aviation industry. The video below on MELs is particularly pertinent. I'm currently working for a customer in another safety-critical industry. In contrast to flying they're much more aligned to the gun-ho approach adopted by the oil & gas cowboys. They haven't even got a test environment for me to try stuff out in. Couple of incorrect mouse clicks and I can lock the entire business out of everything. Didn't tell me there was no test infrastructure until about 3 months into the gig either. I'd rather fly continuously on a badly assembled Boeing than visit their site.
Of course, it is the way of the world. Those who proclaim ‘I was right’ so confidently are laughable, the reality is they took information from others who are suitably qualified and experienced from around the internet and arrogantly talked with authority as though they had relevant subject matter knowledge and insight, and that they had drawn these conclusions from their deep well of first hand exposure. Even in the face of being told contrary by those who would be considered SME.
On the one hand we've had two plane crashes and the side just blew out of an aircraft. On the other we have pilots telling us there is nothing to worry about.
Anyone who has been involved with jobs with a high degree of risk will have a good understanding of the various risk assessments that go into any operation and the number of individual things that have to go wrong for there to be a major accident.
Anyone who has worked in an industry that is try to cut costs will have seen how these risk assessments can be manipulated to ensure the operation can go ahead. There is seldom a smoking gun, it's just a bunch of small seemingly insignificant decisions that eventually lead to a disaster.
And we've also seen the people within our industry trying to protect their jobs by toeing the management line and supporting the message they are trying to get the public to buy.
So no, I'm in no way an expert in aviation. I am, however, an expert in seeing how safety measures are constantly weakened and eroded in a cost cutting environment until something goes disastrously wrong and everyone acts like it came out of nowhere and there was no warning.
You have relevant experience of safety systems and processes in a high-risk industry and have consistently been clear that is the basis of your knowledge and are asking perfectly legitimate questions and challenging some of the responses.
So, how did you figure that post was referring to you?
So, how did you figure that post was referring to you?
It can be difficult to tell on a forum. That's why I try to avoid sweeping general statements like, 'So many people on here think...'
If someone is going to make a negative statement referring to certain people I reckon it's better to tag them or quote them. Otherwise those of us who are prone to paranoia might get the wrong idea 🙂
They clearly knew there was some kind of problem with the plane, but rather than grounding it & fixing the issue they attempted to “mitigate” the potential consequences of the problem (not the actual problem itself!) How can you possibly argue that passenger safety is primary consideration here?
Balancing act, innit? If you wanted completely risk-free aviation you’d never fly.
Going with faults is fairly normal, whether it’s something like a glovebox light that you can ignore for months, or bigger things where you’ve got to get it fixed within a day or two. Generally it represents nothing more than a loss of redundancy.
Right. That is the mental gymnastics I’m finding it difficult to follow. They clearly knew there was some kind of problem with the plane, but rather than grounding it & fixing the issue they attempted to “mitigate” the potential consequences of the problem (not the actual problem itself!) How can you possibly argue that passenger safety is primary consideration here?
Have a watch of the latest NTSB press conference. Seems like the NTSB are working on the premise that the cabin pressure controller and the "loss of cabin pressure" are unrelated except that they both contain the words cabin pressure.
ETOPS (IANAAircraftEngineer) is a reference to the days when you couldn't fly long distances on twin engines due to reliability concerns. It's not saying you can't fly over water, it's saying you can't fly >3hours from the nearest airport, which obviously rules out a lot of transatlantic and transpacific flying. It doesn't mean the plane is unsafe, just that the reliability isn't quite sufficient. Like saying something is a 1 in a million chance of failure is a fairly safe system, but if you want to repeat the experiment a million times you probably want something better, like 4 engines so if one fails you can balance the thrust and fly relatively normally. Or in this case having 3x systems to control cabin pressure. One will get you home safely, 2 gets you there reliably if one fails, 3 means you're happy to fly >3 hours from the nearest airport with the risk that all 3 fail being so small.
I could hypothesise that a cabin pressure controller would throw up a fault if there was a leak (flow measured into the cabin > flow out, or flow > normal range), but I don't know that, presumably the NTSB does/will do. But it seems less likely as if it was the case then the spare system would show the same (assuming the computers operate in parallel just with only one controlling the outputs).
Anyone who has been involved with jobs with a high degree of risk will have a good understanding of the various risk assessments that go into any operation and the number of individual things that have to go wrong for there to be a major accident.
Exactly, which is why I can't figure out why you're taking your argument down the road you are.
We have at least 2 incidents of fuselage loss from 737s with the sole fatality being a cabin crew member who was up and about at the time. In both cases though, those planes made it to a safe landing with no further incident. Good but agreeably not good enough.
After any incident lessons are learned and defences put in place to prevent it happening again. Where those defences aren't applied you have a clear path for blame. What's not helpful is speculating before the facts are even known and chasing shadows that have nothing to do with the actual incident. We know What happened, the investigators will now be focusing on the How and Why, until they publish their findings everything else is just uninformed noise.
It doesn’t mean the plane is unsafe, just that the reliability isn’t quite sufficient. Like saying something is a 1 in a million chance of failure is a fairly safe system, but if you want to repeat the experiment a million times you probably want something better.
Exactly, it's like in my industry, we could have something that's suddenly become 10 times less safe which sounds horrific until you factor in the diverse and redundant backups and the fact that it's gone from a 1 in 10^7 chance of failure to 1 in 10^6.
Did a bit of googling and came across this:
I haven't flown with any low-cost airlines for about 20 years and I feel this justifies my choice. Not just from a safety perspective but just from a 'not giving ****s money' perspective.
Saying that, I'd be surprised if the major airlines' crews weren't subject to some of the same pressures, just not to the same extent.
Exactly, which is why I can’t figure out why you’re taking your argument down the road you are.
What road am I on?
I haven't speculated too much about this specific incident. My point has been that there seems to be a significant cost cutting drive going on in air travel and when that happens safety tends to suffer, regardless of the industry. It is generally not a single thing but a multitude of small seemingly insignificant decisions that lead to big accidents.
I also think saying, 'No one got hurt' is helpful. Generally you find yourself having numerous incidents where no one got hurt before you start having major incidents where lots of people get hurt.
Culpability IMO therefore lies with the manufacturer as the operator couldn’t have diagnosed the latent faults, but the manufacturer should have had systems in place to make sure the aircraft was built to whatever specifications / procedures / instructions.
Haven't Boeing already fessed up?
Thought i saw something on the news yesterday?
Well, we both spoke our own words 🤷🏻
I trust the cabin crew, first officer, engineer, tug driver, ATC, dispatcher, loader, security agent etc, etc, Doesn’t mean I will always agree with them on my course of action. Ultimately I am responsible and make the final call on everything.
Edit: that may sound a bit arrogant, and I’m not one for throwing my weight around to get my way. Ultimately though, if I’m not satisfied with someone else’s part in the jigsaw, it will get resolved to my satisfaction before we go flying.
the reality is they took information from others who are suitably qualified and experienced from around the internet and arrogantly talked with authority as though they had relevant subject matter knowledge and insight,
As far as the door blowing out is concerned, it was very easy to look at the technical documents posted online and see how the door plug was supposed to fit into the aperture, then see how it must have failed. You don't need to be an aerospace engineer to understand how a simple structure like that is held together, anyone with any background in structural engineering could figure out something that simple.
But that is only a very small part of the puzzle.
But that is only a very small part of the puzzle.
Yes, it was basically just a component that wasn't fitted correctly. The big question is how Boeing got so slack that they couldn't bolt something as simple as that together without screwing it up. Somebody who knows how to change a wheel on a car should be able to fit one of those. Making a mistake like that once is understandable, doing it repeatedly indicates a systemic problem.
Edit: that may sound a bit arrogant, and I’m not one for throwing my weight around to get my way. Ultimately though, if I’m not satisfied with someone else’s part in the jigsaw, it will get resolved to my satisfaction before we go flying
Fair enough.
However, leaving aside the things you can't know or have any control over (outsourcing of maintenance or new aircraft not being put together correctly, for example) what you are saying sounds very different to what many low cost airline pilots were saying in the article/video I posted above.
It seems crews with low cost carriers who don't have permanent contracts are very much influenced by management's wishes which is understandable from their point of view, I guess.
That may well be the case - thankfully I’m not in that sector. Not allLCC are equal either.
If passengers keep just choosing the cheapest, that has a consequence, a bit like just buying the cheapest MTB tyres and expecting great grip in all conditions.
If passengers keep just choosing the cheapest, that has a consequence, a bit like just buying the cheapest MTB tyres and expecting great grip in all conditions.
Yeah, what I'm more worried about is the knock on effect throughout the industry. I guess the major airlines (and therefore all the suppliers and service providers throughout the chain) have been cutting costs because the LCCs have brought the costs down.
I can't think of any industry where aggressive cost cutting has led to it becoming safer.
In addition it seems like the FAA and the EASA are no longer able to monitor the industry as closely as they used to be.
Like I said, I haven't flown a LCC for 20 years (one trip with Ryanair was more than enough) but this year I'm aiming to avoid air travel altogether. Partly because of environmental concerns, partly because the new focus on major airlines cutting costs has made flying less pleasant, and partly because if I can see the effects of cost cutting as a passenger then what are the effects of cost cutting I can't see?
I wouldn’t normally rake up an old part of a discussion but in this case there’s perhaps an angle to the CVR recording that hasn’t been mentioned, what happens to that information in the event of an investigation?
FWIW I think the pilots or engineering team simply failed to pull the breaker and prevent the overwriting of the data. No intent to hide anything.
As I understand it when the NTSB/AAIB etc. investigate an incident, they collect loads of evidence from multiple sources, and they write a report. The report is publicly released, blame free and intended to improve safety. Typically, the CVR will be transcribed and only the relevant parts of that transcript will be included in the report. The remainder of the transcript and the actual recording will never be disclosed. In fact, anything other than the public content of the report is effectively classified and covered by some pretty strong NDAs. There are international agreements to this effect.
I’ve been involved in a small capacity in marine investigations (MAIB operates under the same rules) and I’ve witnessed court discussion regarding what can and can’t be disclosed and what level of intervention would be required to force disclosure of information not in the report.
I guess what I’m saying in a roundabout way is that whatever is on the tape the only thing the NTSB will ever disclose is what’s relevant to the incident and that can’t, in itself, be used as evidence against the pilots so there’s little reason for them to deliberately overwrite the data.
I wouldn’t normally rake up an old part of a discussion but in this case there’s perhaps an angle to the CVR recording that hasn’t been mentioned, what happens to that information in the event of an investigation?
FWIW I think the pilots or engineering team simply failed to pull the breaker and prevent the overwriting of the data. No intent to hide anything.
U.S. pilots' unions' policy is that cockpit conversations should not be recorded at all. The reason for that is that they do not want them available for use in court. The U.S. CVRs have a 2 hour limit, after that they get recorded over. In Europe, it's a 25 hour limit. The NTSA in the U.S. wants to use a 25 hour system like Europe but pilots' unions refuse to agree to that because they want the recordings deleted as standard practice. All that pilots need to do to ensure the recordings are deleted is to leave the aircraft systems turned on for 2 hours. It's not inadvertent, the intention is to systematically delete the data.
I can’t think of any industry where aggressive cost cutting has led to it becoming safer
[Pedant]
SpaceX
[/Pedant]
(Although their cost cutting has lead to vastly more flights which has in turn made space flight more reliable/safer)
SpaceX didn’t cut costs. They used a ton of government money to develop a product which was delivered very late and were sponsored by individuals, not shareholders.
Even to this day, SpaceX charges the government 3x the going launch rate for payloads and uses that to reduce/sponsor the costs of other commercial payloads
Whilst they have the cost for launches, they never cut costs in engineering.
Tesla have arguably cut costs without compromising safety, but have dramatically increased repair complexity. There’s always a price. For SpaceX, that’s borne by the investor and the government, for Tesla, that’s borne by the customer and to a lesser extent, the insurers.
It’s not inadvertent, the intention is to systematically delete the data.
Honestly, no one who’s flying the things cares about the CVR. At all. I think you’re on the verge of conspiracy theory here.
In this case both pilots are alive and able to be interviewed, so the CVR doesn’t bring anything new or interesting to the table. If they weren’t then two hours is more than sufficient, but it could be 10 hours or a week for all I care.
Is he still banging that drum? Sheesh
Honestly, no one who’s flying the things cares about the CVR. At all. I think you’re on the verge of conspiracy theory here.
It's the U.S. pilots' unions policy that they do not want that data available for use in court and oppose the introduction of a 25 hour recording limit for that reason. They've publicly stated that. So yes, there is a conspiracy to erase the data, it's just that it's a publicly stated and perfectly legal conspiracy, not a secret one.
I have avoided this thread for two days as it was clear that it was being derailed by...drivel.
Have just looked in and...yep, it's still continuing.
Michael Gove may have said '...we've had enough of experts'.
He was wrong then and his comment definitely does not apply here.
Experts, on this thread, are...pilots, aviation engineers, air accident investigators - you know, people who really know what they're talking about.
If you're not one of them, your view has the same relevance as that of the drunk on the 49 bus.
And with that, Ahm oot.
Watch out for...chemtrails, lizard overlords, bill gates...
Experts, on this thread, are…pilots, aviation engineers, air accident investigators – you know, people who really know what they’re talking about.
Flaperon
Full Member
Honestly, no one who’s flying the things cares about the CVR.
Teamsters' Union (who represent airline pilots)
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, representing Atlas Air pilots, makes clear why they’re objecting to 25 hour cockpit voice recordings.
They claim that pilots have an expectation of privacy in the cockpit.
They believe that pilots ‘wouldn’t have agreed’ to any recording in the first place (as though it was their decision right) had they known these recordings would ever be made public.
Pilots might break airline rules, and voice recording would help prove their guilt
In a criminal matter, the FBI isn’t restricted in how it can use recording (umm… good?)
Flaperon may be a pilot but he's flat out wrong about the CVR thing. U.S. pilots do not want those recordings made in the first place and they want to prevent them being available for use in court. From the article linked to above:
Last January an American Airlines crew headed to London taxied on the wrong runway as a Delta 737 began its take off roll. This was nearly a disaster of epic proportions, as the American jet crossed right in front of Delta, and the Delta plane hit the brakes.
The Delta flight stopped less than 1000 feet from where it would have intersected with American’s plane. The transatlantic 777 didn’t follow air traffic control instructions.
The incident wasn’t immediately reported to the airline. The pilots decided to continue flying to London, despite being almost certainly shaken by what had (almost) happened. And we’ll never really know what was going on in the cockpit, because the pilots continued flying and the voice recording was written over. In fact there is speculation that the pilots decided to continue to London so that the recording of what happened would be written over.
In other words, pilots know how to destroy evidence with plausible deniability. FFS, the pilots' unions have said exactly why they don't want 25 hour recordings, Flaperon's insistence that they didn't say that is just bizarre. He's wrong on the facts and being a pilot makes no difference to that.
This is… Well, a little unhinged.
What, pointing out that a pilot is wrong about what U.S. pilots' unions have publicly stated is their policy?
In this case, the unions' position is in conflict with public safety concerns. The unions are doing this to protect pilots from disciplinary action or facing court cases. Now we have pilots denying that what is on the public record actually happened. What's unhinged is flaperon insisting that the U.S. pilots' unions didn't say what they said on the public record. American airline pilots do care about the CVRs, they care so much that they have absolutely refused to allow 25 hour recording.
hols you’re conflating the actions of the union with the views of all pilots. The unions justify their very existence by being the people that fight for the little guy. And in a legal system like the US has, they’re trying to make sure pilots don’t incriminate themselves, but you have no evidence, none whatsoever that the pilots unions are actively coaching pilots to “accidentally” game the system to erase recordings in the event of an accident.
You’re also assuming that pilots actually want this 2.5h thing. I joined my union for pay representation and rights. Legal wrangling weren’t and aren’t a big factor in my decision to join and continued membership.
