225
submitted 8 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

Alaska flight incident reveals another feature Boeing didn’t inform pilots about - Federal investigators said that Boeing didn’t make pilots aware that when a plane rapidly depressurizes, the cockp...::undefined

top 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 198 points 8 months ago

Federal investigators said that Boeing didn’t make pilots aware that when a plane rapidly depressurizes, the cockpit door will fly open.

[-] Darorad@lemmy.world 85 points 8 months ago

Not concerning at all, pilots aren't important to a plane.

[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 38 points 8 months ago

Yeah we don't need them when we've got autopilot.

[-] AtariDump@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago
[-] BoastfulDaedra@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 8 months ago

Kids! Be my eyes!!!

[-] lepinkainen@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Some tech bro is training an AI pilot, I guarantee it

[-] froh42@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Just purchase it now and next year the full self flying package will be available. We're doing it with cameras only.

[-] paddirn@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago

That's on a need-to-know-basis, why would pilots ever need that information? /s

[-] solrize@lemmy.world 97 points 8 months ago

I had thought that since the 2001 hijackings it has been basically impossible to open the cockpit doors during flight, except from the inside. On El Al planes I'd heard it was impossible period, so hijackers couldn't threaten their way in, but US carriers didn't want to do that because it means the cockpit needs its own lavatory, displacing a few passenger seats.

[-] Shadow@lemmy.ca 103 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

In the case of an explosive decompression, you can't have that wall trying to resist the pressure difference. It'll blow in a horrible way and probably destroy a ton of circuitry / wiring.

It needs to fail open like this, that design makes sense. The pilots should have been informed though.

An attacker could probably leverage that though to get into the cockpit.

See https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/a-legal-and-moral-question-the-crash-of-turkish-airlines-flight-981-and-the-dc-10-cargo-door-saga-d22f0b9fa689

[-] solrize@lemmy.world 60 points 8 months ago

If that design is necessary it has presumably always been like that on every pressurized plane ever built. So it shouldn't have been a surprise. But, some vents should be able to equalize the pressure without opening the door.

ISTR hearing that El Al planes had separate entrances for the cockpit and passenger compartment so there was no way to enter or leave the cockpit except on the ground. No door, just a reinforced wall. But maybe that was a post-911 urban legend.

[-] flying_mechanic@lemmy.world 39 points 8 months ago

Aircraft maintenance has been doing the negative pressure unlock tests on cockpit doors for decades, its honestly surprising what isn't common knowledge. Like others have said, rapid decompression of only a portion of the aircraft is very bad, and will result in massive structural failure as individual compartments aren't pressure rated and will blow apart. The doors I've had experience with had large panels that would pop out when in a negative pressure event.

[-] solrize@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Interesting. Now I'm wondering if the bathroom doors also blow out if there is decompression.

[-] flying_mechanic@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Those don't seal well, so probably not

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 8 months ago

I think my ass would be having a blow out too if that happened

[-] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

But, some vents should be able to equalize the pressure without opening the door.

"some vents" are simply too small.

[-] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 11 points 8 months ago

Then make them larger.

It's not even technically challenging. Just a couple tubes of appropriate diameter with a dog leg in them if they're too large. Or multiple small tubes. It's a few psi (IIRC planes are about 10psi at altitude, approx a 7psi differential from outside at 40k ft cruise altitude) albeit a large volume. But the cockpit volume is relatively small, so doesn't take much time to equalize, and once it starts to equize, the force from pressure drops quickly, probably non-linearly.

Decompression in planes is awfully exaggerated in movies.

[-] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago

The pressure difference is a lot. 7psi is a lot, 3psi is a lot. The movie exaggeration is that decompression acts like a constant vacuum. There are 500mph winds at cruise, but it's not a constant vacuum.

This door plug that fell out is what, 6ft tall and 3ft wide? That's 18 square feet, or (18x12x12) 2,592 square inches. At a 7psi difference, it's holding in a force of (7 pounds per square inch X 2,592 square inches) 18,144lbs. I'd say that's a lot. Call the cockpit door half that surface area (and underestimating here) and it still has to resist a sudden force of 9,000lbs. That's like holding back the deadweight of two American sedans with drivers. Surface area of a vent is absolutely critical because the force of 9,000lbs on the door is so sudden, gas flow doesn't apply in human-tangible currents. You ever get hit by a calm wave? The water doesn't just trickle around you, it knocks you down first and flows around later. It's a gentler force, on the order of hundreds of pounds, and has a thicker fluid, but clearly doesn't flown like trying to hold a handful of water. Making 1/3 of the door a pop vent still leaves nearly all of the remaining 2/3 of the door under the same 7psi. It's still going to have to resist nearly 6,000lbs instantaneously. I mean, sport parachutes have holes in them and the pressure inside is still enough to comfortably hold up a human.

The other exaggeration is that you can keep fighting after decomp. No, you pass out in a matter of seconds. They are serious when they say put your mask on before helping others because if you try to mask your panicking kid first, after 30 seconds, you'll both be passed out. You can't just take puffs of that mask either, it's only enough to keep you alive, not enough to support strenuous activity.

[-] MSgtRedFox@infosec.pub 2 points 8 months ago

Did you Google this, or is this your profession?

[-] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Neither. Adjacent profession and affinity for this type of math

[-] Plopp@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

How about we just skip the door and put up a sign that says pilots and crew only?

[-] Garbanzo@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

Better put 'gun free zone' on that sign, just in case

[-] zecg@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

No shampoo beyond this point.

[-] troglodytis@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Na, many pilots are allowed to carry a gun

[-] brianorca@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

There are surely some vents that could handle a slower decompression, but a sudden event that reduced the pressure by half in a single second would be too much. 6 tons is a lot of force for a door to take, especially when it is in the opposite direction of most threats the door is supposed to stop.

[-] HaywardT 2 points 8 months ago

Seems like a burst disk in the bulkheads would be a better solution than counting on a door to pop open.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Cockpits would need their own bathroom, food, and maybe sleeping area if they had no door. Can't see that happening.

[-] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

Your getting downvoted by people who've never flown on a 737, or even better, an MD80!

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Yeah I don't get it. Lemmy is an odd place at times.

[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 8 months ago

As per pre-911 we just may need to discourage hijackers from attacking planes through other vectors, not that the TSA is an actual deterrent. It's difficult to believe our current measures take terrorism seriously.

[-] MsPenguinette@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

Guess that wasn't good enough

In June, the FAA announced it will require a secondary barrier between the passenger cabin and cockpit of new commercial planes that are manufactured starting in the summer of 2025.

That was at the end of the article. Not sure why but that pisses me off. Probably cause it seems purely like an act based out of fear rathe than in response to any threat/weakness

[-] poopkins@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Seems somebody watched Hijack on Apple TV+ and decided to draft a directive.

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 12 points 8 months ago

The problem with locking cockpits is that is that it's perfect for an evil or very sick pilot.

[-] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 14 points 8 months ago
[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yup. If you think about it, that flight was the fifth to be brought down by the 9/11 hijackers. The FAA just gave them a freebie.

[-] solrize@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago

"I'm not trapped in here with you. You're trapped in here with ME."

[-] exu@feditown.com 3 points 8 months ago

I think some airlines require a pilot to switch with one of the board crew when they leave the cockpit.

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 1 points 8 months ago

I hope so, but an evil pilot still only has to subdue that one person.

[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 8 months ago

Subdue, while flying a plane? The only way I can picture that working is if they casually pulled out a gun and executed the other person before they realized. Pilots also have to go through a security line for employees... It's far from impossible to get past that, but it'd take planning...

Suicide is a fixation on a method of death, then following through in the moment

[-] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 8 months ago

US carriers didn't want to do that because it means the cockpit needs its own lavatory, displacing a few passenger seats.

Did they say that to the FAA?

[-] cerement@slrpnk.net 35 points 8 months ago
[-] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 8 months ago

The article says that:

Homendy’s revelation echoes criticism heaped on Boeing during earlier probes of another in the 737 MAX line of planes, the MAX 8, in which pilots said they were not properly trained on a flight control system on board the plane that was implicated in two deadly crashes overseas. In 2020, pilots were required to undergo new simulator training and training for erroneous angle of attack sensor malfunctions as part of the plan to put the 737 MAX back into service.

[-] cerement@slrpnk.net 9 points 8 months ago

training for erroneous angle of attack sensor malfunctions

the sticky note keeps falling off …

[-] Chickenstalker@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago

Boeing merging with McDonnald™ Douglas was a mistake.

[-] fubarx@lemmy.ml 13 points 8 months ago

Who in the 9/11 came up with this algorithm?

[-] DirigibleProtein@aussie.zone 2 points 8 months ago

Yet another post where they tried to fit the entire article on the title

this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
225 points (95.2% liked)

Technology

57944 readers
3518 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS