Keep your seatbelt low and tight in flight, especially when seated next to a plugged door

In summary, it is important to keep your seatbelt low and tight during flights, particularly when seated next to a door that is plugged, to ensure safety and security.
  • #71


Better if played on YouTube. . . . :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Alaska 2059 is a different story.

I think the pilot's attorney has done an excellent job for his client by muddying the waters with tales of personal loss and a "bad trip" from the hallucinogens. But when you sweep away the distractions, the pilot made some criminally bad decisions and tried - twice - to kill everyone on board.
  1. He chose to take illegal drugs after being told they wouldn't show up if he were tested.
  2. He chose to save $263 (I just looked it up) by jumpseating instead of buying a ticket.
Putting the lives of 80+ people in jeopardy in order to save $263 is pretty much the definition of depraved indifference. If convicted, he should never see another day of freedom in his life.

That's a very different situation than this one, although if an individual were responsible - say by selling counterfeit bolts - I would be entirely OK with criminal charges as well.
 
  • #73
Vanadium 50 said:
He chose to save $263 (I just looked it up) by jumpseating instead of buying a ticket.
Unfair, IMO. Jump seats are a really common way for pilots to commute. I doubt this was a decision as much as doing the normal thing. $263 is the most inconsequential part of this story. OK, but just the jump seat, not the rest of it.

Also, not to defend this guy, but there are real issues with the FAA regs discouraging pilots from seeking medical treatment for conditions that aren't uncommon in the rest of the population. Which would you rather fly with, a pilot hiding and not seeking help for a medical condition, or a pilot getting help from professionals to recover? Note that I'm not offering the choice of only flying with pilots that don't have issues, because they might not be that common over an entire career, and, anyway, how would you know?
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #74
DaveE said:
Jump seats are a really common way for pilots to commute.
And so is driving. That doesn't make it OK to take illegal drugs and get behind the wheel of a car. And this is worse.

This is not a mental health issue - and I am sensitive to that, because I was in the Alps when Germanwings 9525 crashed. I was about 20 miles from the impact site when it happened, and there were investigators at the hotel I was at. (20 miles in the Alps is not like 20 miles in the suburban US)

But this isn't a case of untreated mental illness. It's a case of illegal drug use and then flying a plane - a jumpseater is legally part of the crew. I might even agree with you that FAA regs are not doing the right thing with respect to mental illness, but this is irrelevant. The pilot took recreational drugs he shouldn't have, joined the crew of an airplane, and tried to kill everybody. Twice.
 
  • Like
Likes Flyboy
  • #75
A whistleblower has some pretty bad things to say about the critical bolts.
 
  • Informative
Likes nsaspook and Greg Bernhardt
  • #76
… yeah, jives with what I’ve heard about the culture at Boeing. Absolutely stupid that they haven’t had the FAA basically come in and drop the executioner’s axe on the whole program unless they can fix the systemic issues.
 
  • #77
It's amazing to me that it stayed in place that long with apparently no bolts installed.
mfb said:
A whistleblower has some pretty bad things to say about the critical bolts.
The parts about arguing over paperwork, choosing the path that generates the least paperwork even when it's the wrong one, and painting over missing rivets really do tell a troubling story.
 
  • #78
Amazing how these million dollar leaders don’t understand that you don’t risk a generational brand collapse for a bit extra short term profit.
 
  • Like
Likes nsaspook, Bystander, russ_watters and 1 other person
  • #79
Alaska has completed their inspections and has returned their 9max's to service.

At the earnings call Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun "took accountability" on Wednesday. This accountability to did not extend to reducing his compensation, because that would just be crazy talk. Whose job is it again to make sure that the planes don't fall apart mid-flight?

Bloomberg has reported that the official log does not show that the door plug was ever removed, but the unofficial log (ah...two sets of books. Had Al Capone thought of that, he never would have gone to jail) shows it was. The possibility exists that the bolts were never reinstalled.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #80
Greg Bernhardt said:
Amazing how these million dollar leaders don’t understand that you don’t risk a generational brand collapse for a bit extra short term profit.
I would argue that they do understand that, and have negotiated compensation packages and employment contracts that shield them from as much liability as possible, long term consequences for the company be damned. They’re not in the business of making long-term sustainability a priority anymore. There’s more profit to be made for the shareholders by wringing every bit of savings/cost cutting out of the company as possible. And if you don’t do that, then the shareholders will bounce your ass to the curb faster than a Seattle lawyer can say “class action lawsuit”. 😒
 
  • Like
Likes DaveE
  • #81
Flyboy said:
There’s more profit to be made for the shareholders by wringing every bit of savings/cost cutting out of the company as possible. And if you don’t do that, then the shareholders will bounce your ass to the curb faster than a Seattle lawyer can say “class action lawsuit”.
Is this really true? I mean, is it universally true? I can imagine companies exist where long-term goals are taken seriously.
 
  • #82
Amazon reinvested rather than pay a dividend for a long time (maybe they still do). So there are companies that prioritize long over short term.

Boeing, unfortunately, has had a history of ethical issues in upper management, going at least as far back as Stonecipher. It doesn't do much good for firing a CEO for ethical lapses and a lack of focus on the long game if everybody waiting in the wings thinks the same way.
 
  • Like
Likes Borg
  • #83
1707259734886.png

1707259749798.png

https://s3.documentcloud.org/docume...aviation-investigation-preliminary-report.pdf
On January 5, 2024, about 1714 Pacific standard time, Alaska Airlines flight 1282, a Boeing
737-9, N704AL, returned to Portland International Airport (PDX), Portland, Oregon, after the left
mid exit door (MED) plug departed the airplane leading to a rapid decompression. The airplane
landed on runway 28L at PDX without further incident, and all occupants (2 flight
crewmembers, 4 cabin crewmembers, and 171 passengers) deplaned at the gate. Seven
passengers and one flight attendant received minor injuries. The flight was operated under
Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR) Part 121 as a scheduled domestic passenger flight
from PDX to Ontario, California (ONT).
Figure 1 below shows the location of the missing MED plug from inside and outside the
airplane. The separation of the MED plug from the airplane adversely affected the
pressurization performance of the airplane and the damage to the MED plug adversely
affected its structural strength, requiring replacement of the MED plug, resulting in a
classification of substantial damage in accordance with Title 49 CFR Part 830.
 
  • Like
Likes Flyboy
  • #84
"The separation of the MED plug from the airplane adversely affected the
pressurization performance of the airplane..."

Ya think??? Maybe a humorous easter egg from the NTSB?
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, mfb and berkeman
  • #85
DaveE said:
"The separation of the MED plug from the airplane adversely affected the
pressurization performance of the airplane..."

Ya think??? Maybe a humorous easter egg from the NTSB?
"Good evening ladies and gentleman. This is your Captain Obvious at the controls tonight. We will be leveling off at 16,000 feet momentarily on our climb to 35,000 feet..." :smile:
 
  • #86
DaveE said:
Maybe a humorous easter egg from the NTSB?
I don't think they have any sense of humor.

Even the airlines don't. I knew a FA who got in trouble for saying "Secure your mask before helping small children with theirs. If you are travelling with two small children, you should figure out now which one has the most potential."
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz, pinball1970, Flyboy and 4 others
  • #89
Vanadium 50 said:
Boeing, unfortunately, has had a history of ethical issues in upper management, going at least as far back as Stonecipher. It doesn't do much good for firing a CEO for ethical lapses and a lack of focus on the long game if everybody waiting in the wings thinks the same way.

Following the merger (or reverse takeover) of Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas, quality and QC took repeated hits.

John Oliver more or less gives an accurate assessment with quite a few F-bombs. I heard confirmatory statements from former Boeing employees, in addition to other independent sources.




QC requires a commitment to do it right - all the time - in design, manufacturing and operation. However, some folks cut corners, apparently hoping nobody catches on, until someone does, or something fails.

Counterfeit products are a major concern in nuclear, aerospace and other industries related to critical infrastructure.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Borg, russ_watters, Frabjous and 1 other person
  • #91
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Wow
  • Sad
Likes pinball1970, dlgoff and Greg Bernhardt
  • #92
morrobay said:
A former Boeing employee known for raising concerns about the firm's production standards has been found dead in the US.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68534703
Looks like it was a suicide. Maybe he had more demons in his mind than he could deal with. Unfortunately, this loss of information could slow the process of fixing things at Boeing.

It said the 62-year-old had died from a "self-inflicted" wound on 9 March and police were investigating.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970 and Vanadium 50
  • #94
berkeman said:
Looks like it was a suicide.
That's just what they want you to think...

It's tragic, but probably unrelated, other than that the change in corpoarte culture, as they say, did not go well. The realy question is whether the owners of the company will fix things. Boeing is owned primarily by institutions in the form of mutual funds. Many owners of these funds are motivated by bottom lines as well" I suspect many don't know if they own Boeing indirectly or not. (Full disclosure - I do. There are very few US companies I do not own a tiny piece of)

Calhoun has caused the company to lose $50B worth of value. That's 10x the development cost of the MAX. I would argue that to maximize shareholder value, the Board should fire as many of the leaders of the company it can. But I doubt that's going to happen.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970, Astronuc, Borg and 1 other person
  • #95
Vanadium 50 said:
Boeing is owned primarily by institutions in the form of mutual funds.
This is the root of their problem. They operate in a market capitalist economy that values short term performance over long term investment for longevity or greater returns later. McDonnell Douglas understood this and that's why they took over the C-suite. The gigantic capital investment required to compete at this level precludes other domestic competitors. The US is too large and too free market oriented for the government to invest (although their military business sort of addresses this), and the private sector won't do it either.

The 737 max (et. al.) had to be done or Airbus would own that market. Lacking the foresight many years ago to invest in a new platform, they are desperately trying to keep up. I truly believe they would love to have high quality manufacturing operations, but I suspect they can't afford it from a short term perspective. At least that's how they behave.

Don't get me started on executive compensation in corporate America, except to say it's all about short term performance on Wall Street. That's what investors want.
 
  • #96
Vanadium 50 said:
It's tragic, but probably unrelated, other than that the change in corpoarte culture, as they say, did not go well. The realy question is whether the owners of the company will fix things. Boeing is owned primarily by institutions in the form of mutual funds. Many owners of these funds are motivated by bottom lines as well" I suspect many don't know if they own Boeing indirectly or not. (Full disclosure - I do. There are very few US companies I do not own a tiny piece of)

DaveE said:
This is the root of their problem. They operate in a market capitalist economy that values short term performance over long term investment for longevity or greater returns later.
That's something I really don't get. They behave and CEOs seem to be judged on short term value changes, but most institutional investors are investing for the long-term. I can see how a small layoff can seem like a good profit move that won't backfire, but shifting from an engineer-run to a businessman-run company seems pretty obviously foolhardy. I mean, I'm sure the businessmen are delusional enough to think it won't matter, but it's tough to believe the investors are. That said, these things going on at Boeing are pretty fraud-adjacent.
 
  • #97
Mutual funds are under the same pressures as everybody else. Am I going to go with CREF over Fidelity if one portfolio has 2% and another 1.9%? Probably not. What if one has a return after fees of 8.9% vs 9.0%? I'd be thinking really hard about that - over 30 years that tiny difference adds up.

You might say that well-run companies make more money in the long run, but the evidence is that the fees needed to pick funds that pick well-managed companies is larger than the cost differential.

You also might argue that fund managers can put their feet down and insist that all companies are well-managed. This is good for the economy as a whole, but individual fund managers are compensated based on how they do relative to their peers. A rising tide lifts all boats...except theirs.
 
  • Like
Likes DaveE
  • #100
morrobay said:
criminally accountable
In the US one cannot jail people for being bad. They have to have actually committed a crime. What crime should they be charged with?
 
  • Like
Likes DaveE
  • #101
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, Vanadium 50 and Greg Bernhardt
  • #102
Borg said:
The way that people treat the Fasten Seat Belt sign on an airplane has always fascinated me. Many seem to think that they're no longer in a moving vehicle when it's off.
Always fascinated to see the pilot announce there will be turbulence or we're landing in 30s and then watch as people get up to use the bathroom.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #103
Greg Bernhardt said:
Always fascinated to see the pilot announce there will be turbulence or we're landing in 30s and then watch as people get up to use the bathroom.
Yeah, the toilet is the last place I would want to be when things start flying around. :olduhh:
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Astronuc and russ_watters
  • #104
Vanadium 50 said:
In the US one cannot jail people for being bad. They have to have actually committed a crime. What crime should they be charged with?
That starts with a criminal investigation. For example knowingly using sub standard parts. For some reason... the FAA does not have criminal investigators? So then the FBI is required. https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisa...n-of-boeing-737-max-incident/?sh=31e38dd64a2b
 

Similar threads

Why is the U-2 nicknamed the Dragon Lady?
Replies
4
Views
7K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 266)
Replies
1
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top