Aviation Antipatterns Thread
-
-
@HardwareGeek said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
@TimeBandit So he was "off duty". I guess he was catching a free ride in the jump seat. Why else would an off duty pilot who isn't legal to fly be in the cockpit?
IIRC, according to the FAA regs, while they require periods for rest on the part of pilots (e.g. if they've worked X hours, they must be given Y hours before they can start their next shift; plus they can only work Z hours total per month) there's nothing in the regs requiring the pilots themselves to actually use that downtime for sleep. It's just assumed they will.
That said, there's a FAA requirement that pilots be in a proper state of alertness when flying, which can be achieved by ensuring they're not under the weather, not under the influence of mind-altering drugs or alcohol, are well-fed, and have had adequate sleep. But besides seeing a pilot literally doze off or tweak out from those factors, it's not like they have a "prove you had 8 hours of sleep last night or you can't legally fly" protocol.
I would expect, however, the airline employers to have their own requirements that pilots not be out partying all night before a flight and make full use of their accommodations provided them when they're on-site, whether those accommodations are a nice hotel room or a dingy staff lounge in the basement of the terminal next to the loud luggage relocation room.
-
Titan A21N at London on Oct 4th 2023, lost 3 windows, stabilizer damage after filming event
Strange, AVH says October 4th, Jalopnik says October 7th, but otherwise it seems to be referring to the same occurrence.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
it's not like they have a "prove you had 8 hours of sleep last night or you can't legally fly" protocol.
Also because where one man is well rested after 6 hours, another needs 10. Pilots apparently do occasionally report themselves not fit to fly because they just had really bad sleep and feel fatigued though (and the airline is required to let it slide).
-
@The_Quiet_One I know that some carriers (the one I know of specifically is a cargo carrier, but I'd be surprised if passenger carriers don't have similar systems) have systems for numerically rating the fatigue risk of pilots, especially on late-night flights, and they do have facilities in the terminals for pilots to take naps between flights. But they sometimes assume the pilot will sleep during the nap time, and if the pilot just tosses and turns without actually falling asleep, the system may underestimate the risk unless the pilot voluntarily reports not sleeping.
-
@Bulb said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
Pilots apparently do occasionally report themselves not fit to fly because they just had really bad sleep and feel fatigued
Yes, calling out fatigued is a thing, just like calling out sick. However, it's possible to exhibit poor judgement due to fatigue without feeling fatigued, in which case you won't have called out.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
it's possible to exhibit poor judgement
I can do that in my sleep!
-
@HardwareGeek said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
@The_Quiet_One I know that some carriers (the one I know of specifically is a cargo carrier, but I'd be surprised if passenger carriers don't have similar systems) have systems for numerically rating the fatigue risk of pilots, especially on late-night flights, and they do have facilities in the terminals for pilots to take naps between flights. But they sometimes assume the pilot will sleep during the nap time, and if the pilot just tosses and turns without actually falling asleep, the system may underestimate the risk unless the pilot voluntarily reports not sleeping.
Yes. For a large part, the IMSAFE checklist is something that is relied on the pilot to make a reasonable approach to conduct on themselves. The vast majority of pilots are responsible professionals who have it in their best interests to not do anything that could lose them their careers or worse their lives, so this self-assessment is usually sufficient. Until you have that idiot who decides taking shrooms and staying awake afterwards is a good idea a day or two before he clocks in for his job.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
Until you have that idiot who decides taking shrooms and staying awake afterwards is a good idea a day or two before he clocks in for his job.
Undeniably true; however, according to TFA, that idiot wasn't on duty. Still horrible decision-making by a professional pilot, but he wasn't supposed to be touching any controls.
-
@HardwareGeek According to what I've read he was on his way to SFO to be ON-DUTY. If he had completed the trip, he'd be in a pilot's seat anyways unless by then he'd come to his senses and call out. But the purpose of his being in a jumpseat was to work his job. And his state was not going to improve by sitting in a jumpseat on a 2 hour flight, so he was doomed as soon as he decided to start that trip to SFO in the first place.
-
… aviation industry has learned to incentivize reporting mistakes, but when it comes to stress leading to mental health issues, it's doing it still wrong.
-
Wow. There's no psychological evaluation and support for pilots, really?! I thought the 2015 German Wings crash caused by a suicidal pilot had served as a wake-up call...
-
@Zerosquare said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
Wow. There's no psychological evaluation and support for pilots, really?! I thought the 2015 German Wings crash caused by a suicidal pilot had served as a wake-up call...
There is some evaluation, but only to the point that you can't fly if you have history of mental disorder, which ends up making things worse, not better.
-
I wouldn't call "Do you feel OK? Yes? Fine, then" an evaluation. That's just box-ticking.
-
@Zerosquare The bad part is that if you get diagnosed with anything, you won't be flying again, so you don't want to go to a regular doctor either.
-
@Bulb said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
@Zerosquare The bad part is that if you get diagnosed with anything, you won't be flying again, so you don't want to go to a regular doctor either.
That's true of a lot of physical illnesses, too, but periodic physical exams are mandatory.
-
@HardwareGeek Indeed. The difference is that for physical diseases both the diagnosis is a lot more objective, and that you can often continue to fly as long as you can get it under control, so that's incentive to try to seek the best possible treatment. But mental diseases are usually not diagnosed until you admit there's something wrong with your head, and once you do, nobody believes you that you got over it, so that's incentive to hide it as long as possible, until it blows up real bad.
-
-
@TimeBandit said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
I love the caption on that photo:
"Yes, I know that is a 747-200 and not a 747-400. Please be nerds somewhere else."
I mostly clicked on the article cause I was like "Hey, that's a 747-200! You don't see many of those these days!"
-
@kazitor said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
@HardwareGeek said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
it's possible to exhibit poor judgement
I can do that in my sleep!
A noteworthy achievement.
-
Personally I would have captioned it more like this:
Yes, I know that is a 747-200 and not a 747-400.
Please be nerds somewhere else.If you came to complain about this, please hold your horses.
-
@GOG said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
"Yes, I know that is a 747-200 and not a 747-400. Please be nerds somewhere else."
All the while it's so easy to get a recent photo of the exact aircraft from
(or a couple other planespotter sites). Note that the linked YT video does use correct image with the “Network” brand and white bird head on blue tail.
-
@Bulb said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
All the while it's so easy to get a recent photo of the exact aircraft
Yeah, but it's not a 747-200, is it?
-
@GOG No, it's a -400.
-
@Bulb Exactly. 747-400s are cringe, lame, fake, and gay.
-
@GOG said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
747-400s are ... fake
Is that why pilots call their planes "birds"?
-
@Zecc said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
Personally I would have captioned it more like this:
Yes, I know that is a 747-200 and not a 747-400.
Please be nerds somewhere else.If you came to complain about this, please hold your horses.
-
Student Pilot Emergency When Instructor Passes Out
-
The front fell off.
-
Nothing duct tape can't fix
-
@LaoC How much do they charge for the extra elbow space?
-
The area of the panel blown out features an emergency exit for high density configuration, however, is not used as emergency exit by Alaska Airlines, the exit door was covered by a panel inside the cabin to prevent access to the release mechanism.
I suppose it means the emergency exit was replaced by a panel that was not really a “plug-type door” like the emergency exit when installed. And is therefore a fault specific to aircraft thus modified.
@LaoC said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
The front fell off.
It wasn't the front.
-
@Bulb said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
I suppose it means the emergency exit was replaced by a panel that was not really a “plug-type door” like the emergency exit when installed.
The two behind-the-wing emergency exit doors are required when the interior is configured to pack passengers in like sardines. They are part of the structure of the plane and still exist even when the airline configures the interior as something other than a sardine tin, so the doors are not required; in this case, the interior of the door is covered with a plain plastic panel, like the rest of the cabin, so the latch is inaccessible. From the inside, other than the uneven window spacing, it's not apparent that it's any different than any other part of the cabin. However, from the outside, the outline of the door can still be seen in the side of the plane; it can't be opened, and it may not be equipped with an emergency slide, but it's still a door.
And is therefore a fault specific to aircraft thus modified.
It is a fault specific to the 737-9 MAX, but it's not been modified. It was configured that way by Boeing, at Alaska's request, because they don't torture their passengers (at least not as much as some other airlines). BTW, it's a brand-new plane, only about 3 months old.
Also BTW, I used to live just a few miles from the airport where the flight took off, about a half-hour north of Seattle. At that time, there were no scheduled commercial airlines operating from Paine Field. It was used almost exclusively by Boeing to flight test and fly their completed aircraft out of their factory there. The agency that operates the airport (whatever that is; I don't remember — Snohomish County, maybe?) had authorized opening it to scheduled commercial flights, but they were still negotiating contracts, and none were yet operating, AFAIR. Which was unfortunate, as it would have saved me driving an hour through downtown traffic to SeaTac, south of Seattle.
-
-
@loopback0 said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
The plug (don't know whether it's the correct term, I just heard it from news) that replaces the additional emergency door is a weak point at the fuselage. I think those grounded planes will continue to be grounded until the FAA is satisfied with any proposal to reinforce the parts.
-
@cheong There is no plug, or rather the emergency door itself is the plug. As @HardwareGeek said, the door is still there, it's just deactivated and hidden behind an interior trim panel. It's cheaper to do it this way because you don't need to manufacture a special part (beyond a piece of plastic) and it allows for an easy reconfiguration of the plane in the future (you can just unhide the door if you add enough seats to make it required).
As usual, blancolirio's video explains this better than any MSM article would:
https://youtu.be/I9EvHpf8jZgBetter yet, it also has this comment:
I did 43 years at Boeing in Commercial Airplanes with 31 years in QA. As Juan says this is a plug type door. These types of doors have been used on all Boeing transports back to the 707 and are very reliable. They should not be confused with the cargo doors such as the 747 door involved in the United Airlines flight 811 accident. Those pegs sticking out of the door frame are door stops. There is a matching set of stops on the door. The set of stops on the door are inside of the door frame. The pressurization of the airplane pushes the door against the stops in the door frame. The way the door opens there is a gate at the bottom of the door that folds in allowing the door to move down so the door stops will clear each other and move outward. Part of the mechanism includes pins protruding from the door frame and cam locks on the door side. This cam/pin arraignment is the locking system. Inside the door there is an arrangement of gear boxes, linkages and torque tubes that move the end gate, cam locks and the door moving down. When the door is properly rigged the door stops are adjusted to ensure proper contact and the push rods are adjusted to ensure the linkage goes over center to prevent unwanted movement and subsequent opening of the door. Proper rigging is also dependent upon having the weight of the door slide compensated for. A deactivated door does not have the escape slide. If the door was rigged with the slide weight and then deactivated, then the rigging could possibly be incorrect. Either the door was mis rigged or a safety device was left off the door assembly allowing the rigging to change. These doors are installed and rigged by Spirit Aviation (formerly Boeing of Wichita).
-
@cheong Also the FAA emergency airworthiness directive is not requiring any redesign, just a very thorough inspection of similar aircraft.
-
@Deadfast said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
Better yet, it also has this comment:
I didn't read that comment. Thanks for posting it. TIL more about the door mechanisms.
Also,
I did 43 years at Boeing
Sounds like doing time in the penitentiary. When I lived in WA, I knew a couple of guys who worked at Boeing. One of them didn't stay long; he didn't like it there because it was full of people just doing time until retirement.
-
@Bulb said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
It wasn't the front.
You 'd:
https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM
-
@Deadfast said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
There is no plug, or rather the emergency door itself is the plug.
When the door is actually configured as door, the door is the plug. But in this case when it is not configured as door, is it still the same construction, or is it a slightly simpler one? The articles don't really say, but if it was exactly the same construction, the mandatory inspection would probably affect all doors, not just the blinded ones.
-
@Bulb I could imagine there being some mandatory periodic inspection of all doors which would involve opening them and does not get done on 'plug doors'.
-
@Bulb said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
is it still the same construction, or is it a slightly simpler one?
Yes
It's the same, except for the panel hiding the fact that there's a door there and possibly not being equipped with an emergency slide.
-
@PleegWat said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
does not get done on 'plug doors'.
Pretty much all doors of pressurized aircraft (except cargo doors) are plug doors. They open outward, but they have to be open inward before they swing out, so the pressure differential makes them (nearly) impossible to open when the plane is pressurized.
-
@HardwareGeek There is a temitological confusion here, because all the passenger door is “plug type door”, but the blinded door are being called “door plugs” in the report, and that does not include the door that do open.
Also Airbus door are not plug-type. They have bars that slide into the frame and the cabin pressure locks them into place enough they can't be opened while the cabin is pressurized, but the door itself does not need to move a bit inward before opening out like it does on the Boeing types.
-
@Deadfast said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
@cheong There is no plug, or rather the emergency door itself is the plug. As @HardwareGeek said, the door is still there, it's just deactivated and hidden behind an interior trim panel. It's cheaper to do it this way because you don't need to manufacture a special part (beyond a piece of plastic) and it allows for an easy reconfiguration of the plane in the future (you can just unhide the door if you add enough seats to make it required).
I think "plug" is the correct term be used, as others also using it like this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/17ynvff/why_do_airlines_plug_doors_instead_of_buying/
And as shown in here,
[quote]
Goglia says the plugs are simply emergency exit doors, but they lack handles for opening and closing. “It’s a real door” – not riveted shut but closed with a wrench and then concealed behind the cabin wall, he adds.
[/quote]
-
@Deadfast said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
the door is still there, it's just deactivated and hidden behind an interior trim panel.
In other words, it's commented out.
-
@Zerosquare said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
@Deadfast said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
the door is still there, it's just deactivated and hidden behind an interior trim panel.
In other words, it's commented out.
Not commented out. More like wrapped with "if (false)" in debug build.
They're not riveted shut, It just have no handle installed, but closed with a wrench with normal locking mechanism,
-
@HardwareGeek said in Aviation Antipatterns Thread:
it was full of people just doing time until retirement.
Things that remind you of...
-
@cheong So, fully implemented and Live, just with no visual UI hooked up -- and all the configuration and keyboard shortcuts still armed.
-
So you're saying the plane was holding the door wrong?