| |
| ▲ | stevenjgarner a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The parallels with AA Flight 191 are striking. In THAT accident it was found [1]: 1) improper maintenance—American Airlines had used a forklift shortcut to remove the engine and pylon together, rather than following McDonnell Douglas’s prescribed method 2) The detachment tore away part of the wing’s leading edge, rupturing hydraulic lines and severing electrical power to key systems, including the slat-position indicator and stall warning (stick shaker). 3) The pilots followed the standard engine-out procedure and reduced airspeed to V₂, which caused the aircraft to stall and roll uncontrollably left. This procedure was later found out to be incorrect. Defective maintenance practices, inadequate oversight, vulnerabilities in DC-10 design, and unsafe training procedures combined to cause the crash, killing all 273 people on board and leading to sweeping reforms in airline maintenance and certification standards. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6iU7Mmf330 | | |
| ▲ | t0mas88 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And just to add for those that aren't pilots: When they say "reduced airspeed to V2" that doesn't mean reducing engine power, it means pointing the nose higher while thrust remains at the maximum permissable setting. You're loosing speed but climbing faster. This can happen if you accelerated past V2 (V2+20 is normal) before the engine failure and then after the failure you slow down to V2 to get the best climb angle on a single engine plus some safety margins above stall etc. | |
| ▲ | akerl_ 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | (asked earnestly out of lack of familiarity with this field) Are maintenance/certification standards distinct between passenger and cargo carriers? It's hard for me to tell if this suggests a step backwards in application of the reforms instigated after AA191 or that those reforms were never copied over to cargo aviation. | | |
| ▲ | noer 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes but mostly related to purpose specific things: passenger carriers have additional safety checks for cabin things like seats, oxygen and evacuation systems. Cargo carriers have additional safety checks for things like cargo restraint and decompression systems. Furthermore (and I don't know if this is related to the cause of this crash), cargo jets tend to be older/refurbished passenger planes that have outlived their useful lives flying passengers. | | |
| |
| ▲ | conradev 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | worth noting about AA191: With a total of 273 fatalities, the disaster is the deadliest aviation accident to have occurred in the United States.
| |
| ▲ | daemonologist 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | To expand on #2, the loss of hydraulic pressure also caused the uncommanded retraction of the leading edge slats on the left wing, which was found by the NTSB to be part of the probable cause. Full report is here (PDF): https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/... (I do not mean to imply that this exact slat retraction is necessarily relevant in the Louisville crash, however - I believe aircraft since AA191 are designed to maintain their wing configuration after loss of hydraulic pressure.) |
| |
| ▲ | rob74 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This video from an aviation youtuber contains a picture of the engine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4q2ORhIQQc&t=526s (the video itself is also worth watching in full IMHO). What strikes me as odd is that this looks like the "naked" engine, without the cowling/nacelle that usually surrounds it? Anyway, if an engine departs the aircraft shortly after (last-minute) maintenance was performed on it, that's indeed suspicious... | | |
| ▲ | actionfromafar a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The cowling was probably easily torn off when the engine went full speed like a missile for a few seconds after detaching. | |
| ▲ | buildsjets 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The fan cowl and thrust reverser cowl are structurally fastened to the pylon/strut at the top, they only wrap around the engine, and are fastened to themselves at the bottom using latches. The strut considered part of the airframe structure. The inlet cowl is bolted directly to the engine, I saw in a picture that it was found approximately mid-field on the airport property. | |
| ▲ | colechristensen 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The cowling isn't particularly structural so if your engine falls off on takeoff it's not so surprising that the cover didn't land with it. |
| |
| ▲ | bluebarbet 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | From all the annals of aviation disaster, flight 191 is possibly the one that haunts my nightmares the worst. Perhaps because the scenario feels plausible for every single take-off. Perhaps just because of the famous photo. |
|
| |
| ▲ | decimalenough 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The engine that fell off (!) had been worked on for two hours at Louisville, KY immediately before takeoff. Occam's Razor suggests that whatever they did right there is to blame. | | |
| ▲ | inejge 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Occam's Razor suggests that whatever they did right there is to blame. Ordinarily yes, but in this case there are reports that the plane underwent a "heavy maintenance check" from Sep 3 to Oct 18, which may have included engine removal and overhaul (source: pprune.org, from a poster who's not given to flights of fancy.) | | |
| ▲ | mikeyouse 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | In the Reddit /r/aviation thread, there are people who spotted that specific plane at San Antonio International airport since it was apparently being serviced at a major service facility there. So yes to major service potentially at issue, and no to international work being at fault. | | |
| ▲ | ASalazarMX 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Despite the enshittification of Reddit, it is still unparalleled for situations like this. There is more friction for the Fediverse to have an equivalent community, but I hope more people realize the smoothness is not free. | |
| ▲ | hopelite 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Have you ever heard of the phrase "a distinction without a difference"? The delta between "domestic" and "international" has basically been erased for all intents and purposes over the last 25 years. H1-B can and is used for Aviation Mechanics, not to mention that approximately 25 million of the official 60 million in the US that were not born American citizens have been granted citizenship in that period. You seem to be trying to defend "international", but reality is "international" has become "domestic" as the USA turns into something other than the USA. | | |
| ▲ | klaff 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | How exactly is the USA turning into something other then the USA? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nineplay 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Or whoever was working on it said "Wait, this plane isn't ready yet" and the people in charge said "we've waited long enough, get it on the runway". | | |
| ▲ | ASalazarMX 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This doesn't excuse the engineer as "just obeying orders". They are making a tradeoff between being ethical and being unemployed/unemployable, which understandably can be a very hard decision, but it's still their decision and they aren't guilt-free if something happens. | |
| ▲ | supportengineer 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | MBA-driven decision instead of engineering decision. |
|
| |
| ▲ | imglorp 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There's a lag time between such cost saving measures and piles of dead people. See also how FAA allowed Boeing to oversee its own certification for MAX. | |
| ▲ | mmooss 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Maybe the maintenance is better in the other country. Either way, to say it's "likely relevant" is a huge leap. We have no idea what caused the crash - it could be a million things and likely some combintation of them. | |
| ▲ | aunty_helen 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As someone who used to work at one of these foreign maintenance stations, Firstly, fuck you. Second, this shop consistently rated higher across all metrics, including those inside the US. Loss time injury rates measured in the millions of man hours. Third, 80% of my job whilst there was to build software for QA and their rigourous on-going inspection reigeme that included yearly in person audits lasting weeks from FAA inspectors, EASA inspectors and every other country and airline this base overhauled. Take your uninformed bs and hit the road. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and insinuating that they're outside the reach of the FAA shows you know exactly 0 about the certification process that keeps millions of people safe on a daily basis. | |
| ▲ | renewiltord 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I wonder what the FAA does organizationally that lets it function properly to find cause. It must be highly tempting to blame things on the foreigners and stuff like that. The Air India crash had a lot of that going on. The 737 Max crashes were also so frequently explained by online commenters as because of “outsourced software engineers” and so on. But the FAA/NTSB always comes through with fact finding despite the immense political pressure to find these facile explanations. Organizationally, someone once designed these things well, and subsequently it has been preserved so well. When I see so many American institutions turned to partisan causes through an escalation of “well, they’re doing it” it’s pretty wild that this org remains trustworthy. Wild. | | |
| ▲ | mh- 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | The NTSB is completely independent from the FAA, by design. The history of how that came to be is worth a read and answers your question better than I could. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transportation_Safety... | | |
| ▲ | yard2010 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You can't play with the NTSB. Just wait a few months and see, they will literally say the exact reason it happened and who's the one to blame in their report. These guys are the best at what they do. This is one of the government bodies other countries would dream to have. | | |
| ▲ | SAI_Peregrinus 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | The NTSB never assigns blame to people in their reports. They report what happened, and who did what, but their reports are not intended for use in a court and their advisories are always ways to fix procedures rather than blaming individuals. |
| |
| ▲ | renewiltord 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Huh, wow, that actually did answer the question. Short version: the FAA did have this failing; the NTSB was created independently specifically to avoid that flaw. For the rest, he’s right, better to read it. | | |
| ▲ | mh- 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, wasn't meant to be a lazy comment on my part, but I started summarizing it a few times and found myself quoting more of the article than made sense. One thing that stood out to me was just how long ago that separation was achieved and subsequently ensured. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | inglor_cz 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "TDLR 10-20 years ago, the US started allowing maintenance of domestic planes in foreign countries, outside the reach of the FAA’s inspections" There are foreign planes entering US airspace every day, carrying thousands of passengers. They are also serviced by foreign technicians, outside the reach of the FAA's inspections, and they seem to be doing just fine. "Foreign" in itself isn't bad, you just need to choose/require reputable partners. If you outsource your maintenance to the same crews that maintain jets for Polish LOT or Taiwanese China Airlines, you may save some money and yet get excellent service, as those airlines aren't known for having safety problems. Kosovo or South Sudan would be a different story. | |
| ▲ | mschuster91 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > TDLR 10-20 years ago, the US started allowing maintenance of domestic planes in foreign countries, outside the reach of the FAA’s inspections Foreign Repair Stations date back to the 90s [1], the thing is they need to be supervised by an FAA Certified Mechanic. Inspection of these was already a hot issue in the early '00s... No one gave a fuck, it was all about saving costs for a very long time. The linked 2007 report's second page (!) already leads with this: > Since 2001, eight commercial air carriers have gone through bankruptcy and one has ceased operations. Fuel prices remain high, and this makes cost control a key factor in both the sustained profitability and overall survival of an airline. IMHO, this is a perfect example why the government needs to regulate prices in safety-critical industries. The "race to the bottom" must be prevented - sorry, flying NYC-SFO for 70$, that's not sustainable. [1] https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/Web_File_Foreign... | | |
| ▲ | rkomorn 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > IMHO, this is a perfect example why the government needs to regulate prices in safety-critical industries. The "race to the bottom" must be prevented - sorry, flying NYC-SFO for 70$, that's not sustainable. Are you saying higher prices would lead to better safety? If so, I think it's optimistic to assume that would be the result, rather than just more profits. I'm all for tighter regulations and enforcement on safety and maintenance, though. | | |
| ▲ | AnimalMuppet 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Super-low prices require razor-thin margins, which leads to cutting corners, which leads to worse safety. | | |
| ▲ | inglor_cz 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | IDK, Ryanair in Europe (an epitome of low-cost airline) has both decent margins and zero crashes. They once had a birdstrike, hardly caused by their ticket cost, and wrote off the hull (no fatalities); otherwise, nothing. A lot depends on your overall marketing. The airline can make money on a "stupid tax", e.g. people who didn't check twice the max. allowed weight of their baggage and have to pay a 100 USD/EUR fee for that single extra pound. I have seen it more than once. People being people, you can almost rely on this happening frequently enough. | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Statistics say otherwise. Flying was far more hazardous in the days before deregulation. | | |
| ▲ | rkomorn 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | That may well be correlation and not causation. The industry (edit: planes in particular) is also decades more mature, as is manufacturing in general. | | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, admittedly, there could still be a reason why the GP's opinion is right, even though the numbers don't back it up. It's hard to argue that deregulation made flying safer, because as you say there were a ton of other factors in play. However, it's impossible to argue that deregulation made flying more dangerous, as the GP believes, simply because flying didn't become more dangerous. Sure, maybe we'd be even safer in the air if price deregulation hadn't happened, but that requires an impressive amount of handwaving. Overall, the tradeoff seems to have worked out incredibly well for everyone. The only people who are really in a position to object would be climate researchers. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mschuster91 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Are you saying higher prices would lead to better safety? Higher prices and regulations. With no floor on pricing, there will always be enough greedy executives who are willing to cut corners to make money in a ruthlessly competitive environment, fully knowing that it is very hard to prosecute a C-level executive personally. The other possible result will be that eventually the market "agrees upon" a minimum price floor while being in compliance to regulations - but that usually means that the company will be as bare-stripped of assets and reserves as possible, which means in turn that the slightest external shock can (and will) send not just one but multiple companies crashing down hard. We've seen this with Covid - an economy that has optimized itself for decades on running as lean as possible is very sensitive to all sorts of external interruptions. Of course, that's not directly relevant to safety... but indirectly it is, as the inevitable result of that is an oligo-, duo- or monopoly and then, we've seen with Boeing where that ends, incentives aligned too much to cut corners. | | |
| ▲ | rkomorn 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | I kiiinda see where you're coming from but I guess I just don't buy it, TBH. I think greed is what's causing cut corners. You mention Boeing, and they were quite healthily profitable during the entire time they were cutting corners on the 737 MAX. Airbus wasn't an existential threat. It still isn't, in fact, even after all the fallout. | | |
| ▲ | mrguyorama 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Okay, what possible fix for everpresent greed in US business management is there other than regulation and enforcement? | | |
| ▲ | rkomorn 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Edit: I actually think I just don't get the gist of your question/comment. > I'm all for tighter regulations and enforcement on safety and maintenance, though. That's from my first comment in this thread. I'm not sure what part of my comments make you think you should ask me that question. What I'm arguing is against the notion that having minimum prices would fix said greed. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ferguess_k 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The government should just set a higher safety standard and let the companies figure out the costs. Setting a floor price without proper regulation == companies doing the same bagging more $$ -- To be very frank, I would do that if I were the chairman of such companies -- either I do that or I'm madmen getting voted out of my position next year. | | |
| ▲ | mschuster91 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The government should just set a higher safety standard and let the companies figure out the costs. The problem is, it doesn't work out that way. We lost enough people to that madness - as soon as hundreds, if not thousands (see 9/11) of lives are at stake, IMHO the effort to ensure compliance with standards is so massive, the government could (and should...) do the damn job itself. |
| |
| ▲ | potato3732842 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >this is a perfect example why the government needs to regulate prices in safety-critical industries. Aviation is one of the most regulated industries to the point where I've heard multiple aircraft maintenance people who don't know each other make quips to the tune of "we only cut the stupid corners because cutting the smart ones is illegal". I'm not saying it should be less regulated but considering that the aircraft was maintained recently I wouldn't be surprised if some dumb "well you didn't say we couldn't do it" thing that isn't technically disallowed but should be covered under some broader "don't be stupid" rule was ultimately a causative factor. | |
| ▲ | avalys 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > IMHO, this is a perfect example why the government needs to regulate prices in safety-critical industries. The "race to the bottom" must be prevented - sorry, flying NYC-SFO for 70$, that's not sustainable. This is nonsense. Commercial aviation is already ridiculously, insanely safe and has been for decades. Your proposed solution would not have done anything to prevent the one major accident in the past 15 years of commercial aviation in the US, which was caused by a military helicopter pilot violating an ATC restriction in complex airspace, not a maintenance issue. What evidence do you have that "NYC-SFO for $70" is not sustainable? From March 2009 to December 2024 years in the US, the fatality rate in commercial aviation was 0.4 per passenger-light-year. That's nearly 15 years of operation with the foreign repair stations that you are accusing of putting profits before safety. This is, like, the most ridiculous industry possible to demand more regulation of. | | |
| ▲ | mschuster91 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > This is, like, the most ridiculous industry possible to demand more regulation of. And yet, we got hundreds of people dead because Boeing by all accounts clearly isn't regulated enough - and cut corners because airlines wanted to maintain their pilot type ratings. This should not have happened, at all. |
|
|
|