Well, this isn’t very typical, I’d like to make that point.

Look, the windows not supposed to fall off, for a start. These things are built to rigorous aeronautical engineering standards — cardboard’s out, cardboard derivatives, no cellotape, no string. So chance in a million, really.

And to be clear, the plane that the window fell off was flown to safety. So there’s nothing out there but birds, air, wind and clouds… and the window that fell off.

▲

anaidioschrono 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The (hilarious) reference: https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM

▲

RetroTechie 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The window didn't "fall off". In article's 1st paragraph:

"debris from a dramatic engine failure caused damage to the aircraft's window"

That's high-velocity pieces of metal. Hard to prevent that from shattering a window if engine housing didn't catch it.

How much stronger, thicker & heavier you want to make those windows? Costing how much more fuel? To save how many lives per year?

I'd think airplane builders (note: not airlines!) are more qualified to make that calculation than armchair safety 'experts'.

	▲	clickety_clack 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Well there are a lot of these airplanes going around the world all the time, and very seldom does anything like this happen. I just don’t want people thinking that airplanes aren’t safe.
	▲	dingaling 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Fan and turbine failures are supposed to be contained by the engine casing - it's part of certification. But as we see here, uncontained failures do occur. In general "airplane builders" do the absolute minimum to meet certification so they're not going to add reinforcement to protect against such an event until they're forced Into doing so by the authorities. Turboprops can't, of course, contain a propellor failure which is why they have a big slab of armour in line with the prop disk. So in that case, yes, safety wins over cost and weight.
	▲	IAmBroom an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The comment you are replying to is a reference to a famous comedy skit (about the whole front of an oceanliner falling off, and the official company response).
	▲	SirFatty 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		whoosh..

▲

ithkuil 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I just want to make the point that this is not normal

▲

bombcar 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The plane was towed outside the atmosphere.