AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND

1133 readers

401 users here now

This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

♦ ♦ ♦

RULES

❶ Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.

❷ Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

❸ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.

❹ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.

❺ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.

❻ Don't be a dick.

Please also abide by the instance rules.

♦ ♦ ♦

Can't get enough? Visit my blog.

♦ ♦ ♦

Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.

$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

DougHolland@lemmy.world

YSK that the 737 MAX can fill the cockpit with deadly gas after a bird strike, and the FAA's solution is for the pilots to be real careful if it happens (www.seattletimes.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat to c/aiop@lemmy.world

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Video going into more depth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swlVkYVSlIE

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The video goes into more depth. TL;DR you could, yes, and that’s one part of the solution, but betting that any particular step (putting the oxygen mask on) will always happen and won’t ever interfere with any other crucial thing like not flying into a mountain, or dealing with some other aspect of some unplanned emergency that just happened, you will always lose that bet some percentage of the time. Aviation safety is life and death in situations that aren’t always clear or simple and so every little thing you add will make things go wrong some percentage of the time, and in this case it is such a laughably unsafe thing that it sounds like an Onion article.

Put it this way: If there was a thing that could go wrong with the Boeing CEO’s garage that would fill the house with poison gas that would kill his family if they didn’t all put their masks on in 39 seconds, he wouldn’t think it’s okay even if they have masks to wear, and even if that thing is very unlikely to happen on any given day.

[–] Dettweiler42@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This is a GE issue, not so much a Boeing issue. The same problem can happen on the A320.

Technically, this can happen with almost any high bypass turbofan, but their size and bleed air design make it much less likely.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 4 points 2 weeks ago

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/faa-team-recommends-boeing-max-design-change-and-notify-pilots/

The internal FAA memo, reviewed by The Seattle Times, is highly critical of Boeing for not informing pilots about the existence of the engine component that activates when the engine is severely damaged, called the load reduction device, or LRD.

This device is new on the MAX’s LEAP engine, which is designed and built by CFM International, a joint venture of GE Aerospace and Safran of France. It was not part of the engine on the prior 737 model.

Various models of the 777, 747 and 787 also have such an engine component. So does the larger version of LEAP engine on the Airbus A320neo jet family.

No similar incidents have been reported on the A320neo jets. Although their engines are similar in design, the way the airflow from the engines is controlled can be different.

As far as I can tell, the issue is a combination of:

The LRD design which many newer-generation turbofan engines share
These specific engines spraying oil all through the engine and creating a big toxic-fume nebulizer when that happens, which is "working as designed" although clearly not fully thought through
The specific way in which the 737 MAX draws bleed air from the engines. It's not clear to me whether the A320neo which shares this engine isn't vulnerable to the same "it happens every time" behavior that the MAX has, or if they've just been lucky so far.
The plane's systems not being set up to detect the situation and deal with it automatically (by shutting off bleed air when the LRD breaks for example). This seems like a blatant oversight and I'm not sure why fixing it is not mandated, or why Boeing doesn't want to fix it until someone from outside orders them to.
The pilots not being trained about any of this until it almost killed the flight crew that one time and everyone realized it was a problem

I don't think it's fair to say that every turbofan engine does this. And regardless, setting up the plane's systems to prevent the situation is obviously the right thing to do, instead of just leaving it to the pilots to wait until they start choking and can't see, and remember what switch they need to hit when that happens.