Rendered at 01:04:38 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
skrebbel 10 hours ago [-]
> A report in a Hungarian publication claims, "A passenger was sucked into the window by the change in air pressure, with the 61-year-old man's head sticking out of the plane. Witnesses say his wife grabbed him, which was the reason he wasn't pulled out of the plane by the lower air pressure outside." [translation by Google]
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.
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 10 hours ago [-]
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 9 hours ago [-]
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.
touisteur 7 hours ago [-]
In the case of the Quantas A380 departing from Changi some shrapnel from the engine explosion did go through the aircraft's body, cutting cables, making a mess of the control-command systems. I don't know how one could contain the kind of energy imparted to these metal bits, especially on engines with so much power...
IAmBroom 8 hours ago [-]
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 9 hours ago [-]
whoosh..
ithkuil 9 hours ago [-]
I just want to make the point that this is not normal
bombcar 11 hours ago [-]
The plane was towed outside the atmosphere.
flutas 11 hours ago [-]
Extremely similar to Southwest flight 1380 which killed a person in the US after they were partially sucked out of a broken window from an engine failure.
This would all be solved if the engines were out in front of the plane like podracers.
w4der 11 hours ago [-]
And both were Boeing 737s ... (albeit different variants)
insane_dreamer 8 hours ago [-]
The Alaska Airlines flight that had a door fall off was also a Boeing 737
consumer451 11 hours ago [-]
Lesson learned for Ryanair leadership: charge more for seats not in range of debris from uncontained turbine failures.
Seriously though, as an aviation geek, I always avoid those seats when given a choice.
weinzierl 11 hours ago [-]
Seats near the engine are loud, so two birds, one stone.
AnimalMuppet 10 hours ago [-]
Serious question: Which seats are the ones that are in range? Just in front of the wing, or just behind it?
consumer451 10 hours ago [-]
Hopefully someone can give a more informed comment. For me, it's the seats directly in-line with the first turbine, and a few seats back.
edit: Well, I hope we are beyond boohoo LLM based info now. Here is Fable 5 High's explanation, and I loosely verified it. I post this to save many watts of energy due to others asking the same thing.
Simplified:
> I'd like to avoid seats in the rotor burst zone: the rows roughly in line with the plane of the engine's fan and turbine disks, plus a few rows fore and aft of that.
More details:
> The term you're looking for is the rotor burst zone — sometimes called the uncontained engine rotor failure (UERF) debris zone. That's the phrase an aerospace engineer or pilot would immediately recognize.
> Here's the physics behind it: the fan, compressor, and turbine disks in a jet engine spin at enormous speeds (turbine disks can exceed 10,000 RPM). If a disk or blade lets go and the containment case can't hold it, the fragments fly out tangentially — meaning they travel in the plane of rotation of that disk, perpendicular to the engine's axis. They don't spray forward or backward much; they carve out a relatively narrow band.
> FAA guidance (Advisory Circular 20-128A, which designers use to minimize hazards from these events) models the debris path as the plane of each rotor stage plus roughly ±15 degrees fore and aft of it. Since an engine has multiple rotor stages spread along its length, the combined hazard band along the fuselage is a few rows wide, centered roughly abeam the engines.
consumer451 9 hours ago [-]
Child comment if anyone would care to explain which info in the parent comment is incorrect.
This is one reason to always be wearing your seat belt tightly when flying.
root-parent 12 hours ago [-]
Because its a Ryanair flight?
Peanuts99 11 hours ago [-]
Ryanair has a pretty high safety record, they fly modern, well maintained planes because their margins are lower and they make them up in volume.
MikeNotThePope 9 hours ago [-]
Fun fact: Ryanair owns its fleet outright, and (currently) buys all of its new planes from cash flow. Pretty unusual for a major airline.
pfdietz 11 hours ago [-]
:)
hulitu 12 hours ago [-]
Common, it never happened to me. /s
pfdietz 12 hours ago [-]
"Low probability very high consequence situation has never happened to me, therefore I needn't do anything." -- someone who doesn't understand expectation in probability.
tgsovlerkhgsel 12 hours ago [-]
They even put a "/s" at the end of their comment...
pfdietz 9 hours ago [-]
I wasn't referring to them directly, so I have plausible deniability.
zh3 11 hours ago [-]
First place to look when this sort of thing happens is pprune.org - lots of pilots on there, often with specific knowledge of the aircraft type and/or of the incident itself.
From https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgk65knkyzdo
Media reports in Greece and Germany quoted passengers describing a loud bang followed by the window breaking and oxygen masks falling from the ceiling shortly after the Boeing 737 had taken off.
They believe the window was smashed by pieces of the jet's engine - although Ryanair has not commented on this.
comrade1234 11 hours ago [-]
Would it be strange to not have any windows on a plane? You could put thin oled panels on the wall instead. Seems like that would be more structurally sound.
NBJack 11 hours ago [-]
I suspect you'd lose the sense of depth that helps make the plane feel less small. There's also a safety factor for situational awareness; many carriers require shades to be open for the cabin crew to figure out the safest side to evacuate on in an emergency.
bombcar 11 hours ago [-]
You could do something with mirrors, but the safety cards reference looking out the windows before opening the emergency doors, so I bet you need at least SOME.
lawlorino 10 hours ago [-]
I could see this being a safety issue if there’s a problem with the wing or engine and the panels fail, so zero visibility. Its why they ask you to open the window blinds during take off and landing
fian 10 hours ago [-]
It's also so that rescue personnel can see into the plane in the event it crashes.
IAmBroom 8 hours ago [-]
Odd. Rescue personnel aren't typically high enough to see in through the windows.
AnimalMuppet 10 hours ago [-]
I like to be able to look out the window, especially when we hit rough air. Seeing the fixed external reference helps me, for whatever reason.
onionisafruit 10 hours ago [-]
Presumably for the same reason looking out the windshield helps with car sickness.
amelius 9 hours ago [-]
There are apps that show an overlay of moving dots on your phone which help with motion sickness.
That’s built into ios now too. It helps me not get car sick so quickly when I use my phone for a minute or two at a time, but I still can’t do what I want to do, which is read in the car.
11 hours ago [-]
11 hours ago [-]
drcongo 9 hours ago [-]
On a Boeing? No way!
NordStreamYacht 10 hours ago [-]
Boeing 737
48488484 12 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
redsocksfan45 11 hours ago [-]
[dead]
trolleski 11 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
pta2002 10 hours ago [-]
Ryanair has only ever lost a plane once, due to a bird strike with only some injuries, and they are one of biggest airlines by number of flights (if not the biggest).
Turns out plane accidents are expensive, and the reputation loss as well. Don't even need to lose the plane, just the plane being stuck on the ground is expensive (they are also one of the most timely airlines because of this). Really can not afford to have accidents!
dylan604 10 hours ago [-]
Cheap, safe, fast. You can have any 2 out of the 3.
lambdadelirium 10 hours ago [-]
SUCTION
niwtsol 11 hours ago [-]
I thought that the speed of the air moving outside of the plane had a bigger impact on the pressure imbalance that causes someone to be "sucked out" of plane. It appears that is a false belief, the inside/outside pressure difference is from the artificial pressurization of the internal cabin. I blame a high school physics teacher for the memorable "why does a soft top convertible poof out when driving fast?" question as a preamble to explaining bernoulli for my false assumption.
SwiftyBug 11 hours ago [-]
I learned about the artificial pressurization not too long ago. But until I read your comment, I assumed that in a case like that, the inside and outside pressures would balance shortly and the sucking would cease. Now it occurred to me that maybe the pressurization system will continue to try to compensate pressure in a situation where pressure can´t be stabilized due to a broken window, which would cause the sucking to go on. Not sure if that would be the case. Anyone knows what happens?
niwtsol 4 hours ago [-]
I believe standard protocol is for the pilot to reduce altitude until they are at a pressure that is fine to be at (<10k feet). Then they can make an emergency landing plan (or burn off fuel as in this case)
lokar 10 hours ago [-]
He was pushed, not sucked. Pressure never sucks.
onionisafruit 10 hours ago [-]
edit: Never mind me. I think I was wrong about this.
Colloquially speaking, it sucks. It’s like saying vacuum cleaners technically blow. It might be true but everybody knows it as sucking.
IAmBroom 8 hours ago [-]
Counterpoint: peer pressure.
Checkmate, science!
7 hours ago [-]
root-parent 11 hours ago [-]
R.Y.A.N.A.I.R. — Remove Yourself And Never Ask If Refunded
bombcar 11 hours ago [-]
£5 and we’ll drop you off at home before we land! Save the trip back from the airport.
Points for the wife!
(from https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/672872-ryanair-...)
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.
"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'.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380
Seriously though, as an aviation geek, I always avoid those seats when given a choice.
edit: Well, I hope we are beyond boohoo LLM based info now. Here is Fable 5 High's explanation, and I loosely verified it. I post this to save many watts of energy due to others asking the same thing.
Simplified:
> I'd like to avoid seats in the rotor burst zone: the rows roughly in line with the plane of the engine's fan and turbine disks, plus a few rows fore and aft of that.
More details:
> The term you're looking for is the rotor burst zone — sometimes called the uncontained engine rotor failure (UERF) debris zone. That's the phrase an aerospace engineer or pilot would immediately recognize.
> Here's the physics behind it: the fan, compressor, and turbine disks in a jet engine spin at enormous speeds (turbine disks can exceed 10,000 RPM). If a disk or blade lets go and the containment case can't hold it, the fragments fly out tangentially — meaning they travel in the plane of rotation of that disk, perpendicular to the engine's axis. They don't spray forward or backward much; they carve out a relatively narrow band.
> FAA guidance (Advisory Circular 20-128A, which designers use to minimize hazards from these events) models the debris path as the plane of each rotor stage plus roughly ±15 degrees fore and aft of it. Since an engine has multiple rotor stages spread along its length, the combined hazard band along the fuselage is a few rows wide, centered roughly abeam the engines.
More discussion in: Airliners.net: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1510797&...
In this case: https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/672872-ryanair-...
“>Glad it turned out well.
>Wonder what the Ryanair social media team is going to do with this one
Ryanair introducing new additional charge to have a window.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_1288
They believe the window was smashed by pieces of the jet's engine - although Ryanair has not commented on this.
E.g. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.stormtech....
Turns out plane accidents are expensive, and the reputation loss as well. Don't even need to lose the plane, just the plane being stuck on the ground is expensive (they are also one of the most timely airlines because of this). Really can not afford to have accidents!
Colloquially speaking, it sucks. It’s like saying vacuum cleaners technically blow. It might be true but everybody knows it as sucking.
Checkmate, science!