Alaska Airlines Adds New 'Scenic View' Seat For $30 Upgrade Fee

[j-c-c-62]

So much for being polite, grow up dude.

 

[Richard Cranium]

So much for being polite, grow up dude.

 

[j-c-c-62]

Wonder no more.

 

[Photon440]

Sorry RC, a lot of your postings are hilarious, but the bathroom one wasn't even enough to warrant a smile.

 

[Richard Cranium]

Sorry RC, a lot of your postings are hilarious, but the bathroom one wasn't even enough to warrant a smile.

True, but did it warrant the kind of response from our humor impaired friend gave?

 

[Photon440]

That quoted question was referring to both of our long list of self-reported professional offsetting accolades we used to justify our position as superior on this matter.

The quoted question still stands IMO.

You're sure that an air leak would have a loud sound, analogous to opening a car door window. But it's already been explained that there is a lot of sound insulation behind the inner plastic panels. How loud would a car door window be if you covered it with a pillow? Still not airtight, but certainly quieter.

 

[j-c-c-62]

You're sure that an air leak would have a loud sound, analogous to opening a car door window. But it's already been explained that there is a lot of sound insulation behind the inner plastic panels. How loud would a car door window be if you covered it with a pillow? Still not airtight, but certainly quieter.

1. You are giving fiberglass thinner/lighter than a pillow much greater adsorption properties than it has, and I suspect in this aircraft's application its more for thermal transfer than acoustical properties
2. What should be the main point here is the single point anomaly of unique unexplained sound emanating from a location at a level found nowhere else in the cabin. That should raise alarm bells, to the cabin crew if not the passengers.
3. I categorically object that modern aircraft have loud interiors and when they might be their loudest at lower altitude, when they are not then pressurized to any relative degree and therefore any cabin air leak would be at it's quietest, but that would change as engine power is reduced but air speed soon increases and with-it air escaping as cabin pressure differential increases.
4. Post nearly all cabin failures induced incidents including this one. its observed to be very loud post event from the overall air speed, to the point zero communication verbally is possible.

 

[j-c-c-62]

True, but did it warrant the kind of response from our humor impaired friend gave?

I have my limits regarding humor, so apparently do you regarding class.
And for the record, I am not your friend, by choice.

 

[WileERobby]

I have my limits regarding humor, so apparently do you regarding class.
And for the record, I am not your friend, by choice.

And you joined this site, when ? You have... how many messages ? Dude, you walked into the classroom with snots running down your nose and just addressed the professor.

 

[WileERobby]

True, but did it warrant the kind of response from our humor impaired friend gave?

Are you referring to...

?

 

[Photon440]

1. You are giving fiberglass thinner/lighter than a pillow much greater adsorption properties than it has, and I suspect in this aircraft's application its more for thermal transfer than acoustical properties
2. What should be the main point here is the single point anomaly of unique unexplained sound emanating from a location at a level found nowhere else in the cabin. That should raise alarm bells, to the cabin crew if not the passengers.
3. I categorically object that modern aircraft have loud interiors and when they might be their loudest at lower altitude, when they are not then pressurized to any relative degree and therefore any cabin air leak would be at it's quietest, but that would change as engine power is reduced but air speed soon increases and with-it air escaping as cabin pressure differential increases.
4. Post nearly all cabin failures induced incidents including this one. its observed to be very loud post event from the overall air speed, to the point zero communication verbally is possible.

I'll address your numbered items in turn:

1. What you suspect and what is reality may be different. The insulation used on jet bodies, actually called 'Thermal Acoustic Material' has three main purposes; to protect from sound, temperature differences and provide a fire barrier. As for thickness, the FAA gov. site on fire protection mentions "Batting thickness is about 5 inches in the crown area, 3 inches along the sides, and 1 inch below the passenger floor." The same site states "Insulation is used to attenuate outside noise..."

As we all know, jet engines are loud. It's true that the 737 MAX's CFM Leap engines are quieter than previous designs, beating the FAR 36 Stage 3 requirements, falling below 80 decibels. But that measurement is 2000 feet from the runway threshold - you would be correct in assuming that it is louder when close to the fuselage.

2. You make use of phrases such as "single point anomaly of unique unexplained sound" without providing evidence that any such sound was present in the first place to warrant an explanation or investigation. Again, the aircraft was well insulated.

3. We agree that aircraft do not have loud interiors, because they are so well insulated. In fact, on many of my recent flights some of the loudest sounds came from the overhead air vents blowing down. Until take-off and climb power was applied. In this case the power was not yet reduced to cruising levels as the aircraft was still climbing and most likely accelerating to its planned altitude. As well, maximum cabin pressure differential vs. the outside had not yet been reached because planned flight level was not attained so any escaping air would not have been as loud.

4. I'm not sure what the question is here. If you're suggesting that it was loud after the door plug escaped, then we're in agreement there, and not relevant to the initial cause of the problem. I'm not sure what verbal communication was impossible, a news article from the Washington Post remarked that "Shaken flight attendants reassured passengers and urged them to stay buckled in." I'd venture to say that they reassured the passengers verbally, not with marker pens on cardboard.

 

[Richard Cranium]

I have my limits regarding humor, so apparently do you regarding class.
And for the record, I am not your friend, by choice.

 

[66 Sat]

Well I base my contention on being a 5+ decade well respected audio engineer trained to listen well for anomalies that has spent thousands of hours in jet aircraft flying around the world that where not sitting on the ground being fixed for cabin air leaks.

And all this matters really how?

I think I'd believe @OKDart before you. His credentials are far more relevant in this instance.

 

[Richard Cranium]

I think I'd believe @OKDart before you. His credentials are far more relevant in this instance.

Plus he’s not a cranky and argumentative old grump.

 

[JackR]

I work in the aircraft industry. I see aircraft manufacturing wherever they build aircraft. last Week on an FAA call, I don’t ever remember hearing the FAA speak about a failure before a final report came out. They are certainly staring Boeing down over this one. Some assembly procedure(s) were not followed for sure.
And as a frequent passenger on many Max aircraft all over the world I have no problem using the 737 Max aircraft. Both FAA and EASA have gone nose to tail after the two crashes and previous grounding. The FAA took significant action on Boeing (and the industry as a whole) after the two crashes. This new one will result in additional findings and corrective actions.

 

[DeltaV]

Alaska Airlines are back in the air after some precautionary safety measures were implemented in conjunction with Boeing.

Boeing's 700mph wing tape as used extensively to hold Qantas 787 Dreamliner wings together was produced in 100 metre rolls and applied to all Alaska's grounded Max's.

The Boeing CEO said at a press conference today, "When you are on a good thing, stick to it!"

 

[j-c-c-62]

I'll address your numbered items in turn:

1. What you suspect and what is reality may be different. Of course and the reason I intentionally used the word "suspect" I also believe in the merit of the Dunning-Krugger Effect The insulation used on jet bodies, actually called 'Thermal Acoustic Material' has three main purposes; to protect from sound, temperature differences and provide a fire barrier. I can't address the fire barrier effectiveness nor suspect it has any relevance here in this context. As for thickness, the FAA gov. site on fire protection mentions "Batting thickness is about 5 inches in the crown area There are minimum noise sources entering from the "crown" area, leading one to believe the thicker insulation there is because of the need for more thermal properties, same applies to the two other reduced thicknesses mention below, 3 inches along the sides, and 1 inch below the passenger floor." The same site states "Insulation is used to attenuate outside noise..." but you do not mention it is a primary design attribute or a secondary one, and 3" of typical fiberglass has minimal sound reduction characteristics in unrestrained air, it works best against a solid surface.

As we all know, jet engines are loud. It's true that the 737 MAX's CFM Leap engines are quieter than previous designs, beating the FAR 36 Stage 3 requirements, falling below 80 decibels. But that measurement is 2000 feet from the runway threshold - you would be correct in assuming that it is louder when close to the fuselage. So "assuming" is allowed here in this discussion?

2. You make use of phrases such as "single point anomaly of unique unexplained sound" without providing evidence that any such sound was present and nobody is providing any evidence it was not in the first place to warrant an explanation or investigation. Again, the aircraft was well insulated. So, we are debating what here, "single point", "anomaly", "unique" or "Unexplained" or "Sound" or all the above? I believe they all stand on their own merits. Did I assume wrongly? The more internal acoustic insulation present thru out the aircraft would only help to further differentiate the leaking single air source opening/noise.

3. We agree that aircraft do not have loud interiors, because they are so well insulated. No, but because they are firstly well sealed. Use the open window example, one can have a well-insulated car, but the moment you crack a window open , that sound level drastically increases. You earlier also mentioned today's aircraft being quieter outside, my response earlier was to question a self-proclaimed aircraft mechanic's allegation that aircraft are so loud inside and that a cabin air leak would not be noticeable to crew or passengers. In fact, on many of my recent flights some of the loudest sounds came from the overhead air vents blowing down. Until take-off and climb power was applied. Those are different power levels. In this case the power was not yet reduced to cruising levels as the aircraft was still climbing and most likely accelerating to its planned altitude. My experience of many decades power is being reduced way before 10,000 ft. the point is conversation is almost always possible once aircraft has left the runway and wheels are up. As well, maximum cabin pressure differential vs. the outside had not yet been reached because planned flight level was not attained so any escaping air would not have been as loud. Meaning what? It was enough to dislodge the door plug.

4. I'm not sure what the question is here. Since there were reported air cabin pressure events in previous flights on this aircraft, it appears they might be related and intermittent if related to the door plug, If you're suggesting that it was loud after the door plug escaped, then we're in agreement there, and not relevant to the initial cause of the problem Of course, but it exemplifies somewhat the amount of noise outside the airborne aircraft that would enter any opening. I'm not sure what verbal communication was impossible, a news article from the Washington Post remarked that "Shaken flight attendants reassured passengers and urged them to stay buckled in." I'd venture to say that they reassured the passengers verbally, Facially, body English, mouthed words, hand gestures, etc not with marker pens on cardboard. Cute, there are reports of passengers near the missing door plug were only able to communicate to each other by electronic device because of noise.

 

[1967coronet]

Why worry?
It's aircraft rated duct tape.

So....... it's cool if you make the joke ?
But in bad form if others do ?
You may want to take a couple twists out of those shorts.
Carry on.

 

[j-c-c-62]

I was commenting on a fake preposterous pic of a duct taped 787, not a recent aircraft incident involving a Max aircraft that threatened the lives of all aboard.
Sorry if that attempt at humor offended you with my overt alleged hypocrisy. speaking of twisted shorts.
I will do better the next time.

 

[XS22J8R]

So the OP, RC, starts an amusing thread with a parody article about a current event. Several armchair quarterbacks hijack the thread to give their “expert analysis“ about the cause of the event in question. When the OP interrupts their in-depth discussions to post some more parody articles, some of the “experts” then go off on him and even tell him some of his jokes are out of line? Get over yourself….
Don‘t have a sense of humor and want to discuss a current issue you have all figured out because you watch the news on TV, why not start your own thread to discuss it with fellow experts?
For the record I’m an ATP rated pilot and 30 year engineer working for manufacturing companies and have been watching the story. I don’t claim to have it figured it, but all I can tell you is a lot of things are screwed up right now in both industry and government agencies like the FAA. It’s only a matter of time before we have a major air disaster due to incompetent air traffic controller error, maintenance errors, manufacturing errors, design and certification errors and/or incompetent pilot errors. There’s been a number of aviation near misses and accidents already, we’ve been fortunate there hasn’t been a worse one yet, but sadly that will likely happen soon.
I don’t claim to have all the answers but hope it doesn’t take a disaster to get things straightened out.
This article gives some clues into problems in industry currently-
MSN
Industry is messed up, the FAA has always sucked, Rome is burning, can’t we at least try to laugh about it?