Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack | Hacker News Reader

Japan ANA Boeing 737-800 flight turns back due to cockpit window crack

reuters.com

16 pointsnabla97 comments

It's so common that I've had it happen on a flight. We were midway over the Atlantic, so we made it to the destination.

It sounded like getting the replacement part is a pain though. They're not just sitting around at every airport. So after they landed they'd have to fly with a cracked windshield to another European country.

Perhaps they're thinking: "if we were in an Airbus a crack is no big deal, but we're in a Boeing 737, so who knows ... maybe next minute the whole windscreen blows out ... lets just get back on the ground while we're still alive".

Is there a database of 737 incidents that is regularly updated and available to the public? It’s difficult for me to discern whether there are more 737 incidents or just more incidents reported in the news.

Be very careful when evaluating "737 incidents". The 800 (referenced here) has been around for a long time, there's lots of them and has a very good track record. It's viewed as one of Boeing's "engineer planes" prior to the current shit-show. It's the MAX that is the "MBA plane", the series of deadly crashes, and the 9 series with the door plug fiasco. Incidents are so rare overall that statistically you should avoid flying altogether before you prematurely optimize for which planes you use, if crashes are your fear. or at least avoid hot air balloons...

I'm not sure that this merits the same kind of discussion that the MAX situation is garnering yet. Cracks happen, there doesn't seem to be a systemic issue, it was in one of four layers of glass (the outermost), and the plane landed without issue.

Now if similar cracks are found in more Boeing 737-800 windshields, that'd be an interesting element to add to the existing general discussion around Boeing's QA issues. But for now, meh.

Great decision for turning back and not risking anything.

Not saying there's no judgement call here, but the irony is that what makes flying so safe (in addition to the amazing overall levels of training & experience of the crews) is a lack of "decision making", i.e. SOPs dictate so many situations that systems design pre-answers the incident response. Obviously there's human components in many of these, but it's the consistent, shared procedure that prevents say, a pilot's awareness of the recent MAX 9 issues from over-influencing their response. We really want largely robotic problem-solving in these situations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com