An Air France flight from Paris to Algiers returned to Paris shortly after takeoff because a passenger realized their phone had fallen into a gap between the seats, potentially near flight control mechanisms. Unable to retrieve the phone, the crew, prioritizing safety, decided to turn back as a precaution. The plane landed safely, the phone was retrieved, and passengers eventually continued their journey to Algiers on a later flight. The incident highlights the potential risks posed by small items getting lodged in sensitive aircraft areas.
While the Wright brothers are widely credited with inventing the airplane, in Brazil, Alberto Santos-Dumont holds that honor. Brazilians argue that Santos-Dumont's 14-bis, unlike the Wright Flyer, achieved sustained, controlled flight without the assistance of launch rails or catapults, making it the first true airplane. This national pride is reflected in official records, educational materials, and public monuments, solidifying Santos-Dumont's legacy as the aviation pioneer in Brazil.
Hacker News users discuss the cultural and historical context around the invention of the airplane, acknowledging Brazil's strong belief that Alberto Santos-Dumont is the rightful inventor. Several commenters point out that the criteria for "invention" are debatable, with some emphasizing controlled, sustained flight (favoring the Wright brothers) while others prioritize public demonstrations and reproducibility (favoring Santos-Dumont). The complexities of patent law and differing standards of evidence also enter the discussion. Some users mention Santos-Dumont's open-source approach to his designs as a contributing factor to his popularity, contrasting it with the Wright brothers' more secretive approach. The general sentiment reflects an understanding of Brazil's perspective, even if not everyone agrees with it, and highlights how national narratives shape historical interpretations.
The author recounts their visit to the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force in Dayton, Ohio, specifically to see the XB-70 Valkyrie. They were deeply impressed by the sheer size and unique design of this experimental supersonic bomber, describing its presence as awe-inspiring and otherworldly. The post focuses on the aircraft's visual impact, highlighting features like the drooping wingtips and massive size, alongside numerous high-quality photographs showcasing the plane from various angles. The author emphasizes the privilege of witnessing such a rare and significant piece of aviation history, capturing their personal sense of wonder and the enduring legacy of the XB-70.
HN commenters generally express awe at the XB-70's ambitious design and capabilities, with several noting its stunning appearance and sheer size. Some discuss the technical challenges overcome in its creation, like the unique compression lift generated by its wingtips and the complex fuel system needed for Mach 3 flight. Others lament the project's cancellation, viewing it as a missed opportunity for advancements in supersonic flight. A few commenters offer personal anecdotes about seeing the aircraft in person, highlighting the visceral impact of witnessing such a large and unusual plane. The impracticality of the XB-70 as a bomber due to advancements in surface-to-air missiles is also mentioned, along with its later contributions to supersonic research. A recurring theme is the romanticism surrounding the project, representing a bygone era of ambitious aerospace engineering.
Summary of Comments ( 92 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43523765
The Hacker News comments discuss the cost-benefit analysis of turning a plane around for a lost phone, with many questioning the rationale. Some speculate about security concerns, suggesting the phone might have been intentionally planted or could be used for tracking, while others dismiss this as paranoia. A few commenters propose alternative solutions like searching upon landing or using tracking software. Several highlight the lack of information in the article, such as the phone's location in the plane (e.g., between seats, potentially causing a fire hazard) and whether it was confirmed to belong to the passenger in question. The overall sentiment is that turning the plane around seems like an overreaction unless there was a credible security threat, with the inconvenience to other passengers outweighing the benefit of retrieving the phone. Some users also point out the potential environmental impact of such a decision.
The Hacker News comments section for the Washington Post article "Why a plane turned around when a passenger lost a phone midflight" contains a robust discussion analyzing the incident and its implications.
Several commenters question the veracity of the passenger's claim that his phone slipped between the seats, speculating that it might have fallen into a more critical area of the plane, prompting the return. They point out the unlikelihood of a phone causing mechanical issues just by falling between seats and suggest the possibility of the phone entering a more sensitive area, perhaps near flight control cables or other vital components. This concern drives much of the discussion, with users exploring the potential risks of such a scenario. Some speculate the phone might have been a modified device or carried a concern beyond a simple loss.
The discussion also delves into the airline's procedures and the pilot's decision-making process. Commenters discuss the difficulty of assessing such situations mid-flight, particularly with the limited information available to the pilot. Some suggest the pilot erred on the side of caution, prioritizing passenger safety, while others criticize the decision as an overreaction. The potential cost of turning the plane around, both financially and in terms of passenger inconvenience, is also a significant point of discussion.
Another thread of conversation focuses on the passenger's responsibility and whether they should bear some of the costs associated with the return flight. Some argue that if the passenger's negligence caused the incident, they should be held accountable, while others defend the passenger, pointing out the difficulty of preventing such accidents.
Several commenters share anecdotes of similar experiences, either involving lost items or other unexpected events that caused flight disruptions. These personal accounts add a layer of realism to the discussion, highlighting the unpredictable nature of air travel.
Finally, the conversation touches on the broader implications of this incident for airline security and procedures. Some users suggest improvements to aircraft design to prevent similar incidents, while others call for clearer guidelines for handling lost items during flight. There's a noticeable lack of consensus on the best course of action, reflecting the complexity of balancing safety, efficiency, and passenger experience.