top | item 38907620

iPhone that fell from hole in Alaska 737 MAX flight is found, still open to Mail

546 points| wannacboatmovie | 2 years ago |twitter.com

448 comments

order
[+] xivzgrev|2 years ago|reply
This isn’t surprising - there was a wired story about phones surviving from planes back in 2011 (1)

The gist is that it’s a light object and due to that + broad shape, its terminal velocity is not very high. Coupled that with the mass and there’s not a lot of force on landing. Of course the phone itself is fragile so it might not take a lot of force to break. Still, as long as it lands on something soft it might be ok, as we’ve seen!

(1) https://www.wired.com/2011/04/what-is-the-terminal-velocity-...

[+] paxys|2 years ago|reply
Where it lands is the biggest factor. A phone will almost never break if it falls on soft grass or mud. And no phone is surviving a high velocity drop onto concrete.

Angle of fall is another big one. From what I've seen phones are generally fine if they fall face up or down, but even a slight bump on the edges is enough to crack the glass.

[+] mrandish|2 years ago|reply
Yes, that and it also had a case and screen protector on it. Plus it landed on grass/dirt vs asphalt.
[+] paulddraper|2 years ago|reply
Then why does my phone break when I drop it?
[+] tgsovlerkhgsel|2 years ago|reply
> the phone itself is fragile

Modern electronics are quite the opposite of fragile, I'd say.

[+] irrational|2 years ago|reply
It is strange two phones have been found, but not the door. Most of the Cedar Hills/Beaverton area is houses and shops with sporadic green spaces that aren’t that large in comparison. It is possible the door fell into a green space, but the odds are it did not. I imagine it is in someone’s backyard, but it is January in rainy Oregon. People aren’t doing yard work right now. I wouldn’t be surprised if it isn’t found until Spring when someone goes out to their backyard and discovers it.

It would be amusing if it fell into the lake on Nike Campus. It is fairly shallow, but if it was in the middle, it might not be noticed for a long time.

[+] rattus_rattus|2 years ago|reply
Edit: it has been found! I’m on mobile and not able to find a better link right now, but here’s an NTSB spokesperson discussing it: https://www.facebook.com/story.php/?id=100064737668850&story...

Sounds like the thing in the woods mentioned below was not the real deal and just some other bit of garbage or something that was dumped in the brush.

Previous comment:

I live in this neighborhood and saw a post on Nextdoor a little bit ago that indicates the door/panel may have been found. The text of the post is as follows: “My husband and I were walking the trail behind the Renaissance Town-homes near Barnes and Valeira View and we saw a large white oval object with a teal stripe on it in the brambles between the creek and Barnes Road. Two others saw it too and they called non-emergency. WCSO and the NTSB showed up but they could not affirm that that is what is was. As my husband said, nobody will know until they walk over to it. Unfortunately the undergrowth prevented us from doing so. We'll see, or not.”

The description of it having a teal stripe could match up with the missing panel, although we obviously can’t be sure yet if it is actually the missing part. I also saw a post from one of the folks who found a phone, and they had included a photo of where they found it, which I recognized to be fairly close to the place where the door was potentially found.

Sometimes we hear stuff on our roof, but it’s always just pinecones falling or a squirrel running around… makes me grateful we haven’t had a Donnie Darko scene in our yard or on our roof!

[+] cozzyd|2 years ago|reply
The door can probably glide quite a bit farther, maybe?
[+] photonbeam|2 years ago|reply
The phones are trackable via gps
[+] aurareturn|2 years ago|reply
A lot of things went into my head:

* The iPhone owner didn't put a password/passcode?

* Damn, he paid Alaska $70 for baggage fee?

* Now we know an iPhone will survive falling from the sky

[+] elzbardico|2 years ago|reply
Non technical users do some things that we don't even dream about doing, like setting auto-lock to "Never".

EDIT: I see some people got offended with the bit about Non-Technical users and downvoted me to Hades. I apologize. Not everyone is paranoid like me.

[+] dgrin91|2 years ago|reply
Doing a bit of research I found a few sources that say that the terminal velocity for a generic smartphone is ~20-40mph, which isn't that much. Lots of phones survive car crashes with higher speeds than that. Add to that landing on softer soil and maybe even breaking fall with branches and I'm not shocked it survived.

No screen crack is pretty good though. Smartphone screens have gotten crazy good recently

[+] wannacboatmovie|2 years ago|reply
Disabling auto-lock is definitely a thing, as anyone that's ever tried to use an iPhone in a car for navigation knows.

It's very possible the phone has a passcode but was sucked out while someone was using it, and never put to sleep.

Also worth noting the owner had a screen protector, so that may have quashed that everlasting debate.

[+] bombcar|2 years ago|reply
Given the circumstances Alaska should refund the baggage fee
[+] whateveracct|2 years ago|reply
I have auto-lock disabled when I'm not in low power mode. Wish I could add an explicit toggle for it to my tray though.
[+] stephenr|2 years ago|reply
> Damn, he paid Alaska $70 for baggage fee?

Based on https://www.alaskaair.com/content/travel-info/baggage/checke... it seems like that would be just two checked bags (not two extra bags, two bags!) and is irrelevant of your seat class? Be lucky the poor bloke didn't need a third bag, that's when it gets really expensive.

I guess I just have to chalk this up to yet another case of oddities in American flights I can't relate to.

[+] unglaublich|2 years ago|reply
Lufthansa wanted $450,- for an oversized bag (300cm sides, 30kg) on a 3h flight. Awful company.
[+] kpw94|2 years ago|reply
My guess is, given state of the charging connector still attached but ripped off (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38914210):

The entire thing fell out of plane (phone + charging cable plugged), then landed in a tree, where the charging cable got tangled in branches and that's when phone broke out of it and fell in grass.

So phone was able to release kinetic energy in 2 big events (+a few branches hit maybe), not a direct splash on the ground.

Wonder if somehow they can analyze the accelerometer data of the phone and figure out if that correlates with that scenario.

[+] vedosity|2 years ago|reply
In skydiving, it isn't unheard of for someone to have their phone fall out of their pocket and survive impact without the screen shattering. That's from ~13000ft, but once the phone reaches terminal velocity, it's all the same impact force regardless of altitude.

I think dirt/grass is just a lot softer than the things we usually drop our phones over, like concrete or tile.

[+] spirit557|2 years ago|reply
Obscured the credit card # but didn't think to grant the passenger some privacy and obscure their full name?
[+] CyanBird|2 years ago|reply
Likely because the aim is to find the actual owner of the phone?
[+] makeitdouble|2 years ago|reply
Seems to have landed on soft terrain, which makes a world of difference.

The bit of charging cable ripped at the bottom still tells how harsh the journey was before the landing.

[+] btilly|2 years ago|reply
I have a story about that, from the movie producer Fred Zinneman.

He was working on a movie and cast some paraplegics. One when asked said it was an accident, but didn't want to talk. Fred eventually got the story out of him.

He had been a paratrooper in WW 2. His parachute didn't open. But he landed in a big tree. Shaken, bruised, scratched up, and so on, but basically fine.

Climbing out of the tree he fell, and broke his neck.

It's the landing that does it, not the fall.

[+] userbinator|2 years ago|reply
I suspect the vegetation immediately above it also had a cushioning effect. Its owner was probably charging it while using it on the plane, and the force of the decompression was enough to snap the connector off.
[+] danbruc|2 years ago|reply
In 1972 flight attendant Vesna Vulović survived falling from 33k feet [1] pinned inside the remains of the fuselage after an explosion destroyed her airplane mid-flight killing everyone else.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87

[+] beacham|2 years ago|reply
Thanks for sharing. I thought this was the most interesting paragraph:

“Air safety investigators attributed Vulović's survival to her being trapped by a food trolley in the DC-9's fuselage as it broke away from the rest of the aircraft and plummeted towards the ground. When the cabin depressurized, the passengers and other flight crew were blown out of the aircraft and fell to their deaths. Investigators believed that the fuselage, with Vulović pinned inside, landed at an angle in a heavily wooded and snow-covered mountainside, which cushioned the impact.[1][a] Vulović's physicians concluded that her history of low blood pressure caused her to pass out quickly after the cabin depressurized and kept her heart from bursting on impact.[7] Vulović said that she was aware of her low blood pressure before applying to become a flight attendant and knew that it would result in her failing her medical examination, but she drank an excessive amount of coffee beforehand and was accepted.[3]”

[+] MongoTheMad|2 years ago|reply
I am glad these phones were not Nokias. Who knows what damage they would have caused.
[+] DennisP|2 years ago|reply
I'm glad we know the cause of the accident now. If the FAA had just explained how severe the consequences would be if someone used a phone on a flight, I think we all would have been more compliant.
[+] oaiey|2 years ago|reply
What a comment. But the young generation does not know anymore what this means.
[+] neilv|2 years ago|reply
I would've preferred that the identifying information of the person had been edited out.

The phone's owner experienced a traumatic incident. Which furthermore is under investigation.

Posting some kind of photo feels OK, however, since finding the phone is arguably newsworthy. And the Twitter poster says that it was open to that email, suggesting that they didn't go snooping through the phone. A little privacy redaction/cropping would've helped.

[+] nojvek|2 years ago|reply
It seems crazy to me how much attention flying accidents get vs car accidents. No fatalities in this flight.

Flying is one of the safest modes of transport. And we have FAA and stringent training / maintenance processes to thank.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_...

US has the highest death rate per million inhabitants. Even Russia is lower now.

~100 people die every day from car accidents.

If only car accidents were investigated with the rigor of flight accidents.

[+] asdajksah2123|2 years ago|reply
Crazy considering multiple iPhones (latest being an iPhone 11) haven't survived a few feet fall for me (no case...I'm extremely particular about using a case now).
[+] JoeAltmaier|2 years ago|reply
I had a spectacular break once. Sat my phone on my recumbent trike seat when I stood up, to take off my jacket. Went to pick up my trike, put it in the back of my truck and the phone spun off. About four feet off the ground.

Hit the cement spinning, which spiderweb cracked one corner. Not content with that, it bounced, now spinning in the opposite direction from the impact, hit on the other corner, spiderweb crack.

Now the bottom third of my phone was shattered glass with shards sticking out. And I had to call my team, learn their eta. One a week-long five hundred mile cycling tour.

Sucked.

[+] mensetmanusman|2 years ago|reply
Must be a U-shaped curve of survival rate versus drop height.
[+] quaffapint|2 years ago|reply
I was in Costa Rica taking an aerial tramway which was about 75 ft up over dirt/rocky hill and my Pixel 6a (with just a basic back case) fell out of my pocket, hit the metal floor and fell out the doorway. The very kind tour people actually went and found it and returned it with not even a scratch on it. Not exactly 16,000 ft, but I was still amazed and felt very lucky. The only damage was my wife being right that I should have put a strap on it.
[+] topkai22|2 years ago|reply
The charging cable was attached and ripped out with the phone, so it probably functioned as a tail, reducing the velocity a bit. Still, it wouldn’t be much. Impressive survivability by the phone.
[+] Someone|2 years ago|reply
FTA: “one revelation seemed to defy the laws of physics: one of the mobile phones that had been sucked out of the Boeing Co. 737 Max 9 jet’s cabin remained in functioning condition after a 16,000-foot tumble.”

I don’t know what the full paywalled article says, so they may say the same, but I don’t think that is very surprising.

The terminal velocity of a tumbling iPhone won’t be high (about 70km/hour, according to https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-terminal-velocity-of-a-falli...). It reaches that speed in a few seconds.

If, then, it drops on something that’s a bit forgiving, the deceleration won’t be excessive, and could easily be lower than that of dropping it on a hard concrete floor from a few meters high.

[+] nostromo|2 years ago|reply
I remember when you couldn't drop an iPhone four feet and have it survive. This one fell several thousand and the screen didn't even crack!
[+] snvzz|2 years ago|reply
it was found... unlocked and displaying Mail application.

Sure this level of shock would have registered on its accelerometers, right?

How come it did not do the obvious right thing from a security perspective, which is to lock itself?

[+] barryrandall|2 years ago|reply
This will be cited by Boeing as proof that the failure of their aircraft wasn't that bad.