Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 750 posts

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#91

Post by hinkley »

stouset wrote: post #88
wkat4242 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True but I have a feeling it might be designed to rip off in this situation. I'm more surprised the wing rupture didn't cause a fire/explosion because this is where most of the fuel is stored.

I seriously, seriously doubt it. The wings are so utterly critical to flight I can’t possibly imagine any situation they’d be engineered to snap off under. Further, that’s where the fuel is and any crash involving a wing rupture is dramatically more dangerous given the risk of fire. Hell even in a crash landing like this you want the plane to stay upright and stable.

Look up stress to failure tests on commercial airplanes.

They know how much peak load is supposed to be for the airframe, then they go well beyond it to see how the plane fails. Generally you want the wings to break not the fuselage.

You can in a lot of situations land a plane with 1.5 wings. But once the spine cracks you’re just a ballistic object.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#92

Post by fallingknife »

lukev wrote: post #18

[flagged]

Is the particular issue here something that would be solved by more FAA staffing? Typically "give more money and headcount to the bureaucracy that is supposed to prevent this issue" is not actually an effective way to solve a problem, and a more intelligent approach is needed. IMO they need to be looking at more automation and less ATC headcount anyway. That DC crash wouldn't have happened if the pilots had a continuous data feed and collision prevention algorithm rather than relying on people in the control tower calling them and telling them do you see "the plane?"

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#95

Post by hinkley »

chrisco255 wrote: post #63
RachelF wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also looks like a wing has been ripped off. That passengers could survive an accident involving so much force is surprising.

Did it roll after landing or before landing?

The fact that people lived suggests after.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#96

Post by redcobra762 »

userbinator wrote: post #76
Kapura wrote: post #70

[flagged]

Toronto is in a different country than the FAA.

American company, taking off from an American airport with mostly American passengers.

The only thing about this flight that wasn’t American is the destination…

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#97

Post by moralestapia »

mikeyouse wrote: post #10
haunter wrote: post #6

Video from a passanger, the hull is upside down! https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=617972644350232

I know they need to control any possibility of a fire but man would it be a rude awakening to escape a significant plane crash, release your seatbelt while hanging upside down, make it to the exit door and then get sprayed in the face with cold water on a February day in Toronto.

If I just survived a plane crash that would be the last thing on my mind.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#98

Post by lumost »

CivBase wrote: post #94
lukev wrote: post #18

[flagged]

How did the plane flip? Do we have any reason to believe it could be reasonably avoided with regulations?

Maintenance is a regulatory problem. Otherwise it’s a race to the bottom looking for someone to sign off on a flight.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#100

Post by signatoremo »

0xjunhao wrote: post #29

Maybe we should build more railways. The ground is more stable than the air.

HN is full of clickbait messages like this. US and Canada can use a lot more trains, but air transport is more suitable for medium to long distance, such as this Minneapolis-Toronto route. They are complementary.

The accident occurred on the ground, any aircraft is susceptible, “more trains” doesn’t make it less so.

Post reply on HN