121–130 of 750 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did it roll after landing or before landing?
I saw a report that it was after touchdown. I’m guessing wind, ice, or something else moved the plane off the centerline and into a crab, it hooked a wheel off the pavement, and cartwheeled. 100% conjecture at this point, just seems like a possible chain of events.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so poor regulation could possibly be implicated Can you work out the logical connection for someone who wouldn't understand it?
There is incredible amounts of regulation around plane, maintenance. From specification of parts, to maintenance schedules, even all the way down to purity and composition of the materials. This regulation is used to make sure that all airlines that operate in the US adhere to the strict and narrow requirements from the manufacturers and the safety testing done. Whether or not you or other people ideologically agree…
Having an aircraft (with no emergency declared) landing with a 40° crosswind at 23 knots, gusting 33 knots, with patchy snow, and active snow removal ops ongoing, lose control on the runway is probably not a favorite to be a maintenance omission or a regulatory dodge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a beautiful theory that completely falls apart when cause and effect between bad behaviour and consequences is not immediately clear to the person buying the service. Which, in the real world, is the case with almost everything. Vendors don't tend to cheat or cut corners or perform malfeasance on shit that's easy to spot . Worse yet, the customer often can't tell the difference between malfeasance and bad luck…
It's not so much a theory as it is an attempt to understand what we already observe in the real world. Why is it that restaurants, barbers, car washes, and other small business industries have thrived for so long despite minimal regulation? One reason is the high competition. If you've ever run a restaurant, you know the importance of making customers happy. Because customers have so many other options to choose from…
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.
Eh maybe. That's not much longer than Beijing-Shanghai. Rail can definitely be competitive.
> The accident occurred on the ground
Plane crashes generally do. Given that all plane journeys involve at least one takeoff and landing, it's fair to consider collisions and incidents during those as part of a safety comparison.
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.
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.
It isn't on any aircraft I've heard of. Only the engines have "fuses" which allow an engine to rip itself off without taking the wing with it.
The wing root is the strongest part of the airplane (because that is where the maximum forces are).
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.
Planes typically land with little fuel left (obviously enough for emergencies etc but they are practically empty, it's safer and more efficient)
https://simpleflying.com/minimum-fuel-requirements-definitio...
I've not seen any video of the crash. Usually, when there's a crash, dash cam or other amatuer video caught it. Which leads to my repeated bafflement as to why there are no video cameras constantly pointed at flight ops at the airport. If every 7-11 can have a security cam recording hi-def 24/7, why can't a couple of these be mounted in the tower pointed at the tarmac?
It seems a lot more likely the security managers aren’t in a hurry to release them to the public.
I've not seen any video of the crash. Usually, when there's a crash, dash cam or other amatuer video caught it. Which leads to my repeated bafflement as to why there are no video cameras constantly pointed at flight ops at the airport. If every 7-11 can have a security cam recording hi-def 24/7, why can't a couple of these be mounted in the tower pointed at the tarmac?
I've not seen any video of the crash. Usually, when there's a crash, dash cam or other amatuer video caught it. Which leads to my repeated bafflement as to why there are no video cameras constantly pointed at flight ops at the airport. If every 7-11 can have a security cam recording hi-def 24/7, why can't a couple of these be mounted in the tower pointed at the tarmac?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I saw a report that it was after touchdown. I’m guessing wind, ice, or something else moved the plane off the centerline and into a crab, it hooked a wheel off the pavement, and cartwheeled. 100% conjecture at this point, just seems like a possible chain of events.
Too bad the airport couldn't find the funds to put a dash cam in the tower. Grump grump grump.