Live data from Hacker News

Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

cbc.ca

251–260 of 750 posts

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would think the whole Boeing saga would disabuse you of that notion. Boeing put the bean counters in charge because it made their stock price go up . Of course, it goes up until the corners you cut to juice short term profitability cause something catastrophic to happen, like the multiple 787-max crashes, the door plug blowout, etc. By the time the bad stuff happens, the original decision makers are usually drinkin…

This kind of snark in the comments is always a bit weird. His pension alone is worth upwards of $40 or $50 million, plus he got paid over $20 million in 2013 and 14. He isn't particularly famous or well-known. Do you think his book royalties are even one percent of his net worth?

It always amazes me how people can pick out a detail that at least to me seems to be clearly made as sarcasm and highlight that as the thing that bothers them. So more literally:

1. No, I don't think the book royalties made a lick of difference to McNerney's net worth - in fact, he probably doesn't get any royalties, as it was just a fawning biography, not an autobiography. Instead, the fact that he made did make millions as CEO juicing the stock price, while actually putting in place the root causes for Boeing's subsequent downfall, is what I meant by "the original decision makers are usually drinking pina coladas on a beach somewhere".

2. I brought up the book because it's the height of irony for his biography being about what a great manager he is. The title of the book is "You Can't Order Change: Lessons from Jim McNerney's Turnaround at Boeing". Yeah, turnaround all right, just not in the direction intended by the author.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#252

That's incredible. The plane literally turned over and burnt but no casualty. The flight staff must have done as amazing job keeping everyone calm and helped everyone get out of the upside, burning plane.

nit: no fatalities, but definite some casualties.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do? https://people.com/new-video-dc-plane-crash-shows-final-seco... was an airport camera, IIRC.

That clip was shot by an amatuer with a hand-held camera, it isn't an airport camera.

No; this was the second to come out that night.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#254
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The parts are designed for "ultimate load" which is 150% of the worst case maximum load expected to ever see in service. I used to work at Boeing on the 757 stabilizer trim system. There's the design group and the stress group. I was in the design group, the stress group double checks the design work. One day the stress group called me on the carpet, and asked me why my designs consistently just barely exceeded 150%.…

P.S. the jackscrew turned out to be stronger than I'd anticipated. The credit for that goes to Saginaw Gear, who made them. SG makes kick-ass airplane parts, beautifally made.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#255

I've been looking for a video of the landing to see how it over turned, but haven't found one yet. I would have expected all airport runways to have multiple security cameras pointing at them t all times in this day and age.

Here is the first video I saw posted on the aviation subreddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1is1qoy/video_of_...

It looks like he didn't flare, just continued strait in. Maybe they lost visibility?

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#257
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not unusual for people in a plane crash to survive, then die from smoke inhalation because the people in front of them took too long to evacuate the plane.

Per the referenced link, of the 35 serious incidents between 1983 and 2017, there were 3,823 aircraft occupants. In that group, if you either survived or died from smoke/fire, there is a 7.2% chance you died from smoke/fire. I can't fine tune that number to determine you survived the crash, but then died from smoke or fire, since it did not easily differentiate pre-crash and post-crash fires. I am not sure I would ag…

If they had time to look up these statistics, they surely had time to take a selfie, making the point moot.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#258

I've been looking for a video of the landing to see how it over turned, but haven't found one yet. I would have expected all airport runways to have multiple security cameras pointing at them t all times in this day and age.

A better view from behind the runway.

https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1is1qoy/video_of_...

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#259
post #189
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> air transport is more suitable for medium to long distance, such as this Minneapolis-Toronto route. 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 comparis…

> Eh maybe. That's not much longer than Beijing-Shanghai. Rail can definitely be competitive. Connecting two growing mega cities by rail in a country that can still build things vs two mid-tier cities in two different countries, neither of which build anything without a decade of delays and 3x the budget (before the projects get cancelled), is not a good analogy to use against flight IMO.

> countries, neither of which build anything without a decade of delays and 3x the budget (before the projects get cancelled)

That ends up being circular though. The main reason the US and Canada can't build anything is that they don't build anything.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#260
post #91
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fuselage isn’t being stressed in a wing load test. There is zero way the fuselage could stand up to the level of force being applied to the wings.
Post reply on HN