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

301–310 of 750 posts

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#301

Post by SapporoChris »

DidYaWipe wrote: post #282

It's mystifying that any airport with commercial service doesn't have cameras with a full view of every runway recording 100% of the time. You can't steal a catalytic converter without being on video. We have webcams placed behind eagles' nests in our national parks. Yet somehow we have no recordings of plane crashes at our airports. Then of course there's the lack of cameras on the planes themselves...

"You can't steal a catalytic converter without being on video." Wait! Tell us about your experiences with catalytic converters!

Also, I've flown a lot of Korean Airlines flights where they have front, down and side view cameras that you can watch on the entertainment console. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before more airlines adopt it.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#302

Post by bfdm »

hugh-avherald wrote: post #208
evil-olive wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The wings are so utterly critical to flight I can’t possibly imagine any situation they’d be engineered to snap off under. I don't know enough about the details of the CRJ-900 to say for certain, but in general aerospace engineering does include considerations of this sort, where if a component breaks off you want to ensure that it separates in a specific way. from an Admiral Cloudberg article [0] about El-Al 1862…

The purpose of that engineering feature is to ensure the wings stay on.

The comment was merely illustrating the concept in general being used on planes, or at least that's how I read it.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#303

Post by aqueueaqueue »

culi wrote: post #165
thegrim33 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_accidents_and_in... Seems to instantly prove you wrong ..

If anyone's wondering. Based on the link we have, Fatalities: 2025: 77 (2 fatal accidents) 2024: 0 2023: 0 2022: 10 (1) 2021: 0 2020: 9 (1) 2019: 7 (2) 2018: 1 (1) 2017: 0 2016: 0 2015: 0 2014: 0 2013: 13 (2) 2012: 0 2011: 0 2010: 0 We do indeed seem to be having a particularly bad year. It's only February of 2025 and there's been more than double the total deaths than in the past decade

This must be commercial only too

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#305

Post by sangnoir »

eastbound wrote: post #289
DebtDeflation wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After touchdown, but it rolled sideways not end over end. This kept the fuselage intact and ripped off the wings (where all the fuel is) which is why everyone survived.

Just to understand: Did it roll upside down, with people’s head at the bottom, or sideways, with people’s back to the front of the direction?

What you describe in the second sentence - rotating around the vertical-axis - is typically termed a spin .

I think parent was saying the roll was along the planes' length rather than tail-over-nose, the latter usually result in the aircraft breaking up as the torque will be really high.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#306

Post by listenallyall »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #251
listenallyall wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mil…

It always amazes me that someone creates a "throwaway" account then continues to use it forever. The issue with your snark is that adding it undermines the first half of the comment which is a reasonable point. Yes short-term focus on boosting stock price is often detrimental to a century-old company and one whose products often last 40+ years - and especially when failure of those products offen results in mass casualties. So just write that. Talking about pina coladas on the beach and book royalties just makes you sound arrogant and "holier-than-thou" and reads like you're making an personality judgment about one individual, rather than the industry leaders as a whole.

> clearly made as sarcasm

It's not clearly sarcasm to readers. It sounds like a personal axe to grind which, as stated, undermines your overall point

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#307

Post by brailsafe »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #283
brailsafe wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like an awfully fanciful idea for anywhere but places with the most dense rail networks per sq km, at least if we're talking a full-scale refactor of existing infrastructure, in terms of financial, physical, logistics. Is it not somewhat true that rail/freight companies have more authority over the land that their lines run through than the regions do? I may be talking out of my ass here, but I feel cities…

In what way is it fanciful? There's an extensive network of interstates in the US with nearly zero intersections. If it's viable for I-90 why isn't it viable for the equivalent rail line?

Well, if all the interstates did have plenty of intersections, and someone proposed removing them all retroactively, would that not be an absolutely gargantuan undertaking at present, to the point where justifying it would seem fanciful?

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#308

Post by [deleted] »

WalterBright wrote: post #125
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.

> it might be designed to rip off in this situation 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).

[deleted]

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#309

Post by rmetzler »

SapporoChris wrote: post #301
DidYaWipe wrote: post #282

It's mystifying that any airport with commercial service doesn't have cameras with a full view of every runway recording 100% of the time. You can't steal a catalytic converter without being on video. We have webcams placed behind eagles' nests in our national parks. Yet somehow we have no recordings of plane crashes at our airports. Then of course there's the lack of cameras on the planes themselves...

"You can't steal a catalytic converter without being on video." Wait! Tell us about your experiences with catalytic converters! Also, I've flown a lot of Korean Airlines flights where they have front, down and side view cameras that you can watch on the entertainment console. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before more airlines adopt it.

Thieves stole mine in 2020. It was a Mitsubishi Carisma from 1996. They steal them because it’s fast and they contain expensive metals.

There are videos of thieves stealing them on YouTube, but we don’t have any footage.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#310

Post by DidYaWipe »

Arainach wrote: post #297
DidYaWipe wrote: post #282

It's mystifying that any airport with commercial service doesn't have cameras with a full view of every runway recording 100% of the time. You can't steal a catalytic converter without being on video. We have webcams placed behind eagles' nests in our national parks. Yet somehow we have no recordings of plane crashes at our airports. Then of course there's the lack of cameras on the planes themselves...

Why do you assume no footage exists? Why do you assume that any footage the tower has should be released to the public immediately?

Well, it seems that there have been several crashes over the last few years where no on-site footage surfaced... whether there's any of this one or not.
Post reply on HN