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

431–440 of 750 posts

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#431

Post by wqaatwt »

tssge wrote: post #426
kolp wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, it had all her stuff, so she couldn't just leave it behind. /s

Sarcasm aside, while still not acceptable, some people might not have the means to buy new items to replace what they lost in a crash. So it is understandable for some people to make the choice of taking their luggage with them in such an event, as they might not have the wealth and/or insurance necessary to replace those items afterwards. Of course the solution would be to make airlines liable to replace passengers'…

> liable to replace passengers' luggage

Aren’t they? AFAIK it’s standard (if not required?) for airlines to have insurance which includes passenger legal liability.

Were there any recent crashes where passengers weren’t compensated? e.g. after US Airways 1549 everyone received at minimum $5k (or higher depending on damages) for lost luggage.

edit: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/205.5

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#432

Post by fransje26 »

sitharus wrote: post #424
fransje26 wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, I found a deck of studying cards from Endeavor-Air, for the CRJ 900 limiations [1]. Card 18 states: Max allowable crosswind component for takeoff and landing on a runway when the braking action is “FAIR” => 20 knots That also seems to overlap with what is being discussed by CRJ pilots in this reddit thread [2] (EDIT: also discussed today here [3]) If the METAR is correct, they were landing with a cross…

The METAR was 27028G35KT, or 28 gusting 35 from 270° magnetic However the runway landing was 33, or 330° magnetic. So this is 24-30kt crosswind component. The maximum landing crosswind on a dry runway is 32kt. The press conference reported the runway as dry, so if they’re correct then it’s within limits. At the reported -9°c if the runway has been de-iced it could be dry I guess? The surveillance potato camera makes…

> However the runway landing was 33, or 330° magnetic.

They were landing on runway 23.

> At the reported -9°c if the runway has been de-iced it could be dry I guess?

From the NOTAM, the runway condition codes for 23 were 5/5/5, so not dry, but "good".

[1] https://avherald.com/h?article=52439b47&opt=1

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#434

Post by randerson »

wood_spirit wrote: post #321
DidYaWipe wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Footage existing and footage being released to the public are two different things. I understand there is a public Voyeur interest in seeing crashes, but how does releasing footage of accidents aid investigation or safety outcomes?

Considering how much effort it takes the NTSB to reconstruct the chain of events from the crash site and flight data recorder, any high-resolution video could be very valuable. In particular I think all airliners should have 4K "dashcams" considering how inexpensive the technology now is.

Crashes aside, a high-res Tower view would also make a great live webcam for enthusiasts to watch while listening to LiveATC.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#435

Post by jltsiren »

signatoremo wrote: post #100
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.

The conventional wisdom is that high speed rail is competitive with flying when travel time is at most 4.5 hours. But China has been challenging that with some ridiculously long routes, such as 2760 km from Beijing to Kunming (10 hours 43 minutes). I think the idea is that if flight time is long enough that you can't travel and work reasonably on the same day, you have to dedicate the entire day for travel. Then the difference between a 3.5-hour flight and a 10-hour train trip is no longer that significant.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#436

Post by tssge »

wqaatwt wrote: post #431
tssge wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sarcasm aside, while still not acceptable, some people might not have the means to buy new items to replace what they lost in a crash. So it is understandable for some people to make the choice of taking their luggage with them in such an event, as they might not have the wealth and/or insurance necessary to replace those items afterwards. Of course the solution would be to make airlines liable to replace passengers'…

> liable to replace passengers' luggage Aren’t they? AFAIK it’s standard (if not required?) for airlines to have insurance which includes passenger legal liability. Were there any recent crashes where passengers weren’t compensated? e.g. after US Airways 1549 everyone received at minimum $5k (or higher depending on damages) for lost luggage. edit: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/205.5

In general the airlines just ask you to leave your luggage. If they were legally obliged to replace all your items, they would inform you of such.

On international flights, an airline is liable for up to $1700 per the Montreal Convention. This might cover say half of one's laptop, which no matter how stupid it sounds, makes taking your luggage with you the only financially sensible choice in a crash (unless you have insurance). Now obviously such an event has other priorities than just financial ones, but it's no surprise if people choose to take their luggage with them.

On US domestic flights the amount is somewhat higher, $4700. However even this might not be enough for some. On EU domestic flights it's 1800€.

Airlines however are free to pay any amount they want, but they are not legally required to pay more than the limits set by law. So it is possible you will be reimbursed in full, but you wouldn't know that beforehand.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#437

Post by sitkack »

briandear wrote: post #400
lqet wrote: post #356

The consensus on r/aviation seems to be that it was caused by wind shear. > This looks like wind shear to me. It was a stable approach and then it suddenly got slammed into the ground. That doesn't look like pilot-induced change in descent rate, it is too sudden for that. A sudden change in wind direction (shear) when that slow can absolutely cause a sudden loss of lift. > We have had almost 2 feet of snow up here si…

Looks like a microburst to me, but same family as windshear

This is a pretty infamous video catching a microburst event on camera https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_WmjWAGkLI (no injuries),

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#438

Post by saalweachter »

rdl wrote: post #390
WalterBright wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I know, and I know about the leaded gas situation. The thing about cameras, though, is you can buy an HD dash cam for $100 that records in a loop. Buy it, plug it in, and point it at the runway. It doesn't need anything beyond a wall socket. If I was an ATC sitting in the tower, I'd probably just install one myself.

TBH there's enough of a "planespotting" hobbyist community who would love to have good quality camera footage of takeoffs/landings to probably finance great quality cameras at all major airfields covering all the runways/ramp areas/etc. just from ads from streaming. Also insurers (I actually work with a bunch of the guys at Lloyd's syndicates who do hull insurance for aircraft; I can ask them in a few weeks how much…

I wonder if you could get an additional market of "plane X taking off from/landing at airport Y at time of day Z in weather W at time of year U" clips for TV/movies, or if they already have enough of that stock footage.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#439

Post by hiccuphippo »

bsimpson wrote: post #269

It's wild to me that this is at the top of Hacker News, but not even on the Google News front page. I feel like major airline crashes are usually headlines.

Sadly, the lack of morbidity because there's no dead people makes it not top news elsewhere.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#440

Post by saalweachter »

jameslk wrote: post #315
bsimpson wrote: post #269

It's wild to me that this is at the top of Hacker News, but not even on the Google News front page. I feel like major airline crashes are usually headlines.

> I feel like major airline crashes are usually headlines. The problem is everyone seems to have survived

Also, not in the United States.
Post reply on HN