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

Air India flight to London crashes in Ahmedabad with more than 240 onboard

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 633 posts

Re: Air India flight to London crashes in Ahmedabad with more than 240 onboard

#111

Post by infecto »

moralestapia wrote: post #90
infecto wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Now you know why.” - why even respond like this? You took some general statistics not specific to the population of people who are whistleblowers and just matter of factly make it a truth. It’s about as ridiculous as saying the person is murdered without any proof which I guess aligns with your thought process. Being a whistleblower is ostracizing. Your colleagues and friends might no longer associate with you. It m…

>"Now you know why.” - why even respond like this? Because you wrote "I don't know why". >Being a whistleblower is ostracizing. [...] Sure! That's already factored in the suicide statistic.

The why respond like this is because you lack citations and provided an opinion that is not intuitive. Enlighten us instead of speaking like it’s all fact and share sources. You only stated suicide rates in the over 60 group and did not mention whistleblowers. You are again speaking on such authority without citing your supposed well known data.

I have looked before and have never seen specific studies on suicide rates in whistleblower groups but there is an awful lot of studies suggesting higher rates of depression and suicidal thoughts. Again I don’t know this case well but until there is evidence of murder it feels like MAHA feelings instead of science. I can think of a number of cases in recent history where the whistleblower has committed suicide, everytime people talk about it being murder but zero proof. Happy to be corrected but also tired of conspiracies.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6604402

https://thesignalsnetwork.org/whistleblower-john-barnetts-li...

Re: Air India flight to London crashes in Ahmedabad with more than 240 onboard

#112

Post by aipatselarom »

klausa wrote: post #109
moralestapia wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment does not deserve to be downvoted, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

It's baseless speculation by someone who doesn't have any relevant expertise, based purely on conjecture not any facts around the accident. It's _exactly_ the kind of comment that deserves to be downvoted here.

The guy's just asking if four engines instead of two would have made a difference?

It's curiosity, it's learning, it's looking for an explanation.

That's exactly the kind of comment that deserves to be here.

>[...] who doesn't have any relevant expertise,

Is that a requirement to comment on this thread?

Do you fulfill that requirement you brought in?

Re: Air India flight to London crashes in Ahmedabad with more than 240 onboard

#113

Post by Ichthypresbyter »

moralestapia wrote: post #104
Ichthypresbyter wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a flock of birds large enough to be ingested by both engines of a two-engined plane not also be large enough to be ingested by all four engines of a four-engined plane?

>Why don’t all four tires on a car blow out at the same time?

They do if you drive over a stinger (or perhaps a sufficiently large number of nails or other sharp objects).

Re: Air India flight to London crashes in Ahmedabad with more than 240 onboard

#114

Post by quantumfissure »

DanielleMolloy wrote: post #79

This is the 4th within less than a year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_aircraft_acc...

And there were 7 in one year during 2018 and 2019.

Looking through the chart you linked, averages around 3 per year. Considering how many planes are currently in the sky at this very moment, this is a wildly useless statistic used to cause fear and panic.

Re: Air India flight to London crashes in Ahmedabad with more than 240 onboard

#116

Post by jen729w »

blitzar wrote: post #102
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #25

Gentle tip from a lifelong aviation enthusiast: wait one week before reading on causation. Exposing yourself to first-week speculation isn’t just unproductive, it’s often counterproductive since the actual findings can rhyme with the false speculation closely enough that you wind up muddling the two in your mind.

Pro tip from a lifelong life enthusiast: if its breaking news, wait one week - first-week speculation isn’t just unproductive, it’s often counterproductive. Flick through last weeks newspaper if you need reassurance.

Just read The Economist. Only comes out weekly!

Re: Air India flight to London crashes in Ahmedabad with more than 240 onboard

#117

Post by defrost »

AaronM wrote: post #105
defrost wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A multiple engine aircraft maintaining flight on a single engine is vastly different to the same craft being able to complete a take off when an engine fails mid process. Aircraft can land (in right circumstances) by gliding in sans power .. the same cannot be said for take offs.

Modern commercial aircraft is designed to operate on a single engine through all modes of flight. One a plane reaches v1 during takeoff, it can lose an engine and still takeoff. It an engine was lost before v1, the takeoff would be aborted. Here is an Airbus doing just that. https://youtu.be/5QMJ3_NiWbs?si=5nZ4yU7T7hsGSUu2

I've spent a few million line kilometres in a variety of airframes and understand that "designed to operate" through an event is not the same as "actually survives" that event.

There are many factors at play and things are complicated by unexpected failures.

Thank you for the video that demonstrates a pilot aware in advance of planned "engine failure" can cope with such an event in scheduled test conditions.

Re: Air India flight to London crashes in Ahmedabad with more than 240 onboard

#118

Post by klausa »

aipatselarom wrote: post #112
klausa wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's baseless speculation by someone who doesn't have any relevant expertise, based purely on conjecture not any facts around the accident. It's _exactly_ the kind of comment that deserves to be downvoted here.

The guy's just asking if four engines instead of two would have made a difference? It's curiosity, it's learning, it's looking for an explanation. That's exactly the kind of comment that deserves to be here. >[...] who doesn't have any relevant expertise, Is that a requirement to comment on this thread? Do you fulfill that requirement you brought in?

Maybe I'm overly strictly pattern-matching on the type of people that tend to use the phrase "one has to wonder"; but I don't think that's usually uttered from place of learning and exploration.

If I'm wrong, then apologies to the OP.

Re: Air India flight to London crashes in Ahmedabad with more than 240 onboard

#119

Post by JumpCrisscross »

SecretDreams wrote: post #110
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #25

Gentle tip from a lifelong aviation enthusiast: wait one week before reading on causation. Exposing yourself to first-week speculation isn’t just unproductive, it’s often counterproductive since the actual findings can rhyme with the false speculation closely enough that you wind up muddling the two in your mind.

There's footage after takeoff of it descending with the air ram deployed, no engine power, gears down, and flaps up. TBD on the cause, but loss of engines for some reason seems to be the case. I do agree that a lot of info comes out first week that isn't all right. I'm just reciting what's been shown in videos.

> I'm just reciting what's been shown in videos

Of unknown provenance, with unknown visual artefacts, et cetera. Even if completely legit, with context and thus chain of causation obscured to the point that discerning ultimate and proximate causes is impossible.

Re: Air India flight to London crashes in Ahmedabad with more than 240 onboard

#120

Post by potato3732842 »

bravesoul2 wrote: post #89
Arch-TK wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An intersection takeoff is a takeoff where you do not use the full length of the runway. When you are a large aeroplane with a full load, reaching the necessary takeoff speeds required to rotate (pull up and begin lifting from the ground) can take longer than normal, at which point the climb speed will also be reduced if not properly compensated for (e.g. you miscalculate something and set the wrong elevator trim/tak…

Why is it a thing? Everything else in aviation seems to have good amounts of checks, balances and buffers. It feels the same to me as skimping a couple percent on fuel or doing less frequent maintenance. Both also reduce turnaround time.

Less time on runway means more throughput for a given buffer time between planes or larger buffer for a given throughput.

Now, obviously there's a discussion to be had about where the line is and what should and shouldn't be standard operating procedure but there's basically no safety improvement to have even a fully loaded 757 or Learjet or whatever drag it's butt to the very end of a 15000ft runway.

A pilot may be trying to scoot out of there ASAP because he knows based on the radio and who's where that's gonna make everyone else's jobs a little easier. An airport is run by professionals all of whom are trying to make things run smooth. It's at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from a school or Starbucks parking lot.

Post reply on HN