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

121–130 of 633 posts

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

#121

Post by aipatselarom »

klausa wrote: post #118
aipatselarom wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you have relevant expertise in this topic?

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

#122

Post by JumpCrisscross »

snickerbockers wrote: post #78
mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just watching something the other day about how jet engines have gotten more efficient and powerful over the last 50 years where commercial airliners really only need 2 engines. All 2 engine aircraft also have to be able to operate on 1 engine as well if there is a failure. One has to wonder if this was a bird strike incident on both engines that maybe having 4 engines would have allowed the plane to circle bac…

But does that rule apply during liftoff or only when it's in-flight? Based on the map it probably never got that much altitude, as it barely traveled 2*length_of_runway, and that's including the runway itself.

> does that rule apply during liftoff or only when it's in-flight?

Any time after it’s too late to abort takeoff.

Pilots should be able to “regain full control of the aeroplane without attaining a dangerous flight condition in the event of a sudden and complete failure of the critical engine…at each take-off flap setting at the lowest speed recommended for initial steady climb with all engines operating after takeoff…” [1].

[1] https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/downloads/136694/en 25.143(b)(1)

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

#123

Post by SkyeCA »

baq wrote: post #20
greybox wrote: post #10

Some news outlets are indicating that there are some survivors: https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/air-india-dreamliner-cras... > Several injured passengers have been evacuated from the scene and transported to local hospitals. Edit: The BBC is reporting local police as saying: "There appears to be no survivors" https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c8d1r3m8z92t?post=asset%3A8731...

You ain’t walking away from a fully fueled aircraft crashing unfortunately…

Crazier things have happened. It would not be shocking if a couple of people survived.

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

#125

Post by klausa »

aipatselarom wrote: post #121
klausa wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you have relevant expertise in this topic?

On the topic of dudes online speculating wildly?

Yes, I've been on this website quite a long time, unfortunately.

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

#126

Post by jordanb »

bartread wrote: post #108
FridayoLeary wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Unfortunately this year alone will give him quite a backlog. Every month there's been a couple of disasters or near disasters and there's no apparent connection between any of them.

I haven't by any means been keeping count but it does feel like there have been a lot more incidents that usual this year, and certainly a lot more fatalities. What I can't work out whether that's recency bias, or because I've been watching a lot of MentourPilot with our daughters so I'm simply more attuned to this kind of news, or if there really are more of them. I certainly don't know if the rate of incidents per…

Probably chickens coming home to roost on the 2000s-era "flying is ultra-safe now, time to deregulate, disinvest, and capture value from efficiencies"

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

#127

Post by fredoralive »

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #63
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.

I was just watching something the other day about how jet engines have gotten more efficient and powerful over the last 50 years where commercial airliners really only need 2 engines. All 2 engine aircraft also have to be able to operate on 1 engine as well if there is a failure. One has to wonder if this was a bird strike incident on both engines that maybe having 4 engines would have allowed the plane to circle bac…

In the 1980s a British Airways 747 flew through volcanic ash and lost all four engines. So just having more engines may not always be the solution, as in suitably unlikely circumstances you can still lose all of them.

(In that case they were at cruising altitude, so had time to handle the situation and relight the engines).

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

#128

Post by FridayoLeary »

bartread wrote: post #108
FridayoLeary wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Unfortunately this year alone will give him quite a backlog. Every month there's been a couple of disasters or near disasters and there's no apparent connection between any of them.

I haven't by any means been keeping count but it does feel like there have been a lot more incidents that usual this year, and certainly a lot more fatalities. What I can't work out whether that's recency bias, or because I've been watching a lot of MentourPilot with our daughters so I'm simply more attuned to this kind of news, or if there really are more of them. I certainly don't know if the rate of incidents per…

There were enough that he made a video discussing it. Maybe because they've been particularly high profile incidents.

Here's a list of plane crashes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incide...

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

#129

Post by consumer451 »

Arch-TK wrote: post #64
xattt wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why no control inputs then? Surely, the plane could still be commanded in absence of engine power.

The engines power the hydraulic actuators in an aircraft an aircraft of that size cannot be trivially controlled without that hydraulic system. The APU should have been started to provide backup power in the case of engine failure but during take-off there is already very little time to do anything and it's possible that the sudden workload overloaded both the pilot and copilot or some other human factors were involv…

You can hear what sounds a lot like the very distinct sound of the RAT having been deployed in one of the videos. There is also no main turbine sound. This really seems like dual engine failure, for whatever reason.

https://old.reddit.com/r/ahmedabad/comments/1l9i1ga/om_shant...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_air_turbine

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

#130

Post by Macha »

DanielleMolloy wrote: post #107

There is a person on X who says he has left the plane before takeoff and has uploaded videos of non-functional entertainment panels: https://x.com/akku92/status/1933114664923148455

I guess it’s kind of surprising in a relatively new plane, but I encounter non functional entertainment systems relatively often. They’re not treated like the safety critical systems by any airline
Post reply on HN