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

151–160 of 633 posts

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

#151

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #137
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?

That is entirely where I'm coming from - plane designs from the past had longer wingspans and supported 4 engines. Engines have gotten more efficient and powerful so cross-ocean routes don't need 4 engines anymore. So I was wondering what if current plane designs had 4 smaller but equally as efficient engines instead of 2. The vast majority of airplane accidents happen at takeoff or landings, if some of those can be…

> was wondering what if current plane designs had 4 smaller but equally as efficient engines instead of 2

Impossible to answer until we know the cause. If it was independent powerplant failures, then yes. If it was e.g. fuel contamination, pilots improperly shutting down the engine, some other crap failing, then no.

Speaking as someone with aerospace engineering and GA pilot experience.

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

#154

Post by K0balt »

rafram wrote: post #55
potato3732842 wrote: post #32

[flagged]

That’s utter nonsense. How would that even work? Does gravity act differently in the “equatorial old world”?

>gravity

I’m going to assume this comment is sarcasm.

Anyone with a reasonable amount of exposure to physics in the region has been witness to innumerable Bollywood documentaries that illustrate the many gravitational anomalies present in the vicinity of the subcontinent.

Probably another example of slipshod Boeing engineering failing to anticipate the gravitational and mass related endemic conditions. They should have done more testing.

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

#155

Post by [deleted] »

jen729w wrote: post #116
blitzar wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

[deleted]

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

#156

Post by Symbiote »

defrost wrote: post #117
AaronM wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How does sitting in a plane more than average give you more insight than the pilots, engineers and safety regulators?

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

#157

Post by TechDebtDevin »

HackerLemon wrote: post #92
leetrout wrote: post #11

FlightRadar24 shows them doing an intersection departure with only half the runway. Assuming this is accurate I would think this is a terrible idea in a large, heavy aircraft (and I realize they might not have been heavy for this flight). When I was flying I would regularly hear airliners refuse intersection departures past a few hundred feet from the end of the runway due to company SOPs. https://www.flightradar24.c…

Baseless speculation and very unproductive comment. At least show some takeoff calculations and perhaps don't speculate with confirmed unreliable ADS-B data

[flagged]

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

#158

Post by whitegladis »

decimalenough wrote: post #19
calcifer wrote: post #15

Remember last year when a Boeing engineer whistleblower urged the company to ground all 787 Dreamliners? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/apr/16/boeing-whis...

I'm not a fan of Boeing, but let's not start pointing fingers yet. We know literally nothing about what caused the accident yet, and the 787 Dreamliner has a stellar record: it's been flying since 2011, with over 1000 in service, and I believe this is its first ever major accident.

[flagged]

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

#159

Post by DanielleMolloy »

Macha wrote: post #130
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

I thought the same but he implies that the screens were not the only tech not working (AC, seats damaged).

It is quite an intuition to decide to leave a plane in such a moment. He just escaped death and is now aggressively attacked for saying something potentially relevant.

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

#160

Post by aipatselarom »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #151
mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is entirely where I'm coming from - plane designs from the past had longer wingspans and supported 4 engines. Engines have gotten more efficient and powerful so cross-ocean routes don't need 4 engines anymore. So I was wondering what if current plane designs had 4 smaller but equally as efficient engines instead of 2. The vast majority of airplane accidents happen at takeoff or landings, if some of those can be…

> was wondering what if current plane designs had 4 smaller but equally as efficient engines instead of 2 Impossible to answer until we know the cause. If it was independent powerplant failures, then yes. If it was e.g. fuel contamination, pilots improperly shutting down the engine, some other crap failing, then no. Speaking as someone with aerospace engineering and GA pilot experience.

>if this was a bird strike incident on both engines that maybe having 4 engines [...]

It's pretty clear what the guy is inquiring about.

Speaking as someone without aerospace engineering or GA pilot experience. My only relevant experience here is being able to read.

Post reply on HN