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

251–260 of 633 posts

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

#251

Post by quantumfissure »

chucksmash wrote: post #229
quantumfissure wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not worse. If you look through the list of deadly plane accidents, the last year has been average (4 vs. 3 avg). Since the deadly DCA collision in January, there are things making the news now that would never have in the past, so it seems like it's worse. Especially if the plane has "Boeing" written on the side. For example, hitting animals, tire blowouts, or ground equipment bumping into planes, which grou…

Maybe globally it's an average year but the DCA crash alone makes it an extraordinary year in US commercial aviation. Not all crashes are created equal. A 10 person Cessna disappearing near Nome, Alaska !== mid-air collision above the Potomac. If you're looking at US news sources, I don't think you need to resort to clickbait and fearmongering to justify the increased focus.

There is a media difference though since the DCA crash. Military and small planes (On a personal level, I know three people that have died in small plane crashes in the Alaska wilderness in the last 15 years, which is so common that it didn't even get on local news. I have acquaintances that were in involved in two others elsewhere over the last few years. Small planes are unbelievably dangerous. Commercial jets, not so much.

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

#252

Post by ta20240528 »

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…

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

Smaller turbofan engines are less efficient than larger ones. This is because they have a lower bypass ratio - thrust generated by turning the big fan over the thrust generated by combustion.

So expect even bigger engines.

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

#253

Post by foenix »

brunohaid wrote: post #106
bravesoul2 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good question. False sense of routine, experience? Definitely a pet peeve. Was flying as a passenger on a really small airline (8 seater plane, Green Air) out of San Jose in Costa Rica. We got cleared for takeoff ahead of a United 737, at most 500 feet into the humongous runway for that plane. Yet the pilots still put in the 2 minute effort to taxi back to the beginning of the runway, even though they could have easi…

Pilot here: even in my small Cessna I will backtrack do you know why? Because it gives me that money more options to work with in case something goes wrong with my take off.

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

#254

Post by JumpCrisscross »

SecretDreams wrote: post #189
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Agreed, but it doesn't look like AI. Video(s) look real to my untrained eyes. Everyone is going to speculate regardless of the top level disclaimer. I rather just at least present what data is available as of now. The city the incident took place in has a subreddit. Feel free to go take a look and judge for yourself. It's a bit NSFW at the moment.

> present what data is available

It’s not. It’s one video of unknown quality and relevance, picked somewhat randomly out of all the other available videos and data, the most relevant of which aren’t publicly available.

> Feel free to go take a look and judge for yourself

It’s the usual emotional coping through baseless speculation. There are healthier ways to deal with uncertainty amidst tragedy.

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

#256

Post by Symbiote »

Larrikin wrote: post #244
sofixa wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most planes can't dump fuel anymore. if it's a serious enough emergency you land overweight. When fuel is dumped, it's at high altitude where it just evaporates. Short haul jets can't do it, but their max takeoff weight is around their max landing weight, so it's fine. For long haul, it's not the same.

Are both opposing replies just wild speculation from two educated software engineers that don't actually know anything on the topic?

> most planes can't dump fuel anymore

This is true but irrelevant to this crash. Most commercial jets are smaller (A320, 737 etc) and can't dump fuel.

Long-haul jets like the 787 do have the capability.

https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/boeing/boeingdotcom/comme...

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

#257

Post by ihuk »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #208
ihuk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a Reddit video: https://www.reddit.com/r/ahmedabad/comments/1l9i1ga/om_shant... And here's a YouTube video showing a Ram Air Turbine (RAT) being deployed on a 787 for comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFBCGf50Trc&t=69s

I don't see the RAT deployed on the video on Reddit. Can you tell the timestamp to zoom in? I'm super curious.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GtPFDrnbAAA6c68?format=jpg&name=...

It could be the blurry object under the fuselage, just to the right of the left engine.

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

#258

Post by thatloststudent »

uncircle wrote: post #65
captn3m0 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The account is run from India.

That raises even more questions.

Not really, this is more of an internet meme [1].

[1] - https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pm-modi-responds-to-it...

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

#259

Post by bartread »

14 wrote: post #204
apples_oranges wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it's not his fault, hate the player not the game, but he will make what off this crash (and his analysis ofc)? $10k? I remember long ago he said he would not report on crashes but that's what people want so no blame..

I hope he makes $20k. Or more. I enjoy his content and the insight he brings. Also many people make money from the tragedy of others. Morticians, coffin builders, clean up crews, construction workers, concrete companies…I could probably come up with 100 more examples. Just because their work is from the result of something tragic doesn’t mean it is any less important.

Being completely frank he does a very good thing. He's got through to our eldest about how important it is to do things correctly, and be systematic and detail oriented, in a way that her mum and I have really struggled to.

The irony of it is that a couple of months back I was sat in the living room watching MentourPilot, she came in and asked what I was watching, said "Ugh, boring!" Then she sat down and started playing on our Switch... and then she just got sucked in to the episode, and is now completely obsessed with watching MentourPilot. She often knows what's gone wrong and what the pilots should have done instead before he even explains it.

So the guy's all right with me and absolutely welcome to make as much money as he can: he's a great educator.

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

#260

Post by JumpCrisscross »

traceroute66 wrote: post #241
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.

> Gentle tip from a lifelong aviation enthusiast: wait one week before reading on causation. One week ? Wait until the damn official report comes out. That's how long you should wait. The investigators have access to more than you or any other armchair investigator or journalist will ever do.

> Wait until the damn official report comes out. That's how long you should wait

For public discourse, one week is fine. At that point you usually have ground facts established. A common official understanding of the known knowns and unknowns is available, together with a good profile of the leading conspiracy theories that one can filter out.

Post reply on HN