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

261–270 of 633 posts

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

#261

Post by buildsjets »

detaro wrote: post #176
ikekkdcjkfke wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, loss of engine power and gliding to a stop is not that a far fetched case. Why is there not a fuel dump button to prevent a whole trips worth of fuel going up in flames?

Most airplanes can dump fuel, but it's not an immediate thing, so not really applicable here (and obviously doing it over a city is to be avoided as well). It's primarily needed for weight management in planes that can take off heavier than they can safely land. I.e. if the plane had enough control to abort the flight and return to the airport, then it might have been appropriate.

No. Most airliners CANNOT dump fuel. This capability is limited to long range wide bodies, like this 787. Neither the 737 nor the A320, which constitute the majority of commercial air traffic, can dump fuel. Fuel dumping is normally performed at an altitude where it should be able to evaporate before hitting the ground, and it takes a long time, maybe 15 minutes to get from full fuel to maximum landing weight. Using it would have made no difference to the outcome of the flight other than making a larger fire on the ground.

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

#262

Post by roywiggins »

nindalf wrote: post #205
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.

Pro tip from an absolute rando: don’t bother with any source of breaking news. Read a weekly paper that summarises the important stuff. If something is truly pressing, you’ll hear about it from friends or coworkers.

Unfortunately for everyone's brains, this turned out to basically not be true with COVID- only real news fans (or people with expertise in the relevant science, but there are way less of those) were remotely aware that offices probably weren't going to be closed for only two weeks[0]. If you followed the news closely you stocked up on toilet paper when there were runs on it in Hong Kong, before there were runs on it where you were, etc. But if you only got news from the office water-cooler you'd have been none the wiser.

This is one of those exceptions that prove the rule though, I think.

[0] I had this conversation with people multiple times so it must have been common

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

#263

Post by kaycey2022 »

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...

It crashed through the dorms of a medical college. The injured must be from there. Unlikely anyone on the plane survived.

Edit: Looks like 1 guy from the plane made it.

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

#264

Post by roywiggins »

garciasn wrote: post #227
ChrisGreenHeur wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also possible to just not read news altogether.

I don't recommend this; instead, I recommend reading factual reporting, not 'analysis' which often comes with inherent political bent/bias.

To the contrary, I find analysis very helpful when it's of the "is this important; is this unusual; how does it fit in with previous expectations" variety. Raw headlines and factual day-to-day reporting are often kind of bad at that.

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

#265

Post by voxleone »

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...

The Telegraph has come up with another (somewhat odd) whistleblower story. For all we know so far, it could just as well be bird(s) strike(S).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/12/whistleblower-ra...

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

#266

Post by sofixa »

krisoft wrote: post #233
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.

This airplane was not at high altitude. It crashed right after taking off. It only ever climbed to a few hundred feet in the air.

Yes, I was refuting the generic "planes don't dump fuel" statement.

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

#267

Post by Litost »

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!

Similarly The Guardian has a weekly publication - https://support.theguardian.com/uk/subscribe/weekly

Unfortunately it doesn't appear to have a digital option?

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

#268

Post by Mistletoe »

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?

If it’s HN, yes always.

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

#269

Post by ihuk »

Simon_O_Rourke wrote: post #141
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'm assuming the Ram Air Turbine gives extra evidence of a dual engine failure (or at least the engine that generated power). Engine spools down, power is lost, air turbine needs to be deployed.

Yeah, I believe the RAT is automatically deployed when both engines fail or when there's a critical loss of pressure in the hydraulic systems.

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

#270

Post by potato3732842 »

closewith wrote: post #184
potato3732842 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Latin America doesn't have as much high end aviation going on to fall out of the sky and the factions that are competing with the government for control in the new world are less inclined to slip explodey things onto flyey things than the ones in the old world. I'm flattered you think I'm racist. I assure you I allocate my hate based on the contents of their mind than the color of their skin. I only have so much hate…

> Latin America doesn't have as much high end aviation What are you talking about? > I assure you, I hate people far more based on the contents of their mind than the color of their skin. You're fooling yourself here. Your absurd (and factually incorrect) assumptions about whole regions is textbook racism.

>What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

Like FFS, seriously.

Look at the population numbers. Look at the number of arrivals and departures of the kind of large "international newsworthy when they crash" aircraft. There is simply less chance one falls out of the sky in LatAm because there's many fewer of them in the sky to begin with.

>You're fooling yourself here. Your absurd (and factually incorrect) assumptions about whole regions is textbook racism.

You are projecting your own judgements into my words. These nations are poorer and a lot of baggage comes with that. None of which has anything to do with race.

Post reply on HN