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

UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

avherald.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 469 posts

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#31

Post by dboreham »

appreciatorBus wrote: post #18
andy99 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I specifically remember watching a flight test doing an aggressive takeoff and having the voiceover say that aircraft (two engine) need to have enough power to take off full with one engine. And so can take off very steeply empty with two engines. Would that not also be the case for these planes?

All planes are definitely capable of taking off safely even if they lose an engine at the worst time. Whatever happened here, I would be shocked if lack of thrust in the 2 remaining engines was a significant factor unless someone really screwed up the load calculations and they were overweight for conditions.

Lack of thrust in the "taken out by debris" sense seems to be the case here.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#32

Post by gizmo686 »

octaane wrote: post #27

This is probably the worst way a plane could go down in terms of damage caused. Maximum effect in term of damage. Cargo plane apparently reached V1 (go/no go speed) on the runway, and suffered a catastrophic engine failure. They passed V1, so they knew they were going down. Engine was shedding large debris, including the housing (!!!) which is a shrapnel shield. They were on fire just as they reached V1. Plane was fu…

> they tried to take off instead of accelerate past the runway at ground level

Do runways have some sort of barrier between them and the next "important" thing. It seems like that would be prudent both for cases like this, and breaking failures following landings.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#33

Post by loeg »

appreciatorBus wrote: post #25
roygbiv2 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like a compressor stall on number two engine two seconds into the video.

I don’t know, that looks like a lot more than just a stall. There was a ton of flame that looked like it was coming out of the front or top of the engine, rather than just something shooting out the back.

I think you're looking at the left wing (number 1) engine; GP is talking about either the tail or right wing engine. (I think tail is number 2 on MD-11.) There's a brief explosion visible through the smoke at about 1-2 seconds in, to the right of the engine visibly on fire; that's probably what he's talking about.

Freeze frame: https://imgur.com/a/c3h8Qd3

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#34

Post by aaomidi »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #16
avalys wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zero. This almost certainly has nothing to do with the shutdown.

[flagged]

This is a silly take because having your ATC workers unpaid for over 30 days is going to increase the risk of catastrophic plane crashes. Even if this had nothing to do with this.

Footage of plane crashes are certainly important to know _this could start happening to passenger planes_

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#35

Post by octaane »

gizmo686 wrote: post #32
octaane wrote: post #27

This is probably the worst way a plane could go down in terms of damage caused. Maximum effect in term of damage. Cargo plane apparently reached V1 (go/no go speed) on the runway, and suffered a catastrophic engine failure. They passed V1, so they knew they were going down. Engine was shedding large debris, including the housing (!!!) which is a shrapnel shield. They were on fire just as they reached V1. Plane was fu…

> they tried to take off instead of accelerate past the runway at ground level Do runways have some sort of barrier between them and the next "important" thing. It seems like that would be prudent both for cases like this, and breaking failures following landings.

Unless you have a berm several dozen meters high with a 100 meter base, you ain't stopping something like this from a physics standpoint unfortunately.

Many airports have this problem. The recent korean air disaster which echos this is another example. BTW, this is why most airports, if possible, point out to sea...

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#36

Post by loeg »

octaane wrote: post #29

This is probably the worst way a plane could go down. Maximum effect in term of damage. Cargo plane apparently reached V1 (go/no go speed) on the runway, and suffered a catastrophic engine failure. They passed V1, so they knew they were going down. Engine was shedding large debris, including the housing (!!!) which is a shrapnel shield. They were on fire just as they reached V1. Plane was fully loaded with 38,000 LB…

> They passed V1, so they knew they were going down.

To know this, they would have to know they had lost multiple engines. Clearly this is the case by the end, but it's not clear who realized what at what time.

The NTSB investigation will bring more light.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#37

Post by aydyn »

numpad0 wrote: post #30
embedding-shape wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> suffered an unrecoverable mechanical failure But was un-discoverable? Or un-preventable? Seems plane inspectors and safety-related roles were affected and have been furloughed: > But for the people involved in inspecting our planes to ensure they follow Federal Aviation Administration safety standards, the situation is more complicated. While principal aviation inspectors were told to keep working, assistant-level…

Aviation regulations are updated in FAFO basis("written in blood" is the more common version).

Thats kind of insincere given how much safer flying is compared to driving a car. Modern flight is not dangerous, its just more spectacular when failures happen.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#38

Post by wickberg »

octaane wrote: post #35
gizmo686 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they tried to take off instead of accelerate past the runway at ground level Do runways have some sort of barrier between them and the next "important" thing. It seems like that would be prudent both for cases like this, and breaking failures following landings.

Unless you have a berm several dozen meters high with a 100 meter base, you ain't stopping something like this from a physics standpoint unfortunately. Many airports have this problem. The recent korean air disaster which echos this is another example. BTW, this is why most airports, if possible, point out to sea...

Newer airports usually try to have space, that's the only thing helping with the physics involved here.

Older airports might have EMAS [1] retrofitted at the ends to help stop planes, but that's designed more for a landing plane not stopping quickly enough (like [2]) - not a plane trying to get airborne as in this case.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_materials_arrestor_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1248

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#39

Post by [deleted] »

gizmo686 wrote: post #32
octaane wrote: post #27

This is probably the worst way a plane could go down in terms of damage caused. Maximum effect in term of damage. Cargo plane apparently reached V1 (go/no go speed) on the runway, and suffered a catastrophic engine failure. They passed V1, so they knew they were going down. Engine was shedding large debris, including the housing (!!!) which is a shrapnel shield. They were on fire just as they reached V1. Plane was fu…

> they tried to take off instead of accelerate past the runway at ground level Do runways have some sort of barrier between them and the next "important" thing. It seems like that would be prudent both for cases like this, and breaking failures following landings.

[deleted]

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#40

Post by octaane »

loeg wrote: post #36
octaane wrote: post #29

This is probably the worst way a plane could go down. Maximum effect in term of damage. Cargo plane apparently reached V1 (go/no go speed) on the runway, and suffered a catastrophic engine failure. They passed V1, so they knew they were going down. Engine was shedding large debris, including the housing (!!!) which is a shrapnel shield. They were on fire just as they reached V1. Plane was fully loaded with 38,000 LB…

> They passed V1, so they knew they were going down. To know this, they would have to know they had lost multiple engines. Clearly this is the case by the end, but it's not clear who realized what at what time. The NTSB investigation will bring more light.

Agreed, only the NTSB investigation will provide a full account. But if you look at where they were on the runway, they had passed V1.
Post reply on HN