61–70 of 469 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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_
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This puts an impractical amount of faith in the sensor wiring when the whole pylon and cowling are shredded.
I don't know what the MD-11 would have had, again I didn't work on it. But the systems used for other aircraft would have reported an alarm based on what I saw in the video, at least they were designed to do that. The LRU receiving the sensor inputs wouldn't typically be in the wing and would be able to continue reporting the alarm condition even if the sensors fail. In fact, the lack of current from the sensor (for…
Video of the crash, left (?) engine was already engulfed in flames while taking off https://x.com/BNONews/status/1985845907191889930 https://xcancel.com/BNONews/status/1985845907191889930 Edit: just the mp4 https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1985845862409334784/pu/... There is an incredible amount of ground damage! Just wow, this is very bad https://files.catbox.moe/3303ob.jpg
The second video here shows an incredibly close view of the impact from a nearby dashcam. https://www.wdrb.com/news/ups-plane-catches-fire-and-explode... > There is an incredible amount of ground damage! It's fortunate it wasn't taking off the other direction, towards the adjacent downtown of Louisville ( https://www.google.com/maps/place/Louisville+International+A... )
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.
Ha, Jeju Air Flight 2216 smashed into a barrier on the second landing attempt in Muan last year [0], and people commented "How could there be a barrier at the end of the runway, so obviously stupid, irresponsible", etc.
Now a plane does not smash into a barrier at the end of the runway and people suggest putting barriers at the end of the runway.
Don't mean to attack parent post, but may I suggest that
a) hordes of experts have thought long and hard about these issues, and it is unlikely that you can encounter this for the first time as a lay person and come up with a solution that has eluded the best engineers for decades ("why don't they attach a parachute to the plane?"), and
b) we are very close to an optimum in commercial aviation, and there are few if any unambiguous ("Pareto") improvements, but rather just tradeoffs. For example: You leave cockpit doors open, terrorists come in and commandeer the plane to turn it into a weapon. You lock the cockpit doors closed, and suicidal pilots lock out the rest of the crew and commandeer the plane to turn it into a weapon of mass-murder-suicide.
There are no easy answers.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeju_Air_Flight_2216
ETA: In 2007 an A320 overran a runway in Brazil and crashed into a gas station, killing 187 pax & crew + 12 on the ground. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAM_Airlines_Flight_3054
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The damage on the ground is scary to look at. I think the only silver lining here is that it was "just" a sparser industrial area and there weren't any homes. I'm really curious about what the investigation will reveal in a few months. This doesn't look like a "regular" engine fire from a bird strike or so, you would normally expect the flames to come out the back and not over the wing. And at least in theory the MD-…
Looks like a compressor stall on number two engine two seconds into the video.
Obviously impossible to tell from some cell phone type videos. Being struck by something is also possible. But it sure does look like an uncontained engine failure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
There is a dead zone between rejection and successful take-off speeds. We see it hit too often. I think pilot training is playing a factor. A normal rotation kills too much energy. One engine can climb when you have some airspeed and get clean, but if you lose too much energy on rotation, the inefficiency of the AoA for the rest of the short flight means that engine can no longer buy you any up. I've seen too many si…
Yes, it did get airborne for a few seconds but from the video below, it looks like the left wing was damaged by the fire and could not provide enough lift, then the right wing rolled the plane to the left causing the crash.
https://bsky.app/profile/shipwreck75.bsky.social/post/3m4tvh...
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…
Sorry for ignorance but why is the right thing to continue to take off with an engine on fire?
When the plane reaches V1, pilots take the hand off the throttle: they're committed to takeoff, even if an engine fails. It is better to take off and fix the problem or land again, than to smash into whatever is beyond the end of the runway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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