UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

Post by kube-system » Wed, Nov 05, 2025, 2:56 PM UTC

basisword wrote: post #110

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…

>> highway and warehouses at the end of the runway It's astonishing that this is a thing. Why aren't we building airports with enough space for a plane to remain on the ground and have plenty of room to decelerate in this situation? I can understand why it can't be retro fitted to existing airports but is it a scenario that's considered at new airports? Just seems like such an absolutely basic safety step.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 05, 2025, 2:59 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #175

panxyh wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Nothing about it reads as AI to me. I'm not even the commenter and I take offense when people suggest that knowledgeable, helpful HN comments are AI.

Post by wongarsu » Wed, Nov 05, 2025, 3:03 PM UTC

gwbas1c wrote: post #187

Retric wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None? Nobody puts airports inside city centers and metro areas don’t just have dense urban housing. The common solution in many land strapped cities is for airports to rout aircraft over water often by building airports on reclaimed land. What generally gets areas in trouble is locations that used to be a good get worse as aircraft get larger and the surroundings get built up. The solution is to send larger airplanes…

> The common solution in many land strapped cities is for airports to rout aircraft over water. That works in costal areas, but not inland. There's no large body of water near the Louisville airport.

Post by pixl97 » Wed, Nov 05, 2025, 3:07 PM UTC

csomar wrote: post #104

FabHK wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 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 solution is to "free" the perimeter of takeoff/landing. Bonus: People don't have to chose to work/live in these noisy areas. I understand some areas have challenges to come up with space but the US has tons of space and maybe the sea should be used to host these airports.

Post by mvkel » Wed, Nov 05, 2025, 3:07 PM UTC

ragazzina wrote: post #120

filleduchaos wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there's a very big difference between "Engine fire: some of the combustion chamber's heat and flame has breached containment" and, say, "Engine fire: the engine has exploded, catastrophically damaging your wing which is now visibly on fire". However, both things are reported in the cockpit as ENG FIRE. There's also a very big difference between "Engine failure: something has damaged or jammed enough components…

> There's also a very big difference between "Engine failure: something has damaged or jammed enough components that the turbines are no longer spinning fast enough to produce thrust or drive the generators" and "Engine failure: the engine is no longer attached to the aircraft, which is why it is no longer producing thrust". However, both things are reported in the cockpit as ENG FAIL. What is the difference?