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

221–230 of 469 posts

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#221

Post by cmurf »

sim7c00 wrote: post #153
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They won't have to rely on cabin crew description of what they see over the wings or have to send one of the pilots to take a look (see UA1175).

its super weird to me this isn't a thing, and there's resistence to the idea. I mean, if they are already masters at glacing at 100000 differnent indicators and warning messages etc. and processing them at super speeds (they really do!) then i'd say a monitor with a bunch of buttons below it to switch feeds (maybe a little more elaborate, but not tooo...) would be helpful. the problem might be getting trained and exp…

The entire event was over in less than a minute, and during that time there’s only one thing pilots are working on: maintaining what little control they have, and gaining as much altitude as possible without loss of control.

This is consuming all mental processing, there are no spare cycles.

This wasn’t a salvageable situation by having more information after the engine separated. If a sensor could have provided a warning of engine failure well before V1, that would be helpful.

I expect the questions will focus on what information existed that should have resulted in aborting the takeoff. Not what information was needed to continue.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#222

Post by geoffeg »

ferguess_k wrote: post #185

From wikipedia, Boeing stopped producing MD-11 since 2,000. Does that mean any MD-11 flying is at least 25 years old? I know 25-year is not particularly old for aircrafts, but MD-11 is not exactly reliable. Is there any reason UPS is flying these planes?

Airframes have a limited lifetime, partially defined by takeoffs and landings (and pressurization cycles). Cargo planes experience fewer cycles than passenger airlines since cargo carriers' aircraft usually only make a one or two flights a day, whereas passenger aircraft a flown back to back as frequently as possible. Historically, cargo carriers would buy used aircraft and convert them, but that's changing.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#223

Post by watwut »

dmd wrote: post #219
coddingtonbear wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgive me, but by what possible metric: miles traveled in it?

Given an hour spent flying in a commercial US-flagged airliner or an hour spent in your living room, and you're (far) more likely to get hurt or die in your living room.

Is that actual statistic?

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#224

Post by dboreham »

dmd wrote: post #219
coddingtonbear wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgive me, but by what possible metric: miles traveled in it?

Given an hour spent flying in a commercial US-flagged airliner or an hour spent in your living room, and you're (far) more likely to get hurt or die in your living room.

Something...something...and statistics.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#225

Post by rogerrogerr »

watwut wrote: post #223
dmd wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given an hour spent flying in a commercial US-flagged airliner or an hour spent in your living room, and you're (far) more likely to get hurt or die in your living room.

Is that actual statistic?

Airliners are hilariously safe. One of my favorite stats is that it’s the second safest form of transportation per passenger mile (elevators win).

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#226

Post by lelandbatey »

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.

Yes, new major airports (rare as they are) do try to acquire large areas of land, larger even than they think they need now, in anticipation of future expansion. However, for scenarios like this, there's limited utility to making the runway longer "just in case." They already pick runway sizes "big enough and then some" as the minimum to even bring planes of each size to an airport. So there is margin.

But no matter the margin, a plane can always crash on the wrong side of any fence. And people will always build right up to wherever you put the fence as closer to the airport is more convenient for everything airport related.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#227

Post by ferguess_k »

geoffeg wrote: post #222
ferguess_k wrote: post #185

From wikipedia, Boeing stopped producing MD-11 since 2,000. Does that mean any MD-11 flying is at least 25 years old? I know 25-year is not particularly old for aircrafts, but MD-11 is not exactly reliable. Is there any reason UPS is flying these planes?

Airframes have a limited lifetime, partially defined by takeoffs and landings (and pressurization cycles). Cargo planes experience fewer cycles than passenger airlines since cargo carriers' aircraft usually only make a one or two flights a day, whereas passenger aircraft a flown back to back as frequently as possible. Historically, cargo carriers would buy used aircraft and convert them, but that's changing.

Thanks for the explanation. I'll see if I can find some data on cargo planes.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#228

Post by t0mas88 »

panxyh wrote: post #165
t0mas88 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is some margin in the calculations. But the training is very very clear, before V1 you must abort and after V1 you must continue. No discussion, no decision to make. You call V1, hands go off the throttles and no matter what you're going to fly. The margin is for example that the plane must not just be able to fly, but also reach a minimum climb gradient to clear obstacles with a bit of safety margin. There is…

[flagged]

Nope, AI would probably have written it nicer, I just typed it on my phone :)

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#229

Post by kmarc »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #129

I didn’t realize the MD-11 was still in use. It has had a difficult time in passenger aviation. Looks really nasty. It seems to have come down in an industrial area, which will significantly reduce casualties. I can’t even imagine this, in a residential area.

Happened in the Netherlands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862

40+ people died in that one, it's a miracle it wasn't more.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#230

Post by beAbU »

topspin wrote: post #48
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.

> Do runways have some sort of barrier between them and the next "important" thing. Some do. Here is what it looks like when an overshooting plane utilizes such a barrier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW71FrX8t_g 179 dead. Consider the possibility that gigantic flying aluminum tubes filled with tons of flammable fuel hurtling around at hundreds of kilometers per hour comprise a dilemma that has no trivial answers.…

There is a spectrum between "no barrier" and "immovable barrier".

Arrestor beds exist, and given enough space a fully loaded plane at take-off velocity can be stopped in a controlled and safe way.

Cost and space are often the reason why this does not happen.

Post reply on HN