that the engine tore off meakes the likelyhood of significant damage to critical flight control systems quite high, any such damage would have been asymetric and counteracting forces inducing a roll may have been impossible.
you know they tried
UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport
101–110 of 469 posts
Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport
#102Earlier 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…
Could they add cameras to solve this issue?
During engine failure / fire situations, I would expect that pilots are likely to be too busy to have any time left over for peering at a video feed, trying to assess the state of the wing.
In emergencies, information overload tends to make things worse, not better.
Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport
#103Video 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... )
News site - video obfuscated.
Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport
#104Earlier 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. 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.
Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport
#105Earlier 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?
Yes, planes are designed to be able to take off with a lost engine. Usually this will extend the roll a bit because the speeds are different for engine out operations. This isn't the first MD-11 with an engine out take off, 5 years ago a FedEx MD-11 took off with a failure in the left engine[1]. Slightly different case, obviously, but it's certainly something that is accounted for when designing planes. [1] https://w…
Yes, the takeoff roll will be longer, the climb will be much more shallow, but it is possible to take off with one out of two engines (and obviously also with two out of three). Of course, after successful takeoff, the plane should turn around and land as soon as possible.
In this case however, with the wing already on fire (the engine is below the wing, so flames coming out of it would be visible behind and under the wing, not in front), I'm afraid that even if they had managed to take off, the fuel tank would have exploded or burned through the wing before they would have had a chance to land. Actually, this looks similar to the 2000 Concorde crash...
Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport
#106The AVHerald is usually the best source for these things, rather than MSM: https://avherald.com/h?article=52f5748f&opt=0
> Ground observers reported the aircraft had been delayed for about two hours for work on the left hand engine (engine #1), the engine #1 separated during the takeoff run, the center engine emitted streaks of flames, the aircraft impacted a UPS warehouse and ploughed through other facilities before coming to rest in a large plume of fire and smoke.
Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
One improvement is a bed of concrete at the end of the runway that will catch the wheels and slow an airplane down to a stop. Pretty much everyone agrees it’s a good idea but it’s not always possible due to space needs or cost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_materials_arrestor_...
If it costs too much it is also a bad idea. Why? Because that money can be spent on other safety.
The Wikipedia article says exactly the opposite, citing hard numers.
Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport
#108Video 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 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-…
Zoning guidance generally prohibits land use near an airport that has a high density of people, precisely to limit casualties during an event like this. Industrial would be permitted while residential and commercial use is not.
Scarily there are communities that have ignored such logic and permitted dense residential development right next to an airport.
Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
And that has a lot to do with the said regulations. It is not safer because of magic or because flying in air was inherently safer then driving on ground.
Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport
#110This 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.