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

Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 750 posts

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#281

Post by fc417fc802 »

culi wrote: post #160
crazygringo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because the ground is more stable than the air doesn't mean there aren't train collisions. Air travel actually has a lower fatality rate per mile than trains do. Rail crossings can be dangerous places.

If we invested as much into rail safety as we do into air safety, it'd be fair to compare them. Regardless, in the long term rail transportation is simply much more sustainable and increased investment is very much warranted

It's also much more pleasant. And in the rare cases when things do go wrong your chances of survival are much higher.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#282

Post by DidYaWipe »

It's mystifying that any airport with commercial service doesn't have cameras with a full view of every runway recording 100% of the time.

You can't steal a catalytic converter without being on video. We have webcams placed behind eagles' nests in our national parks. Yet somehow we have no recordings of plane crashes at our airports.

Then of course there's the lack of cameras on the planes themselves...

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#283

Post by fc417fc802 »

brailsafe wrote: post #270
xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like getting rid of at-grade road crossings is a good thing, who've thought? Sounds like a good investment to me regardless of rail speed.

This seems like an awfully fanciful idea for anywhere but places with the most dense rail networks per sq km, at least if we're talking a full-scale refactor of existing infrastructure, in terms of financial, physical, logistics. Is it not somewhat true that rail/freight companies have more authority over the land that their lines run through than the regions do? I may be talking out of my ass here, but I feel cities…

In what way is it fanciful? There's an extensive network of interstates in the US with nearly zero intersections. If it's viable for I-90 why isn't it viable for the equivalent rail line?

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#284

Post by School-Cotton »

lmm wrote: post #124
signatoremo wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is full of clickbait messages like this. US and Canada can use a lot more trains, but air transport is more suitable for medium to long distance, such as this Minneapolis-Toronto route. They are complementary. The accident occurred on the ground, any aircraft is susceptible, “more trains” doesn’t make it less so.

> air transport is more suitable for medium to long distance, such as this Minneapolis-Toronto route. Eh maybe. That's not much longer than Beijing-Shanghai. Rail can definitely be competitive. > The accident occurred on the ground Plane crashes generally do. Given that all plane journeys involve at least one takeoff and landing, it's fair to consider collisions and incidents during those as part of a safety comparis…

Can you really not imagine any reason why world-class rail between Beijing and Shanghai is more feasible than between Minneapolis and Toronto?

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#285

Post by walthamstow »

bsimpson wrote: post #269

It's wild to me that this is at the top of Hacker News, but not even on the Google News front page. I feel like major airline crashes are usually headlines.

HN has a particular fascination with aviation disasters. No disrespect at all, I've learnt more about aviation here than anywhere else. Before I came here I just assumed the whole thing to be magic.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#286

Post by windowshopping »

walthamstow wrote: post #285
bsimpson wrote: post #269

It's wild to me that this is at the top of Hacker News, but not even on the Google News front page. I feel like major airline crashes are usually headlines.

HN has a particular fascination with aviation disasters. No disrespect at all, I've learnt more about aviation here than anywhere else. Before I came here I just assumed the whole thing to be magic.

Why would that be "disrespectful"?

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#287

Post by [deleted] »

windowshopping wrote: post #286
walthamstow wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN has a particular fascination with aviation disasters. No disrespect at all, I've learnt more about aviation here than anywhere else. Before I came here I just assumed the whole thing to be magic.

Why would that be "disrespectful"?

[deleted]

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#288

Post by [deleted] »

DidYaWipe wrote: post #282

It's mystifying that any airport with commercial service doesn't have cameras with a full view of every runway recording 100% of the time. You can't steal a catalytic converter without being on video. We have webcams placed behind eagles' nests in our national parks. Yet somehow we have no recordings of plane crashes at our airports. Then of course there's the lack of cameras on the planes themselves...

[deleted]

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#289

Post by eastbound »

DebtDeflation wrote: post #136
chrisco255 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did it roll after landing or before landing?

After touchdown, but it rolled sideways not end over end. This kept the fuselage intact and ripped off the wings (where all the fuel is) which is why everyone survived.

Just to understand: Did it roll upside down, with people’s head at the bottom, or sideways, with people’s back to the front of the direction?

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#290

Post by walthamstow »

windowshopping wrote: post #286
walthamstow wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN has a particular fascination with aviation disasters. No disrespect at all, I've learnt more about aviation here than anywhere else. Before I came here I just assumed the whole thing to be magic.

Why would that be "disrespectful"?

It could be read as calling people here rubberneckers, which is not exactly a compliment
Post reply on HN