UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport • Hacker News Board

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#291

Post by rkomorn » Wed, Nov 05, 2025, 5:24 PM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #268

rkomorn wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kiiinda see where you're coming from but I guess I just don't buy it, TBH. I think greed is what's causing cut corners. You mention Boeing, and they were quite healthily profitable during the entire time they were cutting corners on the 737 MAX. Airbus wasn't an existential threat. It still isn't, in fact, even after all the fallout.

Okay, what possible fix for everpresent greed in US business management is there other than regulation and enforcement ?

Edit: I actually think I just don't get the gist of your question/comment.

> I'm all for tighter regulations and enforcement on safety and maintenance, though.

That's from my first comment in this thread. I'm not sure what part of my comments make you think you should ask me that question.

What I'm arguing is against the notion that having minimum prices would fix said greed.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#292

Post by watwut » Wed, Nov 05, 2025, 5:25 PM UTC

rogerrogerr wrote: post #225

watwut wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Living rooms are also hilariously safe. And we spend a lot of time in them.

Is there actual reason to think they are less safe per hour of time being spend in them as OP claimed?

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#293

Post by AnimalMuppet » Wed, Nov 05, 2025, 5:25 PM UTC

IAmBroom wrote: post #231

watwut wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that actual statistic?

rogerrogerr, I suspect that stat involves all deaths, not just to passengers. The vast majority of deaths by train involve "trespassers", which is code for "dimwits who bypassed crossing gates and got smashed by the train that couldn't stop". Usually not even the train drivers are injured, much less the passengers. But airplanes are very safe - perhaps mostly because it's hard for idiots to drive in front of them.

Two nits:

First, you are correct about trespassers. But even if you only consider passengers, planes are still safer per passenger-mile than trains.

Second, commercial planes are very safe. Private planes... not in the same league.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#294

Post by watwut » Wed, Nov 05, 2025, 5:28 PM UTC

IAmBroom wrote: post #231

watwut wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that actual statistic?

rogerrogerr, I suspect that stat involves all deaths, not just to passengers. The vast majority of deaths by train involve "trespassers", which is code for "dimwits who bypassed crossing gates and got smashed by the train that couldn't stop". Usually not even the train drivers are injured, much less the passengers. But airplanes are very safe - perhaps mostly because it's hard for idiots to drive in front of them.

Yeah, but so are living rooms. And even when someone dies in the living room, it is most likely to be a hearth attack or other heath issue unrelated to the place.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#295

Post by CamperBob2 » Wed, Nov 05, 2025, 5:30 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #288

rkomorn wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IMHO, this is a perfect example why the government needs to regulate prices in safety-critical industries. The "race to the bottom" must be prevented - sorry, flying NYC-SFO for 70$, that's not sustainable. Are you saying higher prices would lead to better safety? If so, I think it's optimistic to assume that would be the result, rather than just more profits. I'm all for tighter regulations and enforcement on safe…

Super-low prices require razor-thin margins, which leads to cutting corners, which leads to worse safety.

Statistics say otherwise. Flying was far more hazardous in the days before deregulation.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#296

Post by watwut » Wed, Nov 05, 2025, 5:31 PM UTC

rogerrogerr wrote: post #234

flobosg wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by what possible metric Micromorts, maybe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort

The relevant bits here - deaths from all causes in the US are 22 micromorts per day. Lower in the article, airline travel is listed as 1 micromort per 1000 miles travelled. Background risk of death from non-natural causes are listed as 1.6 per day; many of those non-natural causes do not exist in an airplane cabin (e.g. you probably aren't going to be murdered because no one has anything more effective than a plastic…

All causes deaths and living room deaths are not the same. Even if we count hearth attack in living room as living room death, we still must substract car crashed, bedroom deaths, hospitals deaths, garden deaths.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#297

Post by rkomorn » Wed, Nov 05, 2025, 5:31 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #295

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Super-low prices require razor-thin margins, which leads to cutting corners, which leads to worse safety.

Statistics say otherwise. Flying was far more hazardous in the days before deregulation.

That may well be correlation and not causation.

The industry (edit: planes in particular) is also decades more mature, as is manufacturing in general.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#298

Post by WorldMaker » Wed, Nov 05, 2025, 5:33 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #191

basisword wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

Louisville is a major cargo hub. The airport likely was not built by the warehouses, the warehouses were likely built by the airport.

A lot of the airport's surrounding buildings (to the South especially) are indeed UPS Airlines' own facilities.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#299

Post by mikeyouse » Wed, Nov 05, 2025, 5:39 PM UTC

inejge wrote: post #258

decimalenough wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The engine that fell off (!) had been worked on for two hours at Louisville, KY immediately before takeoff. Occam's Razor suggests that whatever they did right there is to blame.

> Occam's Razor suggests that whatever they did right there is to blame. Ordinarily yes, but in this case there are reports that the plane underwent a "heavy maintenance check" from Sep 3 to Oct 18, which may have included engine removal and overhaul (source: pprune.org, from a poster who's not given to flights of fancy.)

In the Reddit /r/aviation thread, there are people who spotted that specific plane at San Antonio International airport since it was apparently being serviced at a major service facility there. So yes to major service potentially at issue, and no to international work being at fault.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#300

Post by crazygringo » Wed, Nov 05, 2025, 5:40 PM UTC

panxyh wrote: post #183

crazygringo wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I see now that it probably wasn't, but "nothing" is an overstatement. And knowledgeable and helpful responses can be AI, so there might be a fallacy somewhere in your offence-taking. Are you offended when people do that in general, or only when they are wrong? I do appreciate the effort put into writing a good comment.

> it probably wasn't, but "nothing" is an overstatement.

No, "nothing" seems perfectly accurate to me. I don't see even a single indication in tone, phrasing or punctuation that is a classic LLM giveaway.

It's offensive to standards of decency to question the authenticity of someone's speech, and it doesn't matter if you phrase it as a question or preface it with "excuse me if not". Unless there is really a strong reason to suspect something, which is absolutely not the case here. It's offensive when it's not warranted.