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

331–340 of 750 posts

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#331

Post by [deleted] »

WalterBright wrote: post #133
hinkley wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look up stress to failure tests on commercial airplanes. They know how much peak load is supposed to be for the airframe, then they go well beyond it to see how the plane fails. Generally you want the wings to break not the fuselage. You can in a lot of situations land a plane with 1.5 wings. But once the spine cracks you’re just a ballistic object.

The parts are designed for "ultimate load" which is 150% of the worst case maximum load expected to ever see in service. I used to work at Boeing on the 757 stabilizer trim system. There's the design group and the stress group. I was in the design group, the stress group double checks the design work. One day the stress group called me on the carpet, and asked me why my designs consistently just barely exceeded 150%.…

[deleted]

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#332

Post by danpalmer »

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...

Others have answered this well, but a more interesting question to me is why we don’t have video of the flight deck recorded on flight recorders. We have the technology to do that reliably.

It’s an interesting privacy concern really. Pilots don’t like the idea, somewhat understandably, who wants to be watched at work every minute of their day? But then it’s also a safety benefit and maybe that’ll win out eventually (this question does keep getting raised on certain crashes).

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#333

Post by dang »

DamonHD wrote: post #3

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c0q080y02xgt Also, posted later as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43083016 https://liveandletsfly.com/delta-crash-toronto/

(We eventually merged all these threads, in case the context switch is confusing to anyone)

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#334

Post by 1659447091 »

gnatman wrote: post #298
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...

There’s a video posted elsewhere in this discussion [0]. Looks like the plane landed incredibly hard and the gear buckled. Extreme wind shear? [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1is1qoy/video_of_...

> Looks like the plane landed incredibly hard and the gear buckled. Extreme wind shear?

Quality is not good enough to tell for sure, but to me, looks like wind shear causing a tail strike followed by gear buckling

the Navy pilot jokes showed up fast in that thread

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#335

Post by DidYaWipe »

wood_spirit wrote: post #321
DidYaWipe wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it seems that there have been several crashes over the last few years where no on-site footage surfaced... whether there's any of this one or not.

Footage existing and footage being released to the public are two different things. I understand there is a public Voyeur interest in seeing crashes, but how does releasing footage of accidents aid investigation or safety outcomes?

It can aid pilots, for one thing. I watch air-safety/accident-analysis videos all the time. They are often extremely informative and promote a safety-oriented mindset and the refreshment of one's commitment to procedure.

I also read scuba-diving accident reports. They reinforce best practices that I also explain to others in the context of what I've seen in said reports over and over.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#336

Post by cycomanic »

stouset wrote: post #88
wkat4242 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True but I have a feeling it might be designed to rip off in this situation. I'm more surprised the wing rupture didn't cause a fire/explosion because this is where most of the fuel is stored.

I seriously, seriously doubt it. The wings are so utterly critical to flight I can’t possibly imagine any situation they’d be engineered to snap off under. Further, that’s where the fuel is and any crash involving a wing rupture is dramatically more dangerous given the risk of fire. Hell even in a crash landing like this you want the plane to stay upright and stable.

Here's a video of a Airbus wing stress test. They seriously bend without snapping off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ih9V0uobKc&t=7

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#337

Post by silisili »

WalterBright wrote: post #121
alistairSH wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw a report that it was after touchdown. I’m guessing wind, ice, or something else moved the plane off the centerline and into a crab, it hooked a wheel off the pavement, and cartwheeled. 100% conjecture at this point, just seems like a possible chain of events.

Too bad the airport couldn't find the funds to put a dash cam in the tower. Grump grump grump.

For anyone unaware, Walter worked for Boeing for years and probably knows more about planes than anyone on the forum.

It's likely not a morbid curiosity here, especially since noone died AFAIK, but genuine technical curiosity so he can see what happened, and perhaps educate us readers.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#338

Post by DidYaWipe »

danpalmer wrote: post #332
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...

Others have answered this well, but a more interesting question to me is why we don’t have video of the flight deck recorded on flight recorders. We have the technology to do that reliably. It’s an interesting privacy concern really. Pilots don’t like the idea, somewhat understandably, who wants to be watched at work every minute of their day? But then it’s also a safety benefit and maybe that’ll win out eventually (…

Given that control inputs and maneuvers are all captured by the data recorder, what would you expect to gain from video of the cockpit?

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#339

Post by DidYaWipe »

DidYaWipe wrote: post #311
gnatman wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a video posted elsewhere in this discussion [0]. Looks like the plane landed incredibly hard and the gear buckled. Extreme wind shear? [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1is1qoy/video_of_...

Thanks for the link. Yes, that's technically video I guess, but it's trash and doesn't look like the camera was set up to capture takeoffs and landings. More like a utility shed and road... at '90s webcam frame rates and quality.

Hahah, wow, who was offended by those easily-verified observations?

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#340

Post by lazyasciiart »

ceejayoz wrote: post #229
typeofhuman wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If it had any less pixels it would be radio"

I mean, it's someone leaking footage by videoing another screen. I fully expect a clearer version to be released officially later.

Just think, people used to watch entire films this way.
Post reply on HN