Major respect to the first responders and passengers who helped each other
Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport
341–350 of 750 posts
Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport
#342That's incredible. The plane literally turned over and burnt but no casualty. The flight staff must have done as amazing job keeping everyone calm and helped everyone get out of the upside, burning plane.
In a situation like that how the crew handles things makes all the difference. Definitely seems like they did an incredible job
Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport
#343Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport
#344[flagged]
Or was it because they got rid of the DEIcers?
Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport
#345It'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.
Yeah, that's surprising... And I think this feels like something people would want to know about
Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport
#346It'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.
Google News is pretty awful nowadays. I feel like Google stopped caring about it years ago.
An algorithmic fluff than actual news
Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Well, if all the interstates did have plenty of intersections, and someone proposed removing them all retroactively, would that not be an absolutely gargantuan undertaking at present, to the point where justifying it would seem fanciful?
Given the current state of US passenger rail I suppose such a proposal is closer to building out the interstate system from scratch. Which is indeed a bit on the fanciful side.
On the other hand, who says you have to do the entire country at once? Perfect is the enemy of good and all that.
Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport
#348I've not seen any video of the crash. Usually, when there's a crash, dash cam or other amatuer video caught it. Which leads to my repeated bafflement as to why there are no video cameras constantly pointed at flight ops at the airport. If every 7-11 can have a security cam recording hi-def 24/7, why can't a couple of these be mounted in the tower pointed at the tarmac?
Usually the video is shot on a phone with the camera oriented the wrong way, and the plane always goes behind a structure just before impact.
But that doesn't stop breathless click-bait headlines proclaiming that the crash was "caught on video."
Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you really not imagine any reason why world-class rail between Beijing and Shanghai is more feasible than between Minneapolis and Toronto?
If you want to say something then say it. No, I don't think there's any particular physical reason for that; I think the poor state of north american passenger rail is almost entirely for political reasons and could be changed if the public had the will to improve it.
Beijing and Shanghai are two of the most important cities in the world. Minneapolis and Toronto are not. Of course it’s physically possible to build a high-speed train from Minneapolis to Toronto, but it makes little sense to do so unless you’re building all the O(n^2) point-to-point links between all the medium-importance cities in North America.
Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport
#350Earlier 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.
> it might be designed to rip off in this situation It isn't on any aircraft I've heard of. Only the engines have "fuses" which allow an engine to rip itself off without taking the wing with it. The wing root is the strongest part of the airplane (because that is where the maximum forces are).
There are other parts like that, like the gear struts that are designed to bend and snap instead instead of puncture through the wings, or the centering mechanism on turbofan shafts that's intentionally designed to break off if a blade breaks and cause an imbalance (I think that's what you meant by a "fuse", or did you mean something that rips the engine off altogether? I had never heard of that one).