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

UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

avherald.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 469 posts

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#371

Post by kccqzy »

rogerrogerr wrote: post #354
kccqzy wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't explain anything. Specifically it doesn't explain why in our comparisons the destination is fixed. You could decide for this weekend trip we're going to budget a max of 3 hours on transportation. Should we take a three hour flight to a different state or should we drive for three hours to a closer destination?

This just isn’t how normal people behave. They are starting with a destination (relatives, national park, etc.) and then choosing how to get there.

That's not how normal people behave. If people choose a faraway destination first they are implicitly assuming they will fly there.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#372

Post by ExoticPearTree »

krisoft wrote: post #274
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the cameras would not have helped here, but it dorsn’t mean they are useless in general. Stupid car analogy: airbags help in most cases, but not all. Are they useless? Regarding UA1175, they had someone extra, but not all flights happen to have someone extra in the cockpit.

> airbags help in most cases, but not all. Excellent. So in what cases does seeing the engine visually do help? So far we discussed UPS2976 and UA1175 where the presence or absence of the camera didn't change the outcome. > Regarding UA1175, they had someone extra, but not all flights happen to have someone extra in the cockpit. You are dancing around my question. What does the pilot do differently based on what they…

Let's say there is a case like UA1175: - they can see how damaged the engine is - they can see if the wing is damaged in any way (over and under) - is there any other damage to the aircraft (like there was a piece of shrapnel that hit the plane)

In other situations: - are the wheels out when the sensors say they are not - have a way to visually inspect critical parts of the plane while in flight (so you don't have to do a flyover and the tower to look with binoculars at the airplane)

This is what comes to mind now.

Happy? Or am I still dancing?

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#373

Post by theultdev »

mmooss wrote: post #370

One AVHerald comment, by a tech who works on the same kind of engine that fell off, says, > I pray they did not use a forklift for the installation of the engine, onwing. Does anyone understand that? Why wouldn't you use a forklift? Why would that lead to an engine falling off? It seems like you'd need to support the 10,000 lbs engine somehow when reattaching it.

That's referring to American Airlines Flight 191 (May 25, 1979).

https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/accid...

I watch a lot of airplane disasters.

TLDR: you are supposed to properly disassemble and use a proper lift to lower the engine, not shove it in with a fork lift (even though it's quicker).

I don't think this was the cause of this accident though, the engine was on fire before takeoff.

Not an airplane engineer, but I very much doubt anyone has used a forklift to install an engine since 191. Procedures got much more strict.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#374

Post by Arainach »

Retric wrote: post #198
Arainach wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>None? Nobody puts airports inside city centers and metro areas don’t just have dense urban housing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midway_International_Airport It's hard to project growth. Things build right up to the limit of the airport for convenient access, then the area grows and the airport needs to grow - and what do you do? Seattle-Tacoma is critically undersized for the traffic it gets and has been strugglin…

Zoning is one option to direct growth, but you can move airports. Chicago is right next to a Great Lake and there’s relatively shallow areas ready to be reclaimed etc. Obviously you’re better off making such decisions early rather than building a huge airport only to abandon it. Thus it’s called urban planning not urban triage.

Move them to where? Cities large enough to merit an airport generally either have development which has expanded around them or physical features not conducive to development (mountains, lakes, etc.).

It's easy to say "just build bigger elsewhere" but unless you go dozens of miles out and add hours to every trip to/from the airport there's no options.

And no, "just fill in every body of water" is not an option. It doesn't work at all in many cases, is hilariously expensive in all cases, and has enormous environmental impact.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#375

Post by eitally »

pksebben wrote: post #321
JCM9 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fresno here. If this had happened at FAT (FYI now? We have dumb names) the casualties would've easily hit three digits from initial impact, and then whatever else burned afterwards because CA==tinderbox.

Same with SJC, no matter which direction they were taking off.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#376

Post by [deleted] »

The_President wrote: post #365
anonymars wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say it's easy to see the list of videos with no undue nonsense, the list is augmented as new footage is available, it contains more context on the accident (also augmented with subsequent information), and the local news deserves the traffic more than twitter

Linking to raw video directly is a more efficient use of time.

[deleted]

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#377

Post by pkulak »

JCM9 wrote: post #108
justsid wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Midway comes to mind: https://maps.app.goo.gl/GRUXJVdUPQMWkZNU6

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#378

Post by eitally »

Arainach wrote: post #188
Retric wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None? Nobody puts airports inside city centers and metro areas don’t just have dense urban housing. The common solution in many land strapped cities is for airports to rout aircraft over water often by building airports on reclaimed land. What generally gets areas in trouble is locations that used to be a good get worse as aircraft get larger and the surroundings get built up. The solution is to send larger airplanes…

>None? Nobody puts airports inside city centers and metro areas don’t just have dense urban housing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midway_International_Airport It's hard to project growth. Things build right up to the limit of the airport for convenient access, then the area grows and the airport needs to grow - and what do you do? Seattle-Tacoma is critically undersized for the traffic it gets and has been strugglin…

Congonhas (the original Sao Paulo airport) is right in the middle of the city.

There was a significant crash there in 2007: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAM_Airlines_Flight_3054

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#379

Post by mmooss »

theultdev wrote: post #373
mmooss wrote: post #370

One AVHerald comment, by a tech who works on the same kind of engine that fell off, says, > I pray they did not use a forklift for the installation of the engine, onwing. Does anyone understand that? Why wouldn't you use a forklift? Why would that lead to an engine falling off? It seems like you'd need to support the 10,000 lbs engine somehow when reattaching it.

That's referring to American Airlines Flight 191 (May 25, 1979). https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/accid... I watch a lot of airplane disasters. TLDR: you are supposed to properly disassemble and use a proper lift to lower the engine, not shove it in with a fork lift (even though it's quicker). I don't think this was the cause of this accident though, the engine was on fire before takeoff. Not an…

Thanks.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#380

Post by anonymars »

watwut wrote: post #292
rogerrogerr wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Stairs?
Post reply on HN