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

381–390 of 750 posts

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#381

Post by WalterBright »

lenkite wrote: post #372
WalterBright wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%.…

I always thought of you as the C++/D compiler guy - wow you did work in aerospace too! Thanks for making the D programming language. If it did not insist on a GC and had a robust and stable GC-free stdlib, I believe it could have conquered the world.

D works just fine without using the GC. It can also work just fine with just the C standard library. It does not insist on it.

BTW, the GC makes the compile time function execution sweet and easy.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#382

Post by silisili »

typeofhuman wrote: post #224
ceejayoz wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Video is making the rounds on Reddit now. https://www.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/comments/1irzxq...

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

It -is- pretty pathetic. My floodlights have better resolution, and I'm just a nobody consumer interested in watching wildlife move about.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#383

Post by WalterBright »

mschuster91 wrote: post #377
WalterBright wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't suggest it is any sort of conspiracy, it seems more in line with the generally ancient technology in the air traffic control system, and COBOL for the government accounting systems. Back in my 757 days Boeing ran individual wires for everything. I suggested using a bus to save weight and improve reliability. I just got blank looks in response. Modern cars use a bus now, and probably the airliners do, but I ha…

If the aviation industry is one thing, it is stubbornly conservative. Took like until about a year or two ago to finally get unleaded fuel approved for GA piston engines, and most of the piston engine designs in new production are like over half a century old because no one wants to go through the effort to certify any modern engine for aviation...

Yeah, I know, and I know about the leaded gas situation.

The thing about cameras, though, is you can buy an HD dash cam for $100 that records in a loop. Buy it, plug it in, and point it at the runway. It doesn't need anything beyond a wall socket.

If I was an ATC sitting in the tower, I'd probably just install one myself.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#384

Post by redcobra762 »

declan_roberts wrote: post #109
redcobra762 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American company, taking off from an American airport with mostly American passengers. The only thing about this flight that wasn’t American is the destination…

Thanks for pointing this out. I was worried something might be fundamentally wrong with airlines, but now I can rest assured that it was just Trump all along.

The very day your colleagues and your own career are put under jeopardy is a day you will not be at your best. Chaos breeds error, and Trump’s treatment of federal employees is the very definition of chaos.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#385

Post by victorbjorklund »

hugh-avherald wrote: post #208
evil-olive wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The wings are so utterly critical to flight I can’t possibly imagine any situation they’d be engineered to snap off under. I don't know enough about the details of the CRJ-900 to say for certain, but in general aerospace engineering does include considerations of this sort, where if a component breaks off you want to ensure that it separates in a specific way. from an Admiral Cloudberg article [0] about El-Al 1862…

The purpose of that engineering feature is to ensure the wings stay on.

In the air. If the force applied is not the normal force expected from normal use it might be intended to snap off.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#386

Post by WalterBright »

bombcar wrote: post #148
WalterBright wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Delta could have also stuck a few GoPros on this thing before doing a barrel roll. Does nobody have a sense for the dramatic?

Where's Tex Johnson when you need him?

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2604/4866/files/5aedc13c-3...

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#387

Post by WalterBright »

bombcar wrote: post #249
WalterBright wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Here you go: https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1is1qoy/video_of_...

the video was removed

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#388

Post by DC-3 »

WalterBright wrote: post #380
DC-3 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, the Aeroflot Sukhoi crash a few years back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgWSwbXMehI

It's a tower video, but we also see the operator moving the camera to catch it. I would expect to see cameras passively covering the entire runway, and not needing an operator to frame it. The reason is the operator may miss something else happening, or may be distracted at the critical moment.

I'm pretty sure it's a very wide angle camera and the operator is panning through the recording in a software viewer.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#389

Post by seszett »

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…

> anywhere but places with the most dense rail networks per sq km

It seems to be the contrary to me. In Japan or France (in the denser places of these countries, because they have plenty of low density areas) building a whole new dedicated rail network was (and still is, see the Bordeaux-Toulouse LGV project) a major undertaking because there's no way to avoid built-up areas. The high-speed lines go from city center to city center, and we're talking about Paris and Tokyo here.

The Shinkansen and TGV use dedicated rail networks, that are built from scratch and are still being expanded. TGV can use legacy lines as well at low speed (including at grade road crossings, although these have almost completely been replaced today) not sure about Shinkansen.

In contrast, it seems to me like it should be easier in the US to find space for cheaper bypasses, tunnels and bridges since it's less dense.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#390

Post by rdl »

WalterBright wrote: post #383
mschuster91 wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the aviation industry is one thing, it is stubbornly conservative. Took like until about a year or two ago to finally get unleaded fuel approved for GA piston engines, and most of the piston engine designs in new production are like over half a century old because no one wants to go through the effort to certify any modern engine for aviation...

Yeah, I know, and I know about the leaded gas situation. The thing about cameras, though, is you can buy an HD dash cam for $100 that records in a loop. Buy it, plug it in, and point it at the runway. It doesn't need anything beyond a wall socket. If I was an ATC sitting in the tower, I'd probably just install one myself.

TBH there's enough of a "planespotting" hobbyist community who would love to have good quality camera footage of takeoffs/landings to probably finance great quality cameras at all major airfields covering all the runways/ramp areas/etc. just from ads from streaming. Also insurers (I actually work with a bunch of the guys at Lloyd's syndicates who do hull insurance for aircraft; I can ask them in a few weeks how much this data would be worth to them. For ramps, it would be "who backed into my aircraft while it was parked" issues. I worked on an airbase where someone drove a pickup truck into a super high end "one of two" high altitude long endurance drone, destroying 50% of the US Government surveillance capability in theater for about 4 months...)
Post reply on HN