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

401–410 of 469 posts

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#401

Post by kelnos »

panxyh wrote: post #162
hugh-avherald wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

V1 is the decision speed with respect to a single engine failure in a multi-engine aircraft. It's the speed below rotation speed at which the decision to abort safely can no longer be made. Captains can make the decision to abort the takeoff in the case of absolute power loss or for 'failure to fly' (where the aircraft is clearly not going to fly, e.g. the elevator/pitch controls aren't responding). But the training…

> abort safely That's what I'm getting at. I want to abort unsafely. Imagine 400 meters of grass field after the end of the runway, and a water body. I'm asking wether such factors are accounted for, or if plane on ground beyond runway does-not-compute.

> I want to abort unsafely

I expect pilots are trained explicitly not to do that.

If you can't abort safely, than it follows that the safer course of action is to try to fly. I'm sure there are exceptions to that, but a pilot has barely seconds in which to decide if any of those exceptions apply, so they're not going to abandon procedure unless the situation is clear.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#402

Post by SpicyUme »

coddingtonbear wrote: post #217
dmd wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every time I board a plane, I think what a crazy thing I am doing, but then I remember that I could be safe and snug in my house To be fair, statistically, your living room is far more dangerous than the cabin of an airplane.

Forgive me, but by what possible metric: miles traveled in it?

Once you've traveled even a significant fraction of a mile in your living room I'm afraid you're likely dead or seriously injured.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#403

Post by mvdtnz »

jnsaff2 wrote: post #192
cjrp wrote: post #106

The AVHerald is usually the best source for these things, rather than MSM: https://avherald.com/h?article=52f5748f&opt=0 > Ground observers reported the aircraft had been delayed for about two hours for work on the left hand engine (engine #1), the engine #1 separated during the takeoff run, the center engine emitted streaks of flames, the aircraft impacted a UPS warehouse and ploughed through other facilities before…

Also Blancolirio Youtube is very insightful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3lXl9yfISM

How is that video "insightful"? You can summarise the entire video as "a plane crashed after takeoff. It had an engine fire".

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#404

Post by Seattle3503 »

SamuelAdams wrote: post #336

It does make me wonder: why are aircraft takeoffs and landings not recorded more often, with higher quality cameras and more angles? If I can watch an NFL replay in 4k a few seconds after the ball is snapped, why not record (and overwrite) all flights that take off and land at every airport? Like a dash cam, they can save the footage only if there is a problem. Surely that would be much better than splicing together…

Airports might have the footage, but not release it. It's probably easier for a journalist to ask for the footage from a random strip mall parking lot.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#405

Post by tzs »

ragazzina wrote: post #120
filleduchaos wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there's a very big difference between "Engine fire: some of the combustion chamber's heat and flame has breached containment" and, say, "Engine fire: the engine has exploded, catastrophically damaging your wing which is now visibly on fire". However, both things are reported in the cockpit as ENG FIRE. There's also a very big difference between "Engine failure: something has damaged or jammed enough components…

> There's also a very big difference between "Engine failure: something has damaged or jammed enough components that the turbines are no longer spinning fast enough to produce thrust or drive the generators" and "Engine failure: the engine is no longer attached to the aircraft, which is why it is no longer producing thrust". However, both things are reported in the cockpit as ENG FAIL. What is the difference?

A good example of the difference it can make was the Flight 191 crash in Chicago in in 1979, which had an engine come off on takeoff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191

The engine coming completely off tore through hydraulic lines, which were need to keep the slats extended. Airflow forced the slats to retract.

Here's what then happened:

> As the aircraft had reached V1, the crew was committed to takeoff, so they followed standard procedures for an engine-out situation. This procedure is to climb at the takeoff safety airspeed (V2) and attitude (angle), as directed by the flight director. The partial electrical power failure, produced by the separation of the left engine, meant that neither the stall warning nor the slat retraction indicator was operative. Therefore, the crew did not know that the slats on the left wing were retracting. This retraction significantly raised the stall speed of the left wing. Thus, flying at the takeoff safety airspeed caused the left wing to stall while the right wing was still producing lift, so the aircraft banked sharply and uncontrollably to the left. Simulator recreations after the accident determined that "had the pilot maintained excess airspeed the accident may not have occurred.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#406

Post by caminanteblanco »

anonymars wrote: post #50
haunter wrote: post #2

Video of the crash, left (?) engine was already engulfed in flames while taking off https://x.com/BNONews/status/1985845907191889930 https://xcancel.com/BNONews/status/1985845907191889930 Edit: just the mp4 https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1985845862409334784/pu/... There is an incredible amount of ground damage! Just wow, this is very bad https://files.catbox.moe/3303ob.jpg

The second video here shows an incredibly close view of the impact from a nearby dashcam. https://www.wdrb.com/news/ups-plane-catches-fire-and-explode... > There is an incredible amount of ground damage! It's fortunate it wasn't taking off the other direction, towards the adjacent downtown of Louisville ( https://www.google.com/maps/place/Louisville+International+A... )

For anyone uninterested in the associated newscast, the footage begins at 5:24

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#407

Post by Retric »

Arainach wrote: post #374
Retric wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 do…

I’m specifically suggesting using reclaimed land if they relocated the airport because the cost seems to work out for Chicago, though obviously an in depth analysis is necessary. Still just looking at the depths combined with lakes not having the downsides of open oceans makes it promising. Unfortunately we’re talking about a huge airport so moving anywhere gets incredibly expensive.

The ultimate reason so many cities use land reclamation for airports is open water does not lose property value by being near the airport. Thus a given greater metropolitan area regains not just the physical land of the airport but the increased property value from all that land that’s no longer next to an airport.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#408

Post by caseyohara »

duped wrote: post #327
Moto7451 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jets are also simply too loud for homes under the takeoff path in standard use. There’s what amounts to a ghost town next to LAX due to this and the history of the airport. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palisades_del_Rey,_California Burbank Airport has quiet hours and has left a bunch of commercially zoned area under that takeoff path. I’m in Atlanta now and they bought up a lot of land around the airport when redeve…

Meanwhile, ORD is surrounded by residential areas and they're building a new tollway perpendicular to the runways

MDW immediately came to mind as an airport closely surrounded by neighborhoods. I've always wondered what it's like to live in one of those neighborhoods. Is it a perpetual nuisance or do you get used to it?

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#409

Post by tharkun__ »

caseyohara wrote: post #408
duped wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, ORD is surrounded by residential areas and they're building a new tollway perpendicular to the runways

MDW immediately came to mind as an airport closely surrounded by neighborhoods. I've always wondered what it's like to live in one of those neighborhoods. Is it a perpetual nuisance or do you get used to it?

Not at MDW but there are plenty such places and yes, some people do "get used to it". But there are studies that show that you increase health risks from such levels of noise even if you get used enough to it so that you can sleep through them. Search for increases in problems of cardiovascular health from car and plane noise.

And some people just won't really get used to it. I've lived near airplane noise and I never got used to it. I also don't sleep better with white noise. I sleep worse.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#410

Post by ilamont »

Retric wrote: post #384
ilamont wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody puts airports inside city centers Taipei Songshan, Boston Logan and the old Hong Kong Kai Tak to name a few.

Boston Logan is surrounded by water to the point only one end of a single runway isn’t aimed directly at water soon crosses water. The city center requires crossing a bridge. Taipei is a little worse but its only runway is going next to a river here and aimed at a park on each side. Hong Kong Kai Take would be a solid example except it closed in 1998 because of how the city grew. Look at maps from 1950 and it doesn’t…

> The city center requires crossing a bridge.

It actually requires using tunnels or a boat. I used to drive a cab and the I93 + Callahan/Sumner tunnel route was hellish. The Big Dig helped a lot, although sometimes that can get pretty backed up too.

> Look at maps from 1950 and it doesn’t look like a bad location for a small airport.

Generally, airports that are close to major urban centers were developed prior to 1950, including all 3 examples named. Songshan was opened during Taiwan's colonial period as the “Matsuyama Airdrome” serving Japanese military flights (https://www.sups.tp.edu.tw/tsa/en/1-1.htm).

For bigger cities with these old central airports, larger airports were opened later in many cases. I don't think that will ever happen in Boston, although satellite airports in neighboring states like "Manchester-Boston" or TF Greene in Rhode Island try pretty hard.

Post reply on HN