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

441–450 of 750 posts

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#441

Post by vilius »

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...

It happens to be that another pilot from a plane waiting to take off form the very same runway was filming the approach [1].

Purely by chance we have HD footage. It does make a huge difference and I agree with the sentiment that this would make flying safer.

[1] https://www.instagram.com/reel/DGNgCI0MC68/

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#442

Post by michaelt »

wqaatwt wrote: post #431
tssge wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sarcasm aside, while still not acceptable, some people might not have the means to buy new items to replace what they lost in a crash. So it is understandable for some people to make the choice of taking their luggage with them in such an event, as they might not have the wealth and/or insurance necessary to replace those items afterwards. Of course the solution would be to make airlines liable to replace passengers'…

> liable to replace passengers' luggage Aren’t they? AFAIK it’s standard (if not required?) for airlines to have insurance which includes passenger legal liability. Were there any recent crashes where passengers weren’t compensated? e.g. after US Airways 1549 everyone received at minimum $5k (or higher depending on damages) for lost luggage. edit: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/205.5

In terms of explaining the passenger's behaviour, though - presumably they didn't know this, and didn't have time to research it on their phone during the crash.

Airline customer service standards are very low; I can see how a person making the decision based on just their experience with airlines would conclude it was better to grab their carry-on if it was safe to do so.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#444

Post by ericpauley »

fransje26 wrote: post #432
sitharus wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The METAR was 27028G35KT, or 28 gusting 35 from 270° magnetic However the runway landing was 33, or 330° magnetic. So this is 24-30kt crosswind component. The maximum landing crosswind on a dry runway is 32kt. The press conference reported the runway as dry, so if they’re correct then it’s within limits. At the reported -9°c if the runway has been de-iced it could be dry I guess? The surveillance potato camera makes…

> However the runway landing was 33, or 330° magnetic. They were landing on runway 23. > At the reported -9°c if the runway has been de-iced it could be dry I guess? From the NOTAM, the runway condition codes for 23 were 5/5/5, so not dry, but "good". [1] https://avherald.com/h?article=52439b47&opt=1

5/5/5 would still be good braking action and directional control (it’s out of 6).

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#445

Post by Cthulhu_ »

tssge wrote: post #426
kolp wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, it had all her stuff, so she couldn't just leave it behind. /s

Sarcasm aside, while still not acceptable, some people might not have the means to buy new items to replace what they lost in a crash. So it is understandable for some people to make the choice of taking their luggage with them in such an event, as they might not have the wealth and/or insurance necessary to replace those items afterwards. Of course the solution would be to make airlines liable to replace passengers'…

> Sarcasm aside, while still not acceptable, some people might not have the means to buy new items to replace what they lost in a crash. So it is understandable for some people to make the choice of taking their luggage with them in such an event, as they might not have the wealth and/or insurance necessary to replace those items afterwards.

One person's means are not more important than the lives of the people on board. Stuff can be replaced; get everyone to safety first, then worry about stuff.

And yeah airlines are liable to replace stuff in the event of a crash and pay for damages if it's their fault. If it's the fault of the airplane manufacturer, they will have to; Boeing paid out billions to all parties involved in accidents and groundings of the 737 max:

> On January 7, 2021, Boeing settled to pay over $2.5 billion after being charged with fraud over the company's hiding of information from safety regulators: a criminal monetary penalty of $243.6 million, $1.77 billion of damages to airline customers, and a $500 million crash-victim beneficiaries fund.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_impact_of_the_Boeing...

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#446

Post by Cthulhu_ »

bambax wrote: post #392
guardiangod wrote: post #5

That'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.

"A good landing is when there are no casualties; an excellent landing is when the plane can fly again." This was therefore a good landing.

This makes me feel better about playing Kerbal Space Program.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#447

Post by Cthulhu_ »

agsnu wrote: post #393
bambax wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A good landing is when there are no casualties; an excellent landing is when the plane can fly again." This was therefore a good landing.

3 were critically injured, so not “no casualties” but pretty darned close all things considered

The critical injuries were rescinded again though.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#448

Post by michaelt »

tssge wrote: post #436
wqaatwt wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> liable to replace passengers' luggage Aren’t they? AFAIK it’s standard (if not required?) for airlines to have insurance which includes passenger legal liability. Were there any recent crashes where passengers weren’t compensated? e.g. after US Airways 1549 everyone received at minimum $5k (or higher depending on damages) for lost luggage. edit: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/205.5

In general the airlines just ask you to leave your luggage. If they were legally obliged to replace all your items, they would inform you of such. On international flights, an airline is liable for up to $1700 per the Montreal Convention. This might cover say half of one's laptop, which no matter how stupid it sounds, makes taking your luggage with you the only financially sensible choice in a crash (unless you have…

> This might cover say half of one's laptop, which no matter how stupid it sounds, makes taking your luggage with you the only financially sensible choice in a crash (unless you have insurance).

If there's no smoke, no visible flames, and you can do so safely without obstructing other passengers' egress? I can see the argument, sure.

Obviously if the cabin is filling with smoke or there are visible flames or other obvious dangers, the financially sensible choice is to evacuate ASAP as funerals often cost more than laptops.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#450

Post by michaelt »

WalterBright wrote: post #125
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.

> 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).

Small RC model planes often have the wings only loosely held on, such as by elastic bands, anticipating that the kids flying them will send them pinwheeling into the ground a few times while learning to operate them.

But yes, in a full size passenger aircraft I would expect the specification for wings falling off to say "avoid"

Post reply on HN