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

441–450 of 469 posts

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#441

Post by jnsaff2 »

mvdtnz wrote: post #403
jnsaff2 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Maybe I was a bit vague, I was replying to a general source recommendation ("The AVHerald is usually the best source for these things") with a similar comment: "in addition blancolirio is usually good too on youtube".

He has since posted a 15 min video[0] with more detail.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHW6HaS5mnc

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#442

Post by silisili »

jacquesm wrote: post #433
silisili wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but rather doubtful. UPS has owned that part of the airport for longer than I've been alive. As a kid, yeah sometimes a plane comes over but nobody really seemed to care. Fast fwd 15 years and now the city is telling us how unsafe it is to live there, passing out studies about how airplane noise will ruin your life, etc. And they made the buyout 'optional', knowing they'd railroad the holdouts, which they did.…

> Fast fwd 15 years and now the city is telling us how unsafe it is to live there I think their point just got made in a way that can't be ignored.

Fair point!

Oddly enough the pamphlets they kept sending out focused on irritability, poor grades, confusion, sleep problems, etc, and never mentioned the possibility of being fragged by a wayward jet.

I say that only partially in jest, looking at a map now, we were only 2 or so miles as the crow flies from the end of their runway and in the direct path..

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#443

Post by jacquesm »

silisili wrote: post #442
jacquesm wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fast fwd 15 years and now the city is telling us how unsafe it is to live there I think their point just got made in a way that can't be ignored.

Fair point! Oddly enough the pamphlets they kept sending out focused on irritability, poor grades, confusion, sleep problems, etc, and never mentioned the possibility of being fragged by a wayward jet. I say that only partially in jest, looking at a map now, we were only 2 or so miles as the crow flies from the end of their runway and in the direct path..

On a long enough timescale even improbably things will happen. The pamphlets would not mention that possibility because that would imply that the operator thought that a crash was possible, which would have caused their whole operation to be reviewed. By pointing out all but that, and by focusing on things that they could point at without having proof that living in the path of an active runway is risky (it is, take-off and landing are the most risky phases of flight) they were trying to get their way and check off a possible future headline without being seen as alarmist or engaging in risky behavior.

I'm trying to imagine this same thing happening with a subdivision in the same location where this plane crashed and the headlines that would have generated. As bad as this is, that alternative disaster would have been on an entirely different level.

I also hope that as a result of this crash there will be a global review of the placing of airports, especially the ones that are pretty much in cities with the flight path directly over houses during final approach and just after take-off.

This is a good example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiPyrfEuOeo

And yes, they're space constrained. But, given enough time...

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#444

Post by mindcrime »

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?

First time I was ever on a flight that landed at Midway, I was pretty freaked out by the visuals as we were descending. It's like ... "we're going to land on a house... we're going to Land On A House... we're going to LAND ON A HOUSE!! ... OMG, there's a runway ".

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#445

Post by rogerrogerr »

anonymars wrote: post #380
watwut wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Spouses

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#446

Post by FabHK »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #249
FabHK wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do runways have some sort of barrier between them and the next "important" thing. It seems like that would be prudent both for cases like this Ha, Jeju Air Flight 2216 smashed into a barrier on the second landing attempt in Muan last year [0], and people commented "How could there be a barrier at the end of the runway, so obviously stupid, irresponsible", etc. Now a plane does not smash into a barrier at the end of…

After 9/11, unlock the pilot doors. The passengers will revolt against any attempted aircraft hijackings. We need members of the public ready to help in a situation where a pilot goes crazy, and they can’t help with a locked door making it impossible for them to enter.

> After 9/11, unlock the pilot doors. The passengers will revolt against any attempted aircraft hijackings.

Regulations for locked cockpit doors were only introduced after 9/11, IIRC.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#447

Post by moralestapia »

octaane wrote: post #27

This is probably the worst way a plane could go down in terms of damage caused. Maximum effect in term of damage. Cargo plane apparently reached V1 (go/no go speed) on the runway, and suffered a catastrophic engine failure. They passed V1, so they knew they were going down. Engine was shedding large debris, including the housing (!!!) which is a shrapnel shield. They were on fire just as they reached V1. Plane was fu…

>obvious consequences.

>They had one choice.

>Physics took over.

>Louisville is now a firestorm as a result.

Incredible writing.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#448

Post by avalys »

mschuster91 wrote: post #427
avalys wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IMHO, this is a perfect example why the government needs to regulate prices in safety-critical industries. The "race to the bottom" must be prevented - sorry, flying NYC-SFO for 70$, that's not sustainable. This is nonsense. Commercial aviation is already ridiculously, insanely safe and has been for decades. Your proposed solution would not have done anything to prevent the one major accident in the past 15 years o…

> This is, like, the most ridiculous industry possible to demand more regulation of. And yet, we got hundreds of people dead because Boeing by all accounts clearly isn't regulated enough - and cut corners because airlines wanted to maintain their pilot type ratings. This should not have happened, at all .

1. The Boeing 737-Max crashes had nothing to do with maintenance, which is what the original poster was concerned about.

2. Arguably, these crashes were due to the FAA's failure to apply existing regulations, not a lack of adequate regulation in the first place! I don't have any problem with better funding for the FAA to do their job effectively.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#449

Post by alexjplant »

Retric wrote: post #184
potato3732842 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can always come up with some pretext to justify things by ignoring the other side of the equation. How many lives do the man hours spent commuting, or toiling away to afford higher rents waste? IDK how the math pencils out, but an attempt ought to be made before drawing conclusions.

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…

I live in San Diego and can watch planes come and go from my apartment rooftop. I've also walked to and from the airport to stretch my legs before and after flights.

Somewhere I have a GoPro video of me on my motorcycle waiting for a freight train at a crossing in traffic while a 747 flies overhead ("Planes, Trains, and Automobiles"). It's a pretty transportation-dense area.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#450

Post by dghlsakjg »

consumer451 wrote: post #415
dingaling wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DC-10 was a rushed programme to avoid Douglas being frozen out of the 1970s widebody market by Lockheed and Boeing. Similarly, the MD-11 was a cost-restricted update of the airframe to avoid McD being frozen out of the 1990s widebody market by Airbus and Boeing. McD management wouldn't fund the more ambitious four-engined MD-12, so the trijet's fuselage was stretched and aerodynamic tweaks applied. The MD-11 neve…

I always thought that the third engine was thrown into the tail of the DC-10 when they learned of the L-1011. However, I think I first heard that from a retired Tristar pilot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1011_TriStar

Trijets were mostly a thing to allow operations further away from diversion airports. Until the mid 80s twin engine jets had to stay less than an hour from diversion airports which meant that most stuff over water or remote routes had to be trijet or quad.

The MD-11 was late to that party, and by the time they started flying they were already allowing twins to go farther. Now the limit is all the way up to 370 minutes from the nearest airport for some twins, and most are capable of flying transatlantic.

Post reply on HN