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

451–460 of 469 posts

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#451

Post by alright2565 »

tharkun__ wrote: post #397
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…

I just looked that up (Atlanta) on https://noise-map.com/ and man, that's way not enough zoning tricking in my book. Not that it's much different in other cities (or countries).

There's no need to zone for airport noise in Atlanta because the highway passing through the city center and hotrodded cars already are much louder and more disruptive in practice. I wish I was joking.

Also, the map you're looking at there is relatively low resolution. I would suggest looking at it in https://maps.dot.gov/BTS/NationalTransportationNoiseMap/; make sure to switch the "Modes:" to "All Modes"

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#452

Post by arcfour »

LgWoodenBadger wrote: post #182
positron26 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a dead zone between rejection and successful take-off speeds. We see it hit too often. I think pilot training is playing a factor. A normal rotation kills too much energy. One engine can climb when you have some airspeed and get clean, but if you lose too much energy on rotation, the inefficiency of the AoA for the rest of the short flight means that engine can no longer buy you any up. I've seen too many si…

Increased thrust requirements for airliners that force planes to hit an increased v1 (or whatever it's called) sooner on the runway to allow for more time to reject takeoff.

That's going to be difficult to balance with emissions requirements.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#453

Post by appreciatorBus »

lazide wrote: post #133
appreciatorBus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All planes are definitely capable of taking off safely even if they lose an engine at the worst time. Whatever happened here, I would be shocked if lack of thrust in the 2 remaining engines was a significant factor unless someone really screwed up the load calculations and they were overweight for conditions.

Single engine planes (GA, and some military planes) don’t handle this condition well at all. In fact, for awhile (maybe still the case), the #1 killer of skydivers was single engine failure on takeoff from the jump plane (and similar aircraft failures), not accidents ‘while skydiving’.

yes true, I guess I was assuming we were talking about commercial airlines :)

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#454

Post by mrosett »

lostlogin wrote: post #276
Der_Einzige wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do we need that? MH370 may have benefitted, but it’s hardly a common problem.

The belief is that MH370 was depressurized which would have killed the passengers. A better example is Germanwings 9525 where the locked door allowed the first officer to crash the plane.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#455

Post by themadturk »

Moto7451 wrote: post #201
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.

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…

I recently toured SEA. The third (western-most) runway there is too close to homes to use regularly for takeoffs due to noise. Though the FAA has made the Port of Seattle no promises, they apparently do tend to use the third runway as much as possible for landings only, and not late at night as much as possible.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#456

Post by burnt-resistor »

mikeyouse wrote: post #299
inejge wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Occam's Razor suggests that whatever they did right there is to blame. Ordinarily yes, but in this case there are reports that the plane underwent a "heavy maintenance check" from Sep 3 to Oct 18, which may have included engine removal and overhaul (source: pprune.org, from a poster who's not given to flights of fancy.)

In the Reddit /r/aviation thread, there are people who spotted that specific plane at San Antonio International airport since it was apparently being serviced at a major service facility there. So yes to major service potentially at issue, and no to international work being at fault.

ST Engineering MRO is located in SAT as SAA. They have the MD-11 contracts for C and D checks for FedEx and UPS.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#457

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #113
roryirvine wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During engine failure / fire situations, I would expect that pilots are likely to be too busy to have any time left over for peering at a video feed, trying to assess the state of the wing. In emergencies, information overload tends to make things worse, not better.

Having cameras pointed at the engines/wings like rearview mirrors would be helpful. It does not add that much workload if you take a quick glance in the “mirror” and figure out what the problem exactly is. And now we have technology that allows for cameras everywhere to give a better situational awareness across all critical aircraft surfaces and systems. It is going to take a little bit of adjusting to, but it will…

How does that work in the dark/rain/snow? Or are we now going to add lights pointing in the direction where the camera is facing. And then what do we do about the fact that aircraft external lighting has to follow regulations?

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#458

Post by ProllyInfamous »

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…

This is such a commonsense thought that my only guess can be because it would be a liability to insurance/airline carriers to have such helpful footage.

If Flock is going to retain footage indefinitely, why not the FAA/airport, to?

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#459

Post by ProllyInfamous »

lesuorac wrote: post #347
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…

Have you seen dash cam footage? High quality cameras are actually really rare and expensive.

>High quality cameras are actually really rare and expensive.

This is absolutely archaic thinking.

Reminds me of when I worked in data centers, pre-Snowden, and the official position on recording was how could we possible afford enough hard drives to store everything?!.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#460

Post by AlexeyBelov »

moralestapia wrote: post #447
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.

"Youtube video title" level of writing.
Post reply on HN