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

461–469 of 469 posts

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#461

Post by yard2010 »

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #394
yard2010 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't play with the NTSB. Just wait a few months and see, they will literally say the exact reason it happened and who's the one to blame in their report. These guys are the best at what they do. This is one of the government bodies other countries would dream to have.

The NTSB never assigns blame to people in their reports. They report what happened, and who did what, but their reports are not intended for use in a court and their advisories are always ways to fix procedures rather than blaming individuals.

Ofc! But they do such a good job you can almost always know who's the one to blame which goes hand in hand in what procedure should change. I don't mean blame as in malice but as in the weakest link. I believe it's just lost in translation because I don't speak English. Blame is just not the right word here

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#462

Post by moralestapia »

AlexeyBelov wrote: post #460
moralestapia wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Indeed!

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#463

Post by xhkkffbf »

silisili wrote: post #350
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.

UPS actually bought and destroyed thousands of homes near their end of the airport about 20 years ago, under the guise of 'noise', but realistically for expansion of warehousing. Now, I guess I feel slightly less upset by that (my childhood home was one of them).

Same thing happened to a friend who lived near the Albany airport. They gave him some song and dance about how it wasn't safe for people. But then after the deal was all done, they ended up selling the land to one of those hotel companies that wanted to have 100+ people sleep there each night. But they weren't permanent residents so it was different.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#464

Post by Ylpertnodi »

toast0 wrote: post #424
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…

> 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? An NFL game has a ton of cameras, a ton of camera operators, those fancy cameras on wire things, an onsite editing crew, and an audience. To get good recordings, you'd need to invest a lot of time and money, and very few of the recordings would ever be watch…

Left cam, right cam, runway end, and runway start cams as a minimum or, a single insta360 cam halfway along. 'Crew' not required. 'Audience' would be the ntsb. Cost? Cents on the price of having a plane/ being a passenger.

It doesn't seem to be such a terrible idea, though i do stand to be corrected.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#465

Post by rurban »

This was a McDonnell Douglas MD-11, and everybody knows since their failing engineering taking over good engineering at Boeing (in fact MD management took over Boeing Seattle and moved it away), suddenly made their new planes fall from the skies.

Re: UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

#466

Post by consumer451 »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #450
consumer451 wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 minute…

My personal theories as far the current grounding of all MD-11s:

1. Boeing wants no more responsibility for these airframes. Good call by the Board.

2. MD-11 style engine arrangement is an entire design flaw in itself. You can only recover from an uncontained engine failure at V1 if two engines remain. Good luck with that since on the MD-11, engine #2's intake is in the debris field of the other two turbines.

Post reply on HN