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

621–630 of 750 posts

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#621

Post by unregistereddev »

eknkc wrote: post #464
leetrout wrote: post #449

Clear view from the plane waiting to take off https://www.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/comments/1isabt... Which also brings into mind cockpit distractions but its amazing they caught this on video.

I wonder why were they filming? Was there an early warning? Was it a sketchy landing in any case? I mean aircraft are fascinating and people film them all the time but wouldn’t expect a pilot sitting in another one to casually film landings. Maybe just an extremely lucky catch.

Lots of pilots know each other and will sometimes film each other's landings just for fun. The original idea was probably along the lines of "Bill's coming in and I have a good angle on it, let's take a video and send it to him." Landing is the hardest part of piloting an airplane and many pilots take pride in their ability to land smoothly.

Slight tangent, if you are on an airplane that lands smoothly despite bad weather and crosswinds, compliment the pilot as you leave the plane. I once offered a "That was a damned impressive landing in this wind" on my way off an airplane and the pilot simply beamed with pride.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#622

Post by mrguyorama »

zubiaur wrote: post #244
haunter wrote: post #6

Video from a passanger, the hull is upside down! https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=617972644350232

There is a longer version that shows the inside of the plane. The flight attendant decisively and composedly ushering the passengers off the (upside down) plane. Hats off. https://x.com/rawsalerts/status/1891632984500904441/video/1

Flight Attendants are very well trained and, importantly, practiced at running evacuations. They run drills a couple days a year. They are tested to be able to empty a plane in 90 seconds.

If you want something to happen in an emergency, you either drill it to be instinct, or it won't happen reliably.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#623

Post by amelius »

leetrout wrote: post #449

Clear view from the plane waiting to take off https://www.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/comments/1isabt... Which also brings into mind cockpit distractions but its amazing they caught this on video.

Why doesn't every airport have a bunch of automated cameras around every landing/takeoff strip?

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#624

Post by polynomial »

amelius wrote: post #623
leetrout wrote: post #449

Clear view from the plane waiting to take off https://www.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/comments/1isabt... Which also brings into mind cockpit distractions but its amazing they caught this on video.

Why doesn't every airport have a bunch of automated cameras around every landing/takeoff strip?

This seems like a really good question. if not for some random dude they wouldn't have any footage of this crash.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#625

Post by toss1 »

HamsterDan wrote: post #530
toss1 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "subtle" hacking is removing the regulations requiring safe maintenance and procedures, removing people responsible for maintaining and implementing the regulations, and removing the people responsible for controlling the traffic safely. In a highly complex system, all the hacking you need is to allow the ordinary chaotic systems to run more wild and stochastic errors will degrade the system with less traceabilit…

Which specific regulation that was recently removed do you think contributed to this crash?

Of course it would not be any specific regulation at this point — it is the drastic cutting of overall enforcement by gutting the agencies.

This planned gutting of agencies and regulations was widely advertised by the current administration in the campaign, and post election, and post-inaugration, they have made every move possible to fire, distract, and terrorize any federal employee who might be enforcing regulations.

In this new anti-regulation environment, it's easy to see how a mid-level manager could decide he can now cut spending on maintenance to make his department's numbers improve without fear of regulatory action. There will be no regulators breathing down his neck (they are all fired or distracted), and they'll soon cut the regs anyway. It doesn't matter which regulation it is. That decision to cut maintenance could have been made as early as November or recently as last week.

So, maintenance gets cut, something gets missed, a part fails under the stress of a hard landing on a cold windy day, and we've got a wrecked aircraft.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#626

Post by WalterBright »

michaelt wrote: post #450
WalterBright wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"

There's no situation in flight where you'd want the wings to fall off to save the airplane!

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#627

Post by TonyTrapp »

amelius wrote: post #623
leetrout wrote: post #449

Clear view from the plane waiting to take off https://www.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/comments/1isabt... Which also brings into mind cockpit distractions but its amazing they caught this on video.

Why doesn't every airport have a bunch of automated cameras around every landing/takeoff strip?

I would assume they do, but it's not exactly in their interest to release footage of catastrophes for public consumption.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#628

Post by buildsjets »

InDubioProRubio wrote: post #506
rob74 wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many airplanes (not sure about the CRJ) also have a center wing tank, which is directly under the fuselage, so would be kinda hard to separate cleanly. Also, explosive bolts might start a fire that wouldn't have started without the bolts...

And they purge the fuel, if its a controlled emergency landing.. but in a uncontrolled emergency.. to let go of the wings seems a good option for events to go.

No, they don't. The CRJ, and in fact most smaller airliners including the A320 and 737 do not have the ability to dump fuel.

In larger aircraft that do have the ability to dump fuel, the reason is to make the airplane lighter so it does not have do an overweight landing and the subsequent high-cost overweight landing inspection. It is not done to reduce the probability of a post-crash fire.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#629

Post by giarc »

ceejayoz wrote: post #485
pseingatl wrote: post #483

Compare this crash to the Emirates crash in Dubai (EK 521, 2016). In the Emirates incident, the passengers stalled the evacuation in order to grab their carry-ons. Many were seen on the tarmac dragging roll-aboards. Here the passengers chose life over property and efficiently evacuated the aircraft.

It was a 777 (much more room) and not upside down , though.

It would be very difficult to get your bags from overhead bin when you are walking on the overhead doors.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#630

Post by mrguyorama »

brailsafe wrote: post #270
xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like getting rid of at-grade road crossings is a good thing, who've thought? Sounds like a good investment to me regardless of rail speed.

This seems like an awfully fanciful idea for anywhere but places with the most dense rail networks per sq km, at least if we're talking a full-scale refactor of existing infrastructure, in terms of financial, physical, logistics. Is it not somewhat true that rail/freight companies have more authority over the land that their lines run through than the regions do? I may be talking out of my ass here, but I feel cities…

The US created a cross country rail network, basically by government fiat and investment, well before there was anyone out there to ride them.

Hell, a lot of towns with good rail access nowadays in the US only exist BECAUSE the rail line was built there.

It's hilarious how often "but density" is wheeled out to complain how we can't do trains when, not only did we use trains to create density, but the US has regions that are denser than Europe and could easily support comprehensive rail. The US is a place where people are unwilling to buy a car that can't go 300 miles on a whim. People used to take the trains for day long trips.

There is no excuse but political. We could talk about how expensive it is to build anything in the US but the US has always had massive pork in large projects and is so fucking rich that if we stopped giving free tax breaks to billionaires and maybe go a decade without having to artificially inflate our economy we could build the most expensive railroad network in the world with giant kickbacks included and STILL benefit and afford it.

Post reply on HN