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

671–680 of 750 posts

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#671

Post by rangestransform »

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…

We could financially justify not just removing grade crossings, but a literal maglev between DC and NYC (The city pair has higher GDP than Osaka and Tokyo, which is actually getting a maglev)

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#672

Post by singleshot_ »

hassleblad23 wrote: post #593
singleshot_ wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Retention of agency carries a benefit you’re not calculating

You don't have agency over other drivers on the road and they might cause an accident without any fault of yours. That issue is (almost) entirely avoided by planes.

I never thought of that!

But importantly, I have the ability to see and react and avoid the collision. On the plane, I have the ability to eat lunch. Surely this could be considered a difference in agency.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#673

Post by WalterBright »

carabiner wrote: post #637
WalterBright wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've probably posted a hundred messages here on MCAS! Most were downvoted to hell. The actual 737 pilots I talked to agreed with me, nobody else did. Classic Gell-Mann Effect. The only truthful account of the crashes is the official NTSB report. The 737 is an electric drive, with a manual backup. The 757 is a scaled down version of the 747's dual hydraulic drive, no manual backup. More efficient wings and engines obs…

Oh I was an aeronautical engineer (BS, MS aerospace engineering, concentration in fluid mechanics) for 8 years. Any pithy explanation of aircraft flight/engineering concepts that I post gets downvoted or ignored. Better yet, sometimes a java programmer tries to mansplain it to me in a worse way.

When I talk to airplane crews, their faces say "oh crap, another nut I have to be nice to". So I let slip into the conversation things only insiders would know, and they then relax and open up.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#674

Post by potato3732842 »

adamanonymous wrote: post #635
stranded22 wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for a different point of view, my wife is Type 1 Diabetic - no way she’d be leaving her medical stuff. It’s probably not that, but is possible.

No medical condition has higher priority than getting out of a burning plane as fast as possible. You may not survive a day without insulin, but the people behind you might not survive the next few seconds if they can't get out in time because you were fumbling with a bag

I hate your opinion not because leaving one's bag isn't a fair take most of the time but it is underpinned by a the fundamental contempt for the decision making of people who are actually there. It's like when a child gets a math problem right but the shown work makes it clear they're very wrong.

You don't know what's in that luggage. Maybe it's hard to source medication. Maybe it's very important legal documents. It's clearly not big enough to be typical low value personal belongings. The plane isn't even full of smoke yet.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#675

Post by potato3732842 »

latexr wrote: post #531
throw0101c wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don’t even remove it and store it in your bag temporarily when on an airplane, you never know if it’ll capsize on landing and you’ll need to avoid people on the internet criticising you. You'll need to first avoid succumbing to smoke inhalation or flames if you don't get out in time (or cause someone else to not get out because your fumbling). The take-offs and landings (and perhaps add approach) phases of flight c…

Do you see lots of smoke and flames in this video? There are several people outside already, with backpacks too . It is incredible how people feel entitled to, based on a split second from a video, judge so harshly another human being who just went through a traumatic experience. We weren’t there. The situation looks under control. For all you know this person gave their turn to others inside the plane so they could…

Heaven hath no fury like someone who works a desk job and lives the apartment/condo/nice subdivision life and is generally free from any physical danger judging other people's risk assessment.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#676

Post by scarab92 »

ls612 wrote: post #552
scarab92 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are fewer and fewer accidents per passenger-mile every year (allowing for some noise because they are rare events) You're just hearing about it more because there are more planes than ever before, and more media exposure than ever before.

Unfortunately this year is well on track to be a significant increase in the casualty rate from commercial aviation even if nothing happens for the next ten months. While a lot of progress has certainly been made it is concerning that the trend is moving in the wrong direction.

One year is not a trend, especially because there are only a few events per year.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#677

Post by potato3732842 »

varjag wrote: post #543
michaelt wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ob…

I don't think a stressed rando inside the plane is in position to evaluate how soon it will combust. Not even the firemen on the outside often have a clue.

Eh, I'd defer to them over some rando on the internet who's only seen a video that shows a short snippet of what went on.

The best anyone here can do is screech about not following the default suggested practice of leaving the luggage but the person who took the bag was actually there. Perhaps they had to pick it up because it was on the floor (ceiling) in their way. Not much harm in carrying it if it's something that small anyway.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#678

Post by rangestransform »

zmgsabst wrote: post #410
fc417fc802 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the current state of US passenger rail I suppose such a proposal is closer to building out the interstate system from scratch. Which is indeed a bit on the fanciful side. On the other hand, who says you have to do the entire country at once? Perfect is the enemy of good and all that.

Japan has an average density of 338 people per sqkm. There’s only 3 US states with a density higher than that (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Jersey) and an additional 2 US states of at least 220 people per sqkm (Maryland and Connecticut). The US isn’t population dense enough for such transportation to make sense.

Nobody’s proposing to build rail in flyover country, but there are many places where high speed rail make sense based on GDP and population density (CAHSR, DC-NYC-Boston maglev, DFW-Houston)

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#679

Post by potato3732842 »

bolognafairy wrote: post #461
michaelt wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Anyone that disregards explicit instruction by cabin crew, regarding safety, is an idiot, regardless. I give zero shits if you think you’re going to lose your stuff. And you should give zero shits if I’m going to lose mine. Don’t act like this is a class / means thing. It isn’t. This is just Americanism.

People who interact with the public and work for BigCo routinely bark orders that are non-optimal for the customers individually but convenient for the company.

Customers have been trained to stop and think twice when someone tells them what to do. That's just the reality of the world we live in.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#680

Post by potato3732842 »

michaelt wrote: post #469
bolognafairy wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone that disregards explicit instruction by cabin crew, regarding safety, is an idiot, regardless. I give zero shits if you think you’re going to lose your stuff. And you should give zero shits if I’m going to lose mine. Don’t act like this is a class / means thing. It isn’t. This is just Americanism.

> I give zero shits if you think you’re going to lose your stuff. Yeah, last time an airline lost my bag they said pretty much the same thing. The way I see it, there are two types of idiot: You're an idiot if you delay the evacuation of a crashed plane. Shit's on fire, yo. And you're an idiot if you expect an airline will make you whole. Airlines are in the business of delivering the worst customer service they can…

>Airlines are in the business of delivering the worst customer service they can get away with

The DMV is pure customer service.

Airlines are "applied" customer service since they actually deliver a service there is demand for.

Post reply on HN