691–700 of 750 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For anyone unaware, Walter worked for Boeing for years and probably knows more about planes than anyone on the forum. It's likely not a morbid curiosity here, especially since noone died AFAIK, but genuine technical curiosity so he can see what happened, and perhaps educate us readers.
[flagged]
I recommend using actual quotes when quoting. Otherwise people might think you're just making things up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I know, and I know about the leaded gas situation. The thing about cameras, though, is you can buy an HD dash cam for $100 that records in a loop. Buy it, plug it in, and point it at the runway. It doesn't need anything beyond a wall socket. If I was an ATC sitting in the tower, I'd probably just install one myself.
TBH there's enough of a "planespotting" hobbyist community who would love to have good quality camera footage of takeoffs/landings to probably finance great quality cameras at all major airfields covering all the runways/ramp areas/etc. just from ads from streaming. Also insurers (I actually work with a bunch of the guys at Lloyd's syndicates who do hull insurance for aircraft; I can ask them in a few weeks how much…
This kind of footage of an aviation accident should not be left to chance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like security cam footage. Not one set up to view the flight ops, as the view is obstructed by a building and a fence.
You said "I've not seen any video of the crash. Usually, when there's a crash, dash cam or other amatuer video caught it.". This is video of the crash. What's the problem? Airports have cameras of course, though they have no obligation or value in providing it to placate social medias rush for content.
> they have no obligation or value in providing it to placate social medias rush for content.
That's correct, it is not about social media clicks. It is about gathering evidence properly to determine the cause of the crash.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> HN has a particular fascination with aviation disasters. HN has a fascination with Boeing's incompetency, greed and corner cutting that resulted in lost lives. That evolved tangentially into an interest in aviation incidents and accidents.
Just wanted to point out that Boeing's various disasters are not due to greed but to the combination of stupidity and greed. When smart people get greedy, they build things that last and that they can be proud of, because that's what's best for them long term. Whereas when smart people have zero greed, they build nothing at all. You need a strong motivation to power you through the pain of creating something good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Kumming and Chiangsa are part of Shanghai–Kunming railway. The trains between these two cities don't stop at either, but connect all the stations on the larger railway. Which would be the same for a North American rail network. Kunming was Minneapolis in this analogy, trains to Toronto could carry on to Boston or Montreal or New York just as trains to Changsa carry on to Shanghai. > The original assertion is that t…
The OP’s claim is that: > Maybe we should build more railways. The ground is more stable than the air. As if this accident could have been avoided if there were trains between Minneapolis and Toronto. I am saying that is wrong, because the passengers on this route wouldn’t take train. High speed trains would help if there is enough demand. There is not. Your examples are for a different market that don’t apply. You d…
You don't have to replace every flight to reduce the amount of flights, or to give people an alternative.
> High speed trains would help if there is enough demand. There is not. Your examples are for a different market that don’t apply. You didn’t prove otherwise.
The population sizes are the same. The geography is similar. The differences are political choices, not immutable facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I diagnosed my first pseudocholinesterase deficiency as a CA-1 (for non-doctors: second-year resident, patient was still paralyzed after a long case from a drug that usually lasts ~5 minutes, had to send him to ICU on ventilator until it finally broke down from all the other enzymes in the body). Had to be an attending for ~10 years before I got a malignant hyperthermia case. Do not want to repeat either of those. No…
That's interesting. I never encountered either a pseudocholinesterase deficiency or MH during my 38 years of residency/attending/private practice. However — in my first year of residency, during my rotation at the VA, while performing my first brachial plexus block, I unknowingly injected lidocaine into the axillary artery: as the patient began seizing, the attending calmly said "Joe, take out the needle, I'm going t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We were once landing on Madeira, one of the most dangerous airports in the world. Even a nice landing there is quite uncomfortable. For some time you fly very close to the ocean, heading straight into the cliffs, and only in the last moment the plane seems to make a right turn to approach the runway. We made a wobbly touchdown, people already wanted to get up, when suddenly the plane was again lifted a few meters and…
Your description of the landing reminds me of the old Hong Kong Kai Tak airport approach. You basically had to fly straight over the city, high rise buildings straight ahead, and bank right as hard as the plane would let you at just the right time to hit the runway. Outside perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKqO6gdJIz8 Cockpit view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx3Ccs5tKfw
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN is full of clickbait messages like this. US and Canada can use a lot more trains, but air transport is more suitable for medium to long distance, such as this Minneapolis-Toronto route. They are complementary. The accident occurred on the ground, any aircraft is susceptible, “more trains” doesn’t make it less so.
The conventional wisdom is that high speed rail is competitive with flying when travel time is at most 4.5 hours. But China has been challenging that with some ridiculously long routes, such as 2760 km from Beijing to Kunming (10 hours 43 minutes). I think the idea is that if flight time is long enough that you can't travel and work reasonably on the same day, you have to dedicate the entire day for travel. Then the…
At typical HSR speeds of 185 mph / 300 kph, that extends to ~2,200 mi / 3,600 km. That's sufficient for travel from SF to Chicago, or NYC to Salt Lake (with range to spare).
(Both calculations presume 12 hours and operating largely at top speeds, both of which may be atypical in practice, but do satisfy the maximum possible range question.)
Travel within major population corridors, generally the east coast (Boston, Minneapolis, Miami, Houston) or west (San Diego, Phoenix, Seattle, Salt Lake, Denver) should be highly viable.
And as is often noted, rail operates city-centre to city-centre, and typically has fewer security checks and delays.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> air transport is more suitable for medium to long distance, such as this Minneapolis-Toronto route. Eh maybe. That's not much longer than Beijing-Shanghai. Rail can definitely be competitive. > The accident occurred on the ground Plane crashes generally do. Given that all plane journeys involve at least one takeoff and landing, it's fair to consider collisions and incidents during those as part of a safety comparis…
Beijing and Shanghai are the two largest cities in China. There is enough demand to justify trains. There are also at least 50 daily flights between the two cities. Now what is the demand between Minneapolis and Toronto?
Another example I like to cite is of Denver, CO, which grew roughly seven-fold in population in the decade after it was linked to the then-new US Transcontinental Railroad, 1870--1880:
https://www.uncovercolorado.com/colorado-train-stations/>
Rail build-outs competing with existing air links is another matter of course, though experience in Europe, Japan, and China should help provide useful data.
________________________________
Notes:
1. Discussion of LA freeway speeds generally, noting several stretches (including those recently widened) netting https://la.curbed.com/2019/5/6/18531505/405-widening-traffic...>. I'm not finding the specific horses-to-cars comparison though I'm sure I've encountered it before.
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.
If you think this is bad, I guarantee you could play out this scenario in roughly 3/4 of the world and it would be worse.