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

711–720 of 750 posts

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#711

Post by account42 »

tssge wrote: post #436
wqaatwt wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> liable to replace passengers' luggage Aren’t they? AFAIK it’s standard (if not required?) for airlines to have insurance which includes passenger legal liability. Were there any recent crashes where passengers weren’t compensated? e.g. after US Airways 1549 everyone received at minimum $5k (or higher depending on damages) for lost luggage. edit: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/205.5

In general the airlines just ask you to leave your luggage. If they were legally obliged to replace all your items, they would inform you of such. On international flights, an airline is liable for up to $1700 per the Montreal Convention. 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…

> This might cover say half of one's laptop

$3400 is a pretty pricey laptop for someone short on cash.

Also, am I correct in understanding that these requirements are the base requirement for any crash and don't actually absolve the airline of the full liability in case they are found to be responsible for the crash?

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#712

Post by zmgsabst »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #709
zmgsabst wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s only 5 states with density similar to Japan (at least 66%). People underestimate how spread out US cities are.

Density over some wide area is the wrong metric here. An entire state is absurdly large (in most cases). Two dense endpoints can be separated by quite a distance and still be worth connecting.

CA is a third as dense as Japan, as whole.

Tokyo has 8.9M people while LA has 3.9M people; half the number. Osaka (3rd largest) is 2.7M people while San Jose (3rd largest) is just under 1M people; again, half the number. The distance from Tokyo to Osaka is 500km, while from LA to San Jose is 550km. (In both cases, the 2nd largest city is nearby the largest.)

You have half the justification in CA you do in Japan, looking at similar urban areas. In the case of Japan, connecting those two cities goes through another 3 with over 1M population (and totaling over 7M together).

US cities are spread out and relatively low population.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#713

Post by account42 »

7952 wrote: post #462
tssge wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sarcasm aside, while still not acceptable, some people might not have the means to buy new items to replace what they lost in a crash. So it is understandable for some people to make the choice of taking their luggage with them in such an event, as they might not have the wealth and/or insurance necessary to replace those items afterwards. Of course the solution would be to make airlines liable to replace passengers'…

They might even need clean underwear and have that in mind. Probably the most scary experience of their lives and people act strangely.

Still not a rational decision. Poopypants > crispy skin.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#714

Post by account42 »

prmoustache wrote: post #453
tssge wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sarcasm aside, while still not acceptable, some people might not have the means to buy new items to replace what they lost in a crash. So it is understandable for some people to make the choice of taking their luggage with them in such an event, as they might not have the wealth and/or insurance necessary to replace those items afterwards. Of course the solution would be to make airlines liable to replace passengers'…

You really only have to keep your important papers in your pants pockets.

Would be easier if airplane seats weren't as cramped.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#715

Post by account42 »

evertedsphere wrote: post #407
bambax wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A good landing is when there are no casualties; an excellent landing is when the plane can fly again." This was therefore a good landing.

"a good landing is one where the people on board can fly again…" even

That's a pretty low bar. Corpses can also fly again.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#716

Post by account42 »

buildsjets wrote: post #628
InDubioProRubio wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Dumping fuel is only one option. Burning it up is another, but obviously is going to be an option for ever fewer emergencies.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#717

Post by account42 »

eastbound wrote: post #289
DebtDeflation wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After touchdown, but it rolled sideways not end over end. This kept the fuselage intact and ripped off the wings (where all the fuel is) which is why everyone survived.

Just to understand: Did it roll upside down, with people’s head at the bottom, or sideways, with people’s back to the front of the direction?

In case you (or others confused) haven't seen it year, this video clearly shows the sideways roll: https://www.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/comments/1isabt...

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#718

Post by account42 »

stouset wrote: post #666
victorbjorklund wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the air. If the force applied is not the normal force expected from normal use it might be intended to snap off.

This is like suggesting that a boat's hull is designed to snap off in the event it encounters unexpected forces outside the water.

I can see a boat's hull be designed to crumble as safely as possible under a headson impact. But the situation is not the same. Boats usually stay in water at all times. An accident might put them under water. The situation is different with airplanes: all airplanes are guaranteed to eventually impact the ground, just ideally in a controlled manner.

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#719

Post by account42 »

culi wrote: post #152
BobAliceInATree wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better cold water and not PFAS/firefighting foam edit: apparently Canada banned PFAS in firefighting foam.

The US Forest Service also banned firefighting foam in parks or anywhere where endangered species are found. Now that they're defunded I bet we're gonna get a lot more of that stuff everywhere

What is it about TDS that causes those affected to insert this topic into every unrelated discussion?

Re: Plane crashes, overturns during landing at Toronto airport

#720

Post by potato3732842 »

sfilmeyer wrote: post #690
potato3732842 wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I get that folks are going to make suboptimal choices in the heat of the moment, and I could see myself similarly making a dumb choice in the rush of an airplane evacuation. I don't think we should judge anyone's character too harshly, but that doesn't keep us from discussing what the actual optimal choices are. >The plane isn't even full of smoke yet The plane previously had some pretty impressive flames in the proc…

Optimal for who and in what situation? What is the optimal default practice for a single variable (lives saved) in the general case is not necessarily optimal in all cases.

In the case of this aircraft not only were the maximum number of lives saved but the some people also got their luggage reducing the sum total of BS and PITA the passengers involved had to endure. This is a superior overall solution than following the "rules" because that solution would have saved the same number of lives and increased the overall PITA because a greater number of passengers would have been without their luggage.

Basically the people involved rightly judged they could allocate some resources away from GTFOing and allocate them toward PITA reducing and we're all screeching about it like idiots because had the situation been different they would not have been able to make such a tradeoff and get the same results.

This entire topic of comments is in the same category as complaining about people ignoring the speed limit on empty highways or hopping some queue control ropes to skip a bunch of zig zagging when the queue is short enough they're not cutting anyone by doing so.

Post reply on HN