Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by chasingthewind | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

chasingthewind

Some discussion and a really upsetting video on Reddit that I’m assuming is this incident

https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1boxor4/cirrus_sr...

View on HN

So Sad, that video link is private, this one works.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/372326

https://youtube.com/shorts/kSRcmjLllHY?si=-_yAfyExAq79veRn

Wow, I had seen the headlines about a fatal plane crash at Duxford but I hadn't made the connection that this was the same incident.

What an awful tragedy. RIP Mr Biggs.

Botched go around killed many pilots. May be trimmed too much up for landing with flaps and didn’t push nose down hard enough. In general, touch and goes in a high performance planes is not a good idea (no time for checklists, runway length, and actually wrong muscle memory for real takeoffs / landings). RIP.

As the old quotation goes, Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous, But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.

There’s a balance of risks in T&G vs full-stop taxi-backs. On the day of the individual flight, taxi backs are surely safer. But if they let you get in less than half of the circuits (as would be common at busy GA airports) or if they cause your proficiency training to become twice as expensive, the overall system safety difference isn’t clear.

I come down on the side of being willing to do touch and goes in any aircraft (and have shared circuits with heavy jets doing touch and goes, so it’s done at all levels).

From the video, this does look like a botched climb from either an intended T&G or bounced landing after a series of T&Gs, so I’ve got to agree with your point about the “that day” safety here.

I kinda wish computer systems were more involved in planes.

Computer systems have controlled the movement of elevators for 50+ years. They stop the elevator moving when the door isn't shut very effectively. They have certainly saved more lives compared to even a well trained elevator operator.

With today's tech, it would be possible to make a computer that prevents stall of any aerofoil. Anytime an aerofoil is nearing stall conditions, do whatever is necessary to prevent it stalling by actuating control sticks in the direction to prevent the stall.

> I kinda wish computer systems were more involved in planes.

> Computer systems have controlled the movement of elevators for 50+ years. They stop the elevator moving when the door isn't shut very effectively. They have certainly saved more lives compared to even a well trained elevator operator.

I thought you were talking about the elevators on a plane and was trying to figure out why whether a plane door was closed mattered for controlling the elevators.

Self-driving cars can't even manage 2 degrees of freedom with billions of driver-miles of data. What do you think can be done in 3d space, with more instruments and many orders of magnitude of less data?

> With today's tech, it would be possible to make a computer that prevents stall of any aerofoil. Anytime an aerofoil is nearing stall conditions, do whatever is necessary to prevent it stalling by actuating control sticks in the direction to prevent the stall.

What a brilliant idea! It certainly could never directly lead to the deaths of 346 people in two separate plane crashes or anything.

On a slightly less snarky note, what do you imagine an autopilot is?

Even if the accident pilot had intended a stop-and-go and assuming reports of a bounce are accurate, it was too late. Trying to force a landing risks porpoising. Going around after a bad bounce is the safer choice — but a high workload event: full power, first notch of flaps, nose forward, and the all-important right rudder.

Are pilots four point strapped? The video looks like a heavy impact with a whip effect from the wing hitting the ground, but the forces involved look generally in the class of automobile impact. Is GA lax on restraints?

Are there "airbags" in GA, or accidental deployment too high a failure risk?

> but the forces involved look generally in the class of automobile impact.

I don't think that's something you can eyeball?

For one thing, planes infamously don't appear to be moving super fast even when moving at speeds that would raise eyebrows in a car. On normal final approach a Cirrus SR22 has an airspeed of around 80 knots (92 mph, 148 kph) and that looks like this: https://youtube.com/shorts/XZcW11zgWQE - the accident plane almost certainly had a higher velocity when it hit the ground

And for another, impact with the ground especially in a dive is very different from impact with another vehicle as is typical for road accidents. Instant deceleration is a whole other beast. Imagine driving straight into a thick concrete wall at over 90mph - there's nothing that seatbelts and airbags are going to do to save you from fatal injury (an example of such a test crash: https://www.carscoops.com/2022/11/what-happens-when-you-cras...)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com