7 ms·

This is probably the worst way a plane could go down in terms of damage caused. Maximum effect in term of damage. Cargo plane apparently reached V1 (go/no go sp

This is probably the worst way a plane could go down in terms of damage caused. Maximum effect in term of damage. Cargo plane apparently reached V1 (go/no go speed) on the runway, and suffered a catastrophic engine failure. They passed V1, so they knew they were going down. Engine was shedding large debris, including the housing (!!!) which is a shrapnel shield. They were on fire just as they reached V1. Plane was fully loaded with 38,000 LB of fuel for 12 hour flight to hawaii. Worst case scenario. Pilots did the heroic thing - they tried to take off instead at 160 MPH to minimize collateral damage (highway and warehouses at the end of the runway) and crash and die somewhere else, instead of go beyond the runway at that speed. Accelerating a fully loaded jet plane at ground level beyond the runway has obvious consequences. They had one choice. Instead, they clipped the UPS factory because they were so low, they tried to clear it but did not. Plane then hit the ground port wing down, shearing it off entirely, smearing a fireball of jet fuel across half a mile (not an exaggeration) before the plane flipped. Crew were likely dead by before this, footage shows the cockpit being slammed into the ground like a mousetrap by the flip once the port wing was gone and gravity took the starboard wing over. Physics took over. Plane flipped and rolled upon loss of port wing, smearing a rolling fireball of the remaining fuel load from the starboard wing for another half a mile. Louisville is now a firestorm as a result. Respect to the flight crew; rest in peace, they made the best they could out of a really shitty scenario. They flew it all the way down. Footage: https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1985845987684855969?s=46 https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1985845987684855969?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985849267152699741?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985849267152699741?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985848132500885995?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985848132500885995?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985843126934614297?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985843126934614297?s=46

gizmo686 1y ago
> they tried to take off instead of accelerate past the runway at ground level Do runways have some sort of barrier between them and the next "important" thing. It seems like that would be prudent both for cases like this, and breaking failures following landings.
- octaane 1y ago
  Unless you have a berm several dozen meters high with a 100 meter base, you ain't stopping something like this from a physics standpoint unfortunately. Many airports have this problem. The recent korean air disaster which echos this is another example. BTW, this is why most airports, if possible, point out to sea...
  - wickberg 1y ago
    Newer airports usually try to have space, that's the only thing helping with the physics involved here. Older airports might have EMAS [1] retrofitted at the ends to help stop planes, but that's designed more for a landing plane not stopping quickly enough (like [2]) - not a plane trying to get airborne as in this case. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_materials_arrestor_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_materials_arrestor_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1248 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1248
  - positron26 1y ago
    There is a dead zone between rejection and successful take-off speeds. We see it hit too often. I think pilot training is playing a factor. A normal rotation kills too much energy. One engine can climb when you have some airspeed and get clean, but if you lose too much energy on rotation, the inefficiency of the AoA for the rest of the short flight means that engine can no longer buy you any up. I've seen too many single-engine planes going down while trying to pitch up the whole way down. So, less aggressive single-engine rotations and energy absorbers at the ends of runways that can't get longer. This seems like the kind of thing where we do it because it removes a significant cause of people dying. Just watched this angle a few more times: https://x.com/BNONews/status/1985845907191889930 https://x.com/BNONews/status/1985845907191889930 Another crash video shows the aircraft clearly descending before colliding with anything. It manages to go up a bit, so it's fast enough to get airborne. The normal looking rotation kills too much energy. The plane is then too inefficient to maintain speed. AoA goes up while energy goes down. Power available goes negative and then it's over.
    - 1y ago
cityofdelusion 1y ago
Standard procedure at V1 is commit to the takeoff and diagnose the problem in-air. Much of your comment is pure speculation until flight data recorders come back, we have no idea what the crew was thinking or what issues they were even aware of.
- octaane 1y ago
  You're 100% right, and that's exactly what I'm getting at - they hit V1 and were aware they had a serious problem, but couldn't abort. As far as the rest of my comment - watch the videos that I linked.
  - hshdhdhehd 1y ago
    Could they have not hit V1 but decided to take off anyway to minimise damage (i am guessing the reverse thrust might be impossible to stop?)
    - t0mas88 1y ago
      No, and reverse trust is not included in the calculation for stopping distance for a failure below V1. You can stop from just below V1 with only the brakes, if that's not possible you're not allowed to start the takeoff. You would have to reduce weight until the numbers fit the runway. After V1 you must be able to take off on only the remaining engines. If that's not possible you must reduce weight until it is possible or you're not allowed to start takeoff at all. This is why in very warm weather and higher altitude airports (lower performance) sometimes cargo/luggage or even some passengers are left behind, while in colder weather all seats could be used.
chzblck 1y ago
Sorry for ignorance but why is the right thing to continue to take off with an engine on fire?
- octaane 1y ago
  To avoid mass casualties at the end of the runway - on the road, or the buildings that the runway points to. Check the layout on google maps. More specifically, V1 is the max speed at which you're about to take off, but you can still abort from. They hit that max speed and realized there was a major problem that hypothetically, they could have slowed down from, but realistically was not possible. They had no choice.
- atrus 1y ago
  It was at a point where they were going to fast to stop or land safely. At that point you're just trying to pick the best place to crash.
  - octaane 1y ago
    [flagged]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- FabHK 1y ago
  V1 is the speed at which you can still stop the plane before the end of the runway. (It is computed for each takeoff based on runway length, aircraft mass, takeoff engine power setting, flaps, wind, runway condition, etc.) When the plane reaches V1, pilots take the hand off the throttle: they're committed to takeoff, even if an engine fails. It is better to take off and fix the problem or land again, than to smash into whatever is beyond the end of the runway.
  - panxyh 1y ago
    Isn't there any margin? Does it calculate stopping before end of runway or before causing damage? Surely uncertainty about the situation contributes to defaulting to committing, but what if it's a passenger plane and at V1 pilots know they've lost power? Wouldn't veering into highway at 30 mph be weighted against certain, big loss of life? Edit: I now see that this has been partially answered by uncle comment
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
basisword 1y ago
>> highway and warehouses at the end of the runway It's astonishing that this is a thing. Why aren't we building airports with enough space for a plane to remain on the ground and have plenty of room to decelerate in this situation? I can understand why it can't be retro fitted to existing airports but is it a scenario that's considered at new airports? Just seems like such an absolutely basic safety step.
- giantrobot 1y ago
  Airports are usually built (originally) out in the boonies away from the major metro area. As time goes by and that land gets more valuable developers grease palms of politicians in land use commissions to allow developments closer and closer to the airports. Airports also grow themselves. Some municipal airports sited for small aircraft extend their runways to handle larger planes.
- kube-system 1y ago
  Louisville is a major cargo hub. The airport likely was not built by the warehouses, the warehouses were likely built by the airport.
  - WorldMaker 1y ago
    A lot of the airport's surrounding buildings (to the South especially) are indeed UPS Airlines' own facilities.
  - johann8384 1y ago
    Yes, in fact, lots of the area that is warehouses to the south, and where the larger run way to the east and some buffer zone to the east used to be neighborhoods and they were bought and torn down to make room around the airport. https://www.reddit.com/r/Louisville/comments/1983ko2/what_happened_to_this_neighborhood_edgewood/?rdt=35944 https://www.reddit.com/r/Louisville/comments/1983ko2/what_ha...
- lelandbatey 1y ago
  Yes, new major airports (rare as they are) do try to acquire large areas of land, larger even than they think they need now, in anticipation of future expansion. However, for scenarios like this, there's limited utility to making the runway longer "just in case." They already pick runway sizes "big enough and then some" as the minimum to even bring planes of each size to an airport. So there is margin. But no matter the margin, a plane can always crash on the wrong side of any fence. And people will always build right up to wherever you put the fence as closer to the airport is more convenient for everything airport related.
trallnag 1y ago
Makes me think of the song "огромное небо" https://youtu.be/0EQNv8L49cs?si=2LTHtiKNvpZVDWVy https://youtu.be/0EQNv8L49cs?si=2LTHtiKNvpZVDWVy Work place related accidents always have a certain tragedy to them. Still remember when in the industrial park, my employer is located in, tanks belonging to a trash incinerator for special chemical waste exploded, taking several people with it.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
justin66 1y ago
> Louisville is now a firestorm as a result. Let's leave that word to mean what it actually means. Louisville experienced a serious fire.
- johann8384 1y ago
  It's a few blocks of fire. I was on Tanker 4565 standing by as a backfill for units on scene. It's no where near "All of Louisville", that's a ridiculous thing to say.
johann8384 1y ago
It was around 250k gallons of fuel. Our CAD notes on the initial dispatch said 250k, one press briefing said 280k, and then it was changed to 220k which I think is the actual number.
johann8384 1y ago
Not a UPS Factory (whatever that means). Grade A Auto Parts on Melton Ave was the initial damaged building. I don't have the name of the chemical place handy. Med Command setup at River City Metals.
- Eiriksmal 1y ago
  I saw Penske Truck Leasing trailers on fire at Kentucky Truck on WHAS"s helicopter footage from last night. 15 years ago, I'd be there once a week doing parts runs from the PTL branch off Newburg. The security cam footage of the plane rolling from Kentucky Truck was insane. Thanks for working the scene. That smoke looked incredibly toxic.
sandos 1y ago
"Pilots did the heroic thing - they tried to take off instead at 160 MPH to minimize collateral damage (highway and warehouses at the end of the runway) and crash and die somewhere else" No, they were most likely NOT trying to be heores, its simply the standard thing to do. An aircraft is supposed to be able to take off with one engine inop, and at this speed the expected behaviour is to continue takeoff because that is what has been deemed safest. There is always a grey area where the decision could go either way, stop or lift off and in this case it looks to me that trying to stop might have been better. But that is literally impossible to diagnose during the few seconds they had.
moralestapia 11mo ago
>obvious consequences. >They had one choice. >Physics took over. >Louisville is now a firestorm as a result. Incredible writing.
- AlexeyBelov 11mo ago
  "Youtube video title" level of writing.
  - moralestapia 11mo ago
    Indeed!

gizmo686 1y ago

> they tried to take off instead of accelerate past the runway at ground level Do runways have some sort of barrier between them and the next "important" thing. It seems like that would be prudent both for cases like this, and breaking failures following landings.

octaane 1y ago
Unless you have a berm several dozen meters high with a 100 meter base, you ain't stopping something like this from a physics standpoint unfortunately. Many airports have this problem. The recent korean air disaster which echos this is another example. BTW, this is why most airports, if possible, point out to sea...
- wickberg 1y ago
  Newer airports usually try to have space, that's the only thing helping with the physics involved here. Older airports might have EMAS [1] retrofitted at the ends to help stop planes, but that's designed more for a landing plane not stopping quickly enough (like [2]) - not a plane trying to get airborne as in this case. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_materials_arrestor_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered_materials_arrestor_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1248 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1248
- positron26 1y ago
  There is a dead zone between rejection and successful take-off speeds. We see it hit too often. I think pilot training is playing a factor. A normal rotation kills too much energy. One engine can climb when you have some airspeed and get clean, but if you lose too much energy on rotation, the inefficiency of the AoA for the rest of the short flight means that engine can no longer buy you any up. I've seen too many single-engine planes going down while trying to pitch up the whole way down. So, less aggressive single-engine rotations and energy absorbers at the ends of runways that can't get longer. This seems like the kind of thing where we do it because it removes a significant cause of people dying. Just watched this angle a few more times: https://x.com/BNONews/status/1985845907191889930 https://x.com/BNONews/status/1985845907191889930 Another crash video shows the aircraft clearly descending before colliding with anything. It manages to go up a bit, so it's fast enough to get airborne. The normal looking rotation kills too much energy. The plane is then too inefficient to maintain speed. AoA goes up while energy goes down. Power available goes negative and then it's over.
  - 1y ago

cityofdelusion 1y ago

Standard procedure at V1 is commit to the takeoff and diagnose the problem in-air. Much of your comment is pure speculation until flight data recorders come back, we have no idea what the crew was thinking or what issues they were even aware of.

octaane 1y ago
You're 100% right, and that's exactly what I'm getting at - they hit V1 and were aware they had a serious problem, but couldn't abort. As far as the rest of my comment - watch the videos that I linked.
- hshdhdhehd 1y ago
  Could they have not hit V1 but decided to take off anyway to minimise damage (i am guessing the reverse thrust might be impossible to stop?)
  - t0mas88 1y ago
    No, and reverse trust is not included in the calculation for stopping distance for a failure below V1. You can stop from just below V1 with only the brakes, if that's not possible you're not allowed to start the takeoff. You would have to reduce weight until the numbers fit the runway. After V1 you must be able to take off on only the remaining engines. If that's not possible you must reduce weight until it is possible or you're not allowed to start takeoff at all. This is why in very warm weather and higher altitude airports (lower performance) sometimes cargo/luggage or even some passengers are left behind, while in colder weather all seats could be used.

chzblck 1y ago

Sorry for ignorance but why is the right thing to continue to take off with an engine on fire?

octaane 1y ago
To avoid mass casualties at the end of the runway - on the road, or the buildings that the runway points to. Check the layout on google maps. More specifically, V1 is the max speed at which you're about to take off, but you can still abort from. They hit that max speed and realized there was a major problem that hypothetically, they could have slowed down from, but realistically was not possible. They had no choice.
atrus 1y ago
It was at a point where they were going to fast to stop or land safely. At that point you're just trying to pick the best place to crash.
- octaane 1y ago
  [flagged]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
FabHK 1y ago
V1 is the speed at which you can still stop the plane before the end of the runway. (It is computed for each takeoff based on runway length, aircraft mass, takeoff engine power setting, flaps, wind, runway condition, etc.) When the plane reaches V1, pilots take the hand off the throttle: they're committed to takeoff, even if an engine fails. It is better to take off and fix the problem or land again, than to smash into whatever is beyond the end of the runway.
- panxyh 1y ago
  Isn't there any margin? Does it calculate stopping before end of runway or before causing damage? Surely uncertainty about the situation contributes to defaulting to committing, but what if it's a passenger plane and at V1 pilots know they've lost power? Wouldn't veering into highway at 30 mph be weighted against certain, big loss of life? Edit: I now see that this has been partially answered by uncle comment

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

basisword 1y ago

>> highway and warehouses at the end of the runway It's astonishing that this is a thing. Why aren't we building airports with enough space for a plane to remain on the ground and have plenty of room to decelerate in this situation? I can understand why it can't be retro fitted to existing airports but is it a scenario that's considered at new airports? Just seems like such an absolutely basic safety step.

giantrobot 1y ago
Airports are usually built (originally) out in the boonies away from the major metro area. As time goes by and that land gets more valuable developers grease palms of politicians in land use commissions to allow developments closer and closer to the airports. Airports also grow themselves. Some municipal airports sited for small aircraft extend their runways to handle larger planes.
kube-system 1y ago
Louisville is a major cargo hub. The airport likely was not built by the warehouses, the warehouses were likely built by the airport.
- WorldMaker 1y ago
  A lot of the airport's surrounding buildings (to the South especially) are indeed UPS Airlines' own facilities.
- johann8384 1y ago
  Yes, in fact, lots of the area that is warehouses to the south, and where the larger run way to the east and some buffer zone to the east used to be neighborhoods and they were bought and torn down to make room around the airport. https://www.reddit.com/r/Louisville/comments/1983ko2/what_happened_to_this_neighborhood_edgewood/?rdt=35944 https://www.reddit.com/r/Louisville/comments/1983ko2/what_ha...
lelandbatey 1y ago
Yes, new major airports (rare as they are) do try to acquire large areas of land, larger even than they think they need now, in anticipation of future expansion. However, for scenarios like this, there's limited utility to making the runway longer "just in case." They already pick runway sizes "big enough and then some" as the minimum to even bring planes of each size to an airport. So there is margin. But no matter the margin, a plane can always crash on the wrong side of any fence. And people will always build right up to wherever you put the fence as closer to the airport is more convenient for everything airport related.

trallnag 1y ago

Makes me think of the song "огромное небо" https://youtu.be/0EQNv8L49cs?si=2LTHtiKNvpZVDWVy https://youtu.be/0EQNv8L49cs?si=2LTHtiKNvpZVDWVy Work place related accidents always have a certain tragedy to them. Still remember when in the industrial park, my employer is located in, tanks belonging to a trash incinerator for special chemical waste exploded, taking several people with it.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

justin66 1y ago

> Louisville is now a firestorm as a result. Let's leave that word to mean what it actually means. Louisville experienced a serious fire.

johann8384 1y ago
It's a few blocks of fire. I was on Tanker 4565 standing by as a backfill for units on scene. It's no where near "All of Louisville", that's a ridiculous thing to say.

johann8384 1y ago

It was around 250k gallons of fuel. Our CAD notes on the initial dispatch said 250k, one press briefing said 280k, and then it was changed to 220k which I think is the actual number.

johann8384 1y ago

Not a UPS Factory (whatever that means). Grade A Auto Parts on Melton Ave was the initial damaged building. I don't have the name of the chemical place handy. Med Command setup at River City Metals.

Eiriksmal 1y ago
I saw Penske Truck Leasing trailers on fire at Kentucky Truck on WHAS"s helicopter footage from last night. 15 years ago, I'd be there once a week doing parts runs from the PTL branch off Newburg. The security cam footage of the plane rolling from Kentucky Truck was insane. Thanks for working the scene. That smoke looked incredibly toxic.

sandos 1y ago

"Pilots did the heroic thing - they tried to take off instead at 160 MPH to minimize collateral damage (highway and warehouses at the end of the runway) and crash and die somewhere else" No, they were most likely NOT trying to be heores, its simply the standard thing to do. An aircraft is supposed to be able to take off with one engine inop, and at this speed the expected behaviour is to continue takeoff because that is what has been deemed safest. There is always a grey area where the decision could go either way, stop or lift off and in this case it looks to me that trying to stop might have been better. But that is literally impossible to diagnose during the few seconds they had.

moralestapia 11mo ago

>obvious consequences. >They had one choice. >Physics took over. >Louisville is now a firestorm as a result. Incredible writing.

AlexeyBelov 11mo ago
"Youtube video title" level of writing.
- moralestapia 11mo ago
  Indeed!