zlacker

[return to "UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport"]
1. octaan+en[view] [source] 2025-11-05 02:47:36
>>jnsaff+(OP)
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/faytuksnetwork/status/1985849267152699741?s=46

https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985848132500885995?s=46

https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985843126934614297?s=46

◧◩
2. chzblc+Bp[view] [source] 2025-11-05 03:13:17
>>octaan+en
Sorry for ignorance but why is the right thing to continue to take off with an engine on fire?
◧◩◪
3. apprec+ox[view] [source] 2025-11-05 04:22:22
>>chzblc+Bp
It depends on whether or not, at the point in which you realize you have an engine on fire, you have room on the runway left to stop.

As I understand it, there is a low speed regime, under 80 knots, where are you stop for basically anything.

Then there is a high speed regime, where you only stop for serious issues, because you now have so much kinetic energy that stopping the plane, while still possible, will involve risk. (i.e. fire from overheated brakes.)

At a certain point, called V1, there’s no longer enough room to stop, no matter what your problem is. You’re either getting airborne or you’re crashing into whatever is ant the end of the runway. In general, getting airborne is the safer option, while obviously still not risk free.

However, this calculation also assumes that the engine fails in an isolated fashion, and its failure did not affect the other engines. If the failure of the left engine threw off debris that damaged the middle engine then we are now talking about a double engine failure. I’m sure the pilots knew there was a problem with the engine when they made the decision to continue, but it’s possible that problems with the middle engine weren’t apparent yet and that it only started to fail once they were committed.

Obviously, this is just speculation, and we will have to wait for the preliminary report at least.

RIP

◧◩◪◨
4. bathtu+0K[view] [source] 2025-11-05 06:12:44
>>apprec+ox
Being untrained but spending a little bit of time in a full motion 737 simulator that’s used to train and certify commercial pilots, I was amazed at how quickly things happen even in a scenario with no faults.

This situation (single engine failure at V1) is something that commercial pilots are certified in at every recurrent certification since it’s one of the most difficult you can be in. The crew now need to climb and go around for a landing on one engine while simultaneously running through the engine failure (and also likely fire) checklist. I don’t know if a double engine failure at V1 on a fully loaded 3 engine aircraft is technically survivable or if it’s something that’s trained on. They were put in an incredibly difficult situation just based on what reports we’ve already seen.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. loeg+C82[view] [source] 2025-11-05 17:05:23
>>bathtu+0K
> I don’t know if a double engine failure at V1 on a fully loaded 3 engine aircraft is technically survivable

Not on the MD-11, anyway.

[go to top]