Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landing gear

wbtv.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 302 posts

Re: Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landing gear

#251

Post by Dylan16807 »

ithkuil wrote: post #250
phpisthebest wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have completely miss understood the complaint. The complaint is about the FAA hold passenger items after the emergnecy is over while they "investigate" The process should be Evac -> Fire Dept clears the plane > Airline gets passengers there stuff it should not be Evac > Fire Dept > NTSB Looks at things > FAA Looks at things > Someone 3 years later Passengers get their things because the FAA as the latter policy,…

In other words: It's understandable that when confronted with an irresponsible behaviour of one particular person we tend to blame that person for being irresponsible. But the fact is that there will be a given number of irresponsible people around. It's also irresponsible to set up rules in such a way to make it more likely that some irresponsible people will do irresponsible things. Especially when there may be oth…

That's the pure safety analysis.

There's also "why are you not giving people their bags promptly, you assholes".

Also important medication can get left behind, as someone else mentioned. It's worth some risk to delay for some seconds in that case, where math can tell you the exact amounts.

Re: Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landing gear

#252

Post by sowbug »

plegresl wrote: post #113
sowbug wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not answering your question, but a bit of interesting trivia for you. Large passenger airplanes routinely take off with too much fuel to land safely. If one took off, circled the airport once, and landed, then it might actually break apart on landing because of the mass of the fuel being sloshed around as the airplane touches down. That's why planes preferably dump or burn off excess fuel before an unscheduled early…

Overweight landings are a thing and it's very, very rare for the airplane to break apart or even be damaged when performing them: https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_...

You're totally right. I was in "believe it or not!" mode, which means picking the most dramatic factoids. :)

Re: Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landing gear

#253

Post by throwawaymaths »

lxgr wrote: post #221
joshstrange wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you imagine leaving your laptop on a plane? In a situation like this I'd almost certainly grab that and try to take it with me. Airlines are already woefully incompetent in the best of times with your luggage, what's even the timeline for getting this stuff back? I don't buy the whole "we need it for the investigation", buddy if something in my carry-on stopped the front landing gear from opening you've got bigge…

I hope I’m never on the same plane as somebody with that attitude in an emergency… Things can move from “ugh this is annoying, where is the truck with the stairs” to “the landing gear caught on fire after all” very quickly. https://www.insider.com/russian-plane-crash-aeroflot-passeng...

There's a lot of daylight between an oh shit emergency and normal operations. For example, the plane lands without its front gear, nobody appears to be dead, there's likely limited risk of further injury and endangerment, and you're asked to depart the plane in a slightly nonstandard way.

Re: Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landing gear

#254

Post by vba616 »

phpisthebest wrote: post #241
vanattab wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The investigation is not the primary reason your told the leave your stuff its to avoid delays in an evacuation. Imagine that the plane was less lucky I fire had started in the front nose cone section. Then people trying to get there bags could jeopardize the safety of the passengers in the front of the plane.

You have completely miss understood the complaint. The complaint is about the FAA hold passenger items after the emergnecy is over while they "investigate" The process should be Evac -> Fire Dept clears the plane > Airline gets passengers there stuff it should not be Evac > Fire Dept > NTSB Looks at things > FAA Looks at things > Someone 3 years later Passengers get their things because the FAA as the latter policy,…

>because the FAA as the latter policy, people will be more prone to try to take their stuff

Approximately nobody in an actual emergency has any idea of the details of FAA policies or is running through their logical implications, come ON.

The reason people do stupid things is they are in shock and they revert to ingrained habits and behavior because it's really hard to do any higher level thinking at that moment.

Re: Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landing gear

#255

Post by vba616 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #251
ithkuil wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words: It's understandable that when confronted with an irresponsible behaviour of one particular person we tend to blame that person for being irresponsible. But the fact is that there will be a given number of irresponsible people around. It's also irresponsible to set up rules in such a way to make it more likely that some irresponsible people will do irresponsible things. Especially when there may be oth…

That's the pure safety analysis. There's also "why are you not giving people their bags promptly, you assholes". Also important medication can get left behind, as someone else mentioned. It's worth some risk to delay for some seconds in that case, where math can tell you the exact amounts.

It's one thing to do the math to estimate how many idiots there are.

It's another thing to claim that the idiots are doing the math.

To describe throwing a ball, you may use calculus.

But if you then reason that people who throw things must know calculus, that's going to lead to incorrect inferences and decisions.

(as you may know it's not allowed to say "correlation != causation" on HN so I'm not saying that)

Re: Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landing gear

#256

Post by nkozyra »

nunuvit wrote: post #248
nkozyra wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Adding hardware is a minus. It's a cost, which is why I'm trying to understand what the ROI would be. > Good enough is good enough. In cases like this, yes, but ... planes do crash due to mechanical failure and it's not unusual for there to be confusion from instrumentation where visual confirmation could help.

I'm sure there are at least a few camera placements that would be worthwhile. To answer your earlier question, not to split hairs, but I disagree with "always". You can inadvertently increase risk when trying to reduce it, or unwittingly prioritize things that offer less bang for your buck. That's why risk analysis is important.

I don't disagree that adding data can increase risk. I'm just not seeing the argument against exterior cameras.

Re: Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landing gear

#257

Post by Dylan16807 »

vba616 wrote: post #255
Dylan16807 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the pure safety analysis. There's also "why are you not giving people their bags promptly, you assholes". Also important medication can get left behind, as someone else mentioned. It's worth some risk to delay for some seconds in that case, where math can tell you the exact amounts.

It's one thing to do the math to estimate how many idiots there are. It's another thing to claim that the idiots are doing the math. To describe throwing a ball, you may use calculus. But if you then reason that people who throw things must know calculus, that's going to lead to incorrect inferences and decisions. (as you may know it's not allowed to say "correlation != causation" on HN so I'm not saying that)

> It's another thing to claim that the idiots are doing the math.

Did someone say that?

If someone keeps a bag because they don't trust the airline, that's an emotional decision, not a math one.

Re: Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landing gear

#258

Post by vba616 »

phpisthebest wrote: post #243
Symbiote wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been through a rough emergency landing where there was a serious concern for potential fire, and I wasn't even thinking of my government-issued laptop and phone (to use the phrasing in another comment).

>>government-issued laptop and phone (to use the phrasing in another comment). yes if you did not pay for the items, it will not cost you anything to replace the items then doubt you would think about them... it will be shocking for you to learn that some times people travel with possessions that are not paid for by other people.

There may be some destitute jet-setters who know all FAA regulations by heart and are cool as ice when staring death in the face.

I think the argument was that there aren't enough to make the contrived reasoning why the FAA is stupid for their obscure policies...fly.

Re: Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landing gear

#259

Post by tjohns »

systemvoltage wrote: post #249
ethanbond wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this instance yes, but presumably the policy is a general one for all sorts of aviation incidents. You could argue “well they should rapidly diagnose and make a decision” and, sure, but that diagnosis is exactly the question isn’t it?

Than should be at the discretion of the investigators. Why have a blanket policy?

It literally is at the discretion of the investigators. See 49 CFR 831.12(b):

"§ 831.12 Access to and release of wreckage, records, mail, and cargo

(a) Only persons authorized by the NTSB IIC may be permitted access to wreckage, records, mail, or cargo.

(b) Wreckage, records, mail, and cargo in the NTSB's custody will be released when the NTSB determines it has no further need for such items. Recipients of released wreckage must sign an acknowledgement of release provided by the NTSB."

So if the NTSB decides they don't need a piece of cargo, they have the option to release it from custody.

Re: Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landing gear

#260

Post by lxgr »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #253
lxgr wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope I’m never on the same plane as somebody with that attitude in an emergency… Things can move from “ugh this is annoying, where is the truck with the stairs” to “the landing gear caught on fire after all” very quickly. https://www.insider.com/russian-plane-crash-aeroflot-passeng...

There's a lot of daylight between an oh shit emergency and normal operations. For example, the plane lands without its front gear, nobody appears to be dead, there's likely limited risk of further injury and endangerment, and you're asked to depart the plane in a slightly nonstandard way.

> you're asked to depart the plane in a slightly nonstandard way.

It was quite possibly still an evacuation, in which time is of the essence. There is no "moderate urgency" evacuation protocol, and an important part of the evacuation protocol is "LEAVE YOUR LUGGAGE" (an instruction shouted continuously by the cabin crew until everyone's out).

Would you rather the crew deliberate for a few moments on how likely it is that the plane still catches on fire vs. the inconvenience of not being able to bring baggage? And what if they misjudge it?

You'll live without your laptop for a few days; you might not survive carrying it out of a burning aircraft.

Post reply on HN