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

JAL A359 at Tokyo collided with Coast Guard DH8C on runway and burst into flames

avherald.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 515 posts

Re: JAL A359 at Tokyo collided with Coast Guard DH8C on runway and burst into flames

#61

Post by konschubert »

YPPH wrote: post #51
konschubert wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“We’ve always done it like this” will no longer be a good argument when one of the increasing number of near misses turns into an accident.

Assuming (1) the replacement is a better solution, and (2) it is feasible to retrofit every aircraft in the world and switch everyone over to it. Just in relation to (2), I can't really think of anything worse than having two communication systems on operation at the one airport - everyone must be using the same system.

You can make it an incremental upgrade that adds an additional safety layer, at least until all vehicles are updated in 30 years.

Re: JAL A359 at Tokyo collided with Coast Guard DH8C on runway and burst into flames

#62

Post by Dalewyn »

king_magic wrote: post #35

This never should have happened, and mark my words we’re going to see the same type of accident in the US if we don’t radically rework ATC.

It's still unknown if the cause was ATC mishandling the situation, we'll have to see how what the investigation finds.

Re: JAL A359 at Tokyo collided with Coast Guard DH8C on runway and burst into flames

#63

Post by throw0101d »

For the ATC, see:

* https://archive.liveatc.net/rjtt/RJTT-Twr-TCA-Jan-02-2024-08...

* Via: https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/35868205-post57.html

13:13 JL516 continue approach. 14:53 landing clearance. 15:01 readback. 15:13 Japan Coast Guard JA772A taxi instructions. 17:35 fire reported on 34R.

* https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/35868237-post67.html

The recording quality isn't very good, perhaps because of the location of the receiver.

Re: JAL A359 at Tokyo collided with Coast Guard DH8C on runway and burst into flames

#64

Post by throw0101d »

jefftk wrote: post #48
throw0101d wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Excellent evacuation job While there many silly reasons to force people to shutdown electronics and such on planes, I think forcing people to not have any distractions during take-offs and landings is a good thing. Over 50% of incidents (fatal and hull loss/non-fatal) occurring during landing: * https://accidentstats.airbus.com/statistics/accident-by-flig... * https://www.1001crash.com/transport-page-statistique-lg…

Over 50%, sure, but 50% of a very small number. How many deaths do you expect keeping passengers from being distracted at these times would prevent? (I expect if you compare that to the number of people inconvenienced by the rule it's a terrible trade off.)

> How many deaths do you expect keeping passengers from being distracted at these times would prevent?

As of today: 379.

Re: JAL A359 at Tokyo collided with Coast Guard DH8C on runway and burst into flames

#65

Post by FrustratedMonky »

jefftk wrote: post #48
throw0101d wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Excellent evacuation job While there many silly reasons to force people to shutdown electronics and such on planes, I think forcing people to not have any distractions during take-offs and landings is a good thing. Over 50% of incidents (fatal and hull loss/non-fatal) occurring during landing: * https://accidentstats.airbus.com/statistics/accident-by-flig... * https://www.1001crash.com/transport-page-statistique-lg…

Over 50%, sure, but 50% of a very small number. How many deaths do you expect keeping passengers from being distracted at these times would prevent? (I expect if you compare that to the number of people inconvenienced by the rule it's a terrible trade off.)

[flagged]

Re: JAL A359 at Tokyo collided with Coast Guard DH8C on runway and burst into flames

#66

Post by konschubert »

Aeolun wrote: post #50
resolutebat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airplane taxiing is manual. ATC can tell the plane to use runway A, and the plane can check that A is free, but neither will stop the pilot from accidentally steering into runway B.

There’s nothing preventing airplanes from knowing the coordinates of every runway in the world and working out the truth using GPS though.

Modern passenger airplanes absolutely do have runway maps.

Re: JAL A359 at Tokyo collided with Coast Guard DH8C on runway and burst into flames

#69

Post by epolanski »

konschubert wrote: post #55
epolanski wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ATC computer should talk to the plane computer. Not as simple: 1) You need to implement it for very small airplanes too, which is far from easy. In the Linate air disaster a small Cessna Citation invaded the runtime due to fog and misscomunication. 2) You need to implement it for ground vehicles too, as in the LATAM example it was a fire truck that invaded the runtime. 3) You need A LOT of infrastructural updat…

You can have this as an additional safety layer. You don’t need to update everything at once. If anything is able to react within seconds, it’s a computer.

I think you might be way underestimating number 5.

While on the first hand your point sounds very reasonable, in practice it may have more adverse effects than we may think and make the whole system more unsafe.

Re: JAL A359 at Tokyo collided with Coast Guard DH8C on runway and burst into flames

#70

Post by mrabcx »

According to Flightradar24, https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1742136715253313938, the Japanese coast guard aircraft was not equipped with a ADS-B transponder. Probably because it's not a requirement for military aircraft. That can explain why the ATC and/or JAL was not aware of the exact location of the plane.
Post reply on HN