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

71–80 of 515 posts

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

#71

Post by konschubert »

epolanski wrote: post #69
konschubert wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess the question is if you think the current system is good enough.

The next big crash will change people’s minds on this.

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

#72

Post by Dalewyn »

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.)

I once heard a wise doctor say that even if the chance of survival for a medical operation is either 10% or 90%, the practical chance the patient is battling is always 50% because he either lives or dies from that operation.

Likewise, the chance of someone being in an aviation accident is close to nil (you're more likely to be in a car accident), but you are either going to be in an aviation accident or not (a 50% chance) and you're going to be either dead or alive from it (a 50% chance).

So you might as well at least not have your epitaph be "Killed by some bozo in the aisle TikToking" if you do end up dying.

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

#73

Post by [deleted] »

throw0101d wrote: post #64
jefftk wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#74

Post by hef19898 »

konschubert wrote: post #71
epolanski wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess the question is if you think the current system is good enough. The next big crash will change people’s minds on this.

No, the question is what authorities and regulators conclude, after this incident is properly investigated, regarding improvements and risk mitigation measures have to be put in place. Aerospace regulations are written in blood, and almost-blood, not in public outcry.

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

#75

Post by Dalewyn »

mrabcx wrote: post #70

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.

Minor nitpick, but the Japan Coast Guard is not a military (and so the concerned aircraft isn't military).

It serves under the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism; unlike the JSDF which serves under the Ministry of Defense.

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

#76

Post by YPPH »

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.

It's hard to know what that is. TCAS is a great example of an obvious solution to mid-air collisions - two devices seamlessly negotiate for one plane to go up, the other to go down.

One I can think of is an electronic runway "lock". ATC mark the runway as locked to a particular aircraft. The landing aircraft checks at minimums whether if the runway is locked to any other aircraft. It's harder to know how to prevent incursions at ground level, but it could be a beacon near the runway threshold and intersecting taxiways, flashing a warning in the cockpit of the taxing aircraft if an aircraft on final holds the lock. A pilot could still disregard it. Sometimes two planes can share the same runway, such as a plane lining up while another vacates, which adds further problems.

I'm not aware of any system like this.

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

#77

Post by jefftk »

throw0101d wrote: post #64
jefftk wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where's that number coming from?

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

#79

Post by jefftk »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #65
jefftk wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

There are huge numbers of opportunities to trade off inconvenience against reduced death. For example, we could prohibit radios in cars because the music and adjustment can be distracting and lead to collisions. Or ban cars entirely since they're much more dangerous than walking and public transport. We could require everyone to wear an N95 all winter. Ban phones for the entirety of the flight, and prohibit books as well. Happy to give more examples of similarly bad tradeoffs!

If you make policy with a principle of being unwilling to trade off deaths against inconvenience in any circumstance you'll have somewhat fewer deaths and unbearable levels of inconvenience.

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

#80

Post by throw0101d »

jefftk wrote: post #77
throw0101d wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How many deaths do you expect keeping passengers from being distracted at these times would prevent? As of today: 379.

Where's that number coming from?

The number of souls on board for JL516.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_516

Post reply on HN