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

131–140 of 515 posts

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

#131

Post by blitzar »

wkat4242 wrote: post #120
blitzar wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Not the OP but I wouldn't call lifesaving medical equipment like an EpiPen a convenience. Though it would be better to just stick it in a pocket. I always carry a flashlight on my keychain as well.

There is an ambulance at the bottom of the slide, 90 seconds is the target time for evacuating the entire plane in an emergency.

Having an EpiPen in the 90 seconds between your seat and the ambulance while fire is engulfing the tin can with ~400 people trying to get out 2 doors is 100% a luxury. (for the vast majority of humanity, having an EpiPen at all is a luxury)

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

#132

Post by epolanski »

rorroe53 wrote: post #10
The_suffocated wrote: post #8

Does this mean when the Airbus landed, there was a Coast Guard plane on the runway? Seems like the ground control had made a serious mistake.

Could be a pilot mistake as well. Aircraft entering runway without clearence has happened before.

Not just aircraft, ground vehicles have caused deaths by entering runways too.

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

#133

Post by jefftk »

ceejayoz wrote: post #118
filleduchaos wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Passengers were using their phones during landing (including at least one that posted footage from inside the plane on social media), so...no? Incredibly, people can walk and chew gum at the same time. This includes the ability to refocus their attention when they experience unusual events.

You're allowed to use phones during landing; they don't present much of a challenge for evacuation. You're not allowed to use laptops or have the tray down.

This thread was started with throw0101d saying "I think forcing people to not have any distractions during take-offs and landings is a good thing", and we've been discussing how to weigh the inconvenience and boredom of prohibiting distractions against the reduced risk of death via more efficient evacuations.

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

#134

Post by mgdlbp »

Dalewyn wrote: post #72
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.)

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% ch…

(I don't think that's what most mean when they say 'chance', but I get what you mean ;) It's similar to realizing how seating choice radically alters your (very small) chance of death by train crash.

I was going to say 'chance of death on that day' but apparently rail transport is remarkably safe and in micromorts, you're as likely to die in one day at 20 years of age as in 10000 km by rail, or (only!) 1600 km by air.

Now, it appears that 1600 km is also nearly the distance of the average passenger flight (a disappointly difficult datum to discover on the internet in 2024). Is this a counterpart to the reassuring quips comparing the chances of death by lightning: that boarding a plane doubles your chances of dying that day?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort#Travel

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

#136

Post by werdnapk »

nytesky wrote: post #103
steveBK123 wrote: post #59

This is why you follow cabin crew instructions and DO NOT CARRY YOUR LUGGAGE out of the aircraft in an emergency. Your luggage is not worth more than a fellow passengers life. Contrast this with evacuation footage of western passenger planes..

Members of my family require medication (epipen, some various pills), and I keep that along with a flashlight (in case I need to administer in pitch black) in a small haversack. I would probably try to take that with me, as I would hate to survive the crash but then have a fatal medical event in the aftermath and not have the tools. I do feel conflicted since the no luggage mantra has been drilled in for decades.

Those drugs are still available outside of your luggage. Your need for that stuff is convenience. Everybody else on the flight would prefer to have their luggage too.

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

#137

Post by hindsightbias »

konschubert wrote: post #61
YPPH wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The average age of general aviation aircraft is well over 30 years old.

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

#138

Post by epolanski »

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.

You're implying this is ATC rather than human-error related.

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

#139

Post by gureddio »

konschubert wrote: post #25
epolanski wrote: post #7

I'll speculate: this looks like textbook runway invasion where miscommunication leads to two different aircrafts being allowed on a runway at the same time. Reminds me of LATAM 2213, which led to the very first Airbus 320 neo being written off [1]. Essentially, clearance to enter a runway has to be expressively given and confirmed in non-ubiquitous language ("Flight ABC requesting clearance to enter runway 01"). Yet…

it is crazy to me that all of this still relies on humans giving verbal clearance over radio. Shouldn’t there be a universal standard to communicate clearances to the computer systems of the airplanes and other runway vehicles? And shouldn’t there be a small, well-tested core system that makes sure clearance never conflicts? How on earth does all this still depend on skilled individuals not making a mistake? We got o…

I'm just a hobbyist, but my understanding is that there are supporting systems in-place, such as RIMCAS (Runway Incursion Monitoring and Conflict Alert System) https://test1.skybrary.aero/articles/runway-incursion-monito...

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

#140

Post by reactordev »

RHSeeger wrote: post #109
reactordev wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should have been 384. If 10,000 people die but 1,000,000 are "saved", do we not mourn the 10,000 people? Have a heart my man. What if you were one of those 10,000?

If a "normal" outcome for such an event would have been much closer to 1,000,000 being killed, then yes it would be wonderful if 990,000 were saved. Sure, we mourn the dead, but we can still be happy for the saved.

wonderful for sure, but not a miracle. A miracle would be "all 1,000,000 people survived". Media likes to throw words with weight behind things without. It's not a miracle, it's extremely fortunate. However, any loss of life due to preventable disaster is/should be - unacceptable. The coast guard aircraft crewmen that were struck shouldn't have been near the runway at all. They should have waived off to go-around or been better at ground operations to make sure the runways were clear.
Post reply on HN