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

141–150 of 515 posts

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

#141

Post by Dalewyn »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #126
Dalewyn wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's a 50% chance that this doctor failed probability

I recall the original context was that telling a patient to not worry because the chance of success is high isn't actually helpful, because the objective argument doesn't take into account the patient's personal perspective.

I've since extrapolated that to meaning that objective measures cannot always tell or respect the whole story, because personal perspectives can bowdlerize everything down to life or death or a 50% chance.

To put it another way: Telling someone they have a negligible chance of being in an aviation accident is worthless comfort if they end up in one.

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

#142

Post by konschubert »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #124
konschubert wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Human to human open discussion is superior to computer to computer in the business of flying/navigation. It might make sense at some point in the future where an autopilot system knows how to taxi, take off, troubleshoot issues by itself during the critical phases of flight and so on. And like others said, aviation is one of the safest industries on the planet.

> Human to human open discussion is superior to computer to computer in the business of flying/navigation.

What makes you think so?

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

#143

Post by tjungblut »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #126
Dalewyn wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's a 50% chance that this doctor failed probability

I had a dentist explain to me that my lip could go numb with a 50% chance after my wisdom teeth removal with that exact explanation just two minutes before the surgery. I was infuriated, turns out I was on the lucky side of her coin.

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

#144

Post by jefftk »

ant6n wrote: post #127
jefftk wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 I think this is rarely a productive way to think about it. For example, the chance that I might die in the next year is somewhere between 0% and 100%, and actuarial tables put it somewhere around 0.3%. [1] Should I refrain from ha…

Well, using this logic, every day you have a 50% chance of dying, since you either die or you don't. Or perhaps every second you have a 50% chance of dying. ...obviously this "math" doesn't quite work out.

I mean, it clearly doesn't work if taken to be literal probabilities. But I think it also doesn't work as a more metaphorical guide to life?

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

#145

Post by onetimeuse92304 »

brunohaid wrote: post #4

Definitely better links than Daily Mirror out there, avherald.com unfortunately overwhelmed, but in terms of discussion: - Crazy how well the carbon fiber A350 held up given that it seems to have landed pretty much directly on a Dash 8 (RIP Coast Guard team). Looks like trading long term flammability for initial rigidity lived up to the design intent. - Excellent evacuation job, especially as it looks like on some vi…

I think it helped a lot that the plane was moving and thanks to this left the initial fireball behind it. It was also landing which means it had much less fuel to begin with.

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

#146

Post by gureddio »

brunohaid wrote: post #4

Definitely better links than Daily Mirror out there, avherald.com unfortunately overwhelmed, but in terms of discussion: - Crazy how well the carbon fiber A350 held up given that it seems to have landed pretty much directly on a Dash 8 (RIP Coast Guard team). Looks like trading long term flammability for initial rigidity lived up to the design intent. - Excellent evacuation job, especially as it looks like on some vi…

VAS Aviation has put the audio up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fItu5qM7QfE

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

#147

Post by konschubert »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #125
konschubert wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t say that anyone should enter anything manually into a computer, nor did I claim that a human reading a computer screen is how an automated runway system would ensure safety. As an aside, humans are not doing a good job at driving cars and should leave that to the computers.

Is there a car autopilot system that good on the market that only you know about? And that can replace the driver completely?

Waymo is safer than a human driver already.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/googles-waymo-safe...

Of course there will be locations where humans are required, but we can already start using computers in those locations where they perform better.

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

#148

Post by steveBK123 »

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.

If the medical condition is so dire that medicine must be kept on hand then it should be in your pockets, not tucked away in luggage.

What is the probability of being stung by a bee or eating a bag of nuts between your seat, the slide, and the ambulances rushing to the scene to rescue people?

Otherwise by this logic, just about everyone has a reason to self-justify needing to get into their luggage in an emergency evacuation event.

Target to evacuate planes in an emergency is 90 seconds. Contrast with regular deplaning with luggage which takes upwards of 15 minutes. So the plane must evacuate at 10x speed in order to save lives.

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

#149

Post by throw0101d »

jefftk wrote: post #81
throw0101d wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number of souls on board for JL516. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_516

But all JL516 passengers survived? How would keeping these passengers from using their phones during landing have reduced their deaths?

AF358 was engulfed in flames with-in three minutes (180s):

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5jSyaj_JwE

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358

The FAA mandates that aircraft are able to be evacuated with-in 90s:

* https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/...

Even for something as big as an A380 in its 800+ passenger configuration:

* https://www.flightglobal.com/airbus-a380-evacuation-trial-fu...

* https://simpleflying.com/aircraft-90-second-evacuation/

The difference between 180s and 90s is 90s: if (e.g.) ~30 people out of ~350 passengers (Seconds matter.

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

#150

Post by throwaway290 »

okasaki wrote: post #42
borissk wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmmm, there were plenty of videos of people with hand luggage outside the plane - surely taking this luggage was against the rules and has slowed down the evacuation. I won't be surprised if TASS is just trying to cover the story. I think it was a different Russian crash were the pilots were given state medals for saving the passengers. A later investigation found these same pilots were responsible for the crash. Th…

I don't see how that makes sense. Why would they say the people died instantly in a Russian aircraft if the truth was that they died because others wanted to retrieve luggage? Not everything the Russian government does is a conspiracy.

As a Russian I can easily envision the pathologically lying government doing this.

The Wikipedia article linked above shows that there are no verified sources except government and that government also says there's no war in Ukraine. The credibility of the source is very low in my eyes.

And generally remember the general effort to discredit West. If you want West to look more immoral than you, it's hard to do without looking more moral than West and this incident, if true, would be an example of people being VERY immoral.

As you slowly collect your bags you have no way to know that people behind you are 100% dead and beyond help. Any attempt of the government to say it's fine is just pathetic.

Post reply on HN