151–160 of 515 posts
Contrast that with some of the Spirit/Southwest/Qantas evacuation videos we have seen.
DO NOT EVACUATE WITH LUGGAGE.
[flagged]
Nope, that narrative was largely a myth. The people at the back by and large died instantly in the crash, without even time to undo their seatbelts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_1492#Evacuatio...
Therefore, people should not do this.
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
Yet another Japanese plane evacuation without people lugging backpacks & wheelies. Commendable work by the cabin crew and passengers. Contrast that with some of the Spirit/Southwest/Qantas evacuation videos we have seen. DO NOT EVACUATE WITH LUGGAGE.
Simple rule IMHO: keep your ID/password and a credit card on your person during take-off / landing. (Probably your phone, in a pocket, as well.)
Practically speaking as long as you can ID yourself and buy things (pay-off later), there's no property that's worth your life (or the life of other passengers).
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.
Yes, in this case, you do need to update everything at once. At least for a given aiport. All it takes is one plane, helicopter, fire truck, or baggage transport vehicle to screw with the assumptions of the system and jeopardize safety.
No, computers aren't necessarily faster, assuming we want to achieve autonomy on the ground. Note that the average human reaction time to visual stimulus is about 250ms. Achieving this on a plane would require a great deal of cameras and sensors that would not only need to stay clean, but capable of withstanding pressure changes, high velocity winds, the occasional unfortunate airborne debris, etc. Then there is the processing power to both process each input in real-time (per plane) and train it on real-world data to recognize a variety of scenarios to act upon (per model and perhaps configuration; AA alone has about 11 active aircraft types across 953 planes). Contrast this with Tesla's investment for approximately 6 models. [1]
Achievable? Sure. Cost-effective and sustainable with current tech? Doubtful.
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/21/tesla_dojo_spending/#....
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…
Yet another Japanese plane evacuation without people lugging backpacks & wheelies. Commendable work by the cabin crew and passengers. Contrast that with some of the Spirit/Southwest/Qantas evacuation videos we have seen. DO NOT EVACUATE WITH LUGGAGE.
> DO NOT EVACUATE WITH LUGGAGE. Simple rule IMHO: keep your ID/password and a credit card on your person during take-off / landing. (Probably your phone, in a pocket, as well.) Practically speaking as long as you can ID yourself and buy things (pay-off later), there's no property that's worth your life (or the life of other passengers).
If anything else is so imminently needed to maintain the life of you or your loved ones while traveling, keep it in your/their pockets.
Past this everyone has some excuse of medical, dietary, sentimental, economic, etc reason to grab stuff out of their luggage. This contributes to loss of life.
You have 60-90 seconds to evacuate a burning aircraft. This is 10-20x faster than a normal with-luggage deplaning. If you are fumbling around with luggage, you are a hazard to yourself and others.
If you are evacuating a plane you are seconds to minutes away from a fleet of ambulances ready to whisk you away to a nearby trauma center. No existing medical condition is going to get you before the fire will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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-evacuatio…
1. Passengers on JL516 were not permitted to use their phones during landing.
2. I'm proposing that we start allowing them to use their phones.
3. If we did that then all 379 passengers would have died [1] because evacuation would have taken longer than the time before the plane was engulfed in flames [2]
Except #1 isn't the case: passengers were allowed to be on their phones and were doing so. And so #2 isn't the case either: I'm proposing maintaining the status quo.
And even if we had granted #1 and #2 I don't see how you get #3 because even if the extra time were entirely eaten up by 30 distracted passengers this wouldn't get you 100% dead: people don't leave in a single batch determined by the speed of the slowest person. There are multiple parallel exits, and each exit operates serially.