171–180 of 515 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The absolute worst thing is for an aircraft to refuse control input from the pilots, regardless their state of informedness. Lest we forget, we saw what happens when computers take priority over pilots thanks to 737 MAX MCAS.
Okay, so let’s add an override.
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.
Why? Human to human leaves room for error and misinterpretation.
Other sources ( https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/japan-airliner-fire-1.7072315 ) say that the coast guard aircraft was a dash-8.
5 crew is a lot for a cargo flight actually. I wonder why there were so many on board.
It's also possible that it would do a cargo run, and then do some surveillance operations (the JSDF employ the Dash-8 in the maritime surveillance role) to help with damage assessment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The inconvenience vs risk threshold here is similar to bucking a seatbelt which is hard to argue is a poor investment. Aircraft may be very safe on a per mile basis, but those risks are extremely concentrated around takeoff and landing. Which are fast events, so the risk per second is relatively high even though flying is generally much safer than driving.
I agree that the case for banning electronics during takeoff and landing is much stronger than the case for banning them for the whole flight, but I'm primarily objecting to FrustratedMonky claiming that we shouldn't ever chose policies that would lead to additional deaths, regardless of the level of inconvenience that this would impose. If you wanted to give a fermi calculation for the fraction of aircraft traveler…
Could the accident be linked to the clarity of radio instructions? I saw a discussion suggesting the DH aircraft might have been unsure about the correct runway to use, C1 or C5. My aim isn't to critique the English proficiency of non-native speakers, especially those from non-Proto-Indo-European linguistic backgrounds. As a non-native English speaker myself, I understand the challenges. However, I found it trully ha…
From my comment in part of the discussion thread[0]:
--
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.
--
The ATC quality of my local airport (CYYZ Tower) available through LiveATC is much better. I following some flying/pilot Youtubers, and their recordings of ATC are also quite good, so I'm not sure why LiveATC at HND is as statically as it is.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38839885#unv_38841161
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The inconvenience vs risk threshold here is similar to bucking a seatbelt which is hard to argue is a poor investment. Aircraft may be very safe on a per mile basis, but those risks are extremely concentrated around takeoff and landing. Which are fast events, so the risk per second is relatively high even though flying is generally much safer than driving.
I agree that the case for banning electronics during takeoff and landing is much stronger than the case for banning them for the whole flight, but I'm primarily objecting to FrustratedMonky claiming that we shouldn't ever chose policies that would lead to additional deaths, regardless of the level of inconvenience that this would impose. If you wanted to give a fermi calculation for the fraction of aircraft traveler…
For what it 's worth so, I don't consider people having 20 minutes less screen time to be considered a prize to be paid, let alone one big enough to change reugulations over.
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.
OK.
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…
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.
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.)
This makes sense, because air travel is the only way to make voyages over this distance. But it also doesn't make sense for the same reason -- it's stupid to compare a 6000 mile holiday flight with a 6000 mile holiday road trip, because people don't routinely make those. You're still more likely to get injured on an eight hour car ride than on an eight hour flight, but the difference isn't a factor 600.
In much the same way, air travel is also arguably moderately efficient in terms of CO2 per mile, except that it's also a super easy way -- in fact, practically the only way -- to accrue tens of thousands of miles every year, so the efficiency is kind of irrelevant.
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.)
The number of fatalities and injuries seems minuscule because it's normalised over distance traveled. This makes sense, because air travel is the only way to make voyages over this distance. But it also doesn't make sense for the same reason -- it's stupid to compare a 6000 mile holiday flight with a 6000 mile holiday road trip, because people don't routinely make those. You're still more likely to get injured on an…
It's not particularly relevant to an international flight into Japan, but the extent to which increasing annoyance/instilling fear of airline passengers causing people to drive instead must be weighed against the small safety benefit resulting from a policy of telling passengers "we think this phase of flight contains the most highly concentrated risk, so for the next 15 minutes, please put away all of your distractions, prepare for a possible crash, and try not to think about the fact that we could turn this aircraft into a tumbling, burning ball of wreckage at any moment."
Something similar was the primary justification to support the continuation of "infant in arms" travel by passengers under the age of 2, with an expected 60:1 ratio of lives that would be lost if infants were required to occupy ticketed seats vs being carried in arms.
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/child_safety-Clau...