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

181–190 of 515 posts

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

#181

Post by chrischen »

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?

Mercedes just released a level 3 car.

Openpilot, while primarily lane keeping, does it way better than any human can.

Driving doesn’t require an advanced degree in physics. It’s mostly a mish mash of fairly mundane tasks.

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

#182

Post by avidphantasm »

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.)

[flagged]

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

#183

Post by spanktheuser »

jefftk wrote: post #128
spanktheuser wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, however, the impact is knowable: https://etsc.eu/increasing-the-survival-rate-in-aircraft-acc... Furthermore, distracted or unprepared passengers impact the evacuation of others trapped behind them. I’ve participated in evacuation training for flight attendants and have personally witnessed how a bungled jump down evacuation slide led to a 5-10 second delay. This was equated with ~20 fatalities due to s…

My objection isn't that the impact of banning electronics during takeoff and landing is unknowable; that's not the main issue with banning car radios, cars, or bare faces either. Instead it's that the impact is too small to be worth the cost.

I think its fair to say I misread the thrust of your argument. I still come down on the other side; I am comfortable enforcing a widespread deprivation of a convenience in order to further reduce the risk of a rare but catastrophic outcome.

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

#184

Post by ghaff »

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.)

And for anyone who remembers the electronics during takeoff and landing ban once cell phones became common it was a massive hassle for flight attendants as many passengers routinely ignored instructions.

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

#185

Post by Retric »

filleduchaos wrote: post #161
Retric wrote: post #117

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.

> The inconvenience vs risk threshold here is similar to bucking a seatbelt which is hard to argue is a poor investment. It really, really is not. Seatbelts actively prevent injuries from sudden violent phenomena. "Paying attention" does absolutely nothing to reduce the forces you are subject to in the event of, say, a collision with a Dash 8 that was on your runway at landing. It helps post-incident at best. And I h…

Fast isn’t instant. At 30,000 feet there’s plenty of time, at ground level things can go very badly extremely quickly and rapid task switching increases panic.

There’s several ways paying attention directly increases safety. First many evacuations aren’t fast enough for everyone to escape so even fractions of a second directly correlate to lives. Taking the crash position promptly reduces the risk of injury most importantly disabling injuries which may slow people exiting the aircraft. Safety briefings give relevant information in the event of an emergency which means people act more appropriately.

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

#186

Post by jefftk »

avidphantasm wrote: post #182
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]

If you want to make the case for adding additional safety procedures (no distractions during take-offs and landings) then you have to actually make the case. It's not enough to just assert that they seem minor if the benefit would also be minor. How much do you think this policy would reduce deaths?

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

#187

Post by konschubert »

Tor3 wrote: post #164
konschubert wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where I drive daily I constantly have to make decisions which no self-driving car system I know about can possibly do. They don't foresee upcoming gridlocks caused by you driving completely legally but blocking (again, legally) a car from crossing to a side road, that car again blocks the car behind it, which blocks the car in front of you from doing a left turn, which means that you can't move and unlock the gridloc…

You say all this, yet waymo is demonstrably safer than the average driver.

Uphill in snow maybe you’ll have to take the wheel, I’ll give you that.

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

#188

Post by avidphantasm »

jefftk wrote: post #186
avidphantasm wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If you want to make the case for adding additional safety procedures (no distractions during take-offs and landings) then you have to actually make the case . It's not enough to just assert that they seem minor if the benefit would also be minor. How much do you think this policy would reduce deaths?

Taking simple steps to be more aware of your surroundings when something dangerous is happening seems self-evident to me. Please let me know what flights are you taking and when so that I can make sure I'm not on the same plane.

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

#189

Post by beej71 »

jagrsw wrote: post #169

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…

I was feeling bad because I couldn't understand through the accent, which I consider my failure, not theirs.

But I know one can improve understanding with practice, so maybe pilots are just better at it.

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

#190

Post by konschubert »

epolanski wrote: post #91
bronco21016 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t speak to international ops because I’m just not sure. In the US though, we have runway status lights. At all the runway intersections there are lights embedded in the runway that will tell you if the runway is safe or not. A radar based system is constantly monitoring the runway and will light it up red if there is a potential for collision. The system works independent of any input from ATC. I think it’s act…

And yet in US it's also standard practice to have airplanes takeoff on the same runway at the same time if the preceding airplane is small enough to not create vortices. Note how no one did anything wrong really in this case: https://simpleflying.com/march-2020-air-canada-incident/

You can build a system that accounts for this.
Post reply on HN