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

191–200 of 515 posts

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

#191

Post by atonse »

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…

While everything you mention are signs of good, defensive driving and seeing more than "Just following the rules," average human drivers don't do what you do. And that's what the automated systems are compared to.

So again, while I think ultimately the automated systems should also do what you're talking about, right now, if the other article is true in its claims that Waymo is safer, it seems sufficient to follow the rules to achieve a certain level of safety.

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

#192

Post by jefftk »

hef19898 wrote: post #176
jefftk wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

See, thing is, ypur oinion doesn't really matter when it comes to banning electronics during take of and landing, mine doesn't neither. Airlines and regulators decided that, for safety reasons, electronics are banned for passengers. Same as with red traffic lights and speed limits, it stops there. 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,…

> Airlines and regulators decided that, for safety reasons, electronics are banned for passengers.

Huh? Electronics are allowed on flights in most countries, including in Japan, and including on the specific flight we're talking about. We're discussing whether it would be good for regulators to ban devices and anything else distracting during takeoff and landing.

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

#193

Post by mym1990 »

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.

I feel like 'radically' reworking anything is a great first step in increasing errors while the new processes get ingrained. There needs to a measured and meticulous approach to reworking ATC if it is to happen.

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

#194

Post by FrustratedMonky »

jefftk wrote: post #130
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.

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…

Not sure that is exactly my point.

I fly a lot. I see people using electronics for scrolling through photos, playing candy crush, browsing reddit, etc...

The point is, that allowing these activities for a few more minutes during takeoff/landing, is not providing any benefit that would justify killing even 1 person, let alone hundreds.

It isn't like someone is going to use that extra 5-10 minutes of using their device to cure cancer.

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

#195

Post by ghaff »

throw0101d wrote: post #154
steveBK123 wrote: post #151

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).

I don’t routinely do so but there are a few basic things that in an ideal world you should probably have on your person in some secure way—which admittedly probably requires some specific clothing.

ADDED: There probably are certain specialized critical medicines that people should carry in a vial around their necks that they’re not getting anytime soon from an overwhelmed trauma center. But that’s probably true even absent the plane crash scenario.

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

#196

Post by weinzierl »

throw0101d wrote: post #40
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…

> 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…

Even more so: Keeping the shades open could have really made a significant difference in this case, because it could have helped the flight attendants to quickly determine the exits that are safe.

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

#197

Post by jefftk »

avidphantasm wrote: post #188
jefftk wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My next flights are B6 1191 on 2024-01-25 and B6 1192 on 2024-01-28.

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

#198

Post by Tor3 »

atonse wrote: post #191
Tor3 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

While everything you mention are signs of good, defensive driving and seeing more than "Just following the rules," average human drivers don't do what you do. And that's what the automated systems are compared to. So again, while I think ultimately the automated systems should also do what you're talking about, right now, if the other article is true in its claims that Waymo is safer, it seems sufficient to follow th…

[other drivers] But they do - where I live. It's very rare to see people not doing that, so much so that everyone really notices.

Edit: And the point is really that strictly just following rules (i.e. just drive if you're in the right and the signs say so) will cause accidents and worse. For others, not necessarily myself. On my commute and nearby.

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

#199

Post by Tor3 »

konschubert wrote: post #187
Tor3 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Waymo hasn't tried driving outside its comfort zone, so I'll argue that it's not demonstrated.

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

#200

Post by jefftk »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #194
jefftk wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not sure that is exactly my point. I fly a lot. I see people using electronics for scrolling through photos, playing candy crush, browsing reddit, etc... The point is, that allowing these activities for a few more minutes during takeoff/landing, is not providing any benefit that would justify killing even 1 person, let alone hundreds. It isn't like someone is going to use that extra 5-10 minutes of using their device…

My guess is the number of lives saved by your proposal ("forcing people to not have any distractions during take-offs and landings") would be well under one annually, certainly below "hundreds". The total number of plane deaths is already low, and the fraction where a slightly more efficient evacuation would have made a difference is even lower.

I think we may also disagree about how much it matters to subject ~4.5B people annually (the total number of passengers) to an additional ten minutes of boredom? That's something like 1,000 lifetimes each year.

Post reply on HN