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

201–210 of 515 posts

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

#201

Post by mrguyorama »

jefftk wrote: post #133
ceejayoz wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're allowed to use phones during landing; they don't present much of a challenge for evacuation. You're not allowed to use laptops or have the tray down.

This thread was started with throw0101d saying "I think forcing people to not have any distractions during take-offs and landings is a good thing", and we've been discussing how to weigh the inconvenience and boredom of prohibiting distractions against the reduced risk of death via more efficient evacuations.

The idea of putting down your phone for an hour in total being "too inconvenient" as people seemingly willingly sign over their dignity for a $10 cheaper flight ticket is.... uninspiring.

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

#202

Post by hef19898 »

jefftk wrote: post #192
hef19898 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Me too, I thought that was clear from context...

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

#203

Post by AnimalMuppet »

sokoloff wrote: post #180
morsch wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I know people who are already at the "if driving takes less than 8 hours, I'd rather drive than fly" level. Every additional inconvenience (or psychological impediment) added to the safest mode of long-distance travel has a risk of decreasing overall safety. It's not particularly relevant to an international flight into Japan, but the extent to which increasing annoyance/instilling fear of airline passengers causing…

I once traveled for business from Salt Lake City to Fort Collins, Colorado.

1/2 hour to the airport + get to the airport 2 hours before flight + 1 hour direct flight to Denver + 1/2 hour to deplane + 1/2 hour to get bags + 1/2 hour to get rental car + 1 hour drive to Fort Collins. Total 6 hours. Seems like it actually totalled 7 but I don't remember where the extra time was.

Versus 7 hours drive time from Salt Lake to Fort Collins.

And if two people are going, you only drive one car, but you buy two plane tickets.

And my car has more legroom than a coach seat.

So, yes, flying is safer per mile, but the "under 8 hours" crowd also have a point...

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

#206

Post by throw0101d »

chrischen wrote: post #181
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Generally not wrong, but when it becomes non-mundane, it can become so in a hurry.

This is why I'm sometimes skeptical about statistics that say "x% of airplane crashes are human error". Well maybe, but by the time the humans get involved the automated systems have often thrown up their proverbial hands and digitally exclaimed "Jesus take the wheel".

I think having computers take over the mundane parts may help collision rates as people can get numbed and bored by the monotony.

One has to be careful about having the right level of automation and control for the given situation, as per the famous "Children of the Magenta Line" presentation:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ESJH1NLMLs

> “Children of the magenta line” has become shorthand for pilots who manage and monitor systems but lack the stick-and-rudder skills to fly the airplane with authority. You may hear it wielded as an epithet in a discussion of “real pilots” versus “kids these days.” But in many cockpits today, automation illiteracy may be as dangerous as automation dependency. Vanderburgh’s insights shouldn’t drive us to reject automation altogether, but rather put it in its proper place in our pilot toolkits. Just as you should hand-fly regularly to keep your stick-and-rudder skills sharp, you should also practice using the technology available in the aircraft you fly.

* https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2023/march/flig...

* https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/children-of-the-magen...

* https://skybrary.aero/articles/cockpit-automation-advantages...

* https://www.computer.org/csdl/magazine/sp/2015/05/msp2015050...

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

#207

Post by jefftk »

mrguyorama wrote: post #201
jefftk wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This thread was started with throw0101d saying "I think forcing people to not have any distractions during take-offs and landings is a good thing", and we've been discussing how to weigh the inconvenience and boredom of prohibiting distractions against the reduced risk of death via more efficient evacuations.

The idea of putting down your phone for an hour in total being "too inconvenient" as people seemingly willingly sign over their dignity for a $10 cheaper flight ticket is.... uninspiring.

It sounds like people vary a lot in their preferences?

For example, I wouldn't take a $10 cheaper flight which prohibited using my phone, but I probably would take one that gave me a 1" narrower seat.

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

#208

Post by FrustratedMonky »

jefftk wrote: post #200
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not against that type of argument.

But do think that when a 1000 lifetimes are sliced into 5 minute chunks, those 5 minutes become less useful. It is false to equate this to loosing a 1000 lifetimes of productive effort. Like if this time is added up, it equates to killing a 1000 people.

Think because airline safety is so good, that it is easy to come up with these types of large number arguments.

Fallacy of Large Numbers

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/R8DBQD72tajt4mDhv/the-fallac....

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

#209

Post by local_crmdgeon »

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.

We don't need to radically rework ATC, we need to fully staff ATC.

FAA has this as a top priority and is publishing stats on class graduations and retention etc.

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

#210

Post by hef19898 »

jefftk wrote: post #200
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Society came to a point were nobody can be bothered with the smallest inconvenience anymore for something greater then oneself.

Pretty sad actually.

Post reply on HN