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

231–240 of 515 posts

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

#231

Post by cryptonector »

traceroute66 wrote: post #223
weinzierl wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> it could have helped the flight attendants to quickly determine the exits that are safe. For obvious reasons, ordering the evacuation, in conjunction with criteria such as which side and which doors is the Captain's job, or if the Captain is incapacitated, the First Officer. They will have access to far more data than the cabin crew will (e.g. whether the engines are safely shut down, circumstances on the ground th…

This is not at all obvious. The pilots can't look backwards and don't have eyes in the cabin. There have been cases of engine fires and failures where the pilots had to go into the passenger cabin to examine the damage.

Communication is key, but comms might have been down, too. In cases like this the cabin crew have to be prepared to initiate an evacuation on their own, and they have to be prepared to choose which doors to use.

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

#232

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ryandrake wrote: post #229
ghaff wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Never really understood this "we can't enforce the rules because people routinely ignore the rules" attitude. This should be dead simple on an airplane, where the airline knows who each passenger is by seat. So have one flight attendant make one pass down the aisle warning everyone to put away their phones, then have another one follow a minute or so later just making note of which seats are still using their phones.…

> No-fly-list them all later

Then the airline lays off those people because nobody wants to fly.

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

#233

Post by steveBK123 »

ghaff wrote: post #195
throw0101d wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If someone is willing to leave home without it for a walk in the park / drinks at a bar / quick stop at the store, then they can evacuate a burning plane without it.

If it is truly that imminently required to keep them alive, they should already be in the habit of keeping it on their person.

And certainly while flying, and at the very very least during takeoff/landing on a plane. Further, absolute worst case.. with pre-evacuation warning time, reachable in under seat backpack to be moved to your jeans/shirt/jacket pocket. If you travel in clothes without pockets, now is a good time to reconsider doing so.

Lots of opportunities here to not try and lug baggage down an evacuation slide and risk your own / fellow passengers deaths.

If this is surprising to anyone reading, hope you plan accordingly now during your next travel.

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

#234

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#235

Post by gambiting »

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…

We literally decided to drive from UK to Poland this year(12 hour overnight ferry + another 12 hours of driving) instead of flying, because we hate Christmas flying so much, it's always a shit show, we always end up ill because everyone is coughing, at least with driving we can take it at our own pace - we want to stop, we stop.

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

#236

Post by [deleted] »

Tor3 wrote: post #198
atonse wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#237

Post by king_magic »

TangoFox wrote: post #218
epolanski wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're implying this is ATC rather than human-error related.

To anyone else jumping to conclusions: First, please do not jump to conclusions. Secondly, this incident was in Japan, not the US. Feelings about US ATC should not be a factor in this situation. Third, wasn't there a recent runway collision (wing clipped a tail) in the US where the pilot was quick to blame ATC on the radio, but it turns out that pilot entered the runway without permission? (initial conclusions are of…

Just to be clear I’m not calling out ATC specifically, as in the people who are controllers.

Rather, the entire system of air traffic control.

It seems to me if we end up in a situation where a pilot does something wrong in a sensitive area that can lead to a catastrophic outcome, we didn’t do a good job of controlling air traffic. Full stop.

The system is amazingly safe but clearly there are pockets of very poor control/decision making around runway incursions or near misses around the runway.

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

#238

Post by king_magic »

mym1990 wrote: post #193
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.

I’d consider significantly raising controller wages and improving working conditions to be a fairly radical proposal in at least the US’s current political climate.

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

#239

Post by someplaceguy »

throw0101d wrote: post #153
spywaregorilla wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a 50% chance that this doctor failed probability

Cue 50-50 scene from the movie The Naked Gun : * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLLbuyWBCzQ

Also relevant (hilarious movie btw): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrezGdru6TQ&t=20s

And an analysis of the scene: https://puzzlewocky.com/fallacies/the-50-50-fallacy/

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

#240

Post by ghaff »

steveBK123 wrote: post #233
ghaff wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If someone is willing to leave home without it for a walk in the park / drinks at a bar / quick stop at the store, then they can evacuate a burning plane without it. If it is truly that imminently required to keep them alive, they should already be in the habit of keeping it on their person. And certainly while flying, and at the very very least during takeoff/landing on a plane. Further, absolute worst case.. with p…

Yes, lots of stuff can happen in everyday life that would mean you should have critical medications on your person.

At the end of the day your passport and credit cards situation aren’t critical in such a situation however much bureaucratic hell you may go through if you’re in a foreign country with no ID or money and not of a nationality where your embassy is rushing to help.

In general my approach is travel pants with zipped pockets.

Post reply on HN