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

261–270 of 515 posts

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

#261

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…

What makes you think that a self-driving car cannot have similarly predictive algorithms?

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

#262

Post by ExoticPearTree »

sammy2255 wrote: post #172
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Human to human open discussion is superior to computer to computer in the business of flying/navigation. Why? Human to human leaves room for error and misinterpretation.

Not really. If an instruction is unclear the pilot will ask again for a repeat. Or if the instruments show everything to look normal but the plane doesn’t feel right, the pilot will correct it, a computer will not.

Think of the 737 Max whose computers crashed two planes because of incorrect sensor data being fed to them. The pilots there tried to rescue the planes while the planes were following their logic, which was flawed.

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

#263

Post by konschubert »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #252
konschubert wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Human to human open discussion is superior to computer to computer in the business of flying/navigation. What makes you think so?

Because computers don’t have instincts. And don’t get nuances of communication or instructions.

I don’t need nuances I need to know if the runway is clear or not.

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

#264

Post by cryptonector »

traceroute66 wrote: post #242
cryptonector wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 do…

> the cabin crew have to be prepared to initiate an evacuation on their own Re-read my post, because your conclusion is saying exactly what I already said with your words "be prepared to". To repeat what I said, but in simpler terms: In an ideal world, the Flight Crew have the responsibility for ordering evacuation and the associated parameters. End of story, no argument. BUT there is a well rehearsed, well practiced…

You wrote:

> 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 thanks to radio contact etc.).

This is not remotely guaranteed. It would be more accurate to say that the pilots will have access to information that the cabin crew don't have access to and vice versa. If the cabin crew sees that the plane has stopped, there's a fire on board, and instructions are not forthcoming from the pilots, the cabin crew absolutely must initiate an evacuation sua sponte. Heck, if the cabin crew won't do it then the passengers might. People can and do freeze in the face of emergencies. When you have a fire on board all bets are off, and someone had better step up and begin the evacuation -- better that it all be orderly than not, but also better that it happen at all than not.

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

#265

Post by anigbrowl »

weinzierl wrote: post #196
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…

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.

The shades were open, or at least people quickly opened them (based on cellphone video from inside the plane).

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

#266

Post by serf »

filleduchaos wrote: post #90
throw0101d wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How many deaths do you expect keeping passengers from being distracted at these times would prevent? As of today: 379.

Passengers were using their phones during landing (including at least one that posted footage from inside the plane on social media), so...no? Incredibly, people can walk and chew gum at the same time. This includes the ability to refocus their attention when they experience unusual events.

>Incredibly, people can walk and chew gum at the same time. This includes the ability to refocus their attention when they experience unusual events.

No. They can't. That 'refocus' you mention is proof of that.

it's getting old having to say over and over again that this isn't actually the case : humans switch contexts and lose focus -- you're not as good at multi-tasking as you think, nor is anyone.

So , people can walk OR chew bubble gum , and if these choose to they can pay contextual switching costs between the two to make outside spectators believe that they can do two things at once.

Don't fall for the ruse, there is a cost even if it's a small one.

Similarly, in a disaster i'd rather be surrounded by fit young soldiers without cell-phones -- alert and aware -- than I would be surrounded by the typical multi-variant airliner crowd that must have their attention drug away from the device by the sound of crunching metal.

It's obvious to me that a group of alert and ready people will outperform 'the other group' in an escape in nearly every metric, i'd hope that the same would be obvious to the other humans trying to escape fiery wreckage alongside me.

[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7075496/ [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_multitasking

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

#267

Post by ac29 »

Shank wrote: post #213
throw0101d wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. 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 la…

All of these ATC feeds are from SDR stations close by that monitor the same frequencies. Your local airport sounds better because someone has a better SDR rig to receive it. Generally the audio is crystal clear in the cockpit and on the ground — it’s just that the SDR stations don’t have as good antennae as the real systems do.

Antenna quality is unlikely to be a significant factor in audio quality if the stations are actually somewhat close to the airport. The difference between a very good and very poor antenna is maybe 5-7 dB in the VHF airband, which shouldnt noticeably degrade quality unless you are already at the margins of signal availability. Antenna location is going to make a much, much bigger difference.

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

#268

Post by CrimsonCape »

Pilots increasingly seem to have an iPad with some kind of apps. Do you have experience with this? In terms of redundant systems, seems kinda obvious that if you look at a flight tracker on your ipad and see a plane on your runway, you don't land...

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

#269

Post by thedrbrian »

MBCook wrote: post #226
Shank wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of these ATC feeds are from SDR stations close by that monitor the same frequencies. Your local airport sounds better because someone has a better SDR rig to receive it. Generally the audio is crystal clear in the cockpit and on the ground — it’s just that the SDR stations don’t have as good antennae as the real systems do.

I’ve always wondered about that. When I hear recordings online they’re often so bad I wonder how there aren’t more issues. That explains it.

I know it’ll be a long time coming but wait for the ATC recordings to come out. They’ll be crystal clear.

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

#270

Post by serf »

JohnBooty wrote: post #177
throw0101d wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How many deaths do you expect keeping passengers from being distracted at these times would prevent? As of today: 379.

You seem really certain that passengers would be so wrapped up in their phones that they would be too distracted to promptly realize... there was a collision with another plane, causing their plane to split open and burst into flames. OK.

That 'prompt realization' takes actual time from an escape when it doesn't necessarily need to.

I have no problem with the idea that humans can re-prioritize; but I do have a problem that people seem to think that the re-prioritization effort comes for free, instantly. We don't work that way as humans.

Post reply on HN