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

271–280 of 515 posts

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

#271

Post by playingalong »

gureddio wrote: post #146
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…

VAS Aviation has put the audio up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fItu5qM7QfE

That's for what happened after the collision, not what led to it.

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

#272

Post by anigbrowl »

throw0101d wrote: post #149
jefftk wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But all JL516 passengers survived? How would keeping these passengers from using their phones during landing have reduced their deaths?

AF358 was engulfed in flames with-in three minutes (180s): * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5jSyaj_JwE * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358 The FAA mandates that aircraft are able to be evacuated with-in 90s: * https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/... Even for something as big as an A380 in its 800+ passenger configuration: * https://www.flightglobal.com/airbus-a380-evacuatio…

People keep pointing out to you that passengers were in fact using their phones to record footage of the interior of the plane (eg to let their friends/relatives know what was going on in case they didn't make it). Of course people are easily distracted by phones when they should be paying attention to other things, but virtually all people already in an emergency situation are fully present unless they're injured or caring for an injured person. I think you're underestimating people's ability to multitask when they know it matters.

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

#274

Post by weinzierl »

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…

Makes sense, but why do we have to open the shades during take-off and landing? It's a honest question, I always heard in case of emergency for the personnel being able to see all sides, but if that's not it, what is it?

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

#275

Post by steveBK123 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #260
steveBK123 wrote: post #59

This is why you follow cabin crew instructions and DO NOT CARRY YOUR LUGGAGE out of the aircraft in an emergency. Your luggage is not worth more than a fellow passengers life. Contrast this with evacuation footage of western passenger planes..

I like to think that in a real emergency (crash landing, fire visible outside, smoke entering the cabin) survival instinct will kick in and people will just GTFO without worrying about luggage. The videos I've seen of people evacuating with luggage seem a little less serious. That said, an evacuation is always serious. People often do get hurt coming down those slides so the crew only order an evacuation if they thin…

I'd like to think so but there have been plenty of US incidents of people evacuating for an engine on fire with baggage in tow.

If you are evacuating out the door on a slide, something is quite serious. The trained professionals telling you to leave your baggage behind have more information than passengers in that regard. That is why they decided to deploy the slides.

Just because one can't see a fire doesn't mean there isn't an engine fire on the other side, or a fuel leak or.. etc. Planes are pretty big, you can't see/smell everything from your seat/window.

I mean here's some right here of smoking planes with evacuees hauling even wheelies..

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10055329/Spirit-Air...

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/red-pla...

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

#276

Post by ghshephard »

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.…

Even when there was a rule that cell-phones were supposed to be turned off, studies showed that 20-25% of cell phones were still active (Possibly forgotten in pockets) - wasting time, energy, traveler patience, on something that was entirely theater (I don't believe there was ever a single incident associated with an active cell phone - which makes sense given the 10s of thousands per day that were powered on during takeoff) - seems like the worst possible tradeoff ever. The "No cell phone use during takeoff" or "No mobile phone use during flight" (China Air used to do that - very, very annoying) - bureaucracy flex just because the could.

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

#277

Post by edgyquant »

pb7 wrote: post #221
Tor3 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Humans should also abstain from driving outside of their comfort zones.

Regardless, they don’t and do mostly fine

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

#278

Post by anigbrowl »

phkahler wrote: post #106
nytesky wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Members of my family require medication (epipen, some various pills), and I keep that along with a flashlight (in case I need to administer in pitch black) in a small haversack. I would probably try to take that with me, as I would hate to survive the crash but then have a fatal medical event in the aftermath and not have the tools. I do feel conflicted since the no luggage mantra has been drilled in for decades.

>> I would probably try to take that with me, as I would hate to survive the crash but then have a fatal medical event in the aftermath and not have the tools. But you might just die in the fire yourself, prioritizing a hypothetical emergency over a real one. There would also be plenty of medical personnel present once you get off the plane, they probably won't let you leave the scene without talking to one.

It's fine to take something small you can carry in one hand/keep with you through the whole flight without it being a problem. It's the luggage in the overhead baggage compartments that needs to be abandoned.

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

#279

Post by edgyquant »

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.

How has this been demonstrated? They have certainly had their share of crashes already.
Post reply on HN