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

321–330 of 515 posts

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

#321

Post by jamesharding »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #311
BorgHunter wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether it was perfect or not, there are only a few words/phrases that allow an aircraft to cross the hold short bars at an airport with an active control tower. "Cross", "line up and wait", and "cleared for takeoff" are pretty much it. Runway incursions are very dangerous, as this incident shows, and pilots must be very sure they have clearance before entering a runway. If anything is ambiguous in an instruction, pi…

Is "line up and wait" really the new approved terminology? Way back when I was a PP student, it was "taxi into position runway XX and hold. Acknowledge hold." Line up and wait sounds like something you tell preschoolers to do :-)

"Line up and wait" is indeed correct!

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html...

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

#322

Post by IndrekR »

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…

Cabin crew are also eyes for the flight crew. Relevant discussion about the Shatner’s seat: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13824985

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

#323

Post by nytesky »

ajross wrote: post #317
phkahler wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

> But you might just die in the fire yourself, prioritizing a hypothetical emergency over a real one The Two Failure Fallacy is a fatal flaw of human reasoning. It's almost never correct to engineer anything on the assumption of two bad things happening simultaneously. You do your analysis based on individual/uncorrelated failure modes. And only then do you make design choices (c.f. "defense in depth", "redundancy",…

Well my problem is the conditions of an airline crash (the smoke, extreme heat, etc) are triggers for our disease. It’s not a simple as a peanut allergy where you just avoid eating a certain food.

I’m not convinced that medical personnel would be on hand that quickly for all emergency landings — sure if you are at a major airport. But they may not notice someone who collapsed after being triaged away from the more severely injured.

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

#324

Post by [deleted] »

throw0101d wrote: post #163
jefftk wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think maybe you're under the impression that: 1. Passengers on JL516 were not permitted to use their phones during landing. 2. I'm proposing that we start allowing them to use their phones. 3. If we did that then all 379 passengers would have died [1] because evacuation would have taken longer than the time before the plane was engulfed in flames [2] Except #1 isn't the case: passengers were allowed to be on their…

> And even if we had granted #1 and #2 I don't see how you get #3 because even if the extra time were entirely eaten up by 30 distracted passengers this wouldn't get you 100% dead: You are right that it does not necessarily follow that 100% would be dead. AC 797 had a flash fire after 90 seconds, and only about half the people died. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797

[deleted]

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

#325

Post by spinach »

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..

From what info are you assuming that no one did? A middle school boy who was on the plane said "荷物を取り出そうという人もいた"[0], "there were also people who tried to get their luggage".

[0] https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20240102/k10014307191000.ht...

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

#326

Post by itishappy »

hef19898 wrote: post #316
itishappy wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797

We talk about the flamability difference between a carbon-composite and aluminium hull design. That fire had what, almost 20 minutes to burn before the cabin flashed?

Yup. I'm far from an authority on the matter (just learned about the Air Canada flight further up the thread and thought it was relevant), but I'd guess this supports the "it crashes" hypothesis.

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

#327

Post by stevehawk »

supernova87a wrote: post #57

I dare say / guess that 2 combined factors will have helped the successful evacuation effort (especially given that these aircraft for Japan internal flights are some of the densest passenger configurations): 1. Domestic flight, with people less likely to be hauling around lots of belongings, although in Japan people already bring much less onto flights with them. 2. The well-known social expectation/procedure-abidin…

I have to admit, I wonder how many lives would have been lost if this happened in America. "I have to get my laptop!" "where's my carry-on!?" "I think I left my phone!"

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

#328

Post by cryptonector »

jeffbee wrote: post #253

A much more informative video is https://youtu.be/6NbVdIoJsHY?t=169 ... you can see the accident aircraft enter the runway then stands there for 40+ seconds before the other aircraft lands on it. It seems like a lot of time during which controllers could have detected the conflict.

Wow, the dash-8 begins to move into the runway at 2:48, and then sits there for the rest of the time. It's really hard to spot this from this video going forwards, but it you got backwards from the crash you can see the lights from the dash-8 and work out when it got onto the runway.

Maybe the coast guard pilot thought he had permission to line up, but not to take off? Anyways, it's also pretty easy to see that it would have been difficult for the tower staff and the A350 pilots to notice the incursion and avoid the accident.

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

#329

Post by [deleted] »

petee wrote: post #288
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…

I don't see anywhere indicating they landed on top of the other plane

[deleted]

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

#330

Post by alistairSH »

Dalewyn wrote: post #75
mrabcx wrote: post #70

According to Flightradar24, https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1742136715253313938 , the Japanese coast guard aircraft was not equipped with a ADS-B transponder. Probably because it's not a requirement for military aircraft. That can explain why the ATC and/or JAL was not aware of the exact location of the plane.

Minor nitpick, but the Japan Coast Guard is not a military (and so the concerned aircraft isn't military). It serves under the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism; unlike the JSDF which serves under the Ministry of Defense.

Curious, what's the rule for USCG and transponders?

USCG is part of DHS and considered a military branch (despite not being in DoD alongside the other military branches and having a primarily law-enforcement mission).

Post reply on HN