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

331–340 of 515 posts

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

#331

Post by jaredchung »

epolanski wrote: post #7

I'll speculate: this looks like textbook runway invasion where miscommunication leads to two different aircrafts being allowed on a runway at the same time. Reminds me of LATAM 2213, which led to the very first Airbus 320 neo being written off [1]. Essentially, clearance to enter a runway has to be expressively given and confirmed in non-ubiquitous language ("Flight ABC requesting clearance to enter runway 01"). Yet…

I'd be interested in analyzing ATC transcripts to quantify the frequency of communication errors like that in day-to-day operations. Express permission, followed by an explicit (and matching) read-back, to enter a runway should be easy to identify (and the opposite as well). I see liveatc.net has audio archives, and tailstrike.com has transcripts of select accidents.

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

#332

Post by ta1243 »

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…

If the Captain says "evacuate from all doors on port side", yet the FA sees flames outside the door on the port side, the FA does not evacuate through those flames

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

#333

Post by asylteltine »

konschubert wrote: post #25
epolanski wrote: post #7

I'll speculate: this looks like textbook runway invasion where miscommunication leads to two different aircrafts being allowed on a runway at the same time. Reminds me of LATAM 2213, which led to the very first Airbus 320 neo being written off [1]. Essentially, clearance to enter a runway has to be expressively given and confirmed in non-ubiquitous language ("Flight ABC requesting clearance to enter runway 01"). Yet…

it is crazy to me that all of this still relies on humans giving verbal clearance over radio. Shouldn’t there be a universal standard to communicate clearances to the computer systems of the airplanes and other runway vehicles? And shouldn’t there be a small, well-tested core system that makes sure clearance never conflicts? How on earth does all this still depend on skilled individuals not making a mistake? We got o…

I agree. It’s SO antiquated. Nevermind issues with clearance there’s even issues like pilots forgetting what was ordered or ATC not catching incorrect read backs. This is just ridiculous that still in 2024 we are using technology from 1950 as the only way to give instructions. We solved encryption and authentication years ago. FAA should mandate strongly authenticated computer messages as the primary.

But you know the real reasons it’s old.

1) corporate greed and no regulation

2) legacy… it’s always legacy holding us back. All the third world countries, Russia, etc would not adopt it.

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

#334

Post by ta1243 »

jrockway wrote: post #306
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…

The statistics are also available as "per passenger-hour", which eliminates the speed factor. An 8 hour road trip is reasonable. An 8 hour flight is on the longer side.

An 8 hour flight is a normal intercontinental flight, not even particularly long (London - New York/Delhi/Nairobi/Dubai sort of distance). Longer flights like London-LA/Singapore/Joburg/Tokyo are perfectly normal, or reasonable.

I would rarely do 8 hours driving in a single day, let alone 12. Certainly couldn't do that for work, would be massively against policy.

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

#335

Post by ta1243 »

ryandrake wrote: post #287
ghshephard wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think the "no cellphones" rule is about minimizing distractions during critical phases of flight, not because a phone's radio is going to do damage to the aircraft. So a phone on but sitting in someone's bag is not the end of the world.

> I think the "no cellphones" rule is about minimizing distractions during critical phases of flight

Along with the "no newspapers" rule? And no sleeping?

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

#336

Post by manquer »

iooi wrote: post #116
epolanski wrote: post #7

I'll speculate: this looks like textbook runway invasion where miscommunication leads to two different aircrafts being allowed on a runway at the same time. Reminds me of LATAM 2213, which led to the very first Airbus 320 neo being written off [1]. Essentially, clearance to enter a runway has to be expressively given and confirmed in non-ubiquitous language ("Flight ABC requesting clearance to enter runway 01"). Yet…

> invasion you mean incursion

Intrusion is better suited word than both.

Incursion and Invasion have military links, Incursion would be brief and limited in scope, invasion is more full on long term. Both terms imply a subtle but a conscious choice in the crossing of the barrier, while intrusion is more neutral in attributing agency to the action.

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

#337

Post by rafram »

jagrsw wrote: post #169

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. My aim isn't to critique the English proficiency of non-native speakers, especially those from non-Proto-Indo-European linguistic backgrounds. As a non-native English speaker myself, I understand the challenges. However, I found it trully ha…

In addition to what others have said about the quality, pilots and air traffic controllers communicate using a very restricted vocabulary. They aren’t having free-flowing conversations - ATC issues commands using what’s essentially a spoken domain-specific language, and pilots echo them back. Accent should not be a major issue.

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

#338

Post by thegrim33 »

lxgr wrote: post #295
SoftTalker wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 Unfortunately, that's not always the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_1492#Evacuatio...

Ok? What you linked to, which is a single paragraph, does not provide any proof for your claim. It says there was some speculation that people retrieving luggage caused delay, but state media and law enforcement are on record as saying there's no evidence that it had any effect, as well as there being a witness saying it had no effect.

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

#340

Post by pie420 »

Tor3 wrote: post #309
google234123 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you driven in SF?

No, never been to SF, I have no idea how people drive there or what the conditions are. Except that they're very different from where I drive (except when I'm in the town centre) - roads without sidewalks, mostly no signal lights, snow a large part of the year, and other special conditions.

Good thing that all airports follow similar standards and are all standardized in terms of lighting, signage, etc.
Post reply on HN