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

351–360 of 515 posts

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

#351

Post by svieira »

throw0101d wrote: post #206
chrischen wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mercedes just released a level 3 car. Openpilot, while primarily lane keeping, does it way better than any human can. Driving doesn’t require an advanced degree in physics. It’s mostly a mish mash of fairly mundane tasks.

> Driving doesn’t require an advanced degree in physics. It’s mostly a mish mash of fairly mundane tasks. Generally not wrong, but when it becomes non-mundane, it can become so in a hurry. This is why I'm sometimes skeptical about statistics that say " x% of airplane crashes are human error ". Well maybe, but by the time the humans get involved the automated systems have often thrown up their proverbial hands and dig…

See also _The Ironies of Automation_ by Lisanne Bainbridge [1]

[1]: https://ckrybus.com/static/papers/Bainbridge_1983_Automatica...

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

#352

Post by Denvercoder9 »

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…

> the correct runway to use, C1 or C5.

FWIW, C1 and C5 are not runways, but taxiways leading to the runway.

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

#353

Post by tjohns »

pie420 wrote: post #340
Tor3 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is not quite accurate. There are certainly standards for airport markings, but there are many non-standard airports... especially when flying at anything smaller than an international airport.

(And yes, even airliners will sometimes land at small regional airports.)

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

#354

Post by rootusrootus »

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.

I'm most curious about why the JAL plane couldn't see it. An airliner has a pretty bright headlight, and the CG plane should have had lighting on it as well that would distinguish it from the runway lighting.

Clearly, as usual, accidents like this require a number of things to all go wrong at the same time.

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

#355

Post by lxgr »

chrischen wrote: post #181
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a car autopilot system that good on the market that only you know about? And that can replace the driver completely?

Mercedes just released a level 3 car. Openpilot, while primarily lane keeping, does it way better than any human can. Driving doesn’t require an advanced degree in physics. It’s mostly a mish mash of fairly mundane tasks.

I'm willing to believe that computers are better at lane keeping than humans are. That's not the only scenario, though: Unfortunately, driving can go from lane keeping to making a life-or-death decision in a second, and that's not enough time for a human hand-off.

A plane's autopilot can beep and bail out to a human with a few seconds for them to get oriented and take over; a car doesn't always have that luxury.

"Is this a person walking into my lane or just a shadow?" isn't a question that comes up in the air. Until a self-driving car can minimize the probability of that detection going wrong to below human thresholds, I wouldn't feel comfortable sitting in the driver (or maybe even passenger) seat of one.

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

#356

Post by rootusrootus »

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.

And 40 seconds where it should have been visible to the pilots of the airliner. I know they have checklists to run, but are neither of the pilots looking forward during final approach?

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

#357

Post by cryptonector »

ta1243 wrote: post #332
traceroute66 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Right! In a chaotic situation, the idea of hierarchy goes out the window. It is essential that all act rationally as much as possible and make the best decisions that they can with what information is available to them. And it is essential that all staff (flight crew, cabin crew) act with celerity as well to avoid panic among the passengers. Because if the passengers are left on their own then conflicts are more likely to arise just merely on account of the number of passengers being large, and conflicts in such a situation are very likely to be deadly.

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

#358

Post by tjohns »

YPPH wrote: post #76
konschubert wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have this as an additional safety layer. You don’t need to update everything at once. If anything is able to react within seconds, it’s a computer.

It's hard to know what that is. TCAS is a great example of an obvious solution to mid-air collisions - two devices seamlessly negotiate for one plane to go up, the other to go down. One I can think of is an electronic runway "lock". ATC mark the runway as locked to a particular aircraft. The landing aircraft checks at minimums whether if the runway is locked to any other aircraft. It's harder to know how to prevent i…

Runway Status Lights (RWSL) are close to what you're describing. If surface surveillance radar detects that a runway is occupied, it turns on red warning lights at the runway approach end and at the hold-short bars.

The nice thing is that the entire system is ground-based, no additional equipment needed in the aircraft.

However, it's complicated/expensive, so only a handful of airports have it installed.

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

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

#359

Post by sitharus »

weinzierl wrote: post #274
traceroute66 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

It is so the flight attendants can see outside, and also so the passengers’ eyes are adapted to outside light in case of an evacuation. You don’t want people hesitating on the slides because they can’t see.

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

#360

Post by rootusrootus »

king_magic wrote: post #238
mym1990 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The average controller makes 120K as it is. That may not be a lot for people in the software world accustomed to making big bucks, but it's not terrible -- close to 90th percentile.
Post reply on HN