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

361–370 of 515 posts

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

#361

Post by Vecr »

blitzar wrote: post #113
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.

[flagged]

I do more or less prefer my life (as well as the things that go along with it, health, physical safety, ...) more than some derived number of other people, for various complicated reasons. In some situations it could get as high as the single digit trillions, but it's usually in the hundreds to thousands range or even less.

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

#362

Post by epolanski »

BorgHunter wrote: post #255
brunohaid wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re clearance/cause: VASA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fItu5qM7QfE also couldn't make it out, but it sounds like the Coast Guard Dash 8 got a not really perfect taxi instruction (neither "hold short" nor "line up and wait") to one of the other C* intersections leading onto 34R while a Delta flight occupied C1, but entered the runway anyway. The A350 got a proper clearance it read back correctly. Also looks like all…

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…

> and pilots must be very sure they have clearance before entering a runway

The word "clearance" is used uniquely in the context of landing and departing exactly to avoid mistakes and has to be repeated again by the aircraft before ATC confirms.

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

#363

Post by csharpminor »

I'd be curious to know from someone with more knowledge: are there any technological improvements that could prevent this kind of accident?

It seems as though it should be possible (though perhaps not easy) to automatically detect an aircraft on runway and relay that to the approaching aircraft.

With all respect for the coast guard pilots who died, I would say this incident is the "best case" scenario we could hope for when two large aircraft crash on a runway. Had the other plane been carrying passengers the casualties could have easily been in the hundreds.

It seems odd to me that with all the safety advancements in aviation we don't have the technology to prevent this.

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

#364

Post by icehawk »

CrimsonCape wrote: post #268

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...

The coastguard aircraft involved only has a Mode S transponder and so those flight tracker websites can only determine the plane's position when there's enough receiver coverage to do multilateration

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

#365

Post by kergonath »

jefftk wrote: post #144
ant6n wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, using this logic, every day you have a 50% chance of dying, since you either die or you don't. Or perhaps every second you have a 50% chance of dying. ...obviously this "math" doesn't quite work out.

I mean, it clearly doesn't work if taken to be literal probabilities. But I think it also doesn't work as a more metaphorical guide to life?

It clearly does not work in any circumstances. We over-emphasise the likelihood of rare events already, saying that something has even odds just because it is conceivable that it could happen is completely useless.

Which is not to say that you should not plan for extremely rare events, but you certainly should not make decisions assuming they are likely to happen.

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

#366

Post by icehawk »

throw0101d wrote: post #88
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.

It has a transponder, and previous flights for it were recorded: * https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/ja722a * Via: https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1742136715253313938 * https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/de-havilland-canada-d...

It has a mode-s transponder. If you look at, say ADSBExchanbe you can see the signal source is MLAT

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=867bee&lat=36.840&lon=1...

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

#367

Post by resolutebat »

steveBK123 wrote: post #152
resolutebat wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, that narrative was largely a myth. The people at the back by and large died instantly in the crash, without even time to undo their seatbelts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_1492#Evacuatio...

People evacuating with luggage do not have perfect information from the future to know that their selfish decision is not going to kill people. Therefore, people should not do this.

Nobody is saying they should, it just wasn't a significant factor in this disaster.

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

#368

Post by matwood »

csharpminor wrote: post #363

I'd be curious to know from someone with more knowledge: are there any technological improvements that could prevent this kind of accident? It seems as though it should be possible (though perhaps not easy) to automatically detect an aircraft on runway and relay that to the approaching aircraft. With all respect for the coast guard pilots who died, I would say this incident is the "best case" scenario we could hope f…

Some airports do have ground lighting that changes when it's safe/unsafe to enter/cross runways. No idea if that existed here. I know JFK has it, as I watched it in action the last time I had a layover.

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

#369

Post by kergonath »

tjungblut wrote: post #143
spywaregorilla wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a 50% chance that this doctor failed probability

I had a dentist explain to me that my lip could go numb with a 50% chance after my wisdom teeth removal with that exact explanation just two minutes before the surgery. I was infuriated, turns out I was on the lucky side of her coin.

I could be wrong, but I really don’t think permanent loss of sensitivity is anywhere that high. Though it sounds low for temporary loss, but then it goes away after a couple of hours or so.

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

#370

Post by InTheArena »

The big take0away here is that the 90 second rule that Airbus fought and lost with the A380 and Boeing thought about fighting with the 787 and 777 is exactly right. Sometimes every second matters.

A second take-away - emergencies are no excuse to ditch procedure and thinking about Safety. The SFO incident where a passenger was killed after exiting a vehicle by a vehicle rushing to the plane is another example.

Post reply on HN