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

371–380 of 515 posts

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

#371

Post by kergonath »

Dalewyn wrote: post #141
spywaregorilla wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I recall the original context was that telling a patient to not worry because the chance of success is high isn't actually helpful, because the objective argument doesn't take into account the patient's personal perspective. I've since extrapolated that to meaning that objective measures cannot always tell or respect the whole story, because personal perspectives can bowdlerize everything down to life or death or a 5…

> To put it another way: Telling someone they have a negligible chance of being in an aviation accident is worthless comfort if they end up in one.

Sure. It’s also callous and insensitive, which is why we don’t tend to do that. But saying to the vast majority who are never going to experience a plane crash (a number larger than the number of victims by a few orders of magnitude) that it’s a coin toss is at least not very smart.

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

#372

Post by lxgr »

mkii wrote: post #349
throw0101d wrote: post #63

For the ATC, see: * https://archive.liveatc.net/rjtt/RJTT-Twr-TCA-Jan-02-2024-08... * Via: https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/35868205-post57.html 13:13 JL516 continue approach. 14:53 landing clearance. 15:01 readback. 15:13 Japan Coast Guard JA772A taxi instructions. 17:35 fire reported on 34R. * https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/35868237-post67.html The recording quality isn't very good, perhaps because of the location…

Whenever I listen to these types of recordings, there's so much static and it's hard to hear the words. Is this how it actually sounds to pilots/ATC operators or is their feed actually much clearer?

It's usually much clearer.

These unofficial ATC feeds are usually captured by volunteers or at least companies not directly affiliated with the aviation industry (similarly to services like Flightradar24), sometimes some distance away from airports, which makes ATC and aircraft on the ground really hard to hear.

What also helps a lot is that the formats of messages relayed are pretty standardized (ICAO phraseology), and knowing what phrases to listen for can help a lot.

On the other hand, it can unfortunately also cause people to hear what they are primed for – such as a landing or takeoff clearance... (Not implying that this happened here – I can't make out what's being said on the tape myself!)

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

#373

Post by avidiax »

bagels wrote: post #281
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…

There is a ton of static too, why is that still tolerated?

ATC uses AM radio since it behaves well. Two AM broadcasts on the same frequency add in proportion to their strength. Two FM broadcasts tend to cut into each other randomly.

It's a case of AM being the long-term standard, and also being physically suited to the task.

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

#374

Post by lxgr »

epolanski wrote: post #362
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…

> 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.

True in terms of phraseology (i.e. the actual word is not used in voice ATC communications), but all ATC instructions are generally referred to as clearances.

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

#375

Post by Retric »

filleduchaos wrote: post #224
Retric wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fast isn’t instant. At 30,000 feet there’s plenty of time, at ground level things can go very badly extremely quickly and rapid task switching increases panic. There’s several ways paying attention directly increases safety. First many evacuations aren’t fast enough for everyone to escape so even fractions of a second directly correlate to lives. Taking the crash position promptly reduces the risk of injury most impo…

For one thing, an evacuation is not something you begin to do the instant an accident occurs; it takes time to reach a physical state where evacuation is even possible at all. For instance, there is video footage from the inside of the A350 (taken by a passenger who was...you know...using their phone, and all 379 people on the board still exited in a timely manner). It took well over 10 seconds for the plane to even…

First electronic devices + headphones provide significant isolation from what’s going on. I’ve seen people miss fire alarms in an office environment. So it’s possible for someone to actually miss an evacuation not just fail to respond for fractions of a second.

> It took well over 10 seconds for the plane to even finish its landing roll-out post-collision and come to a stop.

Panic and confusion can last considerably longer than 10 seconds. Having even a little head start to process the situation is meaningful well past the initial event.

> taking the brace position is something you do with forewarning and instruction from the crew, and the circumstances that lead to that forewarning are very capable of capturing attention.

Most emergencies aren’t preceded by anything particularly attention grabbing. Someone engrossed with a device can easily miss what’s going on long enough to cause issues.

> Staring very hard at the seat in front of you or out of the window "in case something happens" is not paying attention to anything but your own anxiety. You can be prepared and be ready for alerts without literally sitting and doing nothing; the human brain may not be capable of a lot of things, but it is very capable of that much.

Not all tasks are equally distracting. A kid eating a candy bar is more capable of processing what’s going on than that same kid engrossed in a game trying to ignore all outside stimuli while aiming for a high score.

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

#376

Post by mahkeiro »

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.

No distraction? Do you need sub 500ms response time? I'm pretty sure that even someone watching a movie with noise canceling earphones was aware of an issue just because of physics…

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

#377

Post by ExoticPearTree »

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.

> Mercedes just released a level 3 car.

Which only activates on roads mapped extensively by Mercedes.

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

#378

Post by ExoticPearTree »

rootusrootus wrote: post #292
konschubert wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waymo is safer than a human driver already. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/googles-waymo-safe... Of course there will be locations where humans are required, but we can already start using computers in those locations where they perform better.

> Waymo is safer than a human driver already. Is that data controlled for environment? I.e. it must only compare Waymo driving with human drivers in exactly the same environment. Same road, same conditions, same time, etc. Waymo doesn't take any difficult routes.

Not to mention the fact that when it encounters a situation never seen before it just "freezes" - happened a few times and caused traffic jams.

What I give these cars is their ability to react "instantaneously" to emergency situations like automated emergency braking when there is an obstacle in the front of the car or the car in front suddenly brakes.

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

#379

Post by lxgr »

konschubert wrote: post #43
tonmoy wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt your “other domains” are as safe and reliable as the aviation industry. An automated system may be possible to make, but will require a huge undertaking to bring even close to the current safety standards, and would introduce its own safety issues

If I step into the elevator door, it doesn’t squash me and the elevator won’t move.

An elevator is many orders of magnitude less complex than an airport, though.

Total automation can be done quite safely in some domains. Between that and a completely manual/human-operated system lies the area of augmentation, which can both be a boon to safety if done correctly, or deadly if it leads to automation complacency or false expectations around the types of situations it can successfully handle.

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

#380

Post by kergonath »

google234123 wrote: post #254
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.

Have you driven in SF?

Mate, have you driven in Mumbai? Hell, even in Rome? SF is nothing.
Post reply on HN