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

421–430 of 515 posts

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

#421

Post by wlonkly »

Nextgrid wrote: post #16

I wonder if some kind of "TCAS" for runways can be implemented - once the controller clears an aircraft for a given runway, some antennas start broadcasting that aircraft's identifier so any equipped planes approaching the runway can tell whether they've been cleared for it. For planes on approach, the existing ILS antennas can be reused but I'm not sure whether that will work on the ground - do the ILS antennas cove…

Something like "TCAS for runways" is RIMCAS[1], but it notifies the controller, not the pilots.

[1] https://www.indracompany.com/sites/default/files/indra06-nov...

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

#422

Post by KiwiJohnno »

konschubert wrote: post #211
alphabettsy wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That system had an override didn’t it, just wasn’t well known?

Then let’s make it obvious and include it in the training.

>Then let’s make it obvious and include it in the training.

Which cuts right to the heart of the B737 MAX issue - Boeing substantially changed the design, then added sensors & software to make the changed airframe handle similarly to the old 737 airframe and claimed that this meant the pilots did not need retraining

If Boeing had been upfront about MCAS, and required that pilots were trained in what it did and how to override it then the crashes probably would not have happened.

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

#423

Post by wlonkly »

aaronmdjones wrote: post #168
The_suffocated wrote: post #8

Does this mean when the Airbus landed, there was a Coast Guard plane on the runway? Seems like the ground control had made a serious mistake.

Ground control wouldn't have cleared them to hold short, or to position and hold (US: "line up and wait"). That would have been the tower, not ground. Ground is only responsible for taxiways, not runways. The Coastguard plane was cleared to hold short at C2, but entered the runway instead from C2 as if cleared to position and hold (Edit: Or maybe they thought they were cleared to take off, but that's far less likely)…

Because I think you'd appreciate it, and no pedantry intended: "Line up and wait" is the international terminology, which the US was relatively late to adopt.

https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/resources/luaw

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

#424

Post by sokoloff »

beej71 wrote: post #189
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…

I was feeling bad because I couldn't understand through the accent, which I consider my failure, not theirs. But I know one can improve understanding with practice, so maybe pilots are just better at it.

There is a very regular sequence of phrases and that helps an enormous amount. I had little trouble understanding the VASA recording (which is surely lower quality than what was actually hitting the cockpit radios). I had a difficult time getting the word "accident", but the part that mattered operationally "the runway is closed" was entirely clear.

If you ring up ATC and tell them “I’m eating a ham and Swiss sandwich” (an entirely non-standard transmission), you’re very likely to get “say again?” regardless of the quality of the radio link or native English pronunciation and accent.

Even transmitting the ordinary items in a different sequence (altitude, route, code, destination, then frequency rather than the expected destination*, route, altitude, frequency, transponder code) will cause confusion.

* technically, clearance limit, but that's most commonly a destination.

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

#425

Post by Aeolun »

lxgr wrote: post #259
Aeolun wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s nothing preventing airplanes from knowing the coordinates of every runway in the world and working out the truth using GPS though.

This would elevate the impact of GPS spoofing from a minor or major [1] nuisance to a significant terrorism threat. [1] https://ops.group/blog/new-gps-spoofing-incident-shows-how-i...

Only if you rely on it for your positioning 100%. Presumably none of the existing measures would change.

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

#427

Post by umeshunni »

itishappy wrote: post #310
hef19898 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It crashes? But honestly, how would that happen? And close enough to a landing strip to land evacuate the plane?

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

Fascinating:

The accident became a watershed for global aviation regulations, which were changed in the aftermath of the accident to make aircraft safer. New requirements to install smoke detectors in lavatories, strip lights marking paths to exit doors, and increased firefighting training and equipment for crew became standard across the industry, while regulations regarding evacuation were also updated. Since the accident, it has become mandatory for aircraft manufacturers to prove their aircraft could be evacuated within 90 seconds of the commencement of an evacuation, and passengers seated in overwing exits are now instructed to assist in an emergency situation.

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

#428

Post by phantomathkg »

wannacboatmovie wrote: post #383
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…

> Excellent evacuation job This couldn't be further from the truth. From what I've read, this was handled terribly. There was confusion and no evacuation was ordered by the crew over the PA. The passengers managed it themselves. If it were a crew-directed evacuation they would have blocked the door leading to the still-running engine as you pointed out. It took the firefighters over six minutes to respond to the site…

> From what I've read, this was handled terribly. Source please?

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

#429

Post by ativzzz »

thegrim33 wrote: post #341
ativzzz wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? A good chunk of humanity showed via covid that they are not interested in inconveniencing themselves for potentially reducing overall harm to others.

Because they had a different analysis of the situation than you did, not because they had the same analysis and just chose to be assholes.

I never said they were assholes, I just said they chose not to inconvenience themselves.

Some people wore masks regardless of how much they actually helped - on the off chance they actually helped at all - they chose to inconvenience themselves

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

#430

Post by rsynnott »

squigz wrote: post #89
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? That doesn’t make it incorrect to call it a miracle.

Yes, it does. "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency."

That’s one definition, but it’s often used to just mean something very surprising and good.

Or, if you’re an economist, just anything mildly unexpected.

Post reply on HN