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

441–450 of 515 posts

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

#441

Post by koyote »

bronco21016 wrote: post #56
konschubert wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 can’t speak to international ops because I’m just not sure. In the US though, we have runway status lights. At all the runway intersections there are lights embedded in the runway that will tell you if the runway is safe or not. A radar based system is constantly monitoring the runway and will light it up red if there is a potential for collision. The system works independent of any input from ATC. I think it’s act…

Not all Airports do, this incident at JFK happened not long ago and could have been a massive disaster:

https://onemileatatime.com/news/american-777-delta-737-nearl...

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

#442

Post by rootusrootus »

JCharante wrote: post #435
InTheArena wrote: post #370

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.

did airbus try to fight against the 90 second rule? What changes did they make to eventually do a successful evacuation with an 800 person cabin configuration?

That is an interesting question. An A380 has 16 exits and a maximum capacity of 853. A Boeing 737-900 has 8 exits and a maximum capacity of 188. The 90 second rule has to pass with 50% of the exits unavailable (nobody gets to know in advance which ones), and luggage & blankets strewn about the cabin. In the dark. I bet it's an interesting test to partake in.

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

#443

Post by ramesh31 »

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #86
somewhereoutth wrote: post #68

I'd suggest that the miracle escape is testament to ~100? years of evolution of civil aviation safety practices.

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

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

It was the intended, purposefully engineered outcome for precisely such an event. Not even remotely a miracle. The airframe designers at Airbus saved those lives, not divine providence.

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

#444

Post by leonson »

This is probably well-known to others but I am surprised to learn JAL uses big aircrafts to serve domestic flights, and I wonder how common this practice is. Is there somewhere I can query by input of "passenger flights of certain aircraft like A350 on a certain date", give me results of flights, ordered by distance in ascending order? Thought about Flightradar24 but they don't seem to offer API for personal usage

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

#445

Post by bombcar »

leonson wrote: post #444

This is probably well-known to others but I am surprised to learn JAL uses big aircrafts to serve domestic flights, and I wonder how common this practice is. Is there somewhere I can query by input of "passenger flights of certain aircraft like A350 on a certain date", give me results of flights, ordered by distance in ascending order? Thought about Flightradar24 but they don't seem to offer API for personal usage

Iirc one of the biggest usages of A380s has been APAC island hopping.

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

#446

Post by rmccue »

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...

Aside from personal devices, which they definitely wouldn’t be using during takeoff and landing, tablets that pilots carry are Electronic Flight Bags (EFBs). These run specialised software, not something like Flightradar24.

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

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

#447

Post by bombcar »

Symbiote wrote: post #405
nytesky wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m guessing you aren’t carrying an epi regularly — they seem likely to be broken if in my pocket. It’s not a pocket sized form factor. The bag I have is about the size of two croissants — I keep it under seat in front of me or in my lap. But this topic has inspired me to improve my process, so I would like to find a money belt or shoulder holster style bag to carry meds and epi while traveling. Basically body huggin…

Isn't an epi pen a very common medicine, which is available pretty much worldwide?

It’s hard to imagine a survivable emergency landing that doesn’t also include hordes of ambulances and emergency personnel descending upon it.

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

#448

Post by elzbardico »

konschubert wrote: post #147
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?

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.

We need far more data to say this with certainty. This data is from only 3.8 million miles, in carefully controlled conditions with brand new high quality vehicles.

Besides this comes from Waymo, they didn't release the data used in their study.

Of course Waymo will try to paint their cars in the most favourable light possible. Maybe they are being honest, but that's not the point. The point is that public policy shouldn't trust the allegations of a private company at face value.

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

#449

Post by elzbardico »

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.

IMHO, there was not even enough data to draw this conclusion from the study. 3.8 million miles looks like a lot, but it is laughable for traffic safety conclusions.

And of course Waymo is going to milk as much as possible from their study, we just shouldn't trust it blindly.

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

#450

Post by Dylan16807 »

serf wrote: post #266
filleduchaos wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Passengers were using their phones during landing (including at least one that posted footage from inside the plane on social media), so...no? Incredibly, people can walk and chew gum at the same time. This includes the ability to refocus their attention when they experience unusual events.

>Incredibly, people can walk and chew gum at the same time. This includes the ability to refocus their attention when they experience unusual events. No. They can't. That 'refocus' you mention is proof of that. it's getting old having to say over and over again that this isn't actually the case : humans switch contexts and lose focus -- you're not as good at multi-tasking as you think, nor is anyone. So , people can…

You are not rebutting what people were actually talking about in this conversation.
Post reply on HN