Live data from Hacker News

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

avherald.com

461–470 of 515 posts

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

#461

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…

This is not at all obvious. The pilots can't look backwards and don't have eyes in the cabin. There have been cases of engine fires and failures where the pilots had to go into the passenger cabin to examine the damage. Communication is key, but comms might have been down, too. In cases like this the cabin crew have to be prepared to initiate an evacuation on their own, and they have to be prepared to choose which do…

Notably, Qantas Flight 32 back in 2010, where the flight crew had a dozen contradictory ECAM messages, and it took the second officer entering the cabin to see that an engine had blown up. https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/a-matter-of-millimeters-...

>In the meantime, the cabin crew had been attempting to get the pilots’ attention using the emergency call button, but all the pilots were so focused on the failures that they initially didn’t notice. Only now did they send Second Officer Mark Johnson to assess the situation in the cabin, whereupon a Qantas pilot riding as a passenger in the upper deck drew his attention to the in-flight entertainment system, which featured a live view of the aircraft from a tail-mounted camera. The digital stream clearly showed a much more literal stream of fuel pouring from the left wing and into the aircraft’s wake, which was also visible with the naked eye from the lower deck. Johnson proceeded down to check for himself, at which point he also observed for the first time that there were two gaping holes in the top of the left wing, surrounded by jagged metal, where the turbine disk fragments had exited.

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

#462
post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But you might just die in the fire yourself, prioritizing a hypothetical emergency over a real one The Two Failure Fallacy is a fatal flaw of human reasoning. It's almost never correct to engineer anything on the assumption of two bad things happening simultaneously. You do your analysis based on individual/uncorrelated failure modes. And only then do you make design choices (c.f. "defense in depth", "redundancy",…

If you're in the market for a real HN style reply, actually, almost every aviation disaster involves two or more things happening the wrong way simultaneously. Usually more than five.

Which is sort of the exception that proves the rule though, isn't it? Aviation is outrageously safe, such that all the low hanging fruit has long since been picked and they're finally cleaning up the uncorrelated failures.

Other areas of engineering aren't nearly so advanced, c.f. Fukushima, which happened because of the converse failure: the designers treated two failures (power grid failure and flooded backup generators) as uncorrelated and independent when they weren't (because tsunamis follow earthquakes).

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

#463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Training or not, the system was not obvious and the override was even further from obvious.

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

#464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Runway incursion is a technical term defined by the ICAO: > Runway incursion. Any occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and take-off of aircraft.

OP only quoted "Invasion", he did not reference it as "Runway Invasion" perhaps he meant the ICAO term, perhaps he took issue with the term invasion. I assumed he meant the latter, How would we know for sure? Ambiguity while correcting someone else is not ideal.

Your post confuses me, because sand500's comment is a perfectly good reply to either interpretation.

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

#465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is "line up and wait" really the new approved terminology? Way back when I was a PP student, it was "taxi into position runway XX and hold. Acknowledge hold." Line up and wait sounds like something you tell preschoolers to do :-)

"Take off power" has caused at least 2 crashes before that phrase was banned.

Go on?

Because it can be confused with "take off" as in "turn off"?

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

#466

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 While there many silly reasons to force people to shutdown electronics and such on planes, I think forcing people to not have any distractions during take-offs and landings is a good thing. Over 50% of incidents (fatal and hull loss/non-fatal) occurring during landing: * https://accidentstats.airbus.com/statistics/accident-by-flig... * https://www.1001crash.com/transport-page-statistique-lg…

The "excellent evacuation job" is being judged by footage taken from electronic devices. There's obviously at least some utility in these scenarios. The ones on their phones filming what they see outside are probably pretty aware of the situation. If you've crash landed, it would mean nothing that you were distracted on a device. You're not exactly trying to continue watching a movie.

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

#467
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My objection isn't that the impact of banning electronics during takeoff and landing is unknowable; that's not the main issue with banning car radios, cars, or bare faces either. Instead it's that the impact is too small to be worth the cost.

I think its fair to say I misread the thrust of your argument. I still come down on the other side; I am comfortable enforcing a widespread deprivation of a convenience in order to further reduce the risk of a rare but catastrophic outcome.

Realize that if you make commercial air travel sufficiently (further) unpleasant, many of those people will choose to drive to their destinations instead.

This will cause a net increase in deaths because, mile-for-mile, driving is orders of magnitude more deadly than flying commercial.

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

#468
post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Line up and wait (meaning, on the runway, prior to actual takeoff clearance) is very common during busy periods. This is in America.

I've never seen planes line up and wait on the runway since there is only supposed to be one on there at any time.

There can be multiple aircraft on the runway at multiple times, so long as there's no conflicting operations.

It's used quite regularly at any moderately busy airport to reduce delays.

Examples where I've seen/heard it used in ATC comms:

Aircraft departing in sequence. eg A, then B. So: "Flight A (already lined up on runway 35L), cleared for takeoff runway 35L." (some short time later while Flight A is still in the process of taking off) "Flight B, runway 35L line up and wait"

Aircraft departing after an arrival. eg "Flight A cleared to land, 35L", and right as flight A has crossed the threshold: "Flight B, runway 35L line up and wait"

Also, as mentioned by others, when there are other movements to cross a runway between departures. eg "Flight A, at Foxtrot 5, cross Runway 35L. Flight B, runway 35L line up and wait"

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

#469
post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number of fatalities and injuries seems minuscule because it's normalised over distance traveled. This makes sense, because air travel is the only way to make voyages over this distance. But it also doesn't make sense for the same reason -- it's stupid to compare a 6000 mile holiday flight with a 6000 mile holiday road trip, because people don't routinely make those. You're still more likely to get injured on an…

I know people who are already at the "if driving takes less than 8 hours, I'd rather drive than fly" level. Every additional inconvenience (or psychological impediment) added to the safest mode of long-distance travel has a risk of decreasing overall safety. It's not particularly relevant to an international flight into Japan, but the extent to which increasing annoyance/instilling fear of airline passengers causing…

Unfortunately, there's very little detail on how they arrive at the 60:1 ratio in that PowerPoint presentation.

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

#470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only reason hundreds of people are not dead is directly attributable to the Japanese being an overly polite and orderly culture. Contrast this to the South Korean ferry disaster [1] where hundreds of Koreans (inb4 someone pops me with "Japanese and Korean are completely different countries..." - yes, I am aware) died as a result of being orderly and compliant. It's just an interesting counterexample where peopl…

I would not call it a counterexample. In fact we saw similar behavior here. These people escaped death by the skin of their taints. In my opinion the crew should have initiated evacuation much sooner than they did. Despite this, the passengers' behavior also prevented chaos. Any further delay would have surely resulted in casualties. It's a bit of a paradox.

We all wish you were there, I’m sure.
Post reply on HN