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

471–480 of 515 posts

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

#471

Post by ghaff »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #302
ryandrake wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 The cell-phone "ban was put in place because of potential interference to wireless networks on the ground" [1]. The distraction argument started making its rounds after the interference hypothesis was debunked. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20120110081053/ht…

Aircraft electronics were also a commonly given reason for a time. And as for distracted ions there was a period when you could read a physical book but not a Kindle.

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

#472

Post by kqr2 »

InTheArena wrote: post #452
JCharante wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Airbus tried to get the FAA to relax the requirement that every possible seat offered for sale be able to leave in 90 seconds - ie, just 600 instead of the fully rated 800. Then they asked to relax it to 120 seconds. Finally, they told the FAA that their models should be sufficient. The FAA (and eventually the European equivalent agencies) said no to these asks and made them do the full test with 800 people leaving t…

873 people in 78 seconds. It took them 4 years to prepare for the test though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_8hbsWKoOU

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

#473

Post by ExoticPearTree »

murderfs wrote: post #314
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. If an instruction is unclear the pilot will ask again for a repeat. Or if the instruments show everything to look normal but the plane doesn’t feel right, the pilot will correct it, a computer will not. Think of the 737 Max whose computers crashed two planes because of incorrect sensor data being fed to them. The pilots there tried to rescue the planes while the planes were following their logic, which wa…

> If an instruction is unclear the pilot will ask again for a repeat. Except when they don't, and confirmation bias themselves into doing the wrong thing. The most likely cause of a plane crash is pilot error, and runway incursions happen shockingly often [1][2][3][4]. The only reason there hasn't been a Tenerife-style disaster is sheer luck. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b26NcJCLZl4 2: https://www.youtube.com/w…

Look, incidents happen all the time in any industry. And for the five examples of human error you have thousands of examples where humans performed very well.

Computers are not infailable either. So while they add a lot of safety features and ease the workload of the pilots, they should not have final authority over pilot actions. 737 Max is a prime example of why.

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

#474

Post by noncoml »

WalterBright wrote: post #401
HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #311

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.

What’s your vector, Victor?

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

#475

Post by shmeeed »

rafram wrote: post #337
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…

In addition to what others have said about the quality, pilots and air traffic controllers communicate using a very restricted vocabulary. They aren’t having free-flowing conversations - ATC issues commands using what’s essentially a spoken domain-specific language, and pilots echo them back. Accent should not be a major issue.

It shouldn't, but it has been many times in the past, OTOH in particular with Spanish speaking pilots or ATC miscommunicating.

Given that JAL516 was a domestic flight, it probably was not the case here though.

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

#476

Post by WalterBright »

whycome wrote: post #465
WalterBright wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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"?

When an airplane is taking off, takeoff power is maximum power. But it can (and was) sometimes interpreted as "turning the power off".

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

#477

Post by WalterBright »

hamandcheese wrote: post #433
WalterBright wrote: post #396

This is why you always keep your shoes on when the airplane is on or near the ground. It can save your life.

Why do you need shoes to exit a plane?

When you need to cross over flaming, jagged, sharp wreckage.

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

#478

Post by roelschroeven »

nottorp wrote: post #248
roelschroeven wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earlier today it was very slow, and often timing out, from the EU too. I haven't tried again since.

Guessing because this accident made it to mainstream news.

That's what I thought too, yes. It's much more responsive now.

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

#479

Post by tjungblut »

kergonath wrote: post #369
tjungblut wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep, that was for permanent loss.

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

#480

Post by lxgr »

wolverine876 wrote: post #395
lxgr wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For standard situations, text clearances might really be safer: Pilots usually just acknowledge, and augmentation systems could help warn them if they don't conform with a certain clearance. But having a broadcast channel accessible (for listening and talking) to all aircraft and ATC can increase situational awareness for everybody. Just look at the near-miss of Air Canada 759 [1] for an example of where it might hav…

> But having a broadcast channel accessible (for listening and talking) to all aircraft and ATC can increase situational awareness for everybody. OK, so send all messages to all aircraft (or to whatever the appropriate subset is). > pilots literally have their hands full flying the airplane. Voice is their only feedback channel Interesting. I wonder if the error rate of voice recognition exceeds the error rate of bad…

Sure, you could emulate the broadcast channel.

You'd have to read out all of these prompts and acknowledgements though, since pilots also will have their eyes on many instruments other than just datalink.

Definitely doable using text-to-speech, but that way you lose the original intonation (Did the speaker sound confused? Hesitant? Was it a different voice than before?) – and what did you gain?

Post reply on HN