Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landing gear

wbtv.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 302 posts

Re: Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landing gear

#211

Post by vanattab »

joshstrange wrote: post #198
phpisthebest wrote: post #186

>>He said they were told the Federal Aviation Administration has a hold on the plane so nothing can move on it or from it. And then they wonder why people try to take their bags during an emergency off boarding.... Because they know they will not see it for a long time if ever again. Stupid policy

Can you imagine leaving your laptop on a plane? In a situation like this I'd almost certainly grab that and try to take it with me. Airlines are already woefully incompetent in the best of times with your luggage, what's even the timeline for getting this stuff back? I don't buy the whole "we need it for the investigation", buddy if something in my carry-on stopped the front landing gear from opening you've got bigge…

The investigation is not the primary reason your told the leave your stuff its to avoid delays in an evacuation. Imagine that the plane was less lucky I fire had started in the front nose cone section. Then people trying to get there bags could jeopardize the safety of the passengers in the front of the plane.

Re: Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landing gear

#212

Post by NamTaf »

dheera wrote: post #197
ethanbond wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely an unfortunate policy but isn’t it possible (at least in some cases) that doing so would taint the evidence of a problem that put hundreds of people at risk?

Uh, no. My medications in my carry-on, without which I will have serious cardiac issues, are not related to the problem or "evidence". Agree it is a stupid policy. As long as there is no fire, at least let people grab their carry-ons.

The counter-argument is that in some circumstances, is no certainty that a fire will not break out at some arbitrary time after the plane has landed and come to a stop. And if one does break out, there is no certainty around how long there is between ignition and Shit Going Badly, so the prevailing result is to get the plane stationary, get everyone off as quickly as possible, and then assess the situation.

edit for clarity: I understand the issue you face regarding your medication being trapped on the plane and believe airlines should indeed have a duty of care to ensure you have rapid access to replacement medication at their expense, but I'm specifically addressing why they have the policy of telling people to not grab carry-on items during evacuation.

Re: Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landing gear

#213

Post by ClassyJacket »

xwdv wrote: post #140
justinclift wrote: post #92

What's with them putting "a hold" on all of the passengers possessions? Like, that's leaving people without their wallets (aka id, money) and so on. Sounds like they may not get it back for an unknown period of time (weeks, months?) either.

You guys have wallets? Seems like the only possession you’d really need to do anything useful is your phone.

Yes, I have a driver's license and bank card. Do you not have ANY form of identification? How do you do things that require it?

Re: Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landing gear

#214

Post by skykooler »

interestica wrote: post #126
devoutsalsa wrote: post #2

This isn't common, but it's pretty routine. Pilots are trained for this, and the aircraft are designed to handle the stress.

If you have the Flightradar24 app, you can get an alert any time an aircraft transponder squawks 7700 - Emergency. (While writing, a cesna over Oklahoma City just did)

@aircraft_alert@airwaves.social also posts on mastodon whenever an aircraft squawks 7700.

Re: Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landing gear

#215

Post by ClassyJacket »

xwdv wrote: post #157
telotortium wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You guys have wallets? Seems like the only possession you’d really need to do anything useful is your phone. I wouldn't want to be stuck away from home on a flight without some physical ID. Also don't want to completely rely on Apple Pay to buy anything (not to mention that some stores still don't take Apple Pay).

First of all, contrary to popular belief you don’t need physical ID at airports, you can go through another process to have your identity verified, it takes longer but it’s trivial. Second, any place that doesnt take Apple Pay is not a place you should do business at. Even lowly kiosks and vending machines accept Apple Pay now. The places that are NOT accepting Apple Pay are a red flag, they are doing something nefar…

And how do i use Apple Pay when my phone is flat?

Re: Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landing gear

#216

Post by jen729w »

justinclift wrote: post #191
xwdv wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, contrary to popular belief you don’t need physical ID at airports, you can go through another process to have your identity verified, it takes longer but it’s trivial. Second, any place that doesnt take Apple Pay is not a place you should do business at. Even lowly kiosks and vending machines accept Apple Pay now. The places that are NOT accepting Apple Pay are a red flag, they are doing something nefar…

> contrary to popular belief you don’t need physical ID at airports Guessing that's a US specific thing? Unsure if that'd work for an Australian travelling around though, and I'd personally really rather not risk it going wrong. :)

You don’t need ID to travel domestically in Australia.

Or do you mean ‘an Australian travelling around [in the USA]’?

Re: Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landing gear

#218

Post by getoj »

ethanbond wrote: post #210
dheera wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah my point is, there are a whole lot of other things people tend to have in their carry-ons that are critical for their health. CPAP machines, CGMs, knee braces, allergy-specific emergency food, adult diapers, insulin, epi pens, the list goes on. If there is actually an imminent threat to life, such as a fire, of course all of these things should be left behind. But I'm of the opinion that in no event should anyon…

As a general heuristic, I’ve found that people who create policies in a specialized field of expertise tend to think through those policies a whole lot more than internet commentators like myself do. Especially when those policies will obviously piss off a bunch of people, I can either assume those people who spend decades thinking about X don’t know what they’re doing, or I can say “hey, I probably know way less tha…

It’s worth remembering that there is often a conflict of interest between the system and the individual.

An example where I’m from is train station escalators. There is an unwritten social rule that you stand on the left, and let anyone who is in a hurry walk down on the right. This benefits the individuals because if you’re in a hurry you can get through faster, and if you’re not you don’t care. But the rail company has constant announcements telling people not to do this, and to stand on both sides of the escalator, because a full escalator clears the platform much faster.

These announcements are largely ignored. No individual cares about clearing the platform, even though it is the best thing for the rail network as a whole (crowded platforms cause delays). I would also argue that the needs of the few people running to get to work are more important than improving network efficiency. But the job of the very intelligent, well informed boffins who make the announcements is to make the trains run on time, so the announcements continue.

In this case too, I think the FAA have a different set of priorities to the passengers, and they really don’t care about your medicine. Probably if there is an emergency they will send an employee back into the plane to grab your bag, as a one-off exception. If they’re too slow and you die, too bad—-should have had extra medicine in your shoe.

Policy is created to achieve institutional goals; individual needs are an afterthought at best.

Re: Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landing gear

#219

Post by nunuvit »

nkozyra wrote: post #193
nunuvit wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd gain nothing, they can already see it with their eyeballs, and they don't require anything else like faster response or a different viewpoint. You'd lose in terms of putting another hole in the aircraft and maintaining another system, and you'd still need the manual procedure in case the camera didn't work.

> You'd gain nothing, they can already see it with their eyeballs I'm talking about things they can't see, which I've heard in recordings as well. For something like this they'd gain something for sure - time and redundancy

Why is the current time and redundancy requirement insufficient? They had plenty of time and opportunities to look at it, and they succeeded with time to spare. What is the scenario where they would run out of time, and why couldn't they land assuming that the landing gear wasn't deployed?

You'd need potentially an unrealistic number of cameras. Even if you decide on a case by case basis, you still have to weigh the risk that every component adds, and with a finite amount of money to spend on risk reduction you want to get the most bang for your buck.

Re: Delta flight lands in Charlotte without front landing gear

#220

Post by nkozyra »

nunuvit wrote: post #219
nkozyra wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You'd gain nothing, they can already see it with their eyeballs I'm talking about things they can't see, which I've heard in recordings as well. For something like this they'd gain something for sure - time and redundancy

Why is the current time and redundancy requirement insufficient? They had plenty of time and opportunities to look at it, and they succeeded with time to spare. What is the scenario where they would run out of time, and why couldn't they land assuming that the landing gear wasn't deployed? You'd need potentially an unrealistic number of cameras. Even if you decide on a case by case basis, you still have to weigh the…

> Why is the current time and redundancy requirement insufficient?

I'm operating under the belief that more time to respond to issues is always a plus. Do you disagree?

Post reply on HN