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

391–400 of 515 posts

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

#391

Post by wannacboatmovie »

nradov wrote: post #388
wannacboatmovie wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Six minutes is a decent response time for ARFF in a large, active airport with no advance warning. They can't just drive straight to the incident site; instead they have to wait for ground clearance to enter any taxiways or runways because there are still other aircraft moving around.

The rule in the USA (set by FAA) is maximum 3 minutes, preferably 2, or they deny your certification and you don't get to be an airport. So I would not characterize 6 minutes as decent. In fact, it's pretty damn terrible.

Source: 14 CFR 139.319:

Within 3 minutes from the time of the alarm, at least one required aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle must reach the midpoint of the farthest runway serving air carrier aircraft from its assigned post or reach any other specified point of comparable distance on the movement area that is available to air carriers, and begin application of extinguishing agent.

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

#392

Post by nradov »

cryptonector wrote: post #231
traceroute66 wrote: post #223

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…

The Airbus A350 has an external camera mounted on the tail. I believe that pilots can monitor that video feed in the cockpit so if the system is still working then they should be able to see a fire on one side. But I don't know whether that was possible in this incident.

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

#393

Post by KptMarchewa »

rootusrootus wrote: post #286
KptMarchewa wrote: post #27

The fact that everyone made it out alive from A350 is a great testament to the design. Insane.

Eh, not really. Any passenger plane design is supposed to be able to evacuate in 90 seconds. They had several minutes (at least) to get off that plane before the fire spread to the cabin.

Fire is one thing, explosion as the result of collision is other.

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

#394

Post by cf1241290841 »

traceroute66 wrote: post #223
weinzierl wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even more so: Keeping the shades open could have really made a significant difference in this case, because it could have helped the flight attendants to quickly determine the exits that are safe.

> 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…

If you look into enough NTSB investigations communication is often the first thing to go during a crash. Even if everyone is still coherent technical problems alone can have quite horrific results. Using a megaphone to communicate is just not that useful in a plane. Which is why every flight attended will stay at their assigned doors instead of comforting passengers. They seem to have quite a bit responsibility when it comes to determining if its a functioning escape route.

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

#395

Post by wolverine876 »

lxgr wrote: post #387
wolverine876 wrote: post #385

Why are ATC instructions given verbally over sometimes staticy channels using the always error-prone communication tech, human speech? Why not digital? The ATC operator chooses a command from a UI: 'JAL 123' > 'Runway 34R' > 'Clear for landing'. Everything cascades automatically from there: ATC's on-screen maps and info, airport lights, commands to all relevant planes (including 'Runway 34R' > 'Hold short'). Transmis…

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 channels.

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

#397

Post by falsandtru »

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…

> There was confusion and no evacuation was ordered by the crew over the PA. The passengers managed it themselves.

Here is an in-flight video. It appears that the passengers did not manage the evacuation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2AgoKvh-mU

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

#399

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

wannacboatmovie wrote: post #391
nradov wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Six minutes is a decent response time for ARFF in a large, active airport with no advance warning. They can't just drive straight to the incident site; instead they have to wait for ground clearance to enter any taxiways or runways because there are still other aircraft moving around.

The rule in the USA (set by FAA) is maximum 3 minutes, preferably 2, or they deny your certification and you don't get to be an airport. So I would not characterize 6 minutes as decent. In fact, it's pretty damn terrible. Source: 14 CFR 139.319: Within 3 minutes from the time of the alarm, at least one required aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle must reach the midpoint of the farthest runway serving air carrier…

Practically speaking, does this mean guys are just hanging out in the truck 24 hours a day decked out in full gear?

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

#400

Post by numpad0 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #286
KptMarchewa wrote: post #27

The fact that everyone made it out alive from A350 is a great testament to the design. Insane.

Eh, not really. Any passenger plane design is supposed to be able to evacuate in 90 seconds. They had several minutes (at least) to get off that plane before the fire spread to the cabin.

It's one thing to demand something and another to fulfill it.
Post reply on HN