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

41–50 of 515 posts

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

#41

Post by konschubert »

hef19898 wrote: post #33
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…

And yet, aviation is one of the safest industries mankind ever built. It seems those solution in place are actually pretty good. Edit: Something I try to take to heart, if I don't have domain knowledge, I assume that whatever easy solution I can think of either was already discarded for valid reasons I don't know nor understand or is already implemented without me knowing about it. Generally, people working in a part…

We got very good at doing aviation safety in a certain way. The people who work in aviation are extremely skilled at doing safety in a certain way.

This is usually true for any domain. People are very experienced and extremely skilled at doing things within a certain framework.

It can still be true that there is a better way. I realise it’s hard to be on par with a century of aviation safety experience, even if the new approach is better. That’s why you need a gradual transition that focuses on enhancement rather than replacement

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

#42

Post by okasaki »

borissk wrote: post #21
resolutebat wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, that narrative was largely a myth. The people at the back by and large died instantly in the crash, without even time to undo their seatbelts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_1492#Evacuatio...

Hmmmm, there were plenty of videos of people with hand luggage outside the plane - surely taking this luggage was against the rules and has slowed down the evacuation. I won't be surprised if TASS is just trying to cover the story. I think it was a different Russian crash were the pilots were given state medals for saving the passengers. A later investigation found these same pilots were responsible for the crash. Th…

I don't see how that makes sense. Why would they say the people died instantly in a Russian aircraft if the truth was that they died because others wanted to retrieve luggage? Not everything the Russian government does is a conspiracy.

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

#43

Post by konschubert »

tonmoy wrote: post #30
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 doubt your “other domains” are as safe and reliable as the aviation industry. An automated system may be possible to make, but will require a huge undertaking to bring even close to the current safety standards, and would introduce its own safety issues

If I step into the elevator door, it doesn’t squash me and the elevator won’t move.

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

#44

Post by resolutebat »

konschubert wrote: post #36
resolutebat wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's rarely that straightforward: most all runway collisions involve ATC giving correct instructions, but the crew mishears them, misunderstands them, hears them correctly but accidentally goes to the wrong runway/taxiway, etc etc. And there's usually complicating factors like terrible weather, diversions to unfamiliar airports etc in the mix as well. What remains the world's worst single aviation disaster in Tenerif…

All of which would be prevented if the plane refused to steer onto a runway that it knows is occupied. The ATC computer should talk to the plane computer.

Airplane taxiing is manual. ATC can tell the plane to use runway A, and the plane can check that A is free, but neither will stop the pilot from accidentally steering into runway B.

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

#45

Post by LightBug1 »

konschubert wrote: post #36
resolutebat wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's rarely that straightforward: most all runway collisions involve ATC giving correct instructions, but the crew mishears them, misunderstands them, hears them correctly but accidentally goes to the wrong runway/taxiway, etc etc. And there's usually complicating factors like terrible weather, diversions to unfamiliar airports etc in the mix as well. What remains the world's worst single aviation disaster in Tenerif…

All of which would be prevented if the plane refused to steer onto a runway that it knows is occupied. The ATC computer should talk to the plane computer.

Yeah, throw in different languages and accents and all kinds of variations and ... I tend to agree.

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

#46

Post by konschubert »

YPPH wrote: post #39
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…

Pilots are accustomed to the immediacy of voice communication, which any electronic system will struggle to replicate. More sophisticated radio than simplex VHF has too many variables, and agreeing on an international standard would be challenging. There have been some developments of a replacement of, or at least a supplement to, simplex radio. But none are as cheap, quick and reliable as verbal communications with…

“We’ve always done it like this” will no longer be a good argument when one of the increasing number of near misses turns into an accident.

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

#47

Post by pm3003 »

konschubert wrote: post #25
epolanski wrote: post #7

I'll speculate: this looks like textbook runway invasion where miscommunication leads to two different aircrafts being allowed on a runway at the same time. Reminds me of LATAM 2213, which led to the very first Airbus 320 neo being written off [1]. Essentially, clearance to enter a runway has to be expressively given and confirmed in non-ubiquitous language ("Flight ABC requesting clearance to enter runway 01"). Yet…

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 worked in software in a domain vaguely related to ATC, and I've heard a few years ago that even sampling the voice commands (and routing them as VoIP) is problematic , as altering the signal through sampling and encoding can go against regulations. I don't remember the details though.

It was in a project related to ATC and area control / FIR services backup systems.

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

#48

Post by jefftk »

throw0101d wrote: post #40
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 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…

Over 50%, sure, but 50% of a very small number. How many deaths do you expect keeping passengers from being distracted at these times would prevent?

(I expect if you compare that to the number of people inconvenienced by the rule it's a terrible trade off.)

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

#49

Post by epolanski »

konschubert wrote: post #36
resolutebat wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's rarely that straightforward: most all runway collisions involve ATC giving correct instructions, but the crew mishears them, misunderstands them, hears them correctly but accidentally goes to the wrong runway/taxiway, etc etc. And there's usually complicating factors like terrible weather, diversions to unfamiliar airports etc in the mix as well. What remains the world's worst single aviation disaster in Tenerif…

All of which would be prevented if the plane refused to steer onto a runway that it knows is occupied. The ATC computer should talk to the plane computer.

> The ATC computer should talk to the plane computer.

Not as simple:

1) You need to implement it for very small airplanes too, which is far from easy. In the Linate air disaster a small Cessna Citation invaded the runtime due to fog and misscomunication.

2) You need to implement it for ground vehicles too, as in the LATAM example it was a fire truck that invaded the runtime.

3) You need A LOT of infrastructural update.

4) Even if you had computers talking to computers, this may still be far from enough to avoid collisions, as those mistakes are often a matter of seconds (as in the both accidents quoted before).

5) Automation brings its own issues. One of them is complacency where attention levels unavoidably get lower as reliance on automation increases. In turn complacency can make runways more prone to such incidents in case of malfunctions/bugs.

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

#50

Post by Aeolun »

resolutebat wrote: post #44
konschubert wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of which would be prevented if the plane refused to steer onto a runway that it knows is occupied. The ATC computer should talk to the plane computer.

Airplane taxiing is manual. ATC can tell the plane to use runway A, and the plane can check that A is free, but neither will stop the pilot from accidentally steering into runway B.

There’s nothing preventing airplanes from knowing the coordinates of every runway in the world and working out the truth using GPS though.
Post reply on HN