27 ms·
Definitely better links than Daily Mirror out there, avherald.com unfortunately overwhelmed, but in terms of discussion: - Crazy how well the carbon fiber A350
by brunohaid 3y ago
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 videos that the crew was unable to shut down the right engine, rendering the entire right side unusable (severed lines given the severe belly damage?) UPDATE: they actually did use the front right exit nevertheless https://x.com/tanakamaru1999/status/1742132422005981578 https://x.com/tanakamaru1999/status/1742132422005981578
- Don’t have headphones with me and in a public space, but landing / takeoff clearances should be somewhere in https://archive.liveatc.net/rjtt/RJTT-Twr-TCA-Jan-02-2024-0830Z.mp3 https://archive.liveatc.net/rjtt/RJTT-Twr-TCA-Jan-02-2024-08... if someone wants to try and find them (timestamps towards end of url come in 30 minute increments).
- qwertox 3y agoDirect link to the avherald.com page of the event in order to not hit the landing page: http://avherald.com/h?article=5132b9fe&opt=0 http://avherald.com/h?article=5132b9fe&opt=0
- kzrdude 3y agoIt's somewhat reassuring to see an actual video of those chutes being used for evacuation, just never saw it before.
- throw0101d 3y ago> 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-flight-phase https://accidentstats.airbus.com/statistics/accident-by-flig... * https://www.1001crash.com/transport-page-statistique-lg-2-numpage-3.html https://www.1001crash.com/transport-page-statistique-lg-2-nu... With take-off and descent/approach being the next two more frequent phases.
- jefftk 3y agoOver 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.)
- throw0101d 3y ago> How many deaths do you expect keeping passengers from being distracted at these times would prevent? As of today: 379.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jefftk 3y agoWhere's that number coming from?
- throw0101d 3y agoThe number of souls on board for JL516. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_516 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_516
- jefftk 3y agoBut all JL516 passengers survived? How would keeping these passengers from using their phones during landing have reduced their deaths?
- throw0101d 3y agoAF358 was engulfed in flames with-in three minutes (180s): * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5jSyaj_JwE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5jSyaj_JwE * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358 The FAA mandates that aircraft are able to be evacuated with-in 90s: * https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_25.803-1A.pdf https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/... Even for something as big as an A380 in its 800+ passenger configuration: * https://www.flightglobal.com/airbus-a380-evacuation-trial-full-report-everyone-off-in-time/66584.article https://www.flightglobal.com/airbus-a380-evacuation-trial-fu... * https://simpleflying.com/aircraft-90-second-evacuation/ https://simpleflying.com/aircraft-90-second-evacuation/ The difference between 180s and 90s is 90s: if (e.g.) ~30 people out of ~350 passengers (<10%) take an extra 3 seconds each because they are not aware of their surroundings, that time is eaten up. Seconds matter.
- onetimeuse92304 3y agoI think it helped a lot that the plane was moving and thanks to this left the initial fireball behind it. It was also landing which means it had much less fuel to begin with.
- gureddio 3y agoVAS Aviation has put the audio up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fItu5qM7QfE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fItu5qM7QfE
- playingalong 3y agoThat's for what happened after the collision, not what led to it.
- brunohaid 3y agoRe clearance/cause: VASA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fItu5qM7QfE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fItu5qM7QfE also couldn't make it out, but it sounds like the Coast Guard Dash 8 got a not really perfect taxi instruction (neither "hold short" nor "line up and wait") to one of the other C* intersections leading onto 34R while a Delta flight occupied C1, but entered the runway anyway. The A350 got a proper clearance it read back correctly. Also looks like all C hold short lines have embedded guard lights - ie the stop "bar" on the way to the runway should have been flashing brightly. * https://www.anaas.ana-g.com/img/business/general_aviation/pdf/hnd-rjtt.pdf https://www.anaas.ana-g.com/img/business/general_aviation/pd...
- BorgHunter 3y agoWhether it was perfect or not, there are only a few words/phrases that allow an aircraft to cross the hold short bars at an airport with an active control tower. "Cross", "line up and wait", and "cleared for takeoff" are pretty much it. Runway incursions are very dangerous, as this incident shows, and pilots must be very sure they have clearance before entering a runway. If anything is ambiguous in an instruction, pilots are trained to ask ATC for confirmation before proceeding. It's also possible that there was more ATC communication that was not recorded. LiveATC comes from feeds provided by volunteers, whose receivers may be some distance from the airport and which may not receive signals 100% reliably. The investigators will have access to the official recordings made by JCAB (the Japanese aviation authorities).
- HeyLaughingBoy 3y agoIs "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 :-)
- rmk 3y agoLine up and wait (meaning, on the runway, prior to actual takeoff clearance) is very common during busy periods. This is in America.
- throw0101d 3y ago> https://archive.liveatc.net/rjtt/RJTT-Twr-TCA-Jan-02-2024-0830Z.mp3 https://archive.liveatc.net/rjtt/RJTT-Twr-TCA-Jan-02-2024-08... if someone wants to try and find them (timestamps towards end of url come in 30 minute increments). 13:13 JL516 continue approach. 14:53 landing clearance. 15:01 readback. 15:13 Japan Coast Guard JA772A taxi instructions. 17:35 fire reported on 34R. * Via: https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/35868205-post57.html https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/35868205-post57.html
- dang 3y agoOk, we merged the comments into the submission of the avherald.com article. Thanks!
- petee 3y agoI don't see anywhere indicating they landed on top of the other plane
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- amelius 3y ago> Looks like trading long term flammability for initial rigidity lived up to the design intent. What if a plane catches fire in midair?
- hef19898 3y agoIt crashes? But honestly, how would that happen? And close enough to a landing strip to land evacuate the plane?
- itishappy 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797
- hef19898 3y agoWe talk about the flamability difference between a carbon-composite and aluminium hull design. That fire had what, almost 20 minutes to burn before the cabin flashed?
- itishappy 3y agoYup. I'm far from an authority on the matter (just learned about the Air Canada flight further up the thread and thought it was relevant), but I'd guess this supports the "it crashes" hypothesis.
- umeshunni 3y agoFascinating: The accident became a watershed for global aviation regulations, which were changed in the aftermath of the accident to make aircraft safer. New requirements to install smoke detectors in lavatories, strip lights marking paths to exit doors, and increased firefighting training and equipment for crew became standard across the industry, while regulations regarding evacuation were also updated. Since the accident, it has become mandatory for aircraft manufacturers to prove their aircraft could be evacuated within 90 seconds of the commencement of an evacuation, and passengers seated in overwing exits are now instructed to assist in an emergency situation.
- ramesh31 3y ago>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. This will be the real story to come out of the incident. It was still an open question as to whether composite airframes were a good idea for civil aviation due to the fire risk. I imagine Airbus marketing teams started popping champagne corks the moment all passengers were safely accounted for.
- wannacboatmovie 3y ago> 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 of the burning aircraft. In the US and Europe this would be unheard of, the fire brigade would be rolling as soon as the aircraft hit the ground. The only reason hundreds of people are not dead is directly attributable to the Japanese being an overly polite and orderly culture. If this were China or elsewhere in Asia there would be hundreds of people dead right now, trampled over in the chaos, while the remaining hundred or so survivors would be exiting with their roll-aboard bags in tow.
- nradov 3y agoSix 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.
- wannacboatmovie 3y agoThe 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.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y agoPractically speaking, does this mean guys are just hanging out in the truck 24 hours a day decked out in full gear?