4 ms·

> 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 ago
Where's that number coming from?
- throw0101d 3y ago
  The 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 ago
    But all JL516 passengers survived? How would keeping these passengers from using their phones during landing have reduced their deaths?
    - throw0101d 3y ago
      AF358 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.
      - jefftk 3y ago
        I think maybe you're under the impression that: 1. Passengers on JL516 were not permitted to use their phones during landing. 2. I'm proposing that we start allowing them to use their phones. 3. If we did that then all 379 passengers would have died [1] because evacuation would have taken longer than the time before the plane was engulfed in flames [2] Except #1 isn't the case: passengers were allowed to be on their phones and were doing so. And so #2 isn't the case either: I'm proposing maintaining the status quo. And even if we had granted #1 and #2 I don't see how you get #3 because even if the extra time were entirely eaten up by 30 distracted passengers this wouldn't get you 100% dead: people don't leave in a single batch determined by the speed of the slowest person. There are multiple parallel exits, and each exit operates serially. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38841170 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38841170 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38842440 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38842440
        throw0101d 3y ago
        > And even if we had granted #1 and #2 I don't see how you get #3 because even if the extra time were entirely eaten up by 30 distracted passengers this wouldn't get you 100% dead: You are right that it does not necessarily follow that 100% would be dead. AC 797 had a flash fire after 90 seconds, and only about half the people died. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - anigbrowl 3y ago
        People keep pointing out to you that passengers were in fact using their phones to record footage of the interior of the plane (eg to let their friends/relatives know what was going on in case they didn't make it). Of course people are easily distracted by phones when they should be paying attention to other things, but virtually all people already in an emergency situation are fully present unless they're injured or caring for an injured person. I think you're underestimating people's ability to multitask when they know it matters.
filleduchaos 3y ago
Passengers were using their phones during landing (including at least one that posted footage from inside the plane on social media), so...no? Incredibly, people can walk and chew gum at the same time. This includes the ability to refocus their attention when they experience unusual events.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  You're allowed to use phones during landing; they don't present much of a challenge for evacuation. You're not allowed to use laptops or have the tray down.
  - jefftk 3y ago
    This thread was started with throw0101d saying "I think forcing people to not have any distractions during take-offs and landings is a good thing", and we've been discussing how to weigh the inconvenience and boredom of prohibiting distractions against the reduced risk of death via more efficient evacuations.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      The idea of putting down your phone for an hour in total being "too inconvenient" as people seemingly willingly sign over their dignity for a $10 cheaper flight ticket is.... uninspiring.
      - jefftk 3y ago
        It sounds like people vary a lot in their preferences? For example, I wouldn't take a $10 cheaper flight which prohibited using my phone, but I probably would take one that gave me a 1" narrower seat.
  - filleduchaos 3y ago
    You're not allowed to use laptops or have the tray down because those are active physical hazards even in fairly routine landings not because of some nebulous idea of you being "distracted".
JohnBooty 3y ago
You seem really certain that passengers would be so wrapped up in their phones that they would be too distracted to promptly realize... there was a collision with another plane, causing their plane to split open and burst into flames. OK.
- serf 3y ago
  That 'prompt realization' takes actual time from an escape when it doesn't necessarily need to. I have no problem with the idea that humans can re-prioritize; but I do have a problem that people seem to think that the re-prioritization effort comes for free, instantly. We don't work that way as humans.
  - JohnBooty 3y ago
    There's phone footage from inside the burning plane, so apparently your theories don't correspond with reality. Always quite annoying when that happens. Been the death of many a theory. people seem to think that the re-prioritization effort comes for free, instantly Here are the two biggest flaws in your thinking: 1. You seem to be assuming the alternative to "using one's phone during a landing" is some sort of highly aware ready state. In reality it's probably bored snoozing or half-snoozing. It's a red-eye flight after all. 2. You seem to be assuming that "evacuating a burning plane" is some kind of split-second thing, like a quicktime event in a video game. In reality, at least for this incident, there was a span of a significant number of seconds between "impact" and "plane slows down enough for emergency slides to extend and evacuation to begin." 30, maybe 60 seconds.... I'm not sure, but there was no real positive action for a passenger to take during that time. Shifting attention away from one's phone certainly has a nonzero time cost, but not remotely comparable to the time it took for the plane to come to a full stop. Again, you're dealing in hypotheticals, while the actual reality of this incident (phones in use, orderly exit achieved, all lives saved) contradicts whatever it is you are imagining.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jefftk 3y ago

Where's that number coming from?

throw0101d 3y ago
The 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 ago
  But all JL516 passengers survived? How would keeping these passengers from using their phones during landing have reduced their deaths?
  - throw0101d 3y ago
    AF358 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.
    - jefftk 3y ago
      I think maybe you're under the impression that: 1. Passengers on JL516 were not permitted to use their phones during landing. 2. I'm proposing that we start allowing them to use their phones. 3. If we did that then all 379 passengers would have died [1] because evacuation would have taken longer than the time before the plane was engulfed in flames [2] Except #1 isn't the case: passengers were allowed to be on their phones and were doing so. And so #2 isn't the case either: I'm proposing maintaining the status quo. And even if we had granted #1 and #2 I don't see how you get #3 because even if the extra time were entirely eaten up by 30 distracted passengers this wouldn't get you 100% dead: people don't leave in a single batch determined by the speed of the slowest person. There are multiple parallel exits, and each exit operates serially. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38841170 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38841170 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38842440 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38842440
      - throw0101d 3y ago
        > And even if we had granted #1 and #2 I don't see how you get #3 because even if the extra time were entirely eaten up by 30 distracted passengers this wouldn't get you 100% dead: You are right that it does not necessarily follow that 100% would be dead. AC 797 had a flash fire after 90 seconds, and only about half the people died. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - anigbrowl 3y ago
      People keep pointing out to you that passengers were in fact using their phones to record footage of the interior of the plane (eg to let their friends/relatives know what was going on in case they didn't make it). Of course people are easily distracted by phones when they should be paying attention to other things, but virtually all people already in an emergency situation are fully present unless they're injured or caring for an injured person. I think you're underestimating people's ability to multitask when they know it matters.

filleduchaos 3y ago

Passengers were using their phones during landing (including at least one that posted footage from inside the plane on social media), so...no? Incredibly, people can walk and chew gum at the same time. This includes the ability to refocus their attention when they experience unusual events.

ceejayoz 3y ago
You're allowed to use phones during landing; they don't present much of a challenge for evacuation. You're not allowed to use laptops or have the tray down.
- jefftk 3y ago
  This thread was started with throw0101d saying "I think forcing people to not have any distractions during take-offs and landings is a good thing", and we've been discussing how to weigh the inconvenience and boredom of prohibiting distractions against the reduced risk of death via more efficient evacuations.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    The idea of putting down your phone for an hour in total being "too inconvenient" as people seemingly willingly sign over their dignity for a $10 cheaper flight ticket is.... uninspiring.
    - jefftk 3y ago
      It sounds like people vary a lot in their preferences? For example, I wouldn't take a $10 cheaper flight which prohibited using my phone, but I probably would take one that gave me a 1" narrower seat.
- filleduchaos 3y ago
  You're not allowed to use laptops or have the tray down because those are active physical hazards even in fairly routine landings not because of some nebulous idea of you being "distracted".

JohnBooty 3y ago

You seem really certain that passengers would be so wrapped up in their phones that they would be too distracted to promptly realize... there was a collision with another plane, causing their plane to split open and burst into flames. OK.

serf 3y ago
That 'prompt realization' takes actual time from an escape when it doesn't necessarily need to. I have no problem with the idea that humans can re-prioritize; but I do have a problem that people seem to think that the re-prioritization effort comes for free, instantly. We don't work that way as humans.
- JohnBooty 3y ago
  There's phone footage from inside the burning plane, so apparently your theories don't correspond with reality. Always quite annoying when that happens. Been the death of many a theory. people seem to think that the re-prioritization effort comes for free, instantly Here are the two biggest flaws in your thinking: 1. You seem to be assuming the alternative to "using one's phone during a landing" is some sort of highly aware ready state. In reality it's probably bored snoozing or half-snoozing. It's a red-eye flight after all. 2. You seem to be assuming that "evacuating a burning plane" is some kind of split-second thing, like a quicktime event in a video game. In reality, at least for this incident, there was a span of a significant number of seconds between "impact" and "plane slows down enough for emergency slides to extend and evacuation to begin." 30, maybe 60 seconds.... I'm not sure, but there was no real positive action for a passenger to take during that time. Shifting attention away from one's phone certainly has a nonzero time cost, but not remotely comparable to the time it took for the plane to come to a full stop. Again, you're dealing in hypotheticals, while the actual reality of this incident (phones in use, orderly exit achieved, all lives saved) contradicts whatever it is you are imagining.