4 ms·

Where's that number coming from?

by jefftk 3y ago

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.

Where's that number coming from?

by jefftk 3y ago

Where's that number coming from?

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.