Hopefully this is like crumples zones in cars: looks awful but are actually safer for humans.....
The fire is likely to be seen as a key test case for airplane fuselages made from carbon-composite fibers, such as the A350 and the Boeing 787, instead of conventional aluminum skins.
“We don’t know that much about how composites burn,” said safety consultant John Cox. “This is the most catastrophic composite-airplane fire that I can think of. On the other hand, that fuselage protected (passengers) from a really horrific fire -- it did not burn through for some period of time and let everybody get out.”
Hopefully this is like crumples zones in cars: looks awful but are actually safer for humans.....
Important to note that all passenger airplanes certified for use in the United States and throughout most nations who are party to ICAO treaties have to demonstrate an ability to fully evacuate...
Important to note that all passenger airplanes certified for use in the United States and throughout most nations who are party to ICAO treaties have to demonstrate an ability to fully evacuate the airplane quickly. I believe in as little as 120 seconds. It's a test case in that one of these kinds of airplanes hasn't had an accident like this, but it's also worth noting that everybody on the Japan Airlines jet survived. Most only has minor injuries (if any) related to the violence of evacuating the airplane.
If I'm not mistaken, the alternative to CF is aluminium, which turns into soggy pasta at roughly 400°C. 400 is an incredibly low temperature, and while CF slowly oxidizes at that temp, apparently...
If I'm not mistaken, the alternative to CF is aluminium, which turns into soggy pasta at roughly 400°C. 400 is an incredibly low temperature, and while CF slowly oxidizes at that temp, apparently it doesn't really burn just yet. After an inferno like we've seen, the aluminium skin doesn't really protect you at all, while I imagine CF keeps its integrity for quite a while longer. As for being flammable itself... with the cabin interior and jet fuel around, there's enough flammable material around, so whether the skin itself can burn doesn't really matter.
Not quite sure what you mean about ATC infrastructure being taken for granted, but it sounds like it was either controller or pilot error since both planes somehow ended up on the same runway....
Not quite sure what you mean about ATC infrastructure being taken for granted, but it sounds like it was either controller or pilot error since both planes somehow ended up on the same runway. From the linked AP article:
Shigenori Hiraoka, head of the Transport Ministry Civil Aviation Bureau, said the collision occurred when the JAL plane landed on one of Haneda’s four runways where the coast guard aircraft was preparing to take off. Transport safety officials were analyzing communication between aviation control officials and the two aircraft and planned to interview JAL officials to determine what led to the collision.
NBC Bay Area aviation expert Mike McCarron said it was likely human error, not a technical glitch, that caused the collision.
"The problem here is someone was not where they were supposed to be, clearly," he said. "The [Japan Airlines] flight was coming in. It was apparently cleared for landing. What the coast guard plane was doing and why it was on the runway, that’s the big question right now. Did the controller make a mistake? Did the pilot of the aircraft make a mistake? Somewhere that has to be found, and they’ll take steps back to make sure that what happened doesn’t happen again."
Controller is never supposed to fail, we usually take that mechanism for granted as it's a critical part of the infrastructure and almost always works. And as long as the Controller works, the...
Controller is never supposed to fail, we usually take that mechanism for granted as it's a critical part of the infrastructure and almost always works. And as long as the Controller works, the pilots should never deviate from their own paths (assuming both the pilots did their job right here) and this situation should never arrive.
Since pilots of commercial aircrafts are usually hired after all the scrutiny, training, etc., there are more chances of an issue with the ATC in this case.
Ah, I gotcha. I was confused by your inclusion of the "infrastructure" part. I thought you we alluding to a technical failure of some sort, which there doesn't seems to be any indication of. But...
Ah, I gotcha. I was confused by your inclusion of the "infrastructure" part. I thought you we alluding to a technical failure of some sort, which there doesn't seems to be any indication of.
But as for training, I think you vastly underestimate how much training goes into becoming an ATC. I know a few former ATCs and they were incredibly well trained. It's an incredibly incredibly stressful job though, especially during increased traffic events like this, due to the earthquake relief efforts. But we don't actually know if ATC is at fault in this case yet. And IMO it's just as likely that the coast guard pilot got confused, and went to the wrong runway for takeoff. Again though, we don't know yet, and so are just going to have to wait and see which is the case once the investigation is concluded. So there isn't much point in blaming anyone or anything based entirely on speculation.
I'm leaning more towards technical failure (be it ATC or somewhere else) than a human failure (due to pilots taking wrong paths). The pilots are usually hired after lot's of scrutiny, training,...
I'm leaning more towards technical failure (be it ATC or somewhere else) than a human failure (due to pilots taking wrong paths). The pilots are usually hired after lot's of scrutiny, training, etc. and there are typically more than one pilot assigned to a flight.
There is also a small chance of human failure happening at the ATC end (like an intern goofing up with the signal data?) but that's extremely rare I think, never heard of such a thing happening before.
ATC errors aren't super common, but they do happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_caused_by_air_traffic_controller_error And pilot errors do happen too...
Again though, I think it's kinda pointless to speculate right now. We will likely know soon enough what actually caused this. And I'm sure Admiral Cloudberg will do a post on it once it's known. ;)
Latest word is that it was the coast guard pilot's error. Source: https://apnews.com/article/japan-planes-collision-a350-fire-investigation-tokyo-f2f0950ed7acd0e978bb26c739132629 In addition, I...
Latest word is that it was the coast guard pilot's error.
TOKYO (AP) — A transcript of communication between traffic control and two aircraft that collided and burst into flames at Tokyo’s Haneda Airport showed that only the larger Japan Airlines passenger flight was given permission to use the runway where a coast guard plane was preparing for takeoff.
human factors are more commonly to blame (as opposed to technical factors).
The incidents — highlighted in preliminary F.A.A. safety reports but not publicly disclosed — were among a flurry of at least 46 close calls involving commercial airlines last month alone. [...] They were part of an alarming pattern of safety lapses and near misses in the skies and on the runways of the United States, a Times investigation found. [...] The incidents often occur at or near airports and are the result of human error, the agency’s internal records show.
Thanks for the update. And yeah, it definitely sounds like it was unfortunately the coast guard pilot's error, who was the sole survivor from the CG plane. :( According to the transcript, they...
Thanks for the update. And yeah, it definitely sounds like it was unfortunately the coast guard pilot's error, who was the sole survivor from the CG plane. :(
According to the transcript, they were told by ATC to go to holding point C5, which they acknowledged. But then they proceeded to taxi onto the runway itself, which the pilot supposedly thought they had permission for, according to their post accident interview.
Oh yes, being a 40+ dude, I had based this probability on my old school empirical experience when humans typically performed better than machines. But in the age of AI and digital, technical...
Oh yes, being a 40+ dude, I had based this probability on my old school empirical experience when humans typically performed better than machines. But in the age of AI and digital, technical failures are much rarer compared to human.
In this case, the accident may have been averted had even one of the two pilots detected the presence of the other vehicle in the vicinity. If only depending on the ATC is less reliable, pilots should often use some other means (digital or analog data) to detect the presence of other objects in their vicinity?
Needless to say, there is also the question of there not being enough time to swirl or take a turn if the other object is already too near.
Empirically, ATC practices are incredibly reliable. There are thousands of flights every day, and accidents like this are a rarity. As a software engineer, I'd trust a working human system with...
Empirically, ATC practices are incredibly reliable. There are thousands of flights every day, and accidents like this are a rarity.
As a software engineer, I'd trust a working human system with that track record over software any day. Software is complex, prone to unforeseen edge cases and has its own human errors as well, which often are far less transparent until they cause catastrophe...and the software industry is far worse at mitigating those errors than the aviation industry. The same level of exacting standards are just not there.
Poor Japan :(
It has been a hard couple of days for the country.
Hopefully this is like crumples zones in cars: looks awful but are actually safer for humans.....
Important to note that all passenger airplanes certified for use in the United States and throughout most nations who are party to ICAO treaties have to demonstrate an ability to fully evacuate the airplane quickly. I believe in as little as 120 seconds. It's a test case in that one of these kinds of airplanes hasn't had an accident like this, but it's also worth noting that everybody on the Japan Airlines jet survived. Most only has minor injuries (if any) related to the violence of evacuating the airplane.
They didn't destructive test the fusalage with a junked plane, or burn a sample to test for fumes?
Nothing compares to a real world test
Yeah I'm super surprised too..... especially considering how flammable airplane fuel is..,
I'm sore the companies did. That doesn't mean the regulators did.
If I'm not mistaken, the alternative to CF is aluminium, which turns into soggy pasta at roughly 400°C. 400 is an incredibly low temperature, and while CF slowly oxidizes at that temp, apparently it doesn't really burn just yet. After an inferno like we've seen, the aluminium skin doesn't really protect you at all, while I imagine CF keeps its integrity for quite a while longer. As for being flammable itself... with the cabin interior and jet fuel around, there's enough flammable material around, so whether the skin itself can burn doesn't really matter.
Collided in this day and age? Isn't the infrastructure of ATC (Air Traffic Controller) almost taken for granted these days?
Not quite sure what you mean about ATC infrastructure being taken for granted, but it sounds like it was either controller or pilot error since both planes somehow ended up on the same runway. From the linked AP article:
See also:
Controller is never supposed to fail, we usually take that mechanism for granted as it's a critical part of the infrastructure and almost always works. And as long as the Controller works, the pilots should never deviate from their own paths (assuming both the pilots did their job right here) and this situation should never arrive.
Since pilots of commercial aircrafts are usually hired after all the scrutiny, training, etc., there are more chances of an issue with the ATC in this case.
Ah, I gotcha. I was confused by your inclusion of the "infrastructure" part. I thought you we alluding to a technical failure of some sort, which there doesn't seems to be any indication of.
But as for training, I think you vastly underestimate how much training goes into becoming an ATC. I know a few former ATCs and they were incredibly well trained. It's an incredibly incredibly stressful job though, especially during increased traffic events like this, due to the earthquake relief efforts. But we don't actually know if ATC is at fault in this case yet. And IMO it's just as likely that the coast guard pilot got confused, and went to the wrong runway for takeoff. Again though, we don't know yet, and so are just going to have to wait and see which is the case once the investigation is concluded. So there isn't much point in blaming anyone or anything based entirely on speculation.
I'm leaning more towards technical failure (be it ATC or somewhere else) than a human failure (due to pilots taking wrong paths). The pilots are usually hired after lot's of scrutiny, training, etc. and there are typically more than one pilot assigned to a flight.
There is also a small chance of human failure happening at the ATC end (like an intern goofing up with the signal data?) but that's extremely rare I think, never heard of such a thing happening before.
ATC errors aren't super common, but they do happen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_caused_by_air_traffic_controller_error
And pilot errors do happen too (slightly more frequently, I might add):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_accidents_and_incidents_caused_by_pilot_error
Again though, I think it's kinda pointless to speculate right now. We will likely know soon enough what actually caused this. And I'm sure Admiral Cloudberg will do a post on it once it's known. ;)
Latest word is that it was the coast guard pilot's error.
Source: https://apnews.com/article/japan-planes-collision-a350-fire-investigation-tokyo-f2f0950ed7acd0e978bb26c739132629
In addition, I think that:
Source: https://archive.is/btNB0
(tagging @pyeri for visibility)
Thanks for the update. And yeah, it definitely sounds like it was unfortunately the coast guard pilot's error, who was the sole survivor from the CG plane. :(
According to the transcript, they were told by ATC to go to holding point C5, which they acknowledged. But then they proceeded to taxi onto the runway itself, which the pilot supposedly thought they had permission for, according to their post accident interview.
p.s. Found this sat pic of the airport runway, showing where C5 is, and where the crash occurred past that:
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/C5-Hold-Point-Illustration-1024x651.jpg
Oh yes, being a 40+ dude, I had based this probability on my old school empirical experience when humans typically performed better than machines. But in the age of AI and digital, technical failures are much rarer compared to human.
In this case, the accident may have been averted had even one of the two pilots detected the presence of the other vehicle in the vicinity. If only depending on the ATC is less reliable, pilots should often use some other means (digital or analog data) to detect the presence of other objects in their vicinity?
Needless to say, there is also the question of there not being enough time to swirl or take a turn if the other object is already too near.
Empirically, ATC practices are incredibly reliable. There are thousands of flights every day, and accidents like this are a rarity.
As a software engineer, I'd trust a working human system with that track record over software any day. Software is complex, prone to unforeseen edge cases and has its own human errors as well, which often are far less transparent until they cause catastrophe...and the software industry is far worse at mitigating those errors than the aviation industry. The same level of exacting standards are just not there.
I worked in aviation safety before becoming a reporter. See why I think Japan Airlines' excellent safety video helped save 379 lives.