Personally, I'd be very happy having an ex-military pilot flying me around; I think the pros definitely outweigh the cons. But do be aware that the cons exist.
Can you elaborate more on what how dangerous instructions would work in a civilian scenario? Where does a hierarchy come into the picture?
0:00-0:02 - Tower: "Asiana 214, San Francisco Tower, runway 28 left, cleared to land"
0:02-0:04 - Asiana 214 pilot: "Cleared to land left, Asiana 214"
0:05-0:08 - Tower: "Skywest 5427, fly runway heading and contact (north cal?) departure" (plane took off and is making a straight-out departure, and now will contact departure control)
0:09-0:12 - Skywest 5427 pilot: "OK, going to departure, Skywest 5427 (free?)"
0:12-0:14 United 885 pilot: "United 885" (pilot makes a quick break call to tower before making a longer request)
0:14-0:16 Tower: "United, uh, 85, OK?" (tells pilot to go ahead)
0:17-0:21 United 885 pilot: "Yes, United 885 at the end, we might need a few more minutes, just a heads-up" (It sounds like 885 is next for takeoff and has taxied into position next to the runway)
0:21-0:25 Tower: "United 885, roger, hold short of runway 28 left, let me know when you're ready"
0:25-0:27 United 885 pilot: "Hold at 28 left, United 885"
0:27-0:32 Skywest 5452 pilot: "San Francisco Tower, Skywest 5452, (quite ?), 28 right"
0:32-0:36 Tower: "Skywest 5452, San Francisco Tower, runway 28 right, cleared to land"
0:36-0:38 Skywest 5452 pilot: "Clear to land, 28 right, Skywest 5452"
0:38-0:41 Tower: "Three Sierra Fox... (garbled)"
0:39-0:41 Voice in background (in tower?) "What? Hell? What happened?"
0:43-0:50 Skyhawk 737ZD pilot: "San Francisco Tower, Skyhawk seven three seven zulu delta (garbled, another transmission saying 'GO AROUND') (something) plus 500 feet please, over San Carlos" (A four seat Cessna is over the San Carlos airport just southeast of SFO and wants to cross the SFO airspace. 737ZD [if I have it right] is the aircraft's tail number, no connection to the Boeing 737.)
0:50-0:52 Tower: "Skyhawk 6389, maintain 3000 [feet altitude]" (It sounds like 6389 is on approach to land and tower is telling him to go around? Not sure)
0:53-0:54 Skyhawk 6389 pilot: "(something) 3000, yes, 389" (speaking quickly to keep the channel clear)
0:55-0:57 Asiana 214 pilot (!!): "Tower, Asiana 214!"
0:57-1:00 Tower: "Asiana 214 heavy, emergency vehicles are responding" ("heavy" refers to any large aircraft)
1:00-1:01 Asiana 214 pilot: "214" (acknowledging)
1:02-1:03 Tower? "Emergency veh(something)"
1:03-1:09 Asiana 214 pilot: "OK, now, uh, uh, and ten or twelve (?) (unintelligible)"
1:10-1:16 Tower: "Cessna 737 Zulu Delta, San Francisco Tower, remain clear of the San Francisco (Fox Bravo?) airspace, contact San Carlos Tower"
1:17-1:21 Skyhawk 737ZD pilot: "Seven Zulu Delta, contacting San Carlos Tower, and remaining clear"
There's another minute or so on the recording, but my nerves are shot after doing that much. If anyone would like to pick it up from there, correct it, etc., please do.
1:10 ATC: 737 Zulu Delta San Francisco Tower, remain clear of the San Francisco Fox Bravo airspace [ed: I believe Bravo refers to the SF Class B airspace, not sure what the Fox is]. Contact San Carlos Tower
1:17 737 Zulu Delta Pilot: Contacting San Carlos Tower and remaining clear.
1:22 ATC: 305 start leaving the Bravo airspace and 2 miles .. terminate ... maintain the appropriate stage ..
1:27 ATC: (inaudible) is closed San Francisco Tower (inaudible)
(inaudible command to Horizon 635 from ATC)
1:34 ATC: He's got a 214 heavy, San Francisco Tower
1:37 ATC: Asiana (inaudible)
1:42 635 Pilot: 635 going around.
143 ATC: 635 fly heading 2-6-5 maintain 3100 (ft).
1:46 635 Pilot: 265 3100 - alright 635.
1:51 ATC: Asiana 214 heavy emergency vehicles are responding, we have everyone on their way
1:57 ATC: SkyWest 5452 san francisco tower go around
2:00 SkyWest 5452: Go around Skywards 5452
2:03 ATC: SkyWest 5452 fly heading 2-8-0 maintain 3000 ft.
2:07 SkyWest 5452 Pilot: 280 and 3000, SkyWest 5452.
2:10 Horizon 635 fly heading 2-6-5 maintain 3100
2:13 635 Pilot: Yes sir 265 3100, Horizon 635
2:16 ATC: Contact NORCAL reports for 135.1
2:19 635 Pilot: 35.1 - Horizon 635
2:22 SkyWest 5452 contact NORCAL reports for 135.1
2:25 5452 Pilot: 35.1
2:27 6039 Pilot: 6039 will go to San Jose
2:31 ATC: SkyWest 6039 roger. Contact NORCAL for departure
2:35 ATC: (inaudible) SkyWest 6389
2:39 ATC: rescue 33 San Francisco tower proceed to the scene cross - inaudible - the 11 San Francisco Tower proceed as requested. Cross all runways.
2:46 Rescue: San Francisco Tower 33 and rescue 11 cleared the 1.
2:50 ATC: rescue 33, rescue 11 roger.
2:54 ATC: (inaudible) Foxtrot San Francisco Tower
I also listened to the ATC before descent, no talk about any failures or problems or requests for rescue before descent.
1:23 Tower: tells a departing helicopter to depart 2 mi straight out, turn right, squawk a certain signifier on its altimeter (standard practice), and approves a frequency change (also standard practice);
1:28 Tower: cuts out briefly and then says "..is closed, San Francisco Tower."
1:31 Tower: silence, then starts to tell a Horizon flight something and the Asiana pilot cuts in with [hard to hear, best guess]"San Francisco?" Also, Sounds to me like they put Asiana 214 on a priority channel over other flight traffic, or that the tower cut itself/other pilots off when they saw/heard Asiana 214 was speaking.
1:36 Tower: Asiana 214 Heavy, San Francisco Tower
1:37 Asiana 214: [unintelligible, but my best guess: This, uh..., how much is this, uh, where is, uh,... uh,..."]
1:42 Horizon 635: 635 is going around
1:43 Tower: Horizon 635, fly heading 265, maintain 3100
1:46 Horizon 635: 265, 3100, Horizon 635
1:49: Asiana 214 [garbled]: San Francisco?
1:52 Tower: Asiana 214 Heavy, emergency vehicles are responding; they have everyone on their way.
1:56 Asiana 214: [garbled, definitely a few words and then a static burst]
1:58 Tower: Skywest 5452, San Francisco Tower, go around.
2:00 Skywest 5452: Go around, Skywest 5452
2:30 Tower: Skywest 5452, fly heading 280, maintain 3000.
2:07 Skywest 5452: 280 at 3000, Skywest 5452
2:10 Tower: Horizon 635, fly heading 265, maintain 3100.
2:14 Horizon 635: Yessir, 265, 3100, Horizon 635.
2:17 Tower: Contract North Cal departure 135.1.
2:19 Horizon 635: 35.1, Horizon 635.
2:22 Tower: Skywest 5452, contact North Cal departure 135.1.
2:26 Skywest 5452: 35 1.
2:28 Skywest 6389: 6389 We'll go to San Jose.
2:30 Tower: Skywest 6389, Roger. And, uh, contact North Cal departure.
2:34 Skywest 6389 [garbled]: What's the... frequency for that?
2:36 Tower [garbled at start]: [garbled] point 1, Skywest 6389.
2:39 Tower [garbled at start]: Rescue three three, San Francisco Tower, proceed to the scene, cross runway; [garbled, maybe "Rescue"] eleven, San Francisco Tower, proceed as requested, cross all [garbled, "runways"?]
2:46 Rescue 11: San Francisco Tower, [garbled, maybe "Rescue 33"] and Rescue 11, cleared to one.
2:50 Tower: Rescue 33, Rescue 11, roger.
2:54 Tower: [garbled] Foxtrot, San Francisco Tower
Yes, that was post-crash.
This looks like 6 seconds of jargon containing about 25 words, but it really only contains one single bit of information that being that in the giant state machine of flowchart of flying a plane, everyone mutually agrees its your turn to click forward precisely one step. Once you look at it that way, the "conceptual bit rate" drops dramatically lower. 5452 probably expected to get 28R all along, and based on where he was probably expected to get clearance "right about then" too.
"Hey you, its me, you can land over there"
"Hey you, its me, I think heard you say I can land over there" (with the implied, if I misheard, you'd best start yelling right about now either at me or at everyone else to get out of my way)
When its just business as usual, things click along awful fast. When ATC gives out some "unpredictable" order or a pilot has a weird request, there's always a very dramatic pause due to cognitive load. I can have my scanner monitoring the local tower for fun and Very quickly you learn to tune out BAU chatter until/unless weird tempo strikes. You can also tell purely by cadence and tempo with near perfect accuracy if the pilot is a local or a noob in general or a distant traveler.
The ATC controller knows something has happened because the first time we hear from 214 heavy, the controller tells the pilot emergency vehicles are on the way.
Then some captains on final announce they're going around and some ask for redirect (one clearly to San Jose). The controller then tells some flights on final to go around.
Finally he's directing rescue units to cross all runways where normally they'd hold at each runway to be directed.
> I just crash landed at SFO. Tail ripped off. Most everyone seems fine. I'm ok. Surreal... (at @flySFO) [pic] — https://path.com/p/1lwrZb
Passengers exiting with carry-on baggage were the most frequently cited obstruction to evacuation. Twenty-four of the 36 flight attendants who responded listed carry-on baggage as an obstruction. Overall, 37 percent of the passengers indicated that retrieving carry-on baggage slowed the evacuation; however, in five of the evacuations (cases 9, 16, 24, 27, and 32), a majority of passengers believed that the evacuation was slowed by carry-on baggage. Further, 70 passengers and 8 flight attendants reported arguments between passengers and flight attendants regarding luggage.
[...] The Safety Board concludes that passengers’ efforts to evacuate an airplane with their carry-on baggage continue to pose a problem for flight attendants and are a serious risk to a successful evacuation of an airplane.
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/safetystudies/SS0001.pdf (page 66-68)
The people who brought their bags off the plane today have their clothes, laptops and passports tonight; they can go to work tomorrow. The people who didn't are locked up in a customs holding cell, wearing the same underwear, for a few days until someone can issue them a passport. They'll never get their bag back and the airline will, after filing dozens of forms, compensate them about $50 for it.
Then some of them will really fight with the lock refusing to leave.
Mitigating against that exact misunderstanding was part of my suggestion - otherwise you could just lock them with no lights/explanation, but then you'd run into the problem you describe.
Edit: I'll add that I was in a retail store (employee) that was evacuated by police, due to an armed gunman. People were still worried about the office chair or shredder that they wanted to buy. An officer had to basically get up on a counter, and hold up his gun and badge and say, "Everyone out! Now!"
On the way out some guy was trying to ask me if we would be open later because he (apparently) really wanted to get this office chair he was looking at.
It's human nature. You have to work with it, not against it.
I suppose the emergency info should mention that anything you absolutely can't leave needs to be kept on your person.
Of course most people will thing "aw it will never happen", but if they hear the same message every time they take off people will probably get in the habit of not leaving their wallets in their luggage.
(Sorry, can't find a reference. Most hits I get are either on emergency reaction/response by outside teams or on long-term emergency responses such as PTSD, community reactions, etc)
I fly gliders, where it's fairly common to wear parachutes in flight to guard against structural failure or mid-air collision.
We're told that when we're done flying, we should always exit the glider first, then remove the parachute. Some people will unbuckle the parachute first, then step out. Some of these people have gone on to bail out in flight, and they undo their seat belts, unbuckle their parachute, and then bail out of the plane without it.
(everybody was fine, there were no injuries).
The brain is quite incredible at blocking out bad things.
I think it would be fair to carry the small package under my seat (my laptop), but reaching for overhead is a joke.
I would think "while the seatbelt sign is on" would be adequate.
In a situation like that, why wouldn't you grab your bag if it was readily accessible? It seems like healthy, rational behavior rather than a symptom of extreme confusion.
The bottlenecks in their escape were the doorway and the
crew's deployment of the inflatable slide... why wouldn't
you grab your bag if it was readily accessible?
Here's a 777: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAkAcQOnQY
If everyone stops to grab their bag, it can take ten times as long. If the plane is on fire, then people die.
The whole thing now makes me wonder if there was some very deliberate reason for their egress to be delayed. Something having to do with fire or the risk of fire? (I really have no idea)
And of course I check back 7 hours after the edit window.
No one's suggesting this. You can both leave the plane in a calm manner and leave your bags behind. As far as I'm concerned, there's no good reason to take your bag unless it's actively obstructing the way out -- which, in fairness, could well be what's happened here.
Off-hand, some reasons not to: the aisles have limited capacity, and more bags in the aisles mean fewer people can be queueing ready to get off. It will take longer to figure out how to use the slide if you want to go down it with your bag, especially if the bag is heavy or large. The bag might have sharp corners which could damage the slide (if I remember rightly, people are advised to remove sharp-heeled shoes for this reason).
Seconds count in situations like this. I think people have taken the "keep calm" message to heart and, if anything, need to be taught to treat this kind of thing more seriously. The reason I mention this is that I'm reminded of the bystander effect:
> The students were placed in a room-either alone, with two strangers or with three strangers to complete a questionnaire while they waited for the experimenter to return. While they were completing the questionnaire smoke was pumped into the room through a wall vent to simulate an emergency. When students were working alone they noticed the smoke almost immediately (within 5 seconds). However, students that were working in groups took longer (up to 20 seconds) to notice the smoke.
These peoples lives could have been in imminent danger, but they might waste precious seconds to leaving the plane because of social pressures (e.g. someone sees one person taking their bag, so thinks it's okay to do so themselves, or subconsciously thinks the situation is not that serious).
People should keep calm, but they should also know to treat the situation as it is -- an emergency. But as I say, this is all speculation, and may not be relevant at all in this specific instance. I just hope everyone's okay.
I can see what you're saying but "number of people queued in the aisles" isn't an important measurement at all. The important thing would how much the overall rate of passage through the exits is affected by the people who grabbed their bags.
I expect the rate of passage through those exits has a lot to do with what people do when they reach the bottom of the slide. That certainly might be affected by what they're carrying, but then again, people might have simply been tossing their bags over the side. You can't rely too heavily on a single photograph to analyse these things.
> I think people have taken the "keep calm" message to heart and, if anything, need to be taught to treat this kind of thing more seriously.
The alternatives are to keep calm or panic. I guess "seriousness" is subjective but when it comes to calmness vs. panic, I know which alternative I'd prefer the people around me to exhibit in an emergency. Particularly in a confined space. How is this even an argument?
Never mind the whole issue of people grabbing their bags. That plane was rather seriously on fire and the people in the original photograph don't appear to be very concerned about moving away from it. Strange.
Hacker News Guidelines
What to Submit
Anything that good hackers would find interesting.
That includes more than hacking and startups.
If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures.
If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
I'd say trying to rationalize that this story is relevant on HN by saying "startups use SFO" is a stretch. I'd hope that people taking flights out actually check with the airport first before checking HN.
It could have nothing to do with the 787, but show me lots of articles about the 787 and I'm going to be tangentially interested in the 777.
It is also interesting in the context of HN when you think of the people who talk about how airlines need to be disrupted. It serves as a reminder of the stakes- you can't necessarily jump into the airlines business shooting from the hip and hoping for the best.
HN is better at news reporting and sifting. I'd like to know why and see if it could be reproduced for the larger public.
That sounds quite hacker-ish to me. It's all about learning to understand facts, understand information and events; and then obtain conclusions and analyze them (when they are released).
And here are three relevant ones already published:
ABC reports it was coming from Taipei, linked forum says Taipei. Video of aftermath. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dFtmSybpuw&feature=youtu.be.
Redwood City FD responding. Unknown amount of passengers. SFO FD using foam on entire plane.
FAA has now shut down operations at SFO due to "disabled plane"
3rd alarm called, "red" alarm called.
Multiple reports that fuselage is in multiple pieces. Tail is some yards away.
FAA issues statement: "A Boeing 777 operated by Asiana Airlines crashed while landing at San Francisco International Airport." No further details.
Asiana Airlines flight OZ214, Boeing 777, registration HL7742 http://t.co/bSgoVeggrU
Better picture: pic.twitter.com/JqLj9OAtzv
#SFOFire Northfield IC, North Field Command, four engines and 3 ambulances inbound to aircraft, other units staging #CaFire
@rafweverbergh: Confirmed with controller at SFO: "plane is broken in multiple pieces. (...) a hard landing" SOURCE: http://t.co/ghqoLpxfVM @scobleizer [http://twitter.com/rafweverbergh/status/353590307402694658]
@CarrieMantha: Thank God @OntarioHazards EMS reporting all passengers of the downed plane at #SFO are accounted for. Injuries but no reports of fatalities [http://twitter.com/CarrieMantha/status/353590343624691712]
@punkboyinsf: Redwood City Fire is classifying SFO plane crash as 3 alarm fire and level 8 mass casualty incident. via @lautenbach #YAL [http://twitter.com/punkboyinsf/status/353590933515804672]
@Emergency_In_SF: SFO AIR CRASH (update): crews report 48 patients have been rescued so far after 777 crashes on landing. Passengers still on burning plane [http://twitter.com/Emergency_In_SF/status/353591197144588288]
LIVE SHOT OF PLANE NOW AVAILABLE:
@brianstelter: KTVU, Fox affiliate in San Fran, has a faraway live shot of the plane here: http://t.co/BXreHtWugm No anchored coverage yet. [http://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/353591320733941760]
Someone got a picture of the crash as it happened:
@stefanielaine: just realized I have a picture of the actual crash. holy fucking shit. http://t.co/5TnOX96Gsi [http://twitter.com/stefanielaine/status/353591123958173696]
@peterpham: 290 passengers on plane, 1 infant - San Francisco Fire and EMS Live Audio Feed http://t.co/ZoMhufPNMA via @Broadcastify [http://twitter.com/peterpham/status/353592842385494016]
VERY UP CLOSE PICTURE FROM TWITTER: https://path.com/p/1lwrZb
 Information as contrasted to conjecture and dramatization.
Amazingly, Fox News is broadcasting a live feed of the scene, with no more audio than the helicopter itself: http://video.foxnews.com/v/1155606219001/
It was kinda funny (despite the seriousness of the situation), when they were already full blasting the flight regulations and pilots on how irresponsible they were, when the second plane (that crashed on the second tower) entered the screen, and the anchor (that is the most famous anchor in Brazil) went: "LOOK AT HOW LOW THEY FLY, THAT IS..." and the plane crashes on the tower, and the reporter clearly go on full-confused mode, specially because it probably downed to him that he was speaking shit until now.
Uh... that's what happens when you put water on fire... you get steam, which condenses into white clouds.
That's a basic rule of firefighting... black bad, white good (and when it comes to structural firefighting, brown really bad).
White smoke that is slow or lazy is most likely indicative
of early-stage heating. One more important note about smoke
color: brown smoke. Unfinished wood gives off a distinctive
brown smoke as it approaches late-stage heating (just prior
to flaming). In many cases, the only unfinished wood in a
structure are the wall studs, floor joists, and roof
rafters/trusses (photo 3). This can tell you that the fire
is transitioning from a contents fire to a structural fire.
Using our knowledge of building construction-especially
lightweight structural components and gusset plates-brown
smoke issuing from gable-end vents, eaves, and floor seams
becomes a warning sign of impending collapse.
'... On July 2, the jet, bound for Incheon International Airport from Chicago with 273 passengers on board, made the emergency landing at a far eastern Russian airport after only seven hours of flight.
After engineers of Korean Air replaced the malfunctioned left engine, Korea’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and the carrier launched an investigation into the incident and found the gearbox in the engine, built by General Electric (GE), was the reason for the problem.
Much better to just report what you know and not try to make up information (even just claiming it as conjecture). Online sources were far more valuable.
Agreed. I changed the channel (well, found a new live stream) when they said "it's likely that all or most of the passengers died" immediately after showing the photograph from the scene, showing many passengers leaving.
The caption to the photo was "I'm fine, and everyone else seems fine."
The death of journalism indeed.
I honestly believe that a collection of sources like this is the future of news; allow people to draw their own conclusions based on the first-hand content you can collect.
Shameless plug: OK, that's actually what I've been building for a few months. We had to break it to finish building it (sorry, or i'd just show you), but our launchrock page is at http://grasswire.com if you want to have access when we launch
I'm not trying to "hawk" anything, but am trying to help create a system that will help people understand the world around them in a better, more efficient way. If linking to it in this thread feels cheap then I apologize, but that wasn't the intent at all.
My guess: the vast majority of people reading this thread on HN are here for entertainment. Given that, why bitch about someone hawking his wares?
It's not like he crashed a funeral or something.
While traditional media often relies on sensationalism and also use these same sources of information during broadcast, this is not an ideal method either.
Also, it's worth noting that mainstream media was reporting the plane had flipped over as well, so misinformation isn't solved by the current solutions.
Sometimes we don't know enough to make meaningful conclusions without experts weighing in. Not to mention bias- first hand accounts are rarely impartial. In this instance there aren't any "sides" to take, but I'd bet that most of the photos flowing out of Egypt right now have an opinion behind them.
But I recognize that's not a belief held by many people. I've just been able to watch all of the reports come in for a while and feel like that's enough, if not better.
Yes, and this is economically efficient. Of course they get all sorts of things wrong at the outset - the fact that this is annoying is a reflection of how much we rely on them. But the fact is that in most cases we don't especially need to know these things immediately; I'm curious about this crash, of course, but it doesn't affect me directly and there's nothing I can do about it. It's actually better that I didn't check the news until a bit later in the day when some time had gone by and the details had firmed up - I'm a little behind the curve, but I've saved 2 hours of pointless and probably poorly-founded speculation. If it wasn't for the fact that my wife watches more TV than I do I'd probably go days at a time without checking, and just catch up Saturdays when the Economist arrives.
I understand being a news junkie - because I am one. But it's an unhealthy habit that rarely yields enough advantage to justify the time involved. I'll check out your startup but really, I suspect it would just be an endless time sink for me. I already find this a big problem with text-based news.
EDIT: I meant to say internet-based news.
To answer the reply below, I guess my question is 'what benefit is there to me in following multiple reports as they break? To be good at it requires doing it on a regular basis, but the economic benefit is questionable. I think it's a great idea, and if it can build up a sufficient community then it has the potential to function as a better news bureau than existing sources. The hurdle to climb is that the number of people who will be both skilled at analyzing breaking news events and have the time to put in regularly will be fairly small, and every time there's a major event the interested local population that joins in will consist largely of -first timers, whose contributions will amount to (Shannon) noise.
I mention a local event, because I see that while we're worried about this because many HNers are in the Bay Area, over on the East Coast near Maine a train carrying oil derailed and exploded in the middle of a small town, flattening the town center and with 60-100 people missing. So a plane crash with only two fatalities doesn't seem very important from a different perspective.
 In response to the question above: So is your question why would somebody follow something as it breaks?
The solution, I think, is in making following the news as it breaks exciting/interesting enough the average person would contribute. Our solution for that was to show you all of the social media streaming from different sources streaming in real time related to the event, making it more like /r/new (Reddit) than wikinews. Watching everything stream in and sorting out the good stuff is exciting; it's easy to get a lot of neutral eyeballs on it.
Not if you were a reporter on the ground. If you have multiple biased sources you can't get an unbiased view without squinting and inferring things you don't know.
I don't disagree that with the "right" information, people can make good conclusions. I just think that it's very rare for the "right" information to be available. This is an example of where it's more likely, as there is no "pro-crash" story to tell. That isn't the case with almost any politically sensitive story, though.
EDIT: They = KTVU News
The now famous photo from the ground is by David Eun, a Samsung Executive . Coincidentally at a time when there are talks of a Samsung / Facebook partnership 
Say if this had happened at a docking port to a space station, regardless of the severity, it would have been fatal for everyone (assuming people in transit wouldn't be in some kind of suit meant to protect them from the vacuum of space/or radiation inside of a ship that is supposed to do that).
Radiation is really something you don't worry about until everybody is safely repressurized.
Edit: Chris Hadfield talks about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gaFXZWhp4k
As an aside, I wish I could be involved with anything dealing with space and exploration… it all just seems so fascinating and so much potential not only for economic development, but even to understand who we are in the context of what is or may be around us.
I think we can draw a lot of parallels between helicopter flights to offshore platforms and a shuttle into space.
Thankfully I think that safety is something that economic pressure will address really well with commercial spaceflight. High-profile accidents didn't sink either the American or Russian national space programs but I think that at least in the foreseeable future commercial outfits will feel a lot more vulnerable . A high profile deadly accident for SpaceX would be devastating for them; at least moreso than an accident for a government agency with some strategic military purpose partially behind it. I expect commercial spaceflight companies to take safety at least as seriously as government agencies (at least while they are still in their infancy. Once SpaceX becomes the real-life "Union Aerospace Corporation" that might change. ;))
"In addition to weather and pilot fatigue, he blames those crashes on crew members whose cultural legacy made them too deferential to communicate clearly that the plane was about to crash"
(A more reasonable explanation that would have been uncovered with basic research is that foreign airline captains have less pilotmim command time.)
Let's please let race and culture be speculations of last resort.
For the record, there are a number of countries worldwide that exhibit the same restricted cultural legacy. For example, there is also a High Power Distance ratio in a number Latin American and African countries . See, for example, details of the crash of Colombian Avianca Flight 52 .
Whether this is a factor _in this particular incident_ is of course for the authorities to decide. Considering the provenance of this airline as being from a high power distance ratio country I felt this information might be relevant or at least of interest to others.
OTOH, Evergreen/EVA Air has an awesome safety program and record, and is also Taiwanese. So, it's a cultural issue within specific airlines, not overall national culture. (Similarly, I think it was AirTran and a couple other LCCs in the US which had horrible safety culture, and Alaska has amazing safety culture.)
Serious fuselage damage might put enough exits out of commission to heavily bottleneck, though (although I think there's supposed to be some significant safety margin on those as well).
Everyone will already have heard about this on, I don't know, any other news channel
Solution: sleeping pills, apparently, or generally anti-anxiety and good contact with flight staff (thus ability to find "safe feeling" seats). In the specific case.
I don't know if that sense of control is transferable, though; paranoid backseat drivers are still a thing.
It’s possible to have a complete and rational understanding of the situation and still feel fear. That, at least, frequently happens to me.
Eyewitness, standard caveats apply:
> “The tail was too low. Instead of coming in flat it was coming in at a 45-degree angle, with the tail far too low,”
No kidding about witness reports. At least one news report has claimed that the plane flipped over, and people are just throwing the word "cartwheel" around.
I hope everyone is OK.
Does anyone know anything about this?
next news conference at 5:30 Pacific time, 8:30 EST
As for ATCs if you do not make use of a skill frequently, you atrophy. When you are suddenly thrown in the middle of an emergency, you perform badly. We can't have "mall cops" watching computers doing air traffic control.
People do not like automation that much either. Consider the fact that underground trains have drivers even though technically they are not needed.
And then there are the technical aspects...
So I do not think that this particular crash would bring much new to the table.
We have driverless trains without drivers at all. There is some staff getting into random trains to check for problems (like problematic passengers, etc).
Interesting thing: the migration is going gradually, there are trains with drivers running on the same line than driverless trains, and IIRC this was never done before.
The London DLR has been automated since it was opened in '87. It travels on the surface too.
Also submission guidelines: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Now a technical analysis of the factors leading to the crash would very much be intellectually gratifying and I look forward to seeing that posted on HN.
Traffic jams and CalTrain disruptions would certainly be.
The variants are usually relatively minor updates, though. Even the 747, which first flew in 1969, has a variant that can be considered "new" (-8, first flew in 2005). It's usually the early variants that validate the design.
Relative to other comparable aircraft, the 777 has a remarkably clean accident/incident record over an operational history spanning nearly 20 years.
Does it satisfy our intellectual curiosity? Is there something we can learn from it? Is there a clever hack involved? An interesting trend emerging?
Obviously 128 people (what a nice number) think this should be on the HN front page. I don't.
Also, if you can't learn something or satisfy your intellectual curiosity from an extremely violent plane crash that left (what is seems to be) all of the passengers virtually unscathed, you're really not trying. There are tons of physics and engineering principles in place in the flight of a plane and, imo, looking at the way the tail was lost, it should have turned out way worse than it did. Anyways, there's a flag button on the article, so feel free to press that button and move on. Thank you.
I don't understand your outrage. There was a major incident and people are talking about it. There are millions of other websites you could be spending your time on. Why spend it here if you find the communities actions so objectionable?
Based on the early and very possibly incorrect or misleading info and pictures, if it were me I'd hang back and then volunteer wherever they set up a staging area for the less injured survivors.
You can get new stuff later, and the airline is likely to compensate you anyway (case in point, within days after US Air 1549 landed in the Hudson, the airline cut checks to the passengers to compensate for irretrievable belongings). You can't buy back your life or those of your fellow passengers.