Edit:
Answer: Yes
... the crew initiated a go around due to a unsafe nose gear indication, climbed to 4000 feet and entered a hold to work the checklists. After working the checklists the crew declared emergency and requested emergency services on stand by. The aircraft performed a low approach to runway 36L, positioned for another approach to runway 36L and landed without nose gear extended at 08:54L (12:54Z) about 12 minutes after the second go around and about 30 minutes after the first go around.
This is how I got my commercial pilot's license, and I'm a senior software engineer.
It just "clicked" with my brain to follow specific procedures ("algorithms") for absolutely everything. Checklists, strict rules, "flows", handling emergencies. It all felt natural to me.
They will throw random stuff at you during checkrides. Pull the power back on one of the engines right after takeoff saying it failed, fail instruments that you were using to navigate, blindfold you ("foggles") and put you almost upside down and then say "recover!".
But you have everything so ingrained in your mind by that point that it's almost robotic. You just look at the inputs (almost upside down, engine #2 is gone, no attitude indicator, whatever it is) and know what the output is supposed to be (roll to unload Gs, lower the nose, full power, check the standby AI, etc).
I happen to work well when there are strict rules and procedures. If this, then that.
In fact there's an exception that proves that rule: there was not an algorithm to handle pitot tube ice causing an MCAS failure on the 737 MAX, because the type certificate was shared with earlier aircraft that didn't have an MCAS to fail.
And two planes crashed because pilots didn't have an algorithm to follow to tell them what was happening when their trim went crazy.
I've been wondering for a while when I read stuff like this, why don't modern airplanes have exterior cameras that cover every surface? I watched a video recently about a flight where one of the engines literally detached and the pilots didn't know the extent of the damage until after. Why not just have cameras they can quickly pull up to check stuff like this?
A lot of incident reports have flight attendants or copilots leaving to try to make visual confirmation of things that it seems would be better suited if there were some actual visual feedback.
VASAviation is one of the “air traffic control recording” YouTube channels but there are a few others that are equally as good.
There are at least two YouTube channels[2] dedicated to recording the crazy boat ramps around Miami. Nothing is more entertaining than watching all the chaos around a boat ramp. Especially ones are busy as those around Miami.
There are dozens of channels publishing multi-hour first person view trips from rail conductors traveling through various scenic rail lines[3]. Some get 100’s of thousands of views per video! I wonder what fraction of that traffic watches the entire trip!
Let’s not forget Australian jetters [1]! You too can watch at least two channels worth of drain cleaning videos complete with all manner of foul disgusting water bubbling up out of random bits of pipe. Kids love this stuff!
These channels publish frequently and get a reasonable amount of watches. It’s nuts how a platform like YouTube can grow such strangely niche channels.
1: https://youtube.com/@DrainAddict
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/that-time-a-wwii-spitfire-he...
And then they wonder why people try to take their bags during an emergency off boarding.... Because they know they will not see it for a long time if ever again.
Stupid policy
Like, that's leaving people without their wallets (aka id, money) and so on. Sounds like they may not get it back for an unknown period of time (weeks, months?) either.
Fun fact: Pilots can have a non-zero BAC (I think .04). So they could have it while on duty too if it’s not a double!
Edit: that is indeed the case https://simpleflying.com/delta-retirements-aircraft/
NTSB report (pdf): https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2001/20010809-0_B712_N24...
Current incident: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/316147
This plane's deets:
Boeing 717-2BD (derived from MD-80)
model year 2000
ser 55017
reg N955AT
leaser Wells Fargo
As an immediate stop gap, I think the FAA should issue an AD for the 717/MD-80 family that should rough front gear noises, underpowered response, or rolling sluggishness occur, ground crews should inspect the nose gear's NLG spray deflector for damage prior to any takeoff. For anyone unfamiliar, the deflector is thing that trails behind the nose wheel that limits FOD and water ingestion into MD-80's tail-mounted engines. Wing-mounted engines generally don't have this problem unless they're located near wing roots.
It's difficult to trust a news source that can't properly identify an airframe model in an article about an airplane crash. As far as I can as a tell, Boeing has never produced a model 712, it appears what the plane in question is some variant of the 717[1] but that's only a guess as I'm not an expert in the field.
As soon as I have a little free time I'll do my best to update the relevant Wikipedia pages in hopes fewer people are confused by the nomenclature in the future.
This is an almost 23 year old plane. Even with checks and maintenance, was age a factor?
Age is always a factor in mechanical failure, but I’m sure this failure will be inspected in detail to try and avoid it again in the future
I have seen (on one of the YouTube ATC channels) a comercial jet (747, IIRC) that DID lose one of its main landing gear on take-off. Another pilot (in another jet) saw the wheel bounce across the runway.
That plane continued on its way and landed normally. It was just one wheel of a four-wheel truck/assembly (of which a 747 has 4 sets).
All very calm to everyone’s credit.
Via Tepix's comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36519150
In combination with what mannykannot replied to you, that doesn't sound particularly rushed to me (not that I'm an expert, but it would be surprising if they'd needed an hour for such a relatively common type of incident).
Seems a lot less risky to drag the back than scrape the front - which can flip the plane
Is it simply the center of gravity? (engines look like they're behind)
Things can move from “ugh this is annoying, where is the truck with the stairs” to “the landing gear caught on fire after all” very quickly.
https://www.insider.com/russian-plane-crash-aeroflot-passeng...
That said, my laptop, being sufficiently valuable, is also automatically and constantly backed up, so I'm not too worried about losing it in an emergency, just like I'm not worried about someone stealing it from me on the subway which I suspect is a more likely occurrence.
The goal during an evacuation is to get every one off in 90seconds or less, since it’s possible there’s a fire, which has the potential to become extremely dangerous very quickly. Consider how long it takes to board a plane with luggage.
We’re all really quick to assume this is simply bureaucrats inventing rules to annoy us.
No the airline/FAA won't steal your stuff, that's not the concern. The problem is whatever you leave on the plane will remain there until the end of the investigation, which means that you can basically write all of it off for a month. Have the rule say that the airline will be on the hook to return all belongings within 48 hours and people would likely be much more comfortable leaving their things on the place.
It's not rational to try and save "things" in an emergency situation, but neither is a company/FAA just shrugging and saying "you'll get your belongings when you'll get your belongings".
He’s saying that because of policies like those (the FAA holding the plane), people are going to want to take their bags in an emergency situation.
Reasons they may need the bags: Possible interference (bombs, sabotage and such). Weight and balance of the aircraft. Possible fires. Possible crash-related evidence in those bags (ie bags exposed to G/chemicals/fires etc). There are any number of scenarios where the bags might be useful to the investigation. Until those are ruled out, and ruled out properly though the process, the survivors can wait.
Just be glad the FAA isn't confiscating clothing. They can do that. In cases of fire or chemical exposure they very well can confiscate clothing that might contain useful evidence. In some circumstances even blood samples could be taken (chemical exposure etc). Got a cellphone video of the landing? It is in their power to take that too. Planes are as safe as they are because crash investigators have carte blanche. Passenger inconvenience should never trump that proven process.
Agree it is a stupid policy. As long as there is no fire, at least let people grab their carry-ons.
The plane landed with power to only one engine (according to the announcers), but you would have never even known there was anything wrong. It just looked like any other landing.
I wonder how the runway fares after this.
There are also rules about exactly where a plane can touch down on the runway. Only some of a runway is engineered to be strong enough to bear the weight of a massive plane dropping onto the pavement. The rest is called a "displaced threshold" and is OK for parking, taxiing, and taking off.
So at least in this case, it doesn't seem to have had a serious impact on the runway
I was somewhat thinking of the passengers.
Everything that happened was well within the stress tolerance parameters of the majority of involved humans as well.
UK/US relations are pretty good. I'm sure this situation could have been a lot worse in more unfriendly countries but I'm still shocked this solution was even possible.
Also, there’s no indication that anyone who left the plane without their ID or passport is just being left in the terminal for days, making this guideline even less valuable.
(or always bring a large USB)
They were probably rushed off due to being unsure about fire hazards, and people digging through carryons for wallets and stuff would probably slow that down a lot, considering how long a normal deplaning takes.
There's probably a bit of a safety and practicality aspect of accessing a plane with a collapsed gear.
Doesn't seem like they should get their way when it comes to people's id and other personal docs, if that's what's really going on.
Potentially stranding international passengers without their passport (etc) is really not on.
And then there's the passport and any other important documentation. That stuff is pretty much always in either my carry-on or a jacket pocket (which is usually also in the overhead).
Yeah, keeping my cell on my person probably avoids 80%-90% of the annoyance, but you aren't getting through customs or security without a physical ID in most places.
I wouldn't want to be stuck away from home on a flight without some physical ID. Also don't want to completely rely on Apple Pay to buy anything (not to mention that some stores still don't take Apple Pay).
One of my favorite station IDs was an independent local analog UHF channel 56 with call letters WLVI. I heard those letters for years before I realized it was 56 in Roman numerals.
You can think of it as the "smash like and subscribe" of the radio days!
Bangor, ME has an ABC affiliate WVII broadcasting on VHF channel 7.
It must be weird to live near the Mississippi and get a mix of K and W station call signs!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_signs_in_the_United_State...
KOME:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rMhtoniG82o
(I wish I could find a recording of the one that went;: "Don't touch that dial!!! You've got KOME on your radio." or "The KOME spot on your FM dial.")
Vintage WWDC:
WRC-TV - NBC Washington
similar to...
KIAD - Dulles International
They do align the plane as much as they can to keep the nose off the ground for as long as they can.
But yes, it's the total center of gravity, it can't land on the tail.
You could bring up ALL the gear but then you have no control and it will almost certainly veer off the runway and then it may break apart.
In a gear abnormal, land on what you have and the outcome is almost always great for the occupants.
Any injuries are likely to be from the evacuation after everything is stopped.
In fact, I've just looked at a video on YouTube "AIRLIVE" [0] and you can see the shadow of the nose off the ground when the plane shakes (at 0:07s) indicating the rear gear has made contact. I think the nose contacts at 0:13, so gently it's amazing.
If you like that, check out JetBlue 292; landing's about half way through the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epKrA8KjYvg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_Mania#Relative_frequencies
Maybe there are concerns about potentially damaging the APU?
Not that people shouldn’t help but you gotta be careful with maneuvers you don’t typically make, even if trying to be helpful / are a pilot.
The last thing everybody on the plane needs is you fetching that one important small thing from the overhead bin/under your seat/the aisle after you dropped it/...
It was quite possibly still an evacuation, in which time is of the essence. There is no "moderate urgency" evacuation protocol, and an important part of the evacuation protocol is "LEAVE YOUR LUGGAGE" (an instruction shouted continuously by the cabin crew until everyone's out).
Would you rather the crew deliberate for a few moments on how likely it is that the plane still catches on fire vs. the inconvenience of not being able to bring baggage? And what if they misjudge it?
You'll live without your laptop for a few days; you might not survive carrying it out of a burning aircraft.
Now their driver’s licenses and their credit cards are all in handbags around seat 34A/B. They won’t be able to rent a car, make calls, or even prove their lawful entry to the soil they’re on.
I almost always have my wallet and a phone in trousers and/or jacket pockets anyway, so this is likely never be a problem for me, but not everyone even has a pocket on their clothings.
And yet these "extensive maintenance checklists" did not prevent such a serious malfunction. They were lucky that the weather was cooperating. In bad weather and strong winds who knows what would have happened.
These are machines. Machines break, no matter what the maintenance regime is. The number of cycles on these planes is awe inspiring, and while there are always squawks, the captain and FO always have the authority to ground a plane for any maintenance items they don't like.
> They were lucky that the weather was cooperating. In bad weather and strong winds who knows what would have happened.
Exactly the same thing would have happened. Maybe if it was raining or very cold we wouldn't have quite as much passenger cell phone footage from the runway. But weather had nothing to do with this, nice weather didn't make the landing any easier, and bad weather wouldn't have made it any harder. Ridiculous.
The likelihood for a malfunction is never zero.
You could argue “well they should rapidly diagnose and make a decision” and, sure, but that diagnosis is exactly the question isn’t it?
"§ 831.12 Access to and release of wreckage, records, mail, and cargo
(a) Only persons authorized by the NTSB IIC may be permitted access to wreckage, records, mail, or cargo.
(b) Wreckage, records, mail, and cargo in the NTSB's custody will be released when the NTSB determines it has no further need for such items. Recipients of released wreckage must sign an acknowledgement of release provided by the NTSB."
So if the NTSB decides they don't need a piece of cargo, they have the option to release it from custody.
edit for clarity: I understand the issue you face regarding your medication being trapped on the plane and believe airlines should indeed have a duty of care to ensure you have rapid access to replacement medication at their expense, but I'm specifically addressing why they have the policy of telling people to not grab carry-on items during evacuation.
If there is actually an imminent threat to life, such as a fire, of course all of these things should be left behind. But I'm of the opinion that in no event should anyone's health be compromised in the name of a blanket policy to collect "evidence".
In short:
save lives >> protect health >> collect evidence
Especially when those policies will obviously piss off a bunch of people, I can either assume those people who spend decades thinking about X don’t know what they’re doing, or I can say “hey, I probably know way less than they do.” That doesn’t mean I don’t inquire/don’t question, but I think jumping from an unattributed off-hand remark in a CBS article to “FAA is dumb and they’d have let me die on the tarmac” deserves some skepticism too.
I am genuinely curious about what exactly this policy is, why it exists, and how they handle cases like yours. I don’t think “assume the people who investigate aviation incidents aren’t aware there might be medicine onboard” is a good starting point for that type of inquiry.
Because US Airlines have such a good reputation for taking care of their stranded passengers? /s
The complaint is about the FAA hold passenger items after the emergnecy is over while they "investigate"
The process should be
Evac -> Fire Dept clears the plane > Airline gets passengers there stuff
it should not be
Evac > Fire Dept > NTSB Looks at things > FAA Looks at things > Someone 3 years later Passengers get their things
because the FAA as the latter policy, people will be more prone to try to take their stuff, then if they knew once evacuated they would get their belongings before leaving the airport, not at some undetermined time later
FAA Policy increases the danger for everyone.
Approximately nobody in an actual emergency has any idea of the details of FAA policies or is running through their logical implications, come ON.
The reason people do stupid things is they are in shock and they revert to ingrained habits and behavior because it's really hard to do any higher level thinking at that moment.
It certainly occurs to me now. I'm not going to pull an overhead item. But I may be more inclined to grab my laptop if it's already in the seat in front of me.
More productively: if you can honestly say that passengers will get their onboard items within 7 days of an emergency during the in-flight safety message, maybe you'll influence behavior.
It's understandable that when confronted with an irresponsible behaviour of one particular person we tend to blame that person for being irresponsible.
But the fact is that there will be a given number of irresponsible people around.
It's also irresponsible to set up rules in such a way to make it more likely that some irresponsible people will do irresponsible things. Especially when there may be other rules that could reduce the chances.
There's also "why are you not giving people their bags promptly, you assholes".
Also important medication can get left behind, as someone else mentioned. It's worth some risk to delay for some seconds in that case, where math can tell you the exact amounts.
It's been a couple of hours since the incident. I think calling three years is premature.
Runways have 3-4 different defined areas, each with different properties and usable in different ways. For example, the grass at the sides is important for safety, must be cleared a certain distance back, must not rise above a certain level above the tarmac, etc, and all those rules are distinct from the rules that apply to the concrete at the ends of the runway, distinct from the rules regarding surrounding buildings and trees, and so on. The area managed as a runway can extend kilometers out on every side.
Now, if you have a plane break down at one end, or a support vehicle crash on the grass or something, you don't actually have to put the runway out of action, but you do have to re-declare the usable distance, and that's based on the location, size, and importantly height of the obstacle. You then need to plot the angle of landing/takeoff based on that height, accounting for the segment of the runway it's in, and the given runway's pre-approved angle (varies by city/terrain).
It was a fascinating project and a good example of how problems are often so much more complex and nuanced than they initially appear.
Source: Advisory Circular 150/5300-13B Airport Design, 3.5.3 (https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/...)
When it is impractical to locate a threshold at the beginning of the runway, it may be
necessary to apply a displaced threshold. A displaced threshold reduces runway length
available for landings in one direction. The portion of the runway prior to the displaced
threshold typically remains available for takeoffs. Depending on the circumstances
surrounding the displacement, operations from the opposite runway end may or may not
be affected. Refer to Appendix H for related information on declared distances.
Generally, a runway threshold displacement provides:
1. A means for obtaining additional RSA prior to the threshold.
2. A means for obtaining additional ROFA prior to the threshold.
3. A means for locating the RPZ to mitigate incompatible land uses.
4. A means for obstacle clearance prior to the threshold.
5. Increased arrival capacity with certain parallel runway approach procedures. See
FAA Order 7110.308, Simultaneous Dependent Approaches to Closely Spaced
Parallel Runways
Glossary: RSA: Runway Safety Area
ROFA: Runway Object Free Area
RPZ: Runway Protection Zone
Note that all of the given reasons are for clearance of obstacles or various other mandatory safety areas based on clearance from taxiways or other runway traffic, not for durability of the runway.Blancolirio covers this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D2Kj0t4t9s
there's a real risk of injury from evacuating, so it needs consideration by the pilot.
Once you've run all the relevant checklists and ARFF is in position, you land the plane.
Like the situation OP says: you scan instruments to analyze the situation, determine what to do to recover and apply that procedure. If it doesn't work, or something else goes wrong during that procedure, you adapt to another procedure. Remember, that during every flight with an instructor, you're being trained on one thing or another, so after a while all the "emergencies" seem routine. You'll be turning onto Final to land and suddenly your instructor will decide that your flaps failed so you have to land without them, or just as you're flaring for a landing he'll tell you to go around, etc.
It certainly results in well-trained pilots, but it also gets very boring.
The immediate reason to stop was the fact that the more I did it, the more nauseous I got, but by then I had already decided that flying was not nearly as exciting as I expected it to be. Stopping was an easy decision to make.
That said, I also have friends who still totally love it.
TV stations are allowed to do it visually. When I was young it was common to see it as a full screen ID in between shows (often with a quick weather report, “time and temperature”). Later most stations I saw quit that and just put it as a bug at the bottom of the screen over top of the show.
GA (General aviation, people who own a little plane and maybe just fly it for fun, or it's a professional expense for say a plastic surgeon and allows them to fly 300 miles home on Thursday evening after working four days in the big city) is not safe. A few hundred of these people die, not just smash up their planes or get hurt, but die, sometimes with family or friends aboard, every year. It might make the local TV news, at most. Unless they were a celebrity it won't make national news.
Commercial is more complicated because there are so many possibilities. Cargo is pretty safe, if your job is to move boxes of stuff from one big jet airport to another in a civilized country you'll likely die in bed of old age. But if you fly a police helicopter, or medevac, or you're a crop duster, or you fly custom pick up jobs, when the client wants and where they want - those jobs can go badly wrong much too easily, without you really understanding what you've got yourself into until it's too late. These people are (or at least should be) better trained than in GA, but they're also often flying more demanding missions. You may operate out of somewhere with not-so-great capabilities, on short notice, in poor weather and/or at night, and you may be expected to go places that you ordinarily wouldn't, close to buildings, close to other aircraft, even close to the ground - all of which narrows your options if things go wrong.
Military is also pretty bad as I understand it. It needn't be, but there's some sense that the job is "supposed" to be dangerous, which maybe makes sense for front line infantry, but really not for the vast majority of military pilots - way too many of them die far from any enemy, as a result of somebody screwing up, just like in GA or commercial.
I can think of one (1) single fatal crash that wasn't due to overconfidence, ATC error, bad piloting, poor maintenance, etc. It was a horrific helicopter crash I'll never forget; we drove by on the way back from school and it was still on fire. Surreal sight.
[0] https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/dean-international-fligh...
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/791683/0000791683030...
On a per-hour basis, GA is probably more dangerous, given the greater passenger-miles per hour.
If we could go back in time and ban Cessnas and other small planes starting in the 1950s, music might look really different today.
You can't honestly say that...that's why it's an emergency.
Everybody knows that, so you can't change behavior.
1) https://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-b717-55017.htm 2) https://www.airfleets.net/listing/b717-1-statdesc.htm
Delta announced retirement a long time ago, but has been not-so-secretly buying up as many as they can get, mostly as spares for parts to keep the fleet going because it's so useful for them. Also, the A220, its replacement, has a single engine, the Pratt & Whitney Geared Turbofan, which has had an incredibly rough entry into service — everyone was concerned that the gearbox would be an issue, but it has been mostly rock-solid, and it's the engine core that's had dozens of issues. An airline in India has over half of its fleet grounded and filed for bankruptcy last month because P&W can't repair their engines.
Is it just a matter of the brakes and tires/wheels needing to cool down or other parts need the cooldown period as well?
But I guess the technique isn’t much different than if your nose tire blew, which might be included in all training?
Looks like flying with a retractable landing gear is a separate “complex aircraft endorsement” that “has no corresponding check ride or minimum number of flight or ground hours that must be completed.“
(Though that’s what the regs say, the schools that provide it do have those)
https://www.flyingmag.com/guides/how-to-earn-a-complex-aircr...
This is the same technique the delta pilot used, and by other pilots that had an abnormal nose-wheel deployment.
[1]The airmen certification standards: https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/training_testing/tes...
yes if you did not pay for the items, it will not cost you anything to replace the items then doubt you would think about them...
it will be shocking for you to learn that some times people travel with possessions that are not paid for by other people.
I think the argument was that there aren't enough to make the contrived reasoning why the FAA is stupid for their obscure policies...fly.
There is a TON of intangible loss when property is taken from the owner, does not matter if it is the FAA per policy, or a thief. Just writing a check for the value of the property does not in reality make someone whole
You know, that's insensitive in terms of minimizing the suffering endured by people with bona fide PTSD, as well as dismissive. Because what do you suggest as an alternative? Drive an automobile, with higher accident rates than air travel? Walk across the street in traffic? Life is dangerous, choose your poison.
I personally appreciate aviators and all air crews for really going all-in to make flying safe and tolerable, if not enjoyable. When I think of some of the crazy train or bus rides I've had, air travel is pretty amazing in comparison, especially at a bargain price.
And I do suffer from (complex) PTSD, but thankfully such an incident as in TFA would not particularly trigger an episode. Thanks for caring.
I wonder if the passengers would even notice if they weren't warned to expect it. From what I understand, they don't let the front down until they're nearly stopped in these situations. You can tell when the nose drops, and it barely seems to register aside from the scraping noise and a little shaking.
As for why K and W, nobody is sure why those two letters, but it might be related to Morse code.
And presumably if the camera doesn't work as part of the pre-flight checklist for whatever reason, you're not going anywhere until it's fixed/replaced.
part of it is that there's a backup for most everything required.
I'm talking about things they can't see, which I've heard in recordings as well.
For something like this they'd gain something for sure - time and redundancy
You'd need potentially an unrealistic number of cameras. Even if you decide on a case by case basis, you still have to weigh the risk that every component adds, and with a finite amount of money to spend on risk reduction you want to get the most bang for your buck.
The tower sees it with a set of binoculars. Hopefully.
Second, any place that doesnt take Apple Pay is not a place you should do business at. Even lowly kiosks and vending machines accept Apple Pay now. The places that are NOT accepting Apple Pay are a red flag, they are doing something nefarious by holding onto the old system of credit card processing (there are benefits and incentives to use contact less payments and places that refuse are actively missing out for a reason, there is literally no good reason to not take Apple Pay).
And expecting ApplePay to be available everywhere? That's such a laughably US-centric (or maybe EU-centric) worldview.
Guessing that's a US specific thing?
Unsure if that'd work for an Australian travelling around though, and I'd personally really rather not risk it going wrong. :)
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification
> In the event you arrive at the airport without valid identification, because it is lost or at home, you may still be allowed to fly. The TSA officer may ask you to complete an identity verification process which includes collecting information such as your name, current address, and other personal information to confirm your identity. If your identity is confirmed, you will be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint. You will be subject to additional screening, to include a patdown and screening of carry-on property.
Or do you mean ‘an Australian travelling around [in the USA]’?
It's another thing to claim that the idiots are doing the math.
To describe throwing a ball, you may use calculus.
But if you then reason that people who throw things must know calculus, that's going to lead to incorrect inferences and decisions.
(as you may know it's not allowed to say "correlation != causation" on HN so I'm not saying that)
Did someone say that?
If someone keeps a bag because they don't trust the airline, that's an emotional decision, not a math one.
Do you think the FAA's policy is a problem?
An example where I’m from is train station escalators. There is an unwritten social rule that you stand on the left, and let anyone who is in a hurry walk down on the right. This benefits the individuals because if you’re in a hurry you can get through faster, and if you’re not you don’t care. But the rail company has constant announcements telling people not to do this, and to stand on both sides of the escalator, because a full escalator clears the platform much faster.
These announcements are largely ignored. No individual cares about clearing the platform, even though it is the best thing for the rail network as a whole (crowded platforms cause delays). I would also argue that the needs of the few people running to get to work are more important than improving network efficiency. But the job of the very intelligent, well informed boffins who make the announcements is to make the trains run on time, so the announcements continue.
In this case too, I think the FAA have a different set of priorities to the passengers, and they really don’t care about your medicine. Probably if there is an emergency they will send an employee back into the plane to grab your bag, as a one-off exception. If they’re too slow and you die, too bad—-should have had extra medicine in your shoe.
Policy is created to achieve institutional goals; individual needs are an afterthought at best.
I... kind of hate this. I can understand it, but I hate it nonetheless. I don't think it can ever be a universal truth, though.
Of course, it does require discipline to know the difference between "the needs of the many" and "the needs of the corporate entity you're working for".
It could be that people ignore it because the rail network is asking you to break the social contract at no benefit to you whatsoever, only an increased risk of a negative encounter (at best getting cursed out and at worst how long until someone gets shoved for blocking the walking half?)
The real win here would be for everyone who is able, to walk down the damn escalator.
That won't happen. The OP clearly lives in Japan, probably Tokyo. That kind of thing never happens here; it's an American phenomenon, and probably various other not-so-civilized nations. Here, breaking the social contract in this way just makes people annoyed and gets you mean stares at the very worst.
Also, he's mainly talking about people walking up the escalator, not down. Many stations only have one escalator to the platform, and it's usually going up, since it's easy to walk down stairs.
Finally, it's only certain rail companies that have this policy; there's a bunch of different train operators.
I've found the opposite, actually. Specialized fields of expertise are the less able to make policy because, in general, they fail to consider the big picture. It's all tradeoffs for everything and more than just one "expert" should have a say at any policy.
It would be like letting somebody with a specialized expertise like corporate law design a product. They are an expert at not getting sued, so we should totally listen to only them, right? Could you imagine such a product? It would be nothing but legal disclaimers and would be so watered down that it is completely useless.
Your original comment expressed concern about people who don't get compensated by the actual owner of their hardware; I'm saying that the airline will very likely reimburse these for the monetary value of what they've lost.
Also, property theft and air travel safety investigations are a slightly different matter in my view.
That may be. I actually flew a prop from Maui to Big Island last time I was in Hawaii. But when I was growing up they used to be super-common even on East Coast "commuter" flights especially from smaller airports.
https://apps.apple.com/au/app/vinegar-tube-cleaner/id1591303...
And on the watching side you're pushed into a needlessly unfriendly UI. Like I generally just use the YT web interface and don't go out of my way to routinely yt-dlp or Newpipe, but now I might have to change that.
I really, really dislike short looping videos, when it starts looping I get irrationally angry and close the window. Instagram Reels is another feature I fucking detest.
I might be showing my age, I don't understand the appeal of TikTok, it just makes me stressed, haha.
I think the "appeal" is for people stuck in dopamine loops on their phone, where the continual stimulation of looping plus the quick-next functionality are "features". Of course being older and more deliberate about technology choices and use, these are actually grating anti-features.
To be an alternative to TikTok, or Instagram Reels, or other short-form video platforms.
I'm operating under the belief that more time to respond to issues is always a plus. Do you disagree?
Good enough is good enough.
It's a cost, which is why I'm trying to understand what the ROI would be.
> Good enough is good enough.
In cases like this, yes, but ... planes do crash due to mechanical failure and it's not unusual for there to be confusion from instrumentation where visual confirmation could help.
1. If people are worried nobody will get their bags for a long time, they'll be less likely to follow safety protocols and leave them behind.
2. It's bad to take people's things away for a long time.
3. Even if you assume people will obey, it can cause more harm than good in non-dire situations.
None of those reasons require the passengers to be notably logical.
And I have no idea what correlation you're talking about.
People do not worry more or less because of some particular 1 in a billion billion event that happened yesterday. Well, maybe yesterday, but wait a day!
On the other hand, revising rules and regulations would have real costs for you the taxpayer.
> On the other hand, revising rules and regulations would have real costs for you the taxpayer.
I am happy to pay the cost of revising a few paragraphs so that the regulation stops screwing people over! Don't steal people's most important bags! If that needs a rules change, it won't be a complicated one. Once the plane is safe to be on, get everyone's carry-ons within a few hours.
I don't want TikTok. Mostly because I don't want to use yet another app or account. Then there's the thing about it being from China, but to be honest, as a European it doesn't reeeally matter to me if an app is from the US or China. I did actually try TikTok during the pandemic but became too addicted due to constant WFH and boredom.
I have Instagram because I like to upload my favorite pictures. Then they started with Reels, I checked it out, liked it, so I now use it.
When I feel like Reels bore me, or that the algo seems to currently push things I don't care about[0], I switch over to YT Shorts.
There, the youtubers I'm already subscribed to upload shorter videos and I generally see different kinds of videos.
Instagram mostly shows me memes and cat videos. YT shorts is more about stand-up comedy bits, science stuff etc.
So my usage of these apps depends on how I currently feel like.
[0] Both Insta and YT sometimes start to flood me with content about annoying Entrepreneur/Online Marketing bs, Andrew Tate or far(ish)-right-wing trash or half-naked women. No amount of "not interested" seems to help, so I either switch app or do something else.
It was an estimate for an individual.
>The premise of this conversation is that this is the regular process, right?
The premise seems to be that if somewhere some policy changes, people will not feel insecure in a (purported) emergency and grab their bags.
But they will, because they don't have a time machine to see it will be ok, and they don't trust the authorities, by assumption.
To answer your earlier question, not to split hairs, but I disagree with "always". You can inadvertently increase risk when trying to reduce it, or unwittingly prioritize things that offer less bang for your buck. That's why risk analysis is important.
I want to be clear I'm agreeing with you that some cameras would be useful in general. I think my only disagreements are that eyeballs are fine for this scenario, and that "more" isn't always meaningfully useful or necessarily better.