Can we have "might have triggered" changed to "could have triggered" in the title?
Title is from the original article. What's your reason for could instead of might?
Because it didn't. "Might have" means "we don't know if it did".
SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster
11–20 of 435 posts
Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster
#12Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster
#13Without knowing the cause but if I had to guess this looks like pilot error. At least statistically that the leading cause of crashes.
I am surprised pilots still manually land planes. Is the auto-landing feature not implemented well enough? But then it's relied upon in low visibility. So it has to work, they why isn't it used more often?
Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster
#14Attempts to take off from or land on taxiways are alarmingly common, including those by Harrison Ford:
Harrison Ford won't face disciplinary action for landing on a taxiway at John Wayne Airport [1]
Serious incident: Finnair A340 attempts takeoff from Hong Kong taxiway [2]
HK Airlines 737 tries to take off from taxiway [3]
Passenger plane lands on the TAXIWAY instead of runway in fourth incident of its kind at Seattle airport [4]
[2] https://news.aviation-safety.net/2010/12/03/serious-incident...
[3] https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/hk-airlines-tries...
[4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-337864...
Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Title is from the original article. What's your reason for could instead of might?
The tense/mood is wrong. It implies it could have been the cause of something that did happen rather than it having had a possibility of causing something that did not happen. Text of article has correct tense: "In what one aviation expert called a near-miss of what _could have been_ the largest aviation disaster ever..."
Of course :) I see it now. Didn't intend to be link bait, although the original may have intended that.
Changed.
Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Title is from the original article. What's your reason for could instead of might?
The tense/mood is wrong. It implies it could have been the cause of something that did happen rather than it having had a possibility of causing something that did not happen. Text of article has correct tense: "In what one aviation expert called a near-miss of what _could have been_ the largest aviation disaster ever..."
That's exactly right, I parsed the title as "a great aviation disaster happened, and the cause could be an SFO near miss".
Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster
#17Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Title is from the original article. What's your reason for could instead of might?
The tense/mood is wrong. It implies it could have been the cause of something that did happen rather than it having had a possibility of causing something that did not happen. Text of article has correct tense: "In what one aviation expert called a near-miss of what _could have been_ the largest aviation disaster ever..."
But the aircraft did actually align for Taxiway C and start an approach. That did happen.
Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster
#19I am just a passenger, but this looks very over-blown. A pilot aligned with the taxiway, that's bad. But no pilot would ever land on a runway (or taxiway) with 3 planes on it. Just search the Aviation Herald for "runway incursion". And indeed, he spotted them, communicated, went around. Aviation safety margins are so wide that this does not qualify as a near-miss.
This isn't quite a regular "runway incursion". That term is usually reserved for a taxiing aircraft (or maybe a service vehicle) which didn't stop in time at the threshold and went a bit beyond it.
This is more like runway "confusion". A term I made up, not sure if there is such an official name for it.
Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster
#20I am just a passenger, but this looks very over-blown. A pilot aligned with the taxiway, that's bad. But no pilot would ever land on a runway (or taxiway) with 3 planes on it. Just search the Aviation Herald for "runway incursion". And indeed, he spotted them, communicated, went around. Aviation safety margins are so wide that this does not qualify as a near-miss.
Ehh, the fact that he was cleared to land and the taxing aircraft could tell he was over the taxiway means it was probably less than 1 minute from landing. That's a pretty close call imo.