Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 435 posts

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#31

Post by ChuckMcM »

FiloSottile wrote: post #4

I 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.

I expect you are correct, but I also note that it has happened before. One could have said this just before the Asiana flight flew into the ground as well. "What pilot would miss the fact that they were way too low?" Or just before Harrison Ford flew over a plane on the Taxiway and then landed on that taxiway.

Fundamentally it takes several things to fail all at once for an air disaster to actually transpire, but it does happen.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#32

Post by kgwgk »

ddeck wrote: post #24
meowface wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, I'm confused by this. Surely the pilot would notice at least one of the planes he'd be inevitably crashing into well before he started to land?

>Surely the pilot would notice at least one of the planes he'd be inevitably crashing into well before he started to land In theory yes, but the risk is that the plane you crash into is not yet on the taxiway or that poor visibility or tunneled focus prevents you from noticing it. You don't need to be moving quickly to have a significant accident. The deadliest aviation accident in history (583 fatalities) resulted w…

It's interesting that it happened 40 years ago. Risks might be decreasing if we didn't see a larger one yet.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#33

Post by cyberferret »

wfunction wrote: post #21
ddeck wrote: post #14

Attempts 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 Seattl…

Why in the world is this even a problem? Shouldn't what's a taxiway and what's not be indicated on maps or diagrams or something that pilots can see?

Because the pilot is almost never looking at a map on final approach. He is looking out the window, and in the dawn/dusk light, or with a setting sun in the background or inclement weather etc., a taxiway can look exactly like a runway.

Don't forget that almost all taxiways run parallel to the runway, for about the same length.

(NB: I used to be a commercial pilot.)

In most airports I flew into, the surface material for the taxiways was different from the runway, so sometimes the taxiway could end up looking brighter and more prevalent than the runway under certain lighting conditions. Yep, I have had moments of confusion when on long finals into an unfamiliar airport. Never to the point of actually ending up landing on the taxiway, but the confusion is a thing that pilots have to contend with.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#34

Post by blhack »

People "could" run their cars off of bridges every day, but they don't because they can see, and because roads have signs warning them of curves.

This sounds like a story of how well the aviation system works more than anything. The pilot is in constant communication with the tower. The system worked as intended here and he went around.

It seems like a non story.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#35

Post by wfunction »

Tuxer wrote: post #29
wfunction wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why in the world is this even a problem? Shouldn't what's a taxiway and what's not be indicated on maps or diagrams or something that pilots can see?

(pilot here) Yes, they are very well shown on maps, but it can be hard to map your diagram to what you're seeing, especially if it's raining or if it's at night, and even more if you're tired. I never made the mistake, but can see how somebody in bad conditions would.

Thanks! But why do you even have to map your diagram to what you're seeing? Isn't there a GPS system that shows you exactly where you are on the map and where you are going to go in the next few minutes? It doesn't seem like there should be any mental or visual processing to figure out that you're heading toward the wrong runway, right?

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#36

Post by dbroockman »

blhack wrote: post #34

People "could" run their cars off of bridges every day, but they don't because they can see, and because roads have signs warning them of curves. This sounds like a story of how well the aviation system works more than anything. The pilot is in constant communication with the tower. The system worked as intended here and he went around. It seems like a non story.

Seems like disaster was only avoided because there was good visibility. If there was fog that day, it sounds like this wouldn't have been avoided.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#37

Post by cyberferret »

Pinckney wrote: post #28
ddeck wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Surely the pilot would notice at least one of the planes he'd be inevitably crashing into well before he started to land In theory yes, but the risk is that the plane you crash into is not yet on the taxiway or that poor visibility or tunneled focus prevents you from noticing it. You don't need to be moving quickly to have a significant accident. The deadliest aviation accident in history (583 fatalities) resulted w…

You're mistaken. The KLM plane took off when it was not cleared, and they collided at 260km/h.

That was just one of seven distinct mistakes that lead to the crash. The PanAm pilot missed his turnoff, the controllers were busy watching a football match and missed the radio cues that could have alerted them to the fact there was an impending problem etc. etc.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#38

Post by willidiots »

cyberferret wrote: post #33
wfunction wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why in the world is this even a problem? Shouldn't what's a taxiway and what's not be indicated on maps or diagrams or something that pilots can see?

Because the pilot is almost never looking at a map on final approach. He is looking out the window, and in the dawn/dusk light, or with a setting sun in the background or inclement weather etc., a taxiway can look exactly like a runway. Don't forget that almost all taxiways run parallel to the runway, for about the same length. (NB: I used to be a commercial pilot.) In most airports I flew into, the surface material…

Seems like a design flaw. Do any taxiways have markings etc. to make them more distinguishable?

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#39

Post by willidiots »

cyberferret wrote: post #33
wfunction wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why in the world is this even a problem? Shouldn't what's a taxiway and what's not be indicated on maps or diagrams or something that pilots can see?

Because the pilot is almost never looking at a map on final approach. He is looking out the window, and in the dawn/dusk light, or with a setting sun in the background or inclement weather etc., a taxiway can look exactly like a runway. Don't forget that almost all taxiways run parallel to the runway, for about the same length. (NB: I used to be a commercial pilot.) In most airports I flew into, the surface material…

Seems like a design flaw. Do any taxiways have markings etc. to make them more distinguishable?

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#40

Post by wfunction »

cyberferret wrote: post #33
wfunction wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why in the world is this even a problem? Shouldn't what's a taxiway and what's not be indicated on maps or diagrams or something that pilots can see?

Because the pilot is almost never looking at a map on final approach. He is looking out the window, and in the dawn/dusk light, or with a setting sun in the background or inclement weather etc., a taxiway can look exactly like a runway. Don't forget that almost all taxiways run parallel to the runway, for about the same length. (NB: I used to be a commercial pilot.) In most airports I flew into, the surface material…

Thank you! That raises the question, (a) why is there no kind of warning system for when you're about to land on the wrong runway (there's a GPS system in the aircraft that knows where you're going, right?) and (b) why is the pilot (or at least co-pilot) never looking at a map on final approach? Is it really that dangerous for anyone to take a quick glance?
Post reply on HN