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

61–70 of 435 posts

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#61

Post by codeonfire »

milesf wrote: post #2

How is this even possible? Is it gross negligence on the part of the pilot, a systems problem, or something else? (IANAP)

In Seattle, there have been taxiway landings in 2005 and 2015 because the taxiway looks similar to the runways. Presumably the ILS system should align them with the correct runway, but I guess that in these cases, ILS is not being used. Even it it were, the runways are the same heading and just a few hundred yards apart, so the mistake would not be realized until short final.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#62

Post by grandalf »

desdiv wrote: post #43
charlietran wrote: post #3

There's an mp3 of the radio chatter here: https://forums.liveatc.net/atcaviation-audio-clips/7-july-ks... > Audio from the air traffic controller communication archived by a user on LiveATC.net and reviewed by this newspaper organization showed how a the confused Air Canada pilot asks if he’s clear to land on 28R because he sees lights on the runway. > “There’s no one on 28R but you,” the air controller responds. > A…

.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/369434

On the other hand, AM is simple and cheap and usable worldwide without significant investment.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#63

Post by sigstoat »

desdiv wrote: post #43
charlietran wrote: post #3

There's an mp3 of the radio chatter here: https://forums.liveatc.net/atcaviation-audio-clips/7-july-ks... > Audio from the air traffic controller communication archived by a user on LiveATC.net and reviewed by this newspaper organization showed how a the confused Air Canada pilot asks if he’s clear to land on 28R because he sees lights on the runway. > “There’s no one on 28R but you,” the air controller responds. > A…

.

they still use AM because higher powered transmitters (which will generally be the tower) can overpower weaker transmitters (planes). i'm given to understand aviation is enamored of that feature.

> Just imagine the economic damage that a single asshole can do with a high-powered transmitter near an airport.

the pilots could probably just pull their cell phones out and call the tower. there is much worse trouble single assholes could get up to.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#64

Post by dmitrygr »

desdiv wrote: post #43
charlietran wrote: post #3

There's an mp3 of the radio chatter here: https://forums.liveatc.net/atcaviation-audio-clips/7-july-ks... > Audio from the air traffic controller communication archived by a user on LiveATC.net and reviewed by this newspaper organization showed how a the confused Air Canada pilot asks if he’s clear to land on 28R because he sees lights on the runway. > “There’s no one on 28R but you,” the air controller responds. > A…

.

It is a very Silicon Valley thing to assume that everyone else is an idiot and needs to be disrupted, with not a thought given as to why things are the way they are. Sort of funny to watch it from the side

I assure you that there is a reason AM is used. The reason is that in the case that two stations are transmitting, everyone will be aware of it and the stronger signal may be heard. This is not something that FM can guarantee. And a digital protocol requires a much better signal (where old analog tv gave snowy picture digital TV gives nothing). Not to mention the insane costs that digital radio retofitting would require of every single plane in the sky.

Edit: parent seems to have deleted his post. It previously asked condescendingly why we still use AM for comms in the air.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#65

Post by [deleted] »

kobeya wrote: post #51
hyperbovine wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But no pilot would ever land on a runway (or taxiway) with 3 planes on it. Just like no pilot would ever crash into the seawall short of 28L in broad daylight with unlimited visibility. In that case the pilots knew what was about to happen seconds before impact and they were powerless to stop it. I could easily see the same thing happening here. Airplanes are big cumbersome objects with a ton of inertia.

When did that happen?

[deleted]

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#66

Post by wfunction »

cyberferret wrote: post #54
wfunction wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, autolanding, or if the pilot was using ILS (Instrument Landing System), then this problem would almost never happen, as they would be aware there was a problem. However, most pilots eschew automation especially on short finals, and prefer the 'hand fly' the aircraft in so that they can maintain complete control over the aircraft. Not a bad thing, and pilots want to actually fly the plane at crucial times. When h…

Fantastic explanation, and the question on my mind the entire time is "but why??"! Surely the copilot can look at a map (when I say map I don't mean a piece of paper -- I mean a digital one with GPS and everything) and see their trajectory while the pilot is landing, right? Like I'm imagining there should be something on the plane that shows them their trajectory and the runway information. If there is, why isn't it telling them when they're going the wrong way? If there isn't, why not? Is the technology simply behind, or is there a safety reason or something?

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#67

Post by chinathrow »

kobeya wrote: post #51
hyperbovine wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But no pilot would ever land on a runway (or taxiway) with 3 planes on it. Just like no pilot would ever crash into the seawall short of 28L in broad daylight with unlimited visibility. In that case the pilots knew what was about to happen seconds before impact and they were powerless to stop it. I could easily see the same thing happening here. Airplanes are big cumbersome objects with a ton of inertia.

When did that happen?

https://www.aeroinside.com/item/2761/asiana-b772-at-san-fran...

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#68

Post by [deleted] »

kobeya wrote: post #51
hyperbovine wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But no pilot would ever land on a runway (or taxiway) with 3 planes on it. Just like no pilot would ever crash into the seawall short of 28L in broad daylight with unlimited visibility. In that case the pilots knew what was about to happen seconds before impact and they were powerless to stop it. I could easily see the same thing happening here. Airplanes are big cumbersome objects with a ton of inertia.

When did that happen?

[deleted]

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#69

Post by wfunction »

ryandrake wrote: post #60
wfunction wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

When flying visually (VFR), taxiway lighting and runway lighting are visually very different. Taxiway lighting is almost always blue, whereas runway lighting is white (with any displaced threshold marked with red lights). In daylight, the markings on the runway are unmistakably different. I'm not instrument rated but my understanding is that with ILS, instrument approaches can handle multiple parallel runways precise…

Haha, thanks! Will fix that last bit.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#70

Post by Aloha »

desdiv wrote: post #43
charlietran wrote: post #3

There's an mp3 of the radio chatter here: https://forums.liveatc.net/atcaviation-audio-clips/7-july-ks... > Audio from the air traffic controller communication archived by a user on LiveATC.net and reviewed by this newspaper organization showed how a the confused Air Canada pilot asks if he’s clear to land on 28R because he sees lights on the runway. > “There’s no one on 28R but you,” the air controller responds. > A…

.

There is a very good technical reason we still use AM.

AM is not prone to capture effect, wherein the loudest signal captures the receiver. With AM, you can hear multiple people talking on top of each other at the same time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_effect

For uncontrolled radio situations where you have a number of unknown people who need to access a radio channel, neither digital nor encryption bring any wanted benefits.

As a note - the audio from this recording is very clear to me - I've heard far worse out of scratchy narrowband FM.. with AM the weaker the signal generally the quieter it is - but not generally that much noisier.

Post reply on HN