101–110 of 435 posts
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…
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.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
.
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 ca…
This kind of thinking has also lead to a ton of success in Silicon Valley. See Tesla for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Ah, I think you are picturing something like a HUD (heads up display) that they have on fighter jets? That would certainly go a long way towards solving the issue, but commercial aircraft don't have a HUD display system (though I believe the 787 has a partial HUD display now). Commercial aircraft have a HSI (horizontal situation indicator) located front and center on the panel in front of the pilots. This instrument…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't tell if my expectations are just too high, but the impression I'm getting from all your answers is that pilots just don't have a dynamically updating (i.e. digital) map. It seems like everything is a bunch of numbers the poor pilots have to crunch or ticks that they have to count correctly or sheets of paper they have to pass to each other with diagrams. Why in the world is the system so ancient in 2017? Goog…
Ironically, it is mainly because of reliability. Every system on an aircraft HAS to have double or triple redundancy by law, and a lot of these systems ARE antiquated by usual consumer standards. A lot of pilots these days have iPads in the cockpit to assist with this, but in nearly all airlines and aircraft types, these are unauthorised devices that are not part of the certification. Generally they are used for non…
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…
It seems like a pretty critical system for lining up an approach on the right runway. FS4 even had a training mode where it would display the ILS bars on the screen without needing to look at the instruments. You'd think some commercial airliners would at least put this in a heads up display, where it would be totally obvious you're lined up with the taxi way since the bar would be glued to one side or the other. Don't Navy pilots have a similar HUD for just their vertical approach angle?
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…
There is a pprune forum post of an american instructor explaining how a visual circuit flown in manual was the worst "emergency" he could set in a simulator. Up to the point that he failed one of the chef pilots in Asiana and they wanted to fire him. This seems to be a cultural thing, they ace the theory (really know all the manuals by heart), but are not allowed to think outside the box at all.
This airmiss is important, but could only happen flying in manual and visual conditions.
It's hard to ignore the sigthing of other planes in that conditions, even if you are confused about which strip you are aligned with.
In my opinion it's much more dangerous taxing in a complex airport with fog. There is a real problem of runway incursions, that could be solved with better systems.
I'll try to find the pprune post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
.
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 singl…
In the early 1960s, a pilot mistook a WW2 airfield for Heathrow, and landed his 707 on it, barely stopping before the end of the runway. The runway being too short to lift a 707, mechanics stripped everything out of it they could to reduce the weight - seats, interiors, etc. They put barely enough gas in it to hop over to Heathrow, and managed to get it there safely. The pilot who landed there was cashiered.
In the early 1960s, a pilot mistook a WW2 airfield for Heathrow, and landed his 707 on it, barely stopping before the end of the runway. The runway being too short to lift a 707, mechanics stripped everything out of it they could to reduce the weight - seats, interiors, etc. They put barely enough gas in it to hop over to Heathrow, and managed to get it there safely. The pilot who landed there was cashiered.