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

151–160 of 435 posts

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#151

Post by Someone »

klodolph wrote: post #89
wfunction wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, but do military-grade systems use AM like this too? I imagine their needs aren't any less than those of civilians, and I imagine they've gotten their communication systems to work just fine. So what's the issue?

"Military-grade" systems use complicated techniques like frequency-hopping spread spectrum. They're designed to be encrypted and resistant to jamming. The jamming resistance is not something we care about (if someone is jamming the signal you just make them turn off their radio), and the whole point of encryption is to prevent interoperability when you don't have the right key. So sure, you could pay a bunch of extra…

"The jamming resistance is not something we care about (if someone is jamming the signal you just make them turn off their radio)"

Evie might know this, too, so I think you should be concerned about jamming. Luckily, AM provides jamming resistance, since Evie would have to bring a powerful transmitter to be loud enough to drown out the other signals.

Nevertheless, I think large airports should have fast response teams who can rapidly fix the position of a jammer and silence it, if needed. If Evie could effectively take out, say, the main airports of LA and SF for a few hours with a few strong AM transmitters, I doubt all will end well.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#152

Post by raverbashing »

wfunction wrote: post #66
cyberferret wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The copilot is also busy with checks and other tasks, it's not like (s)he's just with crossed arms watching the show

However yes, it's the copilot's job to double check what the pilot says and to warn if anything's not what it should be (like trying to land on a runway)

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#153

Post by lb1lf »

konschubert wrote: post #142
dx034 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a foggy situation they would've used ILS or even autoland. Looking at instruments instead of out of the window would've prevented this much earlier.

If ILS and autoload can prevent this, why is it not mandatory?

Because sometimes these systems fail, and it would be a shame then if noone in the cockpit had done a manual landing since earning their wings.

(Just a guess - not a pilot.)

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#154

Post by konschubert »

Animats wrote: post #144
rdtsc wrote: post #13

Without 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?

Too soon to tell what the problem was. Possibly there was some other problem in the aircraft that was taking some pilot attention. Give this some time.

Then it would still be pilot error, no? I mean, pilot error doesn't mean that the pilot is to be blamed. It just means that he made a mistake.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#155

Post by wfunction »

raverbashing wrote: post #152
wfunction wrote: post #66

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…

The copilot is also busy with checks and other tasks, it's not like (s)he's just with crossed arms watching the show However yes, it's the copilot's job to double check what the pilot says and to warn if anything's not what it should be (like trying to land on a runway)

> it's not like (s)he's just with crossed arms watching the show

I mean I wasn't assuming that was the case either...

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#156

Post by exDM69 »

codeonfire wrote: post #61
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.

Seattle-Tacoma has three parallel runways with unequal horizontal spacing, it's easy to mistake that parallel taxiway between the center and right (north approach) as the right runway.

I've only done it in flight simulators but it's really difficult to tell from a distance.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#157

Post by jpatokal »

sohkamyung wrote: post #146
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…

There was also SIA Flight 006 which crashed while taking off from the wrong (closed) runway at Taiwan[1], which was big local news in Singapore at the time. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines_Flight_006

Mistaking runway 05R for 05L when both are parallel is more understandable though. It was also at night, in poor weather, and the airport had not blocked off the unusable runway (!) and did not have the gear to track aircraft locations on the ground.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#158

Post by CaliforniaKarl »

djsumdog wrote: post #131
CaliforniaKarl wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, I should clarify something: A visual approach is pretty simple from the controller's point of view ; it's more work for the pilot. But, the pilot is always the one in command of the plane: If the pilot is unwilling to accept a particular approach, they just need to say so. It may lead to delays, but controllers will accommodate. I originally said that the pilot had been assigned a visual approach to runway 28 Rig…

Wow, that's a lot of detail and analysis. That does make a lot of sense. I know it will be a while for the FAA report to come out, but if it does turn out to be what you've stated, you can totally say you called it.

Thank you!

By the way, for anyone still interested a month or so from now, check out NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System site [1]. This is a place where pilots, air traffic controllers, and other aviation personnel can go to anonymously report things that they were involved in. Reports are confidential [2] (they're anonymized before publication), and reports may not be used for enforcement purposes [3].

I expect that the pilots and controllers involved will have already submitted ASRS reports of the incident, and they'll eventually pop up on the site.

[1]: https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/index.html

[2]: https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/overview/confidentiality.html

[3]: https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/overview/immunity.html

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#159

Post by lucb1e »

Animats wrote: post #47

Here's a night approach on 28R at SFO.[1] Same approach during the day.[2] The taxiway is on the right. It's a straight-in approach over the bay. The runway, like all runways at major airports worldwide, has the standardized lighting that makes it very distinctive at night, including the long line of lights out into the bay. This was in clear conditions. WTF? Looking forward to reading the investigation results. The…

> WTF? Looking forward to reading the investigation results.

I'm not an expert, but given what you said, I suppose it'll just end up equating to "Human error. Happens."

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#160

Post by anigbrowl »

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.

Comment like that would put me off hiring you for any sort of mission- or safety-critical project. The approach for Asiana 214 looked fine until it wasn't; that was less than 4 years ago. Maybe you should stare at the video of that crash for a while and consider the large consequences that can ensue from a small error of judgement made a little too late.
Post reply on HN