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

161–170 of 435 posts

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#161

Post by cyberferret »

kakwa_ wrote: post #143
cyberferret wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do. They have different lighting systems/colours etc. to differentiate them. Taxiways generally have green lights along the centerline to guide aircraft rolling on the ground, but runways usually have white (bright) lights along the edges . There are times when even THAT causes confusion, because sometimes the taxiway centreline lights can look like the edge lights of the runway - especially if the light is refr…

Just a very naive question, would not it be possible for the taxiway lights to only be visible from the ground?

A good concept in theory, but bear in mind that the cockpit of a 747 or A380 is something like 2 or 3 stories above the ground, in terms of height.

To be able to see a taxiway light 50m in front of the plane, the light will have to be angled up to an extent that a plane 500 feet in the air a mile away will also be able to see it.

Not putting down your idea at all - anything workable that will improve flight operations should be considered.

Trivia: Speaking of lighting assistance, Did you know one of the best inventions out of Australia is the T-VASIS landing system [0] that is in use at nearly every major airport in the world?? Oh, and we invented the DME too [1], in the aviation world... :)

[0] - https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/innovation/tee-visual-approac...

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance_measuring_equipment

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#162

Post by URSpider94 »

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…

I don't think a map or chart would necessarily solve the problem. The taxiway runs parallel to the runway, in the same direction, is the same length, and is similar in width.

Similar to how a map or GPS won't stop you from turning down the wrong way on a divided highway. Or how there have been many cases of people following GPS and turning onto railroad tracks that parallel roads. https://www.google.com/search?q=driver+turns+onto+train+trac...

It's not like it happens every day, so I expect there is some significant thought going into how to mistake-proof this particular problem.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#163

Post by RX14 »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #108
sigstoat wrote: post #63

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…

I'd imagine, as well, that a transmitter powerful enough to drown out a control tower would be very, very difficult to conceal.

I think you'd be very surprised what a lot of power and a shit antenna can do. Obviously won't last when someone comes along with DF equipment, but it really wouldn't be hard to conceal visually.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#164

Post by hindsightbias »

cyberferret wrote: post #140
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps this is a dumb question but is there any reason why the taxiway doesn't have HUGE red Xs going down it and the runway with HUGE green arrow going down? Sorta like what they do on bridges where the lanes can shift to allow more cares to travel in one direction but more obvious? They could even angle them so the planes on the ground see them differently or not at all.

Red 'X's on a runway usually denote an inactive or out of service runway. They ARE actually quite different in terms of lighting, width etc. and 99.9% of the time there is no issue telling them apart. Runways also have extra approach lights etc. at night to really make it clear where you should be pointing the nose. (NB: Check out the video posted elsewhere in this thread of the cockpit view of a 747 landing at SFO a…

The a/c on the taxiway will not have their landing lights on while pointed downwind.

They turn them on when theyre cleared to enter the runway.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#165

Post by exDM69 »

CaliforniaKarl wrote: post #149
exDM69 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the pilot initiates a go around they need to announce it to the ATC. It is usually a drastic full power pull up that will certainly disrupt nearby air traffic. So the pilot probably did not start the go around before being told so.

Sorry, I have to partially disagree. The FAA is pretty clear on this: The priorities (in order) are Aviate, Navigate, and Communicate[1]. The pilot is ultimately the person responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. That will occasionally mean performing a maneuver before telling anyone. In response to this, procedures are designed so that pilots can safely abort an approach without posing a danger to themse…

Yes, it's impossible to tell from the footage but I would have assumed hearing the pilot, not the ATC call for go around if it was pilot initiated.

But you're right, the pilot may have started the go around but we can't tell what happened from the footage.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#166

Post by klodolph »

Someone wrote: post #151
klodolph wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 team…

Evie? I honestly have no idea who that is. But the more powerful the jamming, the easier it is to find the source. These days even hobbyists play around with cheap off-the-shelf RF analyzers and directional antennas, so I can't imagine that someone jamming airport signals would be able to evade arrest for very long.

Heck, the FCC will even track you down if you operate an unlicensed radio station. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIGAOLJh-XE

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#167

Post by vacri »

dheera wrote: post #141
cyberferret wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why can't they make taxiways more obvious (e.g. paint them bright red)? Seems like it would be a small cost for a lot of insurance against an accident.

With the setting sun just right, you wouldn't see the red, just reflected sunlight. There's no guaranteed solution for all cases, and aerospace visuals are some of the most heavily studied of any industry.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#168

Post by cagataygurturk »

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?

When visual conditions are enough, pilots tend to do visual approach/manual landing even there is CATIII equipment and airline/pilot certified to do that. It is faster and more economic: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/24275/what-make...

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#169

Post by caf »

idlewords wrote: post #137
justinjlynn wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A broken clock is correct at least once a day.

That used to be true (twice a day, even), but now it just flashes 12:00, or the screen is dead.

A clock that flashes 12:00 is still right twice a day.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#170

Post by Kliment »

idlewords wrote: post #137
justinjlynn wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A broken clock is correct at least once a day.

That used to be true (twice a day, even), but now it just flashes 12:00, or the screen is dead.

So it's correct at 12 and possibly at midnight too
Post reply on HN