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

181–190 of 435 posts

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#181

Post by wfunction »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #175
wfunction wrote: post #76

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…

In their defense, I would guess that making such a system 100% reliable and unintrusive may be a lot harder than we realize. It's not uncommon for Google Maps to be off by a few blocks for 10 seconds or more, and that could very easily be fatal if you're using it to land an airplane.

Are you suggesting their current GPS systems have that kind of issue though? I'm just asking for an interface to be added, not a entire concept of GPS functionality to be added. I'm assuming the latter is already used. It's not like I was suggesting they use Google Maps.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#182

Post by hueving »

wfunction wrote: post #76
cyberferret wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a matter of scale. Even on a modern HSI, the difference in distance between the runway and the parallel taxiway is probably the width of the indicator icon. Very hard to see on instruments. Much easier to see by looking out the windscreen.

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…

You know what else Google maps does? It quits working at random times and behaves unpredictably in low precision GPS scenarios.

GPS units certified for aviation are tested to edge cases for usability with predictable and clearly indicated failure modes. This slows down new tech, but it's critical.

Even auto zooming on gmaps seems like a no-brainer, except for the times where the auto zoom into a trivial maneuver (continue onto road) occludes the difficult immediately following procedure (take correct exit out of 4 within 50 meters).

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#183

Post by ubernostrum »

cyberferret wrote: post #161
kakwa_ wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 operation…

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.

Fun fact! The A380's flight deck isn't that high off the ground. It's exactly the same height as the A330 and A340, part of an effort to reduce differences and cut down on the amount of new things pilots would have to deal with to train on the type.

This is also why the A380 has such a pronounced "forehead" -- the much lower flight-deck height (compared to a 747) means there's a lot of plane above that.

(and bonus fun fact: the 747's flight deck is way up top not for visibility, but because Boeing anticipated supersonic planes would take over the passenger market; the 747's high flight deck was meant to accommodate converting the plane to cargo use, so that the whole nose could swing open for loading and unloading)

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#184

Post by ubernostrum »

kobeya wrote: post #53
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…

Seems like a very good argument for autopilot landings.

You might enjoy this classic video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN41LvuSz10

Just be sure to make a note of the video title so you can find it again -- copies of it tend to get taken down, since American Airlines got in some trouble after other parts of this training course were blamed for the crash of AA flight 587:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#185

Post by wfunction »

saurik wrote: post #177
wfunction wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't complaining about the transmission quality, I was just trying to understand the parent comment. The person who complained about the former was someone else.

Sorry; I misunderstood (and to be honest even after my tenth reread am still having a difficult time parsing...) the end of your comment about the "issue" :(.

OK, I'll clarify. Someone suggested non-AM transmission has problems X/Y/Z; I suggested that I expect non-AM transmission has overcome problems X/Y/Z in the military, and therefore I'm not convinced this is the real issue preventing non-AM communication. I was not discussing whether we or not we need non-AM communication in the first place.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#186

Post by wfunction »

hueving wrote: post #182
wfunction wrote: post #76

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…

You know what else Google maps does? It quits working at random times and behaves unpredictably in low precision GPS scenarios. GPS units certified for aviation are tested to edge cases for usability with predictable and clearly indicated failure modes. This slows down new tech, but it's critical. Even auto zooming on gmaps seems like a no-brainer, except for the times where the auto zoom into a trivial maneuver (con…

> You know what else Google maps does? It quits working at random times and behaves unpredictably in low precision GPS scenarios.

OK, so you're saying airplanes don't already have GPS systems that work better?

Or are you claiming I said "Airbus and Boeing should literally install Google Maps in the cockpit"?

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#188

Post by hueving »

lucb1e wrote: post #159
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."

I suggest you read ntsb investigations of some major commercial aviation events like this. It is never just "human error. Happens."

They are always full of excellent recommendations, points of failure, etc.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#189

Post by HappyTypist »

0xbear wrote: post #172
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…

Why not put a big ass array of red lights to indicate where not to land though?

All you need is an universal (ICAO) visual indication for "this is a taxiway, do not fucking landing here". For example, a stripe of alternating red and blue lights.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#190

Post by ajdlinux »

cyberferret wrote: post #91
wfunction wrote: post #76

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…

Hmm, Electronic Flight Bags are now a regulator-approved thing for manuals/other paper products.
Post reply on HN