Wow, I landed on the next day on the same flight (AC 759)
You missed out on the fun
SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster
201–210 of 435 posts
Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster
#202Earlier 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 when you're coming in on runway 17L at DFW, all nice and programmed into your autoland, and suddenly the controller tells you to switch to landing on 17C, you have to just fly the plane. If you muck about trying to reprogram your autoland you'll be halfway to Oklahoma before you're set up again. See the video I linked in another comment in this thread for more details and examples of why complete automation is undesirable.
Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Unless you live in a country which uses 24-hour clocks, which is most of the world.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_and_time_representation_b...
Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster
#204Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster
#205In 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.
“Cashiered”?
Google is your friend : http://bfy.tw/ClnP
Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Safety margins are wide when pilots don't screw up. But this one did. Royally. And the safety margin was wide enough to absorb that screw up. This is _why_ we have wide safety margins. So that one screw up doesn't absorb all of it. People will always screw up, and policy accounts for that fact.
Can you tell me what the second safety margin that kicked in here and saved them was? Seems to me that it was another pilot noticing them and asking "Where's this guy goin'?" which is not something I'd consider to be a safety margin kicking in... it sounds like sheer dumb luck, where the last margin had already failed.
* Conditions were clear. The pilot landing would likely have seen the aircraft on the ground in plenty of time to go around.
* Conditions were clear. The pilot landing would have an increasing probability of noticing their mistake from lights on the runway and taxiway as they got closer to landing.
* After being alerted that the pilot landing could see lights on what they thought was the runway, the ATC would likely have paid closer attention to the various tools available to them to see the location and heading of the aircraft.
And finally, the one factor that happened to be the first of these to happen:
* Multiple pilots looking directly toward the oncoming aircraft, one of whom alerted ATC.
Just because this happened first doesn't mean the other things failed or wouldn't have happened.
Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
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"?
Okay, correction. Airplanes don't have GPS systems that work better at the level of reliability required. "It works most of the time, except it sometimes doesn't" might be sufficient when you can stop at the roadside, but doesn't quite cut it in the air.
Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why in the world is this even a problem? Shouldn't what's a taxiway and what's not be indicated on maps or diagrams or something that pilots can see?
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…
Side question: do you think one day commercial pilots aren't necessary anymore, i.e. totally unmanned commercial airlines? If so, how far away in the future are they?
Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster
#209English is not my native language, but shouldn't the headline have read "SFO near miss would have triggered aviation disaster"? "Might" seems to indicate that something else happened afterwards as a possible result of the near miss
Not a native speaker either (though I've been fluent for decades) and I find the title horribly misleading as well. "Might have triggered" implies the disaster happened, or at least that it's not known whether a disaster happened.
"Would have triggered" implies neither the disaster nor the near-miss happened, so I think the most unambiguous phrasing would have been "could have triggered".
OTOH I've seen native speakers use headlines like "Why this works?" (which by my understanding of the language shouldn't have a question mark), so IDK.
Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster
#210Earlier 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…
Australia is also responsible for "black box" flight recorders, which are one of those things where it's really hard to appreciate in hindsight why we didn't mandate them much sooner.