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

261–270 of 435 posts

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#261

Post by dba7dba »

I'd like to suggest that if you are still interested in learning more about what happened, you should look for a video from "VASAviation" on youtube. I'm sure his subscribers have asked him already for analysis and he's working on the video.

The channel focuses on aviation comms channel.

I find it informative because the youtube channel provides detailed voice/video/photo/analysis of incidents (actual/close-calls) involving planes/passengers taxing/landing/taking-off in/around airports.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#262

Post by abritinthebay »

schoen wrote: post #113
abritinthebay wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Cashiered”?

It means 'fired' (maybe more common in English outside the U.S.?). https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cashier#English

I’m English, tho now live in the US, and never heard of it. Appears to be pretty archaic in usage.

Interesting!

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#263

Post by abritinthebay »

ajeet_dhaliwal wrote: post #221
schoen wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means 'fired' (maybe more common in English outside the U.S.?). https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cashier#English

I've lived 22 years of my life in the UK and 12 in North America and never heard of this before so I don't think it can be particularly common. I've heard of being 'laid off', 'fired', 'let go', 'terminated', 'made redundant', 'purged', but never this. Based on this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashiering it might be a military way of saying it so perhaps the poster has some background in that field.

That would make a lot of sense

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#264

Post by baq »

lisper wrote: post #48
FiloSottile wrote: post #4

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'm a private pilot who has flown into SFO once, and flies over SFO on a regular basis (I'm based at Palo Alto airport). This is not being overblown. If you listen to the audio tape, the tower orders the go-around at the 33 second mark, and United 1 reports that "Air Canada flew directly over us" 16 seconds later. That is a breathtakingly close call. Safety margins are wide when pilots don't screw up. But this one di…

considering that jet turbines take 5 seconds to spool up to go-around and 8 to full thrust at landing airspeeds (...not entirely sure if that's correct - that's the best i could google), the margin was about 10 seconds. i'm inclined to agree that it should be a terrifying incident that ended in a successful landing.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#265

Post by njloof »

cyberferret wrote: post #145
wfunction wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I don't know the types, but any kind of display that can show the relevant information would seem viable in 2017 :-) so it seems the main answer to "why?" is just "because adopting such technology is abysmally slow" rather than because it's inherently a bad idea? (Thank you for all the responses again! They're excellent.) (Edit: just saw your other comment, please feel free to ignore this if it's redundant.)

Yes, because getting ANY type of new technology on airplanes certified by the FAA (as well as the relevant air safety authorities in every other country in the world) is a laboriously long, slow and expensive exercise. It is sad, but the bright side is that is seems to be getting better nowadays as compared to when I was flying decades ago.

Also, iPads have become a vector for bringing new tech into the cockpit, since it's not physically installed in the plane and therefore doesn't require certification. You can pull up charts, set courses and upload to the autopilot.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#266

Post by wfunction »

jbg_ wrote: post #206
wfunction wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

I don't get this.

You're an engineer/pilot/whomever filing for {the current system/pilot/plane/whatever-needs-approval} to get approved. The power-that-be (e.g. FAA) asks you what your safety margins are. You cite "other pilots looking directly at my aircraft in the 30-second span of my mistake" as one of your "safety margins"? ...what?

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#267

Post by pc86 »

wfunction wrote: post #40
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…

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?

> Is it really that dangerous for anyone to take a quick glance?

Speaking as a private pilot, it absolutely is. Even in a Cessna you're going to be travelling at least 75 mph. Possible faster if the conditions are gusty. For the last 1/4-1/2 mile at least, your vision needs to be 100% outside of the airplane. Now if you need to do that in a Cessna at 75 mph with no more than 4 people on board, why wouldn't you also need to do in a 787 that lands at ~180 mph with nearly 300 people, or an A380 that lands at ~140 mph with over 500?

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#268

Post by wfunction »

njloof wrote: post #265
cyberferret wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because getting ANY type of new technology on airplanes certified by the FAA (as well as the relevant air safety authorities in every other country in the world) is a laboriously long, slow and expensive exercise. It is sad, but the bright side is that is seems to be getting better nowadays as compared to when I was flying decades ago.

Also, iPads have become a vector for bringing new tech into the cockpit, since it's not physically installed in the plane and therefore doesn't require certification. You can pull up charts, set courses and upload to the autopilot.

You can "upload" something from your iPad to the autopilot system without any kind of certification?

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#269

Post by wfunction »

pc86 wrote: post #267
wfunction wrote: post #40

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?

> Is it really that dangerous for anyone to take a quick glance? Speaking as a private pilot, it absolutely is. Even in a Cessna you're going to be travelling at least 75 mph. Possible faster if the conditions are gusty. For the last 1/4-1/2 mile at least, your vision needs to be 100% outside of the airplane. Now if you need to do that in a Cessna at 75 mph with no more than 4 people on board, why wouldn't you also n…

> Now if you need to do that in a Cessna at 75 mph with no more than 4 people on board, why wouldn't you also need to do in a 787 that lands at ~180 mph with nearly 300 people, or an A380 that lands at ~140 mph with over 500?

Because you have 1-3 other copilots who also have eyes and could be doing this instead of you...?

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#270

Post by dx034 »

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?

There were incidents in the past where pilots didn't have enough experience flying the aircraft manually. For that reason, most airlines prefer if pilots land manually as often as possible so that they can do it in case the system fails. If you always land automatically, pilots lose situational awareness.
Post reply on HN