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

301–310 of 435 posts

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#301

Post by nkrisc »

briandear wrote: post #238
anovikov wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is facilitated by the fact that in some airports, taxiways and runways are similar and sometimes even used interchangeably (!), i.e. a runway may be remarked as taxiway and vice versa. So it's not 'how can he be so dumb' moment, in some case you have no way to tell the difference unless you just know.

It’s SFO though. And he’s an airline captain, so he should know.

If someone walks into a glass door once, you can say they weren't paying attention. If more and more people start walking into the same door, there's something wrong with the door.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#302

Post by athenot »

kbutler wrote: post #291
ncallaway wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The absolutely stellar safety record of the airline industry exists because they have repeatedly and consistent pushed past human error as an explanation for a crash. Understanding that if a human made this mistake, another future human will likely make the exact same mistake, they push to understand _why_ an airline captain that should know made this error. Then try to correct for that. If every crash was written of…

Someday, perhaps computer programmers will start applying this principle.

They do. That's what UX is all about. Not just UI, not just making thing possible or visual, but actually making the experience as smooth and frictionless as possible.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#303

Post by CPLX »

briandear wrote: post #239
gambiting wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stupid question - can you be certified as a commercial pilot if you are colourblind?

You can’t even be certificated as a Private Pilot if you are colorblind.

You can, but you're not allowed to fly at night.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#304

Post by gruez »

briandear wrote: post #257
nazri1 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There has been some talk of remote piloting (like drones,) but personally, I want whoever is flying the plane to have some skin in the game. Unmanned - fully autopilot aircraft are certainly possible and I sure Boeing probably has a Skunkworks looking into it, but I’ve seen enough source code over the years that I would have a hard time trusting an autonomous airplane unless they had escape pods. Autonomous airplanes…

>Pilot error is a very rare cause of airliner crashes.

Is that overall, or as a percentage of all airliner crashes? Because another commenter stated that human error is responsible for most of the crashes.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14741726

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#306

Post by rrmm »

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 a Delta incident at KATL where a plane landed on a taxiway.

NTSB report: https://www.ntsb.gov/about/employment/_layouts/ntsb.aviation...

Here is a comment from the NTSB report: """ Observations made from the flight deck during the flight test approaches indicated that when the lights were set to the same levels as were encountered by the incident crew, from about DEPOT intersection, the runway 27R centerline lights were not identifiable and the taxiway M centerline lights were more prominent. When established on final, the taxiway signs were more visible than runway 27R edge lights. At about 500 feet above ground level the runway centerline lights were barely visible and it appeared that some lights may have been out. The color of the blue taxiway edge lights became distinguishable at about 500 feet above ground level while on approach. """

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#307

Post by FussyZeus »

peteretep wrote: post #286
jpatokal wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm surprised there isn't more explicit tooling in the cockpit to stop that happening

As I understand it, planes are largely automated but the automated components will always defer to the pilots whenever action is taken. I would hope with the amount of training required to do that job that the pilot would be the half of that equation to defer to.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#308

Post by rrmm »

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.

See the Tests and Research section of the following NTSB report on a Delta incident where a plane landed on a taxiway at KATL. Note Also that the lights had been recently updated with LEDs from incandescents. Basically, the taxiway centerline was brighter than the runway centerlines and the colors of the lights were only apparent at 500ft.

https://www.ntsb.gov/about/employment/_layouts/ntsb.aviation...

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#309

Post by luca_ing »

wbl wrote: post #280
luca_ing wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? It's not like the pilot doesn't know there is a parallel taxiway. Of course there is. They would be (subconsciously anyway) looking for it to complete their mental map. It just went wrong in this case. You wouldn't even have n…

He did notice and asked the controller if he really was clear, who then gave the goaround. At least that's my read of the story.

You're right, I misremembered.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#310

Post by obstacle1 »

briandear wrote: post #256
vacri wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So many people use 'begs the question' as 'raises the question' now that it's a valid meaning for the phrase. EDIT: To the downvoters: I don't think you understand how human language works.

Does not something wrong enough times doesn’t make it correct. For example using “because” without a preposition doesn’t become correct just because Buzzfeed makes it popular. People make grammar/useage mistakes not because they consciously want to change the language but because they don’t know any differently. It’s quite different than how slang enters a language. Begs vs. raises the question isn’t some kind of col…

>Does not something wrong enough times doesn’t make it correct.

This isn't true in natural language. Do something enough times -- 'wrong' or 'right' -- and it becomes a part of the language. Like it or not.

Crack an Oxford English Dictionary sometime. Look up your favorite word. Notice that there will be tens of different definitions, including a historical trace of 'first uses' through semantic changes, for the single word.

>People make grammar/useage mistakes not because they consciously want to change the language but because they don’t know any differently

Consciously or not, they are changing the language. Language isn't a fixed thing with unbreakable rules. It is mutable. A language is however people use it; it isn't a thing to know in its entirety before using.

Post reply on HN