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

401–410 of 435 posts

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#401

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#402

Post by mikeash »

Aloha wrote: post #387
mikeash wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate aircraft radios. I'm sure the guys in big planes have better equipment and don't suffer from this as much, but when I fly small planes, it's a complete mess of wildly different volume levels (it's fun to turn up the volume to hear a quiet person, then get blasted by the next transmission), interference, and irrelevant transmissions from a hundred miles away. Don't get me wrong, they get the job done and any ch…

This is a lack of AGC (automatic gain control) - usually even on the (shortwave and Ham) radios I've seen it on, its switchable, otherwise (in certain conditions, like rapid fading) you can end up with gain pumping, which can sound like the audio is surging. What it normally does is reduce gain on high strength signals, and increases it on weak ones to give a constant volume level. I'm honestly surprised the radios i…

Thanks, now I know what to look for next time I go equipment shopping. I'm sure many GA radios have this, but I'm using particularly low-end radios since space and power consumption are more important for what I do. Still won't fix getting an earful about skydivers at an airport a hundred miles away, but it would be an improvement!

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#403

Post by Eugr »

cyberferret wrote: post #80
wfunction wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ah, I think you are picturing something like a HUD (heads up display) that they have on fighter jets? That would certainly go a long way towards solving the issue, but commercial aircraft don't have a HUD display system (though I believe the 787 has a partial HUD display now). Commercial aircraft have a HSI (horizontal situation indicator) located front and center on the panel in front of the pilots. This instrument…

What you are describing is called PFD (Primary Flight Display). HSI is just a bottom part of it, basically combined heading indicator + CDI/VDI + (sometimes) moving map. But anyway, unless you are on instrument approach (or at least have it tuned in on your avionics), the HSI won't show you whether you are lined up with the runway or not.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#404

Post by Eugr »

wfunction wrote: post #268
njloof wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sort of, at least in general aviation. Some of the newer avionics have bluetooth interface. For instance, popular GTN-series nav/comm can accept flight plans from Garmin Pilot software running on iPad.

Now, the iPad part is not certified, but the nav/comm (including software) is.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#407

Post by cyberferret »

gambiting wrote: post #235
dgoldstein0 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this sounds like the start of a good idea, but we should choose something that works for colorblind people and red/green colorblind people too.

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

Not a stupid question at all. I clearly remember doing the colour blind test during my preliminary medical when I arrived at flying school to get my commercial licence.

The test consists of going through a book with images made up of different coloured dots, and within each image was a coloured number made up of similar dots. We simply had to flip through the book and identify the number within each image.

I was totally smug as I flipped through the book, calling out the numbers and watching the doctor tick off his chart. But towards the end of the booklet, I reached a page, and the image was just a jumble of dots to me. I couldn't see a number. I remember the panic and tightening in my chest as I thought to myself "Oh No, I can't see the number - I MUST be colour blind!! My dream of being a pilot is OVER".

I stared and stared at the page, but in the end had to concede defeat and I quietly told the doc that I couldn't see the number on that page. "Oh", he replied casually. "That's OK, there isn't one on that page!". And he grabbed the booklet and tossed it back on his desk saying "You passed."

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#408

Post by cyberferret »

bronco21016 wrote: post #292
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…

I have to disagree about the maps and charts being stowed away at this point. I personally can only think of one 121 certificated carrier in the US that isn't using an EFB setup. These are typically mounted to the side of the pilot and there's no reason at all they can't still be on and open to either the airport diagram or the approach in use. In fact I frequently do this and do reference it on approach to parallel…

I am going to say you are probably more right than me. I haven't flown in over two decades, so things are bound to be different/better nowadays and procedures and safety improves.

Take my replies here with a grain of salt and as being 'old school'. :)

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#409

Post by throwanem »

wfunction wrote: post #391
phdp wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OK, so I don't have much of an expectation for older plane models, but my interpretation of the above is that in newer models, autopilot need not disengage before landing and require manual intervention in order to align the plane with the correct track (barring bad weather or other unusual situations like bird collisions, etc.). What is your definition of manual intervention? Pilots get updated instructions from t…

> What is your definition of manual intervention? I was thinking of autopilot disengaging, but that's not really important here. I'll go along with what you just said. > Pilots get updated instructions from the tower - the GPS path of the flight within 10 m is not programmed from the beginning not in the beginning... so it is later? > due to weather issues, turbulence, traffic at the terminal ends, etc. Uhm, "traffic…

> For goodness's sake all I'm asking for is a little display with a map that shows where the plane thinks it's going.

Any commercial aircraft with a glass cockpit, which at this point is ~all of them, already has one of these.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#410

Post by wfunction »

throwanem wrote: post #409
wfunction wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is your definition of manual intervention? I was thinking of autopilot disengaging, but that's not really important here. I'll go along with what you just said. > Pilots get updated instructions from the tower - the GPS path of the flight within 10 m is not programmed from the beginning not in the beginning... so it is later? > due to weather issues, turbulence, traffic at the terminal ends, etc. Uhm, "traffic…

> For goodness's sake all I'm asking for is a little display with a map that shows where the plane thinks it's going. Any commercial aircraft with a glass cockpit, which at this point is ~all of them, already has one of these.

I mean including information/labels like "taxiway XYZ" that could make a stupid mistake like this obvious. Or are you saying they already do this?
Post reply on HN