SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster • Hacker News Board

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#431

Post by jbg_ » Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 8:56 PM UTC

wfunction wrote: post #266

jbg_ wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* 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…

I'm inclined to agree with you. Airports tending to be full of hyper-aware pilots who are communicating on the same radio frequencies as you shouldn't really be considered a safety margin, but it can still prevent accidents sometimes.

Incidentally, Aviation Herald reports[1] that "AC-759 had already overflown taxiway C by about 0.25nm when ATC instructed the aircraft to go around" and further that "it is estimated that AC-759 overflew the first two aircraft by 100 feet".

100 feet isn't much, and I imagine this was utterly terrifying for the pilots lined up on the taxiway, but 0.25nm past the beginning of taxiway C is basically touchdown point on the runway (had they been lined up with it), and they were still 100 feet above the ground. That indicates pretty strongly that the pilot of AC-759 had noticed their mistake and was taking evasive action already, before ATC instructed them to go around.

[1] https://avherald.com/h?article=4ab79f58&opt=0

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#432

Post by wfunction » Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 9:11 PM UTC

jbg_ wrote: post #431

wfunction wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I'm inclined to agree with you. Airports tending to be full of hyper-aware pilots who are communicating on the same radio frequencies as you shouldn't really be considered a safety margin, but it can still prevent accidents sometimes. Incidentally, Aviation Herald reports[1] that "AC-759 had already overflown taxiway C by about 0.25nm when ATC instructed the aircraft to go around" and further that "it is estimated th…

Wow, that's nice to know. Thanks for that bit of info!

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#433

Post by danek » Thu, Jul 13, 2017, 4:01 AM UTC

mckoss wrote: post #251

mate_soos wrote: post #219

Before crying pilot error, we must all read Sydney Dekker's A Field Giude to Understading "Human Error" (and fully appreciate why he uses those quotes). Don't immediately assign blame to the sharp end. Take a look at the blunt one first. Most likely not a pilot error. Assigning blame is a very human need, but assigning it to the most visible and accessible part is almost always wrong.

I can't imagine any scenario where this is not pilot error (unless you had a power failure of the airport lighting systems).

That's exactly the attitude that leads to more pilot error ;)

But seriously, it's important to understand how it made sense to the pilot from his perspective at that point in time. Because he believed he was aiming for the runway (I'm gonna give the benefit of the doubt and assume he wasn't distracted with online farming). So understanding why it made sense to him can lead to actions to prevent this in the future.

Versus chalking it up to "pilot error", in which we assign blame and don't take action to prevent this kind of mixup in the future, thus practically ensuring it happens again. Because if it made sense to him, it'll make sense to someone else too. In fact the top comment says this type of mixup is rather common!

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#434

Post by sethrin » Fri, Jul 14, 2017, 12:36 PM UTC

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…

'begs the question' is a bad translation of petitio principii, which is itself a bad translation from a greek text. The general usage of the term is the only correct interpretation. The phrase seems to be a trap for a certain category of pedants.

Re: SFO near miss might have triggered aviation disaster

#435

Post by softawre » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 3:05 PM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #220

narrator wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "Where's this guy going" unidentified person on the channel prevented the worst accident in aviation history. Great Job! Give that guy a medal and a movie.

Listen to this recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgPuyzogFuI It's from a Delta flight a few years ago that slid off the runway at LaGuardia in snow. The action starts about 5 minutes into that recording; Tower has just set up another incoming Delta flight to land, and is trying to confirm Delta 1086 has cleared the runway. Delta 1086 is poking its nose out over the water at this point, and the controller can…

Super interesting, thanks for typing this all out.