Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 173 posts

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#81

Post by boredpudding »

robin_reala wrote: post #8
pycbr1 wrote: post #4

Hope the world never finds out how we get our driver's license.

They know already. A perennial topic of annoyance for US immigrants in Sweden is that their US licence is only valid for a year here, then they have to retake their test (unlike immigrants from the EU who get to convert theirs automatically).

I honestly don't know how you thought this was about the US. The thread is about the EU safety agency and Pakisti airlines.

I also have no idea how this is even getting votes instead of being deleted.

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#82

Post by implements »

oska wrote: post #76
andybak wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can see how that might be seen as a dog whistle.

The concept of 'dog whistling' is bogus. You can only hold people accountable for what they say , not what you think they might be 'signalling'.

You can’t define sophisticated behaviour out of reality, unfortunately.

“Dog Whistle” exists just as other coded forms of communication exist - to pass targeted private messages in public, with some plausible deniability.

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#83

Post by randompwd »

jsinai wrote: post #54
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you perceive something as a dog whistle, it doesn't mean others think so too or that author intended it that way. You have to be understanding. If something seems "off" to you, try to be more open-minded, we live in a multicultral society.

This runs both ways though. At the same time though we should be mindful of our actions and words, as much as possible. If there is a way of saying something that would not be perceived as a dog whistle, then choose those words. This is hard though because our own experiences mean we might not always see right away what is offensive to others, but we should try.

Don't factually quote something because somebody might get offended on behalf of somebody else?

Riight...Best of luck with that.

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#84

Post by goodcanadian »

krisoft wrote: post #77
Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The final authority in flying an airplane safely is always in the hands of the pilot. The pilot is always responsible. ATC may not have all the information, not know specifics of the aircraft or this specific flight. It is just not practical to have procedures where the ATC is the final authority for every single flight, with all the various different airplanes, so the pilot always is.

Exactly as Erlich_Bachman wrote. Also want to add one more reason: The pilot's neck is always on the line, while the ATC usually won't get physically hurt. The incentives are better aligned if it's the pilot who has final authority.

Sure, the pilot is the final authority. If it is unsafe, the pilot should declare an emergency, and ATC must get out of the way. Otherwise, if ATC says, "go around," the pilot should go around. And in this case, ATC should have said, "Go around."

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#85

Post by dmos62 »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #62
pycbr1 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was indeed referring to Pakistan. A decade or so ago, you had to bribe a person or two in order to get your license at the dmv, and they made the actual driving test next to impossible to pass, something like "Make a reverse L shape without hitting any cones" the L being a very tight fit. If you didn't have a DL, you'd pay a bribe every time you were pulled over, although the bribes would be to the tune of $1, alth…

Same situation in other places, even in Europe. In Romania not only that in small cities this is the only way to get a permit, even if you drive well, but we have people that cannot read but having a driver license. Corruption is a "well known secret" in every country in the world.

> Corruption is a "well known secret" in every country in the world.

That's certainly not true in my experience. In many countries I've visited I felt like a bribe would be a very bad idea and that above all others trusted the police. In an ex-Soviet-bloc state, I've seen a road police force go from USSR-level corruption to trustworthiness in a matter of ~1.5 decades.

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#86

Post by ohlookabird »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #62
pycbr1 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was indeed referring to Pakistan. A decade or so ago, you had to bribe a person or two in order to get your license at the dmv, and they made the actual driving test next to impossible to pass, something like "Make a reverse L shape without hitting any cones" the L being a very tight fit. If you didn't have a DL, you'd pay a bribe every time you were pulled over, although the bribes would be to the tune of $1, alth…

Same situation in other places, even in Europe. In Romania not only that in small cities this is the only way to get a permit, even if you drive well, but we have people that cannot read but having a driver license. Corruption is a "well known secret" in every country in the world.

But how does this work in practice? I don't think I ever had to bribe someone. Is it like "Here these $5 are for you!" or you just forget $5 on the dashboard? I can't really picture these situations.

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#87

Post by panini_tech »

Jdam wrote: post #60

If this doesn't apply to the UK as well, it is not enough. I would like to see a flyover ban as well, as PIA flies through the EU to the UK. I'm following the aviation industry closely and there are plenty of reports every now and then where PIA flights don't respond on radio anymore, triggering fighter intercepts. It is assumed that those pilots are oftentimes either sleeping or just don't bother because of their eg…

Pakistan is a monster created by British..call it chickens coming home to roost

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#88

Post by t0mas88 »

andybak wrote: post #56
t0mas88 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SFO case is interesting, because it's not just "foreign crews don't like visual approaches". It's because the US is commonly using visual approaches kind of as a loophole to reduce separation. All major carriers require that crews use the ILS (or RNAV) as a backup to a visual approach if it's available. But by clearing for a visual approach the controller is no longer required to keep the planes on approach separ…

> by allowing a reduced 2.5nm separation Rather alarming to read that as nano-meters briefly!

Haha, just millimeters from crashing in that case.

Aviation is terrible at any kind of SI or even any kind of sane standardization of units at all. Distance is commonly measured in nautical miles (1852 meters), but visibility in the US is in statute miles (1600ish meter?) or feet, while Europe uses km or meters for visibility. Both US and Europe use feet for altitude, but China/Russia use meters for altitude.

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#89

Post by VBprogrammer »

newsbinator wrote: post #68
Jdam wrote: post #60

If this doesn't apply to the UK as well, it is not enough. I would like to see a flyover ban as well, as PIA flies through the EU to the UK. I'm following the aviation industry closely and there are plenty of reports every now and then where PIA flights don't respond on radio anymore, triggering fighter intercepts. It is assumed that those pilots are oftentimes either sleeping or just don't bother because of their eg…

> triggering fighter intercepts Also this costs tax money. Why spend the money on intercepts when you can ban the people causing the problems?

Only on paper. Let's face it if the pilots weren't flying intercepts they'd need to be flying training missions. Anyway, the sunk cost of buying, maintaining and operating fighter jets is so high that the marginal cost of a mission is a bit of a wash.

Re: EU safety agency suspends Pakistani airlines' European authorisation

#90

Post by t0mas88 »

nitrogen wrote: post #6
t0mas88 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SFO case is interesting, because it's not just "foreign crews don't like visual approaches". It's because the US is commonly using visual approaches kind of as a loophole to reduce separation. All major carriers require that crews use the ILS (or RNAV) as a backup to a visual approach if it's available. But by clearing for a visual approach the controller is no longer required to keep the planes on approach separ…

far worse means to judge separation than the controller Those cockpit windows don't seem like they provide the best view... Out of curiosity, do civilian aircraft have onboard radar? If so, what directions can it see (up/down/front/back/sides)?

Airliners have radar in the nose, you can see the different colored part of the nosecone on some, that's where the antenna is. It points forward, scanning horizontal, with stabilization to compensate for climbing/descending and the pilots can control the tilt to scan above/below the current altitude.

But it's weather radar, so it mostly sees water droplets (rainshowers, thunderstorms etc), not other planes.

The TCAS system scans for transponders from other planes in all directions, checks their path and altitude and will play audible alerts (it shouts "traffic, traffic!") when there is a potential collision risk. You can use it to see other planes on the navigation display, but you cannot legally call that "visual separation".

If a controller asks you whether you have traffic in sight (they must ask that before they can tell you to follow it for example), you cannot say you have it on the screen. That doesn't count, you have to see it out the window.

Post reply on HN