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

LaGuardia pilots raised safety alarms months before deadly runway crash

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 324 posts

Re: LaGuardia pilots raised safety alarms months before deadly runway crash

#171

Post by film42 »

wk_end wrote: post #143
ndiddy wrote: post #5

I just hope they don't try to pin this on the controller who was on duty and move on without putting plans in place for some sort of structural change. Controllers are forced to work 60+ hour weeks and overnight shifts, and the controller in question was working both ground and air control simultaneously due to staffing shortages. If you listen to the ATC audio, he was handling finding a spot for a plane that aborted…

The NTSB - and aviation in general - as much as possible tries to avoid "pinning" issues on individuals. The purpose of an investigation isn't to ascribe blame, it's to try to understand what happened and how to prevent it from happening again, and prescribing "don't make mistakes" is not a realistic or useful method for preventing accidents from recurring.

I hope it comes down to the NTSB recommending more controllers (or better conditions for controllers) to avoid task saturation, not just more process. It's incredible what a single controller is capable of doing, but for major areas like NYC, it's not enough.

Re: LaGuardia pilots raised safety alarms months before deadly runway crash

#172

Post by inaros »

phearnot wrote: post #149
inaros wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am afraid the fire truck might have some level of responsibility, since it seems FAA ground vehicle guidance says: AC No: 150/5210-20A - "Subject: Ground Vehicle Operations to include Taxiing or Towing an Aircraft on Airports" https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/... “you must ensure that you look both ways down the runway to visually acquire aircraft landing or departing even if you have a c…

Not arguing with the regulations, just pointing out that based on airport diagram[1], since the truck was crossing rwy on taxiway D, the CRJ was on the right approaching from behind. I have never been inside an airport firetruck, but I guess from the driver's seat the jet would be quite hard to see in this case. [1] https://www.avherald.com/h?article=536bb98e

That is a good point but it seems instructions for ground vehicles seem to really stress this. For example this one: https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/files/bookshelf/1003.pdf

Says at pag 9:

"While driving on an aerodrome : Clear left, ahead, above and right

Scan the full length of the runway and the approaches for possible landing aircraft before entering or crossing any runway, even if you have received a clearance."

Re: LaGuardia pilots raised safety alarms months before deadly runway crash

#173

Post by cucumber3732842 »

phearnot wrote: post #149
inaros wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am afraid the fire truck might have some level of responsibility, since it seems FAA ground vehicle guidance says: AC No: 150/5210-20A - "Subject: Ground Vehicle Operations to include Taxiing or Towing an Aircraft on Airports" https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/... “you must ensure that you look both ways down the runway to visually acquire aircraft landing or departing even if you have a c…

Not arguing with the regulations, just pointing out that based on airport diagram[1], since the truck was crossing rwy on taxiway D, the CRJ was on the right approaching from behind. I have never been inside an airport firetruck, but I guess from the driver's seat the jet would be quite hard to see in this case. [1] https://www.avherald.com/h?article=536bb98e

>but I guess from the driver's seat the jet would be quite hard to see in this case.

They have mostly glass cabs for exactly that reason. Only thing that would block your view is a passenger in the right seat.

Re: LaGuardia pilots raised safety alarms months before deadly runway crash

#174

Post by awakeasleep »

wk_end wrote: post #143
ndiddy wrote: post #5

I just hope they don't try to pin this on the controller who was on duty and move on without putting plans in place for some sort of structural change. Controllers are forced to work 60+ hour weeks and overnight shifts, and the controller in question was working both ground and air control simultaneously due to staffing shortages. If you listen to the ATC audio, he was handling finding a spot for a plane that aborted…

The NTSB - and aviation in general - as much as possible tries to avoid "pinning" issues on individuals. The purpose of an investigation isn't to ascribe blame, it's to try to understand what happened and how to prevent it from happening again, and prescribing "don't make mistakes" is not a realistic or useful method for preventing accidents from recurring.

Understand what happened and prevent it from happening again, so long as this can be done without expanding staffing, reducing OT, structural change, etc

Re: LaGuardia pilots raised safety alarms months before deadly runway crash

#175

Post by caminante »

phearnot wrote: post #149
inaros wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am afraid the fire truck might have some level of responsibility, since it seems FAA ground vehicle guidance says: AC No: 150/5210-20A - "Subject: Ground Vehicle Operations to include Taxiing or Towing an Aircraft on Airports" https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/... “you must ensure that you look both ways down the runway to visually acquire aircraft landing or departing even if you have a c…

Not arguing with the regulations, just pointing out that based on airport diagram[1], since the truck was crossing rwy on taxiway D, the CRJ was on the right approaching from behind. I have never been inside an airport firetruck, but I guess from the driver's seat the jet would be quite hard to see in this case. [1] https://www.avherald.com/h?article=536bb98e

Visibility was bad (night and mist) too.

But if your truck has blind spots and vis is poor, you shouldn't be driving as fast if at all.

Re: LaGuardia pilots raised safety alarms months before deadly runway crash

#176

Post by longislandguido »

0xy wrote: post #23
ndiddy wrote: post #5

I just hope they don't try to pin this on the controller who was on duty and move on without putting plans in place for some sort of structural change. Controllers are forced to work 60+ hour weeks and overnight shifts, and the controller in question was working both ground and air control simultaneously due to staffing shortages. If you listen to the ATC audio, he was handling finding a spot for a plane that aborted…

LaGuardia did have a fully staffed ATC, and there's zero evidence this controller was overworked. You seem to be prematurely ascribing cause when nothing has been investigated yet.

The parent post was unjustly flagged for no other reason than facts make overly emotional people here squirm with anger. Pathetic and lame.

This is worthy of losing flagging privileges IMO.

The Secretary of Transportation said on record at the first press conference that reports this guy was working alone in the tower are INACCURATE. The actual number is the responsibility of the NTSB to disclose.

95% of this discussion is people blowing smoke out of their ass as per usual.

Re: LaGuardia pilots raised safety alarms months before deadly runway crash

#177

Post by calf »

ndiddy wrote: post #5

I just hope they don't try to pin this on the controller who was on duty and move on without putting plans in place for some sort of structural change. Controllers are forced to work 60+ hour weeks and overnight shifts, and the controller in question was working both ground and air control simultaneously due to staffing shortages. If you listen to the ATC audio, he was handling finding a spot for a plane that aborted…

What structural change would permit a worker to take initiative and say "Hey, these working conditions are wrong/inadequate and I will not safely do my job today unless proper changes are made", without risk of getting fired by higher-ups?

Empowering workers to make safety-critical meta-decisions does not seem to be a feature of actually-existing capitalism.

Re: LaGuardia pilots raised safety alarms months before deadly runway crash

#178

Post by tadfisher »

bombcar wrote: post #119
pc86 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The GP is literally about a lone controller in the tower having a medical episode and what would happen after that.

The pilots would execute untowered approach procedures, a small airport with little to no traffic and VFR flight you may self-announce on frequency, a larger airport you go back to approach, etc.

Each of those flights should have an alternate and be prepared (have enough fuel) to divert. If there is a fuel emergency then self-announcing is likely appropriate as the plane is coming down anyway, but that is multiple things going wrong.

Re: LaGuardia pilots raised safety alarms months before deadly runway crash

#179

Post by rectang »

garaetjjte wrote: post #133
xeonmc wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just hope they don't try to pin this on the controller who was on duty and move on without putting plans in place for some sort of structural change. I am reminded of the Uberlingen disaster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_%C3%9Cberlingen_mid-air_c...

I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Los_Angeles_runway_collis... is more applicable.

In both cases, the controller's fate was grim. Peter Nielsen (Überlingen) was murdered by a relative of a crash victim. Robin Lee Wascher (LA), whose own parents had died in an earlier air crash, was crucified in the media and never worked as a controller again.

Both precedents are applicable, because the Laguardia controller is also going to be savaged.

Re: LaGuardia pilots raised safety alarms months before deadly runway crash

#180

Post by throw7 »

"He said LaGuardia was “very well staffed”, with 33 certified controllers and more in training. He said the goal was to have 37 on staff."

I'm just tired of bullshit rhetoric. 33 is less than 37, that's "understaffed" not "very well staffed". Fuck Sean and our "leaders"... they speak with unauthority and spiritlessness.

Post reply on HN