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

271–280 of 324 posts

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

#271

Post by littlexsparkee »

amiga386 wrote: post #156
m_fayer wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not trying to minimize a tragedy, but maybe this is almost the perfect wake up call? Not many fatalities but nevertheless a spectacular collision. At a major hub airport in a major city. It’s hard to look away from, the cause is obvious, and all that without hundreds of deaths.

The perfect wake up call before this perfect wake up call was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Potomac_River_mid-air_col... Imagine how good the next wake up call will be! See also Preemptive Memorial Honors Future Victims Of Imminent Dam Disaster : https://theonion.com/preemptive-memorial-honors-future-victi...

they hit snooze

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

#272

Post by evan_a_a »

calf wrote: post #177
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.

What you're describing is already well known in the aviation industry. Promotion of a positive safety culture is a key element if the Safety Management System (SMS) framework

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/sms https://www.faa.gov/media/94731

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

#273

Post by haberman »

amiga386 wrote: post #77
FL410 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Go look at the atc subreddit, controllers have been begging for help for ages. This isn't one guy's fault.

Agreed. There are a whole bucketload of problems, each one contributing to the staff shortage. The US has problems that other countries don't have (or have less of). It's a long-term organisational issue. None of it is insurmountable, but things need to be done differently, and the politics of that may be insurmountable. Being an air-traffic controller anywhere in the world is a very intense job at times, and needs a…

> Obama's FAA disincentivised its traditional "feeder" colleges that do ATC courses to "promote diversity", net outcome was fewer applicants

It was much worse than that. Students who had already spent years studying to be air traffic controllers through the CTI program were subject to a sudden policy change that disqualified them from entering the profession unless they passed a “biographical questionnaire.”

85% of candidates failed this questionnaire, but the National Black Coalition of Federal Aviation Employees (the organization that pushed for this change to begin with) was feeding the “right” answers to its own members.

“Right” answers included things like having gotten bad grades in high school science class. You can take the test for yourself here and see how you score: https://kaisoapbox.com/projects/faa_biographical_assessment/

I can’t blame anyone for thinking this sounds too outrageous to be real, but all of it is public record at this point and the subject of an ongoing lawsuit: https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-full-story-of-the-fa...

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

#274

Post by caminante »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #228
caminante wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He was stopped until he received instructions to cross the runway from the person whose job it is to sit in a position with good visibility and tell people when they can cross runways. He wasn’t driving fast at all. The whole system is set up so that vehicles with blind spots (every large passenger jet) can safely move. We can’t say that emergency vehicles should just stay in on dark and stormy nights.

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

..is what I was responding to.

>We can’t say that emergency vehicles should just stay in on dark and stormy nights.

This conclusion is flawed and doesn't apply to what I said.

If a truck can't see (conditions or not), then they shouldn't be on the same runway as takeoff/landing because...the consequences were severe despite the safeguards you mentioned, e.g. Not driving fast is relative and the "eyes" failed too initially.

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

#275

Post by userbinator »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #173
phearnot wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

...and that passenger should also be actively looking around.

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

#276

Post by deathanatos »

0xffff2 wrote: post #162
jliptzin wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible to automate the job of an ATC controller? At least partially? Or at least just as a sanity check on every human decision? Not saying I want human ATC controllers replaced, but if there’s a severe staff shortage, I feel like a computerized version is better than nothing at all.

In this specific incident, there was a system in place called Runway Entrance Lights [0] that does serve as an automated sanity check on controllers commands. The surveillance video that is circulating shows that the system was working and indicated that the runway was not safe to enter. It's not clear yet why the truck entered the runway anyway. 0: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/rwsl

> The surveillance video that is circulating shows that the system was working and indicated that the runway was not safe to enter.

A citation, please? The only video that I know of is [1].

[2] is my best mock up of the only video I have. I'm am not an expert, but my best read of that is that the RWSL is maybe? green to the taxiway¹ traffic, so, to me, the actual status of the RWSL at the time of the incident is "unknown"; that seems like something I should wait for the NTSB report, or at least someone with expert knowledge on. But your claims doesn't jive with the evidence I have, so that's what makes me ask for a citation.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRl7Vr87ym8&t=29

[2]: https://imgur.com/a/RVL28AV

¹but I think there are a number of problems with my own interpretation: I could be wrong about which lights are which; I am using the near-side lights, not the lights on the side the truck is entering from, and assuming them to be symmetrical (though what little I can see of the far side does seem to align with the near side); some of the lights I think are RWSLs & not RGLs look downright yellow, but that could be a property of the low quality of the video; there's the rather large problem of the plane on the runway that must then be explained.

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

#277

Post by calf »

evan_a_a wrote: post #272
calf wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What you're describing is already well known in the aviation industry. Promotion of a positive safety culture is a key element if the Safety Management System (SMS) framework https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/sms https://www.faa.gov/media/94731

If a tree knows something but still falls then did it really know anything?

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

#278

Post by deathanatos »

MBCook wrote: post #239
0xffff2 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this specific incident, there was a system in place called Runway Entrance Lights [0] that does serve as an automated sanity check on controllers commands. The surveillance video that is circulating shows that the system was working and indicated that the runway was not safe to enter. It's not clear yet why the truck entered the runway anyway. 0: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/rwsl

Why cross a runway at all? Can they not use taxiways and aprons to get there?

Plotting a course on Google Maps, I think this would add ~1.4 mi if you go around to get to the other side from where they were.

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

#279

Post by longislandguido »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #237
longislandguido wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 discuss…

From VAS Aviation, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbm-QJAAzNY , or possibly in the comments, it was noted that there were 2 people on - one in the tower, one elsewhere in charge of approach. So perhaps, it's innacurate because he was working "with" the person on approach, but still accurate to what we would all call "working alone"?

Exactly how many people do the self-appointed experts of HackerNews feel should be working ATC at an airport with only two intersecting runways?

10? 30? One per aircraft?

How do you suppose all these people coordinate their activities?

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

#280

Post by longislandguido »

wat10000 wrote: post #202
longislandguido wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 discuss…

If a member of this administration said he wasn’t working alone, that’s solid evidence he was. The evidence that he was overworked seems pretty damned obvious. He forgot about an entire airplane and put a fire truck in its path. The evidence of overwork is strewn all around LGA.

> If a member of this administration said he wasn’t working alone, that’s solid evidence he was.

This is deranged. Seek help.

Post reply on HN