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

131–140 of 324 posts

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

#131

Post by [deleted] »

arjie wrote: post #94
jakelazaroff wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are describing a staffing shortage.

Is he? I can see the number of hours worked as evidence of a shortage, but prima facie it is not obvious that a single controller handling both ground and air is evidence of a 'shortage' if it is routinely considered feasible in the industry. It could just be an efficiency choice for low-traffic times. Based on some googling since I'm not an expert it seems this is called 'position combining' in the US and is pretty…

[deleted]

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

#132

Post by bombcar »

SteveNuts wrote: post #107
pc86 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Planes landing at a rate of one every 30-40 minutes isn't exactly "overworked."

What is the contingency/continuity plan if the single controller becomes incapacitated while on duty with no warning to pilots?

Same as if the radios stopped working or otherwise communication fails. Execute the planned procedures (which vary).

Often Approach will take over the "tower" and operate in crippled mode (no clearances to cross active runways, you must go down to the end kind of thing).

Some airports are uncontrolled at various times and would revert to that. Some airlines would require the pilot execute a missed approach and deviate to a towered airport, others may allow them to land.

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

#133

Post by garaetjjte »

xeonmc wrote: post #115
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…

> 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.

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

#134

Post by yieldcrv »

linkjuice4all wrote: post #67
yieldcrv wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on what change you would like to occur? I have voted based on getting particular people nominated within a federal agency, requires the President to pick someone who will 100% be from their party, and a Senate committee that will confirm them people tend to think "I'm voting against my best interests" without knowing that the agency control was my best interest as it will most likely continue shapin…

You had two options and one was clearly far worse than the other. This nuanced-excuse-making and “the democrats also occasionally do things I don’t like” is lazy. Take responsibility for letting the mob take over - even if it was just by inaction.

I didn’t turn 18 in the last several years

So the odds I’m talking about the current administration are low

I wrote that I have voted for an agency appointment before, and the person I replied to also is suggesting to do that again

yes, only democrats use the meme “voting against their best interest”, sometimes this voting pattern includes or excludes them

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

#135

Post by pythonaut_16 »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #111
rekrsiv wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can a single human being reliably and robustly maintain a safety-critical system alone under any circumstances, ever? Ever?

There are millions of people who are self employed in an industry where they could be maimed or killed if they screw up who manage to make it to retirement. I think the better question is how you get a system in which people are only responsible for any one facet to get the same performance out of people that a painter can get out of himself when he's setting up his own ladder that he personally has to climb on.

I don't think the GPs point is about personal safety of workers, but rather critical safety systems that rely on one person with no backups. Like an ATC tower for a busy airport staffed by a single person on an overnight shift.

A painter who does a bad job setting up a ladder is going to have a bad time, a lone ATC operator having a heart attack potentially puts multiple large aircraft full of people in danger...

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

#136

Post by inaros »

pc86 wrote: post #105
penultimatename wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if an aircraft needs to land due to an emergency? It’s amazing things work as well as they do, the system relies on only one thing going wrong at a time. This accident was an example of multiple things going wrong at the same time.

Every accident is an example of multiple things going wrong at the same time.[0] I'm going to pretend to know exactly what would happen in that precise scenario but I'm confident most commercial pilots get enough training to be able to handle it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model

>> Every accident is an example of multiple things going wrong at the same time.

You are defeating your own argument :-) Its exactly because every accident is an example of multiple things going wrong at the same time...that you need...multiple layers of control and safety to catch it through each hole of the cheese.

Like...another controller?

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

#137

Post by newsclues »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #7
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.

>This isn't one guy's fault. Counterpoint. It's Regen's fault. He's the guy who decided that a high priority of the government was making sure air traffic controllers had no power to fight back against being horrifically overworked (because unions are evil you see)

Or instead of pointing fingers we can uses our brains to solve the problems and increase safety.

You could spend a ton of time and money automating the process, and probably should especially in the future with the proliferation of drones.

But in the meantime there are simple solutions. Tunnels. No ground vehicles should be crossing runways when then could go under.

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

#138

Post by MeetingsBrowser »

pc86 wrote: post #100
MeetingsBrowser wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t find a way to read this other than “If we remove regulation and safety controls, things will be safer because everyone will be more careful.”

You should try harder, because I'm not making any comment on regulation whatsoever. There are procedures that every controller and pilot knows for how to handle loss of radio contact.

Am I misunderstanding the implication in your comment that things would have been safer had there been no ATC at all?

Because the parties involved would be more careful if there were no ATC?

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

#139

Post by MisterTea »

m_fayer wrote: post #22
MisterTea wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I heard about the crash I immediately recalled the recent articles about ATC shortages and overworked ATC's. And here we are. ONE dude running ATC for LaGuardia. Mind boggling. I place no blame on the ATC as they were doing everything they could given the shit sandwich they were handed. I see this happening all over with staffs getting pared down to minimums, more (sometimes unpaid) over time, prices going up, a…

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.

It's not minimizing, it's galvanizing. 100% A wake up call. I don't fly much but I was bothered by the earlier ATC stories and now I don't feel safe at all.

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

#140

Post by adrr »

thmsths wrote: post #74
RankingMember wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I still haven't seen evidence that they were running understaffed at that moment. I think the disagreement you see is based on the definition of what "understaffed" means. Having one ATC to do ground and air control simultaneously seems like an under-staffing situation to begin with, regardless of whether it's a common practice.

There is also the angle of: even if there is an appropriate amount of controllers in the tower at a given time, how they do it can also hint at the issue. Being an ATC is a taxing job, mandatory overtime and 60 hours work weeks screams understaffing to me.

Its weird that there strict laws that limit pilot hours to under 40 hours a week but no laws that restrict number of hours ATC works.
Post reply on HN