As someone who lives in Austin and recalls a fair amount of other issues with the airport I didn't realize I had yet another concern to worry about... Good thing we had someone paying attention but it seems like we should add more buffer time between these comings and goings. Though I know a lot of the airport has been overwhelmed with plenty of other issues.
‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin
161–170 of 402 posts
Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure how many people know this, but one of the first instances of "union busting" ever committed by the US federal govt was against air traffic controllers. The job used to be extremely competitive and prestigious, but overall lower wages and security has made it way harder to attract as many highly talented individuals. And with how many rules there are in that pdf, it's shocking we don't see multiple accide…
Air trafic controller strikes have plagued our country (France) for many years and I see no indication that it makes our flight safety better
In fact I heard some stories of nepotism in another european country. Not convinced it is an elite either.
Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't knock unions but I will add : > The median annual wage for air traffic controllers was $129,750 in May 2021 SOME unions do take advantage, given the traffic controllers' 'single point of failure' it can be very attractive for some unions who are greedy. Again I reiterate, unions are not a bad idea, just not all of them are solely in the interests of the actual employees.
I personally think stability and having some bureaucrat monitoring hours is good. I don't want my air traffic controllers popping pills and pulling double shifts, or showing up to work drunk because they're worried about getting fired for calling in sick. People with dangerous jobs need to be kept safe from themselves
> or showing up to work drunk because they're worried about getting fired for calling in sick
I feel like there are a plethora of issues there.
Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure how many people know this, but one of the first instances of "union busting" ever committed by the US federal govt was against air traffic controllers. The job used to be extremely competitive and prestigious, but overall lower wages and security has made it way harder to attract as many highly talented individuals. And with how many rules there are in that pdf, it's shocking we don't see multiple accide…
Air trafic controller strikes have plagued our country (France) for many years and I see no indication that it makes our flight safety better
Not to be snarky, but these last couple close calls in the US feel like indication to me.
Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin
#165I got my PPL in EU and here it was drilled into me that in Europe there can be exactly ONE plane cleared to use a runway at any time.
When the approaching plane is cleared then there is no allowance for anyone and anything to be on the runway.
So if there is a departing plane waiting on the runway or someone crossing then the approaching plane is given "cleared approach runway 08" but never "cleared to land". Which also means that if you are piloting the landing plane then at your decision height you have to go around.
Also when someone is cleared to land no-one can be given a permission to enter the runway.
There is one clearance that kinda-sorta allows which is "BEHIND landing Boeing 737, line up and wait BEHIND". It intentionally has "BEHIND" before and after the call to be extra clear that the waiting pilot has to confirm that the plane has passed their nose and they can enter the runway while the landing plane is on rollout. But that plane can not be given a takeoff clearance before the plane on the rollout has exited the runway.
We were told that the americans do it differently and I've always found it dangerous.
Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but I figure an airport servicing a metropolitan area with nearly 2 million people would be using all the best practice risk minimization approaches. What scares me about this is that I have no idea how common or uncommon this is, and what other airports are in a similar situation.
If you are not involved directly with any of that professionally, it is better to treat it the way non-developer treat the OS. Assume it will work as intended because loads of highly trained professionals take care of it. Added benefit ehen it comes to aviation: strict and sensible regulation (the MAX disaster notwithstanding).
Is this sarcasm? In a thread were we discuss the breaking down of a systems run by professionals?
Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but I figure an airport servicing a metropolitan area with nearly 2 million people would be using all the best practice risk minimization approaches. What scares me about this is that I have no idea how common or uncommon this is, and what other airports are in a similar situation.
If you are not involved directly with any of that professionally, it is better to treat it the way non-developer treat the OS. Assume it will work as intended because loads of highly trained professionals take care of it. Added benefit ehen it comes to aviation: strict and sensible regulation (the MAX disaster notwithstanding).
> If you are not involved directly with any of that professionally, it is better to treat it the way non-developer treat the OS. Assume it will work as intended because loads of highly trained professionals take care of it. Added benefit ehen it comes to aviation: strict and sensible regulation (the MAX disaster notwithstanding).
Allow me to chime in and respectfully disagree with this sentiment and the metaphor.
As the saying goes - the aviation (just as the automotive) industry saves lives (as in "advances security") one accident at the time. It would make sense that close calls like this Austin near mass casualty event should contribute to the future safety as well. In that context, it's absolutely legitimate to be suspicious and ask safety-related questions, including in a HN comment or in real life - instead of shutting someone down.
Speaking of the developer-OS metaphor - any non-rookie developer should be aware of not only the security and vulnerability of one's own software but also of the security and vulnerability of the underlying OS, infrastructure and even hardware. The number of building blocks gets larger by the day and nearly each building block is becoming increasingly complex. Yes, there are professionals working on each those blocks yet there are new CVEs and associated attacks all the time (incl. ransomware). If we add 0-days into consideration (a.k.a. "the unknown unknowns" in the software context) IMHO we should be able to conclude that the used developer-OS metaphor is not helpful.
The older and more experienced we all become, the more should we be cognizant of the potential risks (not only in our particular industry niche) and we should welcome and consider a normal, widely accepted practice to challenge the status quo and pose questions that should overall increase the number of brains and eyeballs on the problem and (unknown) unknowns - be it vulnerabilities or security risks, especially to our bare lives.
Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like a job for... A.I.?
No, no and no. Safety critical systems must be validated to be safe in the operational domain and for that they must be deterministic. AI is anything but that.
I was thinking A.I. could be useful as an assistant for ATC. But yeah, it would inevitably be over-relied-upon and over-trusted.
Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin
#169Seeing other comments fault the Southwest pilot for not starting faster, but it’s not obvious to me that there was any significant delay—a few seconds at most between lining up and starting the roll down the runway. The diagram isn’t to scale, so it’s hard to tell. I wonder how much faster an expedited departure could have been.
Southwest had clearance. So they are clear, you can't rush take-off or anything. They could have been more mindful of what is around them and refused to line up if 3 miles felt like too rushed.
Why are overlapping clearances allowed (and used) by rules, regulations and local operating procedures DURING CAT III operations, is beyond me.
I don't like overlapping clearances in normal times but during CAT III operations this is insane.
Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why cannot descending plane lay a claim on a runway in some computer system and a cabin in Southwest - blare a horn for pilots trying to steer into a claimed runway? Because you have unions protecting the manual, error-prone job of human operators.
And yet somehow commercial aviation, with its strong unions, ends up safer than virtually any other field of human endeavour.
And you know what? It's not because of tower control guys.