Earlier quoted context omitted.
The corollary if you're already aloft is to "fly the damn plane". Everything else comes second.
“Never drop the plane to fly the radio.”
"Aviate, navigate, communicate" ... in that order
‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin
251–260 of 402 posts
Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's called Runway Status Lights, controlled by an Autonomous Runway Incursion System [1]. The busiest US airports have that, but Austin doesn't have one.[1][2] So the tower controllers had responsibility for separation. Here are the current FAA rules on separation between departing and arriving aircraft using the same runway. See section 3-1-3 of [3]. This is the rule: "Separate an arriving aircraft from another a…
The fact that Austin doesn't have ARIS terrifies me. It might not be the busiest airport, but it's not exactly a backwater town.
Austin’s airport is actually surprisingly small. It’s a single domestic terminal with just 25 gates and basic two level departures/arrivals, and a tiny south terminal that I believe has international arrivals facilities.
When I visited I remember thinking ‘how the hell does this place handle the influx for south-by?’
Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless the terminal is between the runways, using parallel runways will still require clearing planes to cross runways. The conflict risks are different, but they don’t go away. Intuitively feels like the safest way to operate would be landing planes on the farthest runway, with takeoffs on the near one, because it would only require clearing just-landed aircraft to cross the takeoff runway and you have more discreti…
At ABIA, the terminal is between the parallel runways.
Fair point. Forgot that since it’s in Texas, they would have the space to spread out :)
Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think Austin is proof of the system working as intended, the only thing that saved them was the FedEx flight being able to take action at the last moment during their approach, if the fog was a little thicker and they couldn't see the Southwest flight on the runway as early as they did it would be a catastrophe. That's just luck, not a system that's working as intended.
No, that is good training on behalf of FedEx, Southwest (knowing you have a plane above your own during take off and still follow ATC guidance is no easy feat) and the ATC (knowing you fucked up, staying calm and giving the correct instructions and keep everyone alive is again no easy feat). And training of operators absolutely is part of the overall system.
A safe system is resilient to errors. The controller made a mistake - that happens, the system should deal with it. But in this case, a crash was averted only because the fog lifted. It was pure luck. Ground movement radar, a runway incursion warning system, or a different landing clearance protocol could all have provided the necessary safety buffers.
When you’re up to the last “hole” in the cheese, that’s a failure.
Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin
#255Just to give a little context as a pilot: It is the job of the tower controller to decide who uses the runway when. There are often multiple planes waiting to take off, and multiple planes nearing the airport to land. It's not uncommon for a tower controller to allow a plane to takeoff while another is approaching the runway. The theory is, of course, that the flight will depart in plenty of time. In this case, the c…
Yes, agreed - this certainly appears to lean towards ATC error given the conditions. Maybe the ATC rulebook needs to be updated for conditions, maybe it doesn't.
And it might be time to think about TCAS extensions to ground ops for aircraft with clearances?
Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin
#256Earlier 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).
The aviation industry in the US is subject to federal regulation, meaning that the scope and purpose of its regulation is laid out by statutory authority granted to the FAA by laws passed by congress, who are elected by the people of America.
In other words, aviation regulation exists to serve the interests of the people.
If the airport or airline industry is trying to cut corners or save money at the expense of the safety of passengers, the interests of other air users, or the people who live under flight paths, items the job of congress to grant the FAA the authority needed to stop that - or to ensure that it is using its already-granted authority effectively to that end.
And ultimately the only check on whether or not that is happening is the electorate’s oversight of its congresspeople.
So yes, you can take an interest in how the airline industry is regulated, as a passenger or a random person who has planes fly over your head from time to time, because you have a say in making sure it’s not captured by industry and allowed to compromise your safety.
Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin
#257So I am neither a pilot nor an aviation geek, but to me it looks like, besides heavy fog, two things happened. (1) control misjudged the approach time for FedEx. 3 miles out is - what? - a minute and a half, at best at approach speed? (2) control did not expedite a takeoff for southwest so they took their sweet time rolling onto the runway and accelerating. At this day and age it is bewildering to see all of this run…
The Southwest crew here is also to blame, they knew a plane was on short final to their runway in terrible visibility and for some reason took their sweet time taking off.
You’re assuming situational awareness, but they would have been running checklists preparing for takeoff, and may not have heard how far away the fedex was. I didn’t think they took overly long, and they weren’t instructed to hurry.
Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Southwest plane was above V0 and couldn't abort It's up to investigators to find out. Pilots definitely can (and have the right to) abort after V1, if they consider it safer than taking off. Before V1, you can be sure that abort is safe, after V1, you have to weigh risks of high-speed abort against risks of continuing flying, but staying on the ground is still possible. Yes, and nitpicking - decision speed is V1, n…
You only abort after V1 if the plane can’t fly. Aborting for any other reason is more dangerous than continuing takeoff.
No, it's not (always) more dangerous, please read the operation manuals if you don't believe me.
Let me put it another way. V1 is not the speed after which you cannot abort, V1 is the speed after which you can attempt to takeoff. Or, quoting the Boeing flight manual,
> V1 is the maximum speed at which the flight crew must take the first action to reject a takeoff.
If something happens _before_ V1, pilots must abort takeoff, period. However, if something happens after V1, pilots can still make a decision to stay on the ground.
Furthermore, V1 is calculated so that the plane can stop before the end of the runway even if one of the braking systems is not working properly (e. g. one of the engines is out and reverse thrust cannot be used). On a fully working plane, the actual distance necessary to stop will be lower. Then, there is always a safety zone right after the runway, which is not taken into account for V1 calculation.
Anyway, the investigation will thoroughly consider all the factors, let's wait for the results.
Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin
#259Earlier 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…
See also the 1999 documentary, Pushing Tin, for an exploration of the highly talented individuals employed by the FAA. /s
I always assume that a movie like Pushing Tin is about as accurate of a portrayal of the job of ATC as Swordfish or Antitrust is for software development.
Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hard disagree with the notion this adds a degree of failure. From a layman's perspective, it replaces one primary degree (pilot-control coordination) with another (a technological solution) and delegates the staffers to supervisory roles. That is a risk reduction due to the increase of confirmations and the independence between the staff decision and the software's decision.
If you talk about something like aviation, and start with "from layman's perspective", stopping there is usually not such a bad idea.
There is nothing wrong with a layman’s perspective in any industry, and aerospace is not certainly not the sole domain of safety critical systems. An aerospace layman might still bring insight from other areas, which was the case here IMO.
You have been repeatedly dismissing people in this thread, but HN is about being curious. “Leave it to the professionals” is neither satisfying nor interesting.