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

Friday night’s near-disaster at JFK airport

viewfromthewing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 372 posts

Re: Friday night’s near-disaster at JFK airport

#301

Post by martopix »

user3939382 wrote: post #200

I had a sort-of hobby of learning and listening to ATC at one point. Some of these guys were scary-unintelligible . I remember this Chinese ATC at some major airport saying as fast as he possibly could “clah de leh” which was supposed to be “Clear to land”. It’s amazing the system works as well as it does.

I cannot find the video right now, but there was a widely watched one exactly as you describe, where the controller issued a 'cletala' several times, and it was a very American controller, I believe in California. EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=picf7sPEhi8

Re: Friday night’s near-disaster at JFK airport

#302

Post by areyousure »

MandieD wrote: post #272
paganel wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But my goodness there’s so many ways to be badly hurt without a big crash. I remember an incident involving a private jet about a decade ago. The jet was at cruising altitude when suddenly it hit an air pocket and precipitously lost altitude. This being a private jet the occupants (some Greek businessmen) were drinking champagne or whatever, fact is they weren't wearing their seatbelts. A few of them died right on…

This is the top (but not only) reason keeping your baby/toddler in your lap instead of in their own seat, buckled into a carseat, is a terrible way to fly. Lap infants are far more likely to be injured in-flight than other children: https://journals.lww.com/pec-online/fulltext/2019/10000/in_f... The carriers don't make this easy: they have conflicting rules on carseats for in-cabin use, especially if you're flying be…

> Lap infants are far more likely to be injured in-flight than other children: https://journals.lww.com/pec-online/fulltext/2019/10000/in_f...

In case anyone is curious, this source does claim that "lap infants" are more likely to be injured than other passengers. But the article defines "lap infant" as anyone under 2 years old, regardless of whether they were in fact in someone's lap. (In particular, some of these "lap infants" fell from the cot!)

Potentially worth quoting as well: "Scalding burns from hot beverages or soups spilled over a child during hot meal service were the most commonly identified mechanism of injury".

Re: Friday night’s near-disaster at JFK airport

#304

Post by addandsubtract »

sandos wrote: post #291
dev_tty01 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, the American flight didn't follow directions or the lights. If that turns out to be the case, wow.

Could also be that they were not correctly set, the pilots thinking "hey, no red lights, we can go! Its 100% safe".

Who are "they" in your sentence? I assume the lights and not the plane? Wouldn't lights like this be placed the same way on every airport implementing them?

Re: Friday night’s near-disaster at JFK airport

#305

Post by addandsubtract »

thret wrote: post #290

Given that you absolutely never swear (or even waste words) on the radio, I wonder if beginning the transmission with an expletive is actually optimal: it is short, sharp, and immediately conveys the urgency of the command.

Reading the transcript, I thought it might've been a waste of time to start with "Shit...", but listing to the audio does make the following command a lot more urgent and severe. Either way, with all the things going on (and through a pilot's head) at take-off, I'm glad they were able to respond to the message and stop the plane in time.

Re: Friday night’s near-disaster at JFK airport

#306

Post by ckdarby »

cguess wrote: post #134
kylehotchkiss wrote: post #118

I flew into JFK in December and was surprised the number of concurrent operations going on… landing queues of 5+ planes in the sky for the two runways, long takeoff queues, so many land operations… once you touch down it sure feels like the pilot knows they have to get that plane off the runway ASAP. Felt much more busy than I have previously going through LAX/SFO/London/Dubai. I wonder if the level of traffic at JFK…

Pretty much all three airports (EWR, LGA, JFK) are already at capacity, so there's no room for others to take any load.

A solution that'll anger people but resolve the capacity issus, all flights with not a final destination in USA can only connect through Stewart airport.

Re: Friday night’s near-disaster at JFK airport

#307

Post by dsfyu404ed »

bumby wrote: post #158
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be ideologically convenient for you if people died but statistically it's just gonna be another close call since close calls outnumber accidents in this field by a ton to one. If/when it happens the professionals who deal in this stuff will say something mundane like "this system prevented ten close calls before we actually had one slip through, that's pretty great". And they'll replace the $5 lightbulb and…

> close calls outnumber accidents in this field by a ton to one The irony is that the reason the safety numbers are that good is because aerospace is one of the only 5+ sigma quality/safety industries.

All industries have close calls outnumbering real accidents by a ton.

The fact that the absolute numbers are low does not change any calculations that follow from that ratio.

Re: Friday night’s near-disaster at JFK airport

#308

Post by sklargh »

kevinventullo wrote: post #218
asciimike wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It does appear that this pilot had really lost situational awareness. Totally. The instructions were "taxi Bravo hold short of Kilo" and "cross 31L at Kilo"; read back was correct but instead of turning right at Kilo and crossing 31L, the pilot turned left, then right, and crossed 4L at Juliet.

Right, so going back to the question of automation, it seems like in principle a computer should be able to not only understand those instructions, but observe that the offending aircraft was deviating from those instructions and immediately alert.

KJFK has a system like this that uses a blend of radar and transponder multilateration to automatically signal to aircraft that they are about to enter an active runway. The pilot either did not see (for human or technical factors) or disregarded this system during the incursion.

What is lacking (to your point) is the ability to automatically compare ATC’s verbal instruction to the aircraft to its actual position.

Re: Friday night’s near-disaster at JFK airport

#309

Post by Retric »

boredhedgehog wrote: post #271
CaptainZapp wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where was the miscommunication? The pilot readback was correct. "Runway 4L was being used for takeoffs. The American Airlines aircraft did not follow air traffic control instructions. ATC audio shows they were told to “”cross runway 31 Left at Kilo” and instead crossed runway 4 Left at Juliet, in front of the accelerating Delta Boeing 737." Crossing a runway, which you're not cleared to cross is a pretty bad case o…

That's the case when the readback is incorrect or missing, i.e. the pilot heard something that wasn't said. In this case, the instruction was communicated correctly on both ends. But it wasn't followed correctly.

Someone saying the exact same words back to you doesn’t prevent miscommunication. If the pilot and ATC had the same understanding of the situation then the pilot wouldn’t have done something likely to result in a crash.

Re: Friday night’s near-disaster at JFK airport

#310

Post by MandieD »

havblue wrote: post #292
MandieD wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the top (but not only) reason keeping your baby/toddler in your lap instead of in their own seat, buckled into a carseat, is a terrible way to fly. Lap infants are far more likely to be injured in-flight than other children: https://journals.lww.com/pec-online/fulltext/2019/10000/in_f... The carriers don't make this easy: they have conflicting rules on carseats for in-cabin use, especially if you're flying be…

I'll note, however, that carrying multiple child seats onto an aircraft is simultaneously exhausting and humiliating.

Yeah, dealing with just one seat, plus the fractious toddler, minus a baggage cart, made me very glad that I was not traveling alone with said toddler, and that he should be large enough for a CARES belt to be adequate restraint the next time we plan to fly.
Post reply on HN