311–320 of 402 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup, an approach is a go-around with the option of landing. (Thanks Juan Brown) However, landing is eventually assured.
Well, reaching the ground is. Whether or not you can call it landing is a different question.
Chuck Yeagar
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'keying the mic' is turning on the microphone It's very likely they said some less polite words like 'WTF ARE THEY DOING' before turning on the mic and acting all professional
I am fairly certain that those choice words where exchanged at the water cooler at a FedEx brake room way after the incident. And even then I'd suspect the attention to be more on the "dear god, we have all been lucky to still breathe today* instead of cursing at some other people. That kind of behavior is what you get from real professionals.
I 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 a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well I mean there are many optimistic stuff in american culture that seem nonsensical to us Europeans: for instance giving everyone guns to protect against the government's army is an optimistic view of human nature and I d rather give no gun to anyone instead :D
You wouldn't even have the opportunity to make these peanut gallery potshots if those overly optimistic Yankees took the British/French/German route and did not give the general public access to ATC recordings.
Not sure what is has to do with the initial problem that spawned the transparent mea culpa though, which is due to a sort of reckless optimism and an inability to look abroad for better ideas. I think they call it "American Exceptionalism" or some such there ? Even your answer seems to be that you fucked up but at least you're not as bad as ... the French ? What ? :D
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Risk will always exist. Our most precious resource is time. Every effort to save it is worth it. What if it causes one accident every 20 years? It saved thousands of years of human time in the meantime.
If time is our most precious resource, then build more runways. The problem is that they cost more money to build and more money to operate. So we go back to >> It sounds to me like far too many critical safety decisions are being made with an eye on money rather than safety.
I don't know the analysis for the multiple clearance on runways on the US (honestly, it's the first time I hear about it). What I know is that the US has many complex risk analysis that my country (3rd largest aviation area on the world, after the US and EU) doesn't have enough data to replicate. That leads to plenty of policies that we can't actually understand the reasoning.
Just 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…
> I feel for these tower controllers I would feel for this tower controller if there wasn't a bunch of comments in r/ATC saying how this particular controller has transferred between facilities because he keeps messing up and makes workplace complaints instead of owning up to his mistakes. Edit to add source: > a controller who, according to everyone who has worked with him from the last facility where he washed out…
Just 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…
Question, when FedEx says "Southwest Abort!" and then the controller tells them to turn right and Southwest says "negative" is that because they didn't have enough runway to do either?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> showing up to work drunk because they're worried about getting fired for calling in sick Much like air hosts and pilots, air traffic controllers (at least in the EU) are tested frequently for substance issues including alcohol. A friends father who was an air traffic controller was tested daily for the very reason you mention. Nobody WANTS an accident. > People with dangerous jobs need to be kept safe from themselv…
>>tested daily for the very reason you mention Which also limits the hiring pool as many people, myself included, would refuse to be tested daily on principle. Hell I object to pre-employment screenings. And I have not drunk a drop of Alcohol in over 25 years, nor done any drugs, dont smoke, nothing. That said I am not taking your little test to prove that to you unless you have a reasonable articulable reason to sus…
I 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 a…
Given how advanced ILS is nowadays you could probably automate all of this - if the plane taking off isn't committed to takeoff (traveling at V1) by the time the landing aircraft reaches decision altitude, an automatic go-around is issued. Basically treat the runway as a "control zone" like trains do, and if the plane on the runway hasn't "cleared the zone" (by whatever definition) then the landing aircraft can't enter the zone.
Certainly that's something that could be conveyed as part of the ILS data at least. Maybe it's undesirable to automate it in the sense of the automation causing more problems (more aborts = more chances for something to go wrong, although the assertion is that by V1 you're committed and by decision altitude you can still abort safely, so this all fits inside the "theory of movements") but you can at least let the landing plane know at decision altitude that there's an aircraft still on the runway. Sort of a "green = runway clear, yellow = committed traffic, yellow bars = moving but uncommitted traffic, red = runway occupied/clearance not granted" type indicator perhaps.
Or maybe if the tower can't visually/instrument confirm execution of movements, the pilot on takeoff has to verbally confirm commit before the landing clearance can be granted. Then it just becomes something specific to zero-visibility operations.
It really seems like there should be some change in how movements are handled/clearances are issued. Maybe we don't need to go to full "one clearance at a time" all the time, but it certainly seems like there should be some tighter rules if the tower can't independently confirm movements are being executed, and perhaps convey that information to the pilot as well (although again, I know that pilots are already information-overloaded, but "is there someone on my runway" is seemingly pretty important and straightforward info).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be curious to know how much it actually improves throughput. It seems strange to use optimistic locks in such a safety critical process, when a more fail-safe approach is available.
Sounds like a money problem to me. Less time between planes means more planes means more money. It sounds to me like far too many critical safety decisions are being made with an eye on money rather than safety. There were reports warning that Fukushima wasn't safe in case of a tsunami, but the company in charge of the plant decided to ignore that. Deep Water was caused by cost cuts. The Boeing 737 Max was made for f…
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signaling_of_the_New_York_Ci...