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

‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin

fallows.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 402 posts

Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin

#351

Post by CyberKimura »

blantonl wrote: post #286
xpe wrote: post #16

The top of the article: > ‘As bad as it gets without body bags.’ > Why the Austin airport situation was so dangerous. Because the planes almost collided. But the author wants to say more than that. The article covers the “how” things went wrong by analyzing the transcript. The write-up doesn’t answer the key ”why” question —- why are existing procedures and training not suitable? Safety-critical systems (including pr…

It is well known in the ATC community that this tower controller that was responsible for this incident was a problem child. He had been shuttled multiple times between facilities as a poor performer and was well known for filling EO complaints against the FAA for performance actions taken against him.

So it's someone crying racism every time they are disciplined. A position that can kill tons of people with one wrong move should not be able to do this.

Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin

#352

Post by lowkey_ »

valine wrote: post #10
King-Aaron wrote: post #3

Wow, reading that audio transmission log was pretty intense. Someone's losing their job for sure

If the goal is to improve safety firing people is almost always the wrong response. That juvenile preoccupation with punishment only serves to create a culture where mistakes are hidden rather than understood.

If you look at ATC employee responses, you're missing the context of the FAA: https://old.reddit.com/r/ATC/comments/10u0zvl/disaster_avert...

They're notoriously awful for not firing people who repeatedly put lives at risk.

Additionally, assuming you're American, would you apply this same logic to police officers? ATC is similar in that lives are at stake.

Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin

#353

Post by jameshart »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #293
jameshart wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The airport and the airlines don’t make any decisions about ATC. That is controlled entirely by the FAA. The airlines and airports don’t pay for it either (directly anyway) They designate the class of an airport not by the number of people living in the metro area around it, but based on the complexity of the airspace and the density of the traffic. Austin probably isn’t a class b because while it may be an airport f…

I have bad news for you. If the FAA were contemplating adjusting the requirements for certain classes of airport or the rules applicable under certain conditions at certain classes of airport, that perhaps airport operators and airlines whose costs and operations might be impacted by such a change can take part in a process called lobbying where they apply pressure to the regulator to make sure those changes don’t adversely affect them.

Lobbying can be good, of course! Airports and airlines likely have good knowledge about how regulations impact their operations!

But it’s the job of Congress in theory to represent their constituents’ interests - not merely their constituents who own airline stock or work for airport ground handling companies but all their constituents - to make sure that the framework the FAA correctly takes into account the competing interests of ensuring an efficient and high capacity aviation industry, as well as making sure that passenger safety is maintained.

As you say, the FAA has a good record of doing this.

But individuals saying ‘well I’m sure the industry knows best’ is precisely what leads to regulatory capture and that leads to the situation where airports are permitted to accept heavy automated landings under conditions where maybe they really ought not to without additional ground safety equipment in place.

Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin

#354

Post by jkqwzsoo »

zmgsabst wrote: post #263
barelyauser wrote: post #245

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.

Based on Google numbers: There’s 16M flights per year, so saving 5 minutes each is 80M minutes, which corresponds to 160 years. A plane crash will kill about 160 people; so if one happens every twenty years, then we’ll have saved lives if the average age is over 50 (within 20 years of natural death) and lost lives otherwise. Personally, seems a bad gamble.

What you’re suggesting is any crash can be attributed to the US method of scheduling takeoff and landing (since that’s the risk issue you’re responding to). That’s not true. If a plane’s engine explodes in midair, it has nothing to do with how the ATC schedules takeoff and landing.

I couldn’t find any crashes listed on Wikipedia in the past 20 years that could be attributed to two planes being directed occupy a runway at the same time.

Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin

#355

Post by ninjagoo »

blantonl wrote: post #345
ninjagoo wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Class B criteria is > 300K operations annually - ~200K is KAUS Under certain circumstances > 220k annual ops qualifies an airport for Class B status [1]. Austin's 2022 vs 2021 traffic is significantly higher [2]. When you include KEDC (Austin Exec Airport) and KGTU (Georgetown Municipal), the traffic certainly appears to exceeds the thresholds in question [3][4][5]. I didn't bother to look through the other airport…

I fly in this airspace. (KAUS and KSAT and KDFW) KAUS might be the most classic example of Class C airspace in existence. They only have 3 App/Dep positions with a spare 4th, and the top of the charlie is 4500 feet. I can overfly that in a light sport. Austin airspace isn't nearly as busy as you make it out to be. And in the context of this incident, arguing that KAUS needs to be upgraded to a Class B is kind of non-…

> I fly in this airspace. (KAUS and KSAT and KDFW)

> KAUS might be the most classic example of Class C airspace in existence. They only have 3 App/Dep positions with a spare 4th, and the top of the charlie is 4500 feet. I can overfly that in a light sport.

> Austin airspace isn't nearly as busy as you make it out to be.

Fair enough, local knowledge FTW. I made a suggestion - "it might be time to upgrade to Class B" as a systematic solution for an airspace that appears to be getting busier. It certainly appears to meet the FAA criteria based purely on stats.

> And in the context of this incident, arguing that KAUS needs to be upgraded to a Class B is kind of non-sequitur. A class B wouldn't solve anything except to make the area airspace wildly more restrictive.

You must have missed the part where I mentioned that Class B designation comes with staffing changes for ATCs which would presumably positively impact such occurrences :-) Maybe the alternative is better training, better operations in mornings, better rules around ATC IFR ground ops. 140+ dead people is 140+ dead people. Let's see what the NTSB says.

Also, with the plans to expand the airport with more gates, I'm guessing changes are coming to that airspace regardless [1][2]. Though the additional 17C-35C runway appears to be past 2037 [2] Pg 17, [3].

> > I fly in this airspace. (KAUS and KSAT and KDFW)

If you're flying in and out of KDFW you should have no trouble with a future Class B KAUS :-)

[1] https://www.austintexas.gov/department/aus-master-plan [2] https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/images/Airpo... [3] https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/images/Airpo...

Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin

#356

Post by phpisthebest »

thfuran wrote: post #349
phpisthebest wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, Freedom, Personal autonomy, Privacy, and Innocence until proven guilty are all the "entirely the wrong outlook " and people holding that "wrong outlook" clearly can not be anywhere near "safety-critical areas" that is just absurd, Safety Theater is basically what you are advocating for Let me ask you this, do you think forcing me to remove my shoes is a "critical safety" process before boarding a plan, and that…

So, you're advocating for permitting ATCs to just decide to start transmitting in cockney rhymes as an expression of their personal freedom and autonomy and for people to be able to walk around town pointing loaded guns at other peoples' faces with their fingers on the trigger?

You believe your absurd statement is in any an analog to refusing drug screening?

You think the response to security theater, no security it all?

You think that is we do not do a daily drug screen on an employee that has no indication they are on any type of drug or alcohol is the same as "transmitting in cockney rhymes "

That is just absurd

Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin

#357

Post by valine »

lowkey_ wrote: post #352
valine wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the goal is to improve safety firing people is almost always the wrong response. That juvenile preoccupation with punishment only serves to create a culture where mistakes are hidden rather than understood.

If you look at ATC employee responses, you're missing the context of the FAA: https://old.reddit.com/r/ATC/comments/10u0zvl/disaster_avert... They're notoriously awful for not firing people who repeatedly put lives at risk. Additionally, assuming you're American, would you apply this same logic to police officers? ATC is similar in that lives are at stake.

I would apply that logic to anyone responsible for honest mistakes. Mistakes are a valuable opportunity for learning, and learning doesn’t thrive in a culture of fear.

The same system should definitely exist in law enforcement, to the extent that the mistakes are made in good faith. I would argue that a good percentage of the “mistakes” made by police in the US are malicious in nature, akin to ATC intentionally putting planes in danger. Our law enforcement culture in the US is so rotten that mistakes are neither punished nor understood.

To your point that ATC is notoriously awful for not firing people, I would say their safety record speaks for itself. The impulse for punitive vengeance is what puts lives at risk, not ATC's safety culture.

Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin

#358

Post by duxup »

Dalewyn wrote: post #87
catminou wrote: post #46

Reminds me of a time in 1999 when a US Air crew at Rhode Island refused to takeoff in the fog when the controller insisted it was okay. Another aircraft had landed and was lost in the fog about their location, even saying they were on on an active runway and even said an aircraft just took off (over them). Animation + text here if curious: https://youtu.be/qUDFY5qlTSA

One of my acquaintances used to be an ATC (air traffic controller) and has many pilot friends from back then. They all say the same thing whenever they talk about the most important thing in aviation: Have the courage to not take off. Kudos to that US Airways captain for refusing to takeoff and stay put until everyone got on the same page.

Also “you can always go around”.

Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin

#359

Post by [deleted] »

phpisthebest wrote: post #356
thfuran wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you're advocating for permitting ATCs to just decide to start transmitting in cockney rhymes as an expression of their personal freedom and autonomy and for people to be able to walk around town pointing loaded guns at other peoples' faces with their fingers on the trigger?

You believe your absurd statement is in any an analog to refusing drug screening? You think the response to security theater, no security it all? You think that is we do not do a daily drug screen on an employee that has no indication they are on any type of drug or alcohol is the same as "transmitting in cockney rhymes " That is just absurd

[deleted]

Re: ‘Confirming we are cleared to land?’ Who said what at Austin

#360

Post by thfuran »

phpisthebest wrote: post #356
thfuran wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you're advocating for permitting ATCs to just decide to start transmitting in cockney rhymes as an expression of their personal freedom and autonomy and for people to be able to walk around town pointing loaded guns at other peoples' faces with their fingers on the trigger?

You believe your absurd statement is in any an analog to refusing drug screening? You think the response to security theater, no security it all? You think that is we do not do a daily drug screen on an employee that has no indication they are on any type of drug or alcohol is the same as "transmitting in cockney rhymes " That is just absurd

So you believe in absolute personal freedom except when you don't like its consequences and in curtailing personal freedom except when doing so might inconvenience you personally?
Post reply on HN