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

71–80 of 402 posts

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

#71

Post by xeromal »

michaelmrose wrote: post #49
pooloo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also an extremely niche field, with a very high attrition rate in terms of training, and few people are truly capable of working in that industry. There will be retraining for certain, and a reduction in pay/rank. They certainly do not need to lose their job over a mishap, while an egregious one, it is still a trainable moment.

How do you retrain someone not to tell 2 planes they can use the same runway with repeated confirmations based on the fact that he thinks 3 miles is far enough away? At that point are we certain its not Alzheimer's?

This sentence probably doesn't cover the entire situation.

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

#72

Post by kylehotchkiss »

Is zero visibility an unheard of condition at Austin’s airport? I thought I saw the other day they don’t have ground radar, which would probably be the leading resolution item if it’s the case. But even then, why not slow things down for the weather? 3 miles or 60 second turnaround when the runway is cat III??

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

#73

Post by irjustin »

Listening to that audio is incredible almost chilling. The calmness in the voices.

I understand this is how they are selected, trained and ultimately operate everyday moment-to-moment but the gap is so far for me I can't begin to understand it.

Genuine question, why is this not fully automated today? Seems like something we should be easily capable of doing given CAT III.

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

#75

Post by neom »

russdill wrote: post #29

I'm curious in this situation if there was a TCAS warning.

According to "European Organisation for Safety of Air Navigation" and FAA, on TCAS all Resolution Advisories are inhibited below 1000ft.

https://skybrary.aero/articles/tcas-ii-ra-very-low-altitude

https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/...

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

#76

Post by thinking4real »

plaguepilled wrote: post #48
kochie wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because adding more technology doesn’t always makes things work better. I like this idea but the problem is you’ve just added another point of failure. Sure it may avoid this situation, but how many aircraft lifted off and landed at airports in the same day? In America I’d hazard a guess at aground the tens of thousands. Any new system has to reduce the complexity or risks of flying and that’s very hard to do. I’m no…

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.

[dead]

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

#78

Post by bagels »

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

That one is pretty infuriating to listen to!

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

#80

Post by seanhunter »

habibur wrote: post #31

Clickbait title that doesn't answer the question in title in its body.

The question in the post title is the first sub-bullet in the article. It is itself a quote from the transcript and gets to the heart of the human error that almost caused a disaster here. The article does confirm who said what when by having the transcript in the article. Not at all clickbaity.
Post reply on HN