7 ms·

People "could" run their cars off of bridges every day, but they don't because they can see, and because roads have signs warning them of curves. This sounds l

by blhack 9y ago

People "could" run their cars off of bridges every day, but they don't because they can see, and because roads have signs warning them of curves. This sounds like a story of how well the aviation system works more than anything. The pilot is in constant communication with the tower. The system worked as intended here and he went around. It seems like a non story.

dbroockman 9y ago
Seems like disaster was only avoided because there was good visibility. If there was fog that day, it sounds like this wouldn't have been avoided.
- chrisper 9y ago
  If there is fog you do not fly by hand. You use an automated landing system (ILS) in that case.
  - bake 9y ago
    ILS does not entail automation -- it provides guidance to humans operating the controls.
    - dingaling 9y ago
      ILS does not necessarily indicate automation, but about 5% of ILS approaches are autolandings.
  - jiqiren 9y ago
    SFO's ILS isn't always functioning. It was turned off for months when Asiana crashed (June 1st - Aug 2nd)[1]. [1] http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a9124/what-went-wrong-in-the-777-crash-in-san-francisco-15670446/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a9124/what-went-wrong...
    - mikeash 9y ago
      I'm pretty sure SFO always has functioning ILS, otherwise the airport would have to close every time there was even mildly bad weather. Each runway has its own system, though, so an individual runway's ILS can be turned off. If there was fog, they wouldn't have been using 28L.
- dx034 9y ago
  In a foggy situation they would've used ILS or even autoland. Looking at instruments instead of out of the window would've prevented this much earlier.
  - konschubert 9y ago
    If ILS and autoload can prevent this, why is it not mandatory?
    - lb1lf 9y ago
      Because sometimes these systems fail, and it would be a shame then if noone in the cockpit had done a manual landing since earning their wings. (Just a guess - not a pilot.)
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      Because when you're coming in on runway 17L at DFW, all nice and programmed into your autoland, and suddenly the controller tells you to switch to landing on 17C, you have to just fly the plane. If you muck about trying to reprogram your autoland you'll be halfway to Oklahoma before you're set up again. See the video I linked in another comment in this thread for more details and examples of why complete automation is undesirable.
    - dx034 9y ago
      There were incidents in the past where pilots didn't have enough experience flying the aircraft manually. For that reason, most airlines prefer if pilots land manually as often as possible so that they can do it in case the system fails. If you always land automatically, pilots lose situational awareness.
InclinedPlane 9y ago
The pilot not only had his plane headed "over a cliff" (lined up to land on the taxiway), he would have done so had nobody else caught the error. Causing massive loss of life in the process. This is officially a capital-P Problem.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Comment like that would put me off hiring you for any sort of mission- or safety-critical project. The approach for Asiana 214 looked fine until it wasn't; that was less than 4 years ago. Maybe you should stare at the video of that crash for a while and consider the large consequences that can ensue from a small error of judgement made a little too late.
- mikeash 9y ago
  I would say that the approach for Asiana 214 looked bad from the moment it started, as the pilot felt uncomfortable performing a visual approach. Something has gone terribly wrong with training standards if a qualified airline pilot feels uncomfortable performing a visual approach in good weather into an airport with no tricky features. Asiana wasn't a small error of judgment, it was a fundamental failure of training and over-reliance on automation which resulted in a pilot who didn't really know how to land.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    That's the systemic problem that led to the error; I worded it poorly but the 'small error' I'm referring to is how the pilot came in just a little too slow and low. It's easy to think of even worse things a pilot might do when panicking, eg breaking off the approach only to stall and land on the tail, for example. What I'm getting at is that a small error can have big consequences, and that this near-miss last week by the Air Canada plane is not something that should be dismissed as a non-story just because it was spotted and rectified in time. A collision avoided at the last minute is still indicative of a problem. If the Asiana pilot had stuck the landing that day but still felt uncomfortable, their training and operation culture at that firm would still have been problematic, they would just have gotten away with it for a little longer.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      I see what you mean, and I agree. I'm sure the Asiana pilot (and many of his colleagues) had lots of uncomfortable but successful visual approaches before that. This event should definitely be investigated to identify any improvements that could be made. The tone of reporting seems to be going well beyond the severity of what actually happened, but it's not nothing.

by blhack 9y ago

dbroockman 9y ago

Seems like disaster was only avoided because there was good visibility. If there was fog that day, it sounds like this wouldn't have been avoided.

chrisper 9y ago
If there is fog you do not fly by hand. You use an automated landing system (ILS) in that case.
- bake 9y ago
  ILS does not entail automation -- it provides guidance to humans operating the controls.
  - dingaling 9y ago
    ILS does not necessarily indicate automation, but about 5% of ILS approaches are autolandings.
- jiqiren 9y ago
  SFO's ILS isn't always functioning. It was turned off for months when Asiana crashed (June 1st - Aug 2nd)[1]. [1] http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a9124/what-went-wrong-in-the-777-crash-in-san-francisco-15670446/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a9124/what-went-wrong...
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I'm pretty sure SFO always has functioning ILS, otherwise the airport would have to close every time there was even mildly bad weather. Each runway has its own system, though, so an individual runway's ILS can be turned off. If there was fog, they wouldn't have been using 28L.
dx034 9y ago
In a foggy situation they would've used ILS or even autoland. Looking at instruments instead of out of the window would've prevented this much earlier.
- konschubert 9y ago
  If ILS and autoload can prevent this, why is it not mandatory?
  - lb1lf 9y ago
    Because sometimes these systems fail, and it would be a shame then if noone in the cockpit had done a manual landing since earning their wings. (Just a guess - not a pilot.)
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    Because when you're coming in on runway 17L at DFW, all nice and programmed into your autoland, and suddenly the controller tells you to switch to landing on 17C, you have to just fly the plane. If you muck about trying to reprogram your autoland you'll be halfway to Oklahoma before you're set up again. See the video I linked in another comment in this thread for more details and examples of why complete automation is undesirable.
  - dx034 9y ago
    There were incidents in the past where pilots didn't have enough experience flying the aircraft manually. For that reason, most airlines prefer if pilots land manually as often as possible so that they can do it in case the system fails. If you always land automatically, pilots lose situational awareness.

InclinedPlane 9y ago

The pilot not only had his plane headed "over a cliff" (lined up to land on the taxiway), he would have done so had nobody else caught the error. Causing massive loss of life in the process. This is officially a capital-P Problem.

anigbrowl 9y ago

Comment like that would put me off hiring you for any sort of mission- or safety-critical project. The approach for Asiana 214 looked fine until it wasn't; that was less than 4 years ago. Maybe you should stare at the video of that crash for a while and consider the large consequences that can ensue from a small error of judgement made a little too late.

mikeash 9y ago
I would say that the approach for Asiana 214 looked bad from the moment it started, as the pilot felt uncomfortable performing a visual approach. Something has gone terribly wrong with training standards if a qualified airline pilot feels uncomfortable performing a visual approach in good weather into an airport with no tricky features. Asiana wasn't a small error of judgment, it was a fundamental failure of training and over-reliance on automation which resulted in a pilot who didn't really know how to land.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  That's the systemic problem that led to the error; I worded it poorly but the 'small error' I'm referring to is how the pilot came in just a little too slow and low. It's easy to think of even worse things a pilot might do when panicking, eg breaking off the approach only to stall and land on the tail, for example. What I'm getting at is that a small error can have big consequences, and that this near-miss last week by the Air Canada plane is not something that should be dismissed as a non-story just because it was spotted and rectified in time. A collision avoided at the last minute is still indicative of a problem. If the Asiana pilot had stuck the landing that day but still felt uncomfortable, their training and operation culture at that firm would still have been problematic, they would just have gotten away with it for a little longer.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I see what you mean, and I agree. I'm sure the Asiana pilot (and many of his colleagues) had lots of uncomfortable but successful visual approaches before that. This event should definitely be investigated to identify any improvements that could be made. The tone of reporting seems to be going well beyond the severity of what actually happened, but it's not nothing.