5 ms·

Thanks! But why do you even have to map your diagram to what you're seeing? Isn't there a GPS system that shows you exactly where you are on the map and where y

Thanks! But why do you even have to map your diagram to what you're seeing? Isn't there a GPS system that shows you exactly where you are on the map and where you are going to go in the next few minutes? It doesn't seem like there should be any mental or visual processing to figure out that you're heading toward the wrong runway, right?

cyberferret 9y ago
It's a matter of scale. Even on a modern HSI, the difference in distance between the runway and the parallel taxiway is probably the width of the indicator icon. Very hard to see on instruments. Much easier to see by looking out the windscreen.
- wfunction 9y ago
  I can't tell if my expectations are just too high, but the impression I'm getting from all your answers is that pilots just don't have a dynamically updating (i.e. digital) map. It seems like everything is a bunch of numbers the poor pilots have to crunch or ticks that they have to count correctly or sheets of paper they have to pass to each other with diagrams. Why in the world is the system so ancient in 2017? Google Maps on my phone can show me where I am within 10 meters and where I'm going for the next 10 minutes, and it automatically zooms in and out at turning points... why can't an airplane have a display that shows them where they are and where they're going within the next minute?
  - cyberferret 9y ago
    Ironically, it is mainly because of reliability. Every system on an aircraft HAS to have double or triple redundancy by law, and a lot of these systems ARE antiquated by usual consumer standards. A lot of pilots these days have iPads in the cockpit to assist with this, but in nearly all airlines and aircraft types, these are unauthorised devices that are not part of the certification. Generally they are used for non critical things like manuals or checklists, but I know of pilots that use them for situational awareness as well. In an accident though, this may work against them, badly. Yes, it is the old legal and liability issue. Aircraft systems should be upgraded, but the cost of upgrading an entire fleet is prohibitive for most airlines that are already operating on the smell of an oily rag. New generation aircraft are getting better at it though. Like I mentioned before, I believe the 787 now has a HUD of sorts, which is long overdue.
    - wfunction 9y ago
      Aw man, sad to read this but thank you.
    - ajdlinux 9y ago
      Hmm, Electronic Flight Bags are now a regulator-approved thing for manuals/other paper products.
  - cyberferret 9y ago
    Oh, and aircraft DO have moving maps etc. now, but these are usually dialled out to show a range of hundreds of miles in cruise, and are not usually adjusted to show distances in mere metres when on final approach. Once again, because these displays are usually on the centre floor console or located below the HSI, they are outside the 'scan zone' of a pilot on short finals.
  - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
    In their defense, I would guess that making such a system 100% reliable and unintrusive may be a lot harder than we realize. It's not uncommon for Google Maps to be off by a few blocks for 10 seconds or more, and that could very easily be fatal if you're using it to land an airplane.
    - wfunction 9y ago
      Are you suggesting their current GPS systems have that kind of issue though? I'm just asking for an interface to be added, not a entire concept of GPS functionality to be added. I'm assuming the latter is already used. It's not like I was suggesting they use Google Maps.
      - Piskvorrr 9y ago
        Indeed. GPS (and friends) are a best-effort affair - works great, most of the time.
  - hueving 9y ago
    You know what else Google maps does? It quits working at random times and behaves unpredictably in low precision GPS scenarios. GPS units certified for aviation are tested to edge cases for usability with predictable and clearly indicated failure modes. This slows down new tech, but it's critical. Even auto zooming on gmaps seems like a no-brainer, except for the times where the auto zoom into a trivial maneuver (continue onto road) occludes the difficult immediately following procedure (take correct exit out of 4 within 50 meters).
    - wfunction 9y ago
      > You know what else Google maps does? It quits working at random times and behaves unpredictably in low precision GPS scenarios. OK, so you're saying airplanes don't already have GPS systems that work better? Or are you claiming I said "Airbus and Boeing should literally install Google Maps in the cockpit"?
      - Piskvorrr 9y ago
        Okay, correction. Airplanes don't have GPS systems that work better at the level of reliability required. "It works most of the time, except it sometimes doesn't" might be sufficient when you can stop at the roadside, but doesn't quite cut it in the air.
        wfunction 9y ago
        Okay so let me get this straight: you're telling me that passenger airplanes currently fly by dead reckoning or stellar navigation or ground-based triangulation or something else? When a pilot doesn't know where he is, he doesn't have any kind of certified GPS-based system handy to tell him? And moreover, even beyond GPS: how the hell can a plane's navigation system be capable of (and certified for!) landing the monster under autopilot, and yet not be able to tell the pilot its own location within the accuracy of a few feet reliably? I literally do not understand how what you're saying makes any sense.
        9y ago
ubernostrum 9y ago
Even setting aside the GPS/tablet/etc. question, I think you'd probably be astonished to learn how simple and how old the technology of automatic/instrument landing is. Instrument landing systems date to the 1920s, a time when flying at night, or above cloud tops, was incredibly dangerous. Imagine setting up a couple of directional radio antennas at the end of the runway. One broadcasts short beeps with long pauses (beep-----beep-----beep), the other broadcasts long beeps with short pauses (--beeeep--beeeep--). Set up the antennas so that if you're lined up horizontally with the center of the runway, the signals merge into a continuous tone (beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep). That's more or less how instrument landing systems still work today. Modern ones have more antennas and coordinate you both vertically (on the correct slope to touch down at the start of the runway) and horizontally, but the whole thing is still based on directional radio signals that you pick up from your plane, and a published set of information for each airport (the "approach plate") telling you what frequencies to listen for depending on the runway you want. Airliners can be programmed to "autoland" based on this information, but it requires some setup and also requires the pilots to be ready to take over at a moment's notice (if, for example, controllers at the airport decide to have the plane land on a different runway).
Tuxer 9y ago
There is, if you use it. In this case they were doing a visual approach , where you use eyesight in order to line up and land, because you have seen the runway. People do visual approaches in SFO as they are necessary to land 2 aircraft at the same time on the parallel runways ( they're like 30ft too close for parallel approaches on instrument ). It is still recommended to even in a visual approach, turn on the instrument approach systems ( for that exact reason ) but it looks like it is not mandatory for that airline.

cyberferret 9y ago

It's a matter of scale. Even on a modern HSI, the difference in distance between the runway and the parallel taxiway is probably the width of the indicator icon. Very hard to see on instruments. Much easier to see by looking out the windscreen.

wfunction 9y ago
I can't tell if my expectations are just too high, but the impression I'm getting from all your answers is that pilots just don't have a dynamically updating (i.e. digital) map. It seems like everything is a bunch of numbers the poor pilots have to crunch or ticks that they have to count correctly or sheets of paper they have to pass to each other with diagrams. Why in the world is the system so ancient in 2017? Google Maps on my phone can show me where I am within 10 meters and where I'm going for the next 10 minutes, and it automatically zooms in and out at turning points... why can't an airplane have a display that shows them where they are and where they're going within the next minute?
- cyberferret 9y ago
  Ironically, it is mainly because of reliability. Every system on an aircraft HAS to have double or triple redundancy by law, and a lot of these systems ARE antiquated by usual consumer standards. A lot of pilots these days have iPads in the cockpit to assist with this, but in nearly all airlines and aircraft types, these are unauthorised devices that are not part of the certification. Generally they are used for non critical things like manuals or checklists, but I know of pilots that use them for situational awareness as well. In an accident though, this may work against them, badly. Yes, it is the old legal and liability issue. Aircraft systems should be upgraded, but the cost of upgrading an entire fleet is prohibitive for most airlines that are already operating on the smell of an oily rag. New generation aircraft are getting better at it though. Like I mentioned before, I believe the 787 now has a HUD of sorts, which is long overdue.
  - wfunction 9y ago
    Aw man, sad to read this but thank you.
  - ajdlinux 9y ago
    Hmm, Electronic Flight Bags are now a regulator-approved thing for manuals/other paper products.
- cyberferret 9y ago
  Oh, and aircraft DO have moving maps etc. now, but these are usually dialled out to show a range of hundreds of miles in cruise, and are not usually adjusted to show distances in mere metres when on final approach. Once again, because these displays are usually on the centre floor console or located below the HSI, they are outside the 'scan zone' of a pilot on short finals.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  In their defense, I would guess that making such a system 100% reliable and unintrusive may be a lot harder than we realize. It's not uncommon for Google Maps to be off by a few blocks for 10 seconds or more, and that could very easily be fatal if you're using it to land an airplane.
  - wfunction 9y ago
    Are you suggesting their current GPS systems have that kind of issue though? I'm just asking for an interface to be added, not a entire concept of GPS functionality to be added. I'm assuming the latter is already used. It's not like I was suggesting they use Google Maps.
    - Piskvorrr 9y ago
      Indeed. GPS (and friends) are a best-effort affair - works great, most of the time.
- hueving 9y ago
  You know what else Google maps does? It quits working at random times and behaves unpredictably in low precision GPS scenarios. GPS units certified for aviation are tested to edge cases for usability with predictable and clearly indicated failure modes. This slows down new tech, but it's critical. Even auto zooming on gmaps seems like a no-brainer, except for the times where the auto zoom into a trivial maneuver (continue onto road) occludes the difficult immediately following procedure (take correct exit out of 4 within 50 meters).
  - wfunction 9y ago
    > You know what else Google maps does? It quits working at random times and behaves unpredictably in low precision GPS scenarios. OK, so you're saying airplanes don't already have GPS systems that work better? Or are you claiming I said "Airbus and Boeing should literally install Google Maps in the cockpit"?
    - Piskvorrr 9y ago
      Okay, correction. Airplanes don't have GPS systems that work better at the level of reliability required. "It works most of the time, except it sometimes doesn't" might be sufficient when you can stop at the roadside, but doesn't quite cut it in the air.
      - wfunction 9y ago
        Okay so let me get this straight: you're telling me that passenger airplanes currently fly by dead reckoning or stellar navigation or ground-based triangulation or something else? When a pilot doesn't know where he is, he doesn't have any kind of certified GPS-based system handy to tell him? And moreover, even beyond GPS: how the hell can a plane's navigation system be capable of (and certified for!) landing the monster under autopilot, and yet not be able to tell the pilot its own location within the accuracy of a few feet reliably? I literally do not understand how what you're saying makes any sense.
        9y ago

ubernostrum 9y ago

Even setting aside the GPS/tablet/etc. question, I think you'd probably be astonished to learn how simple and how old the technology of automatic/instrument landing is. Instrument landing systems date to the 1920s, a time when flying at night, or above cloud tops, was incredibly dangerous. Imagine setting up a couple of directional radio antennas at the end of the runway. One broadcasts short beeps with long pauses (beep-----beep-----beep), the other broadcasts long beeps with short pauses (--beeeep--beeeep--). Set up the antennas so that if you're lined up horizontally with the center of the runway, the signals merge into a continuous tone (beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep). That's more or less how instrument landing systems still work today. Modern ones have more antennas and coordinate you both vertically (on the correct slope to touch down at the start of the runway) and horizontally, but the whole thing is still based on directional radio signals that you pick up from your plane, and a published set of information for each airport (the "approach plate") telling you what frequencies to listen for depending on the runway you want. Airliners can be programmed to "autoland" based on this information, but it requires some setup and also requires the pilots to be ready to take over at a moment's notice (if, for example, controllers at the airport decide to have the plane land on a different runway).

Tuxer 9y ago

There is, if you use it. In this case they were doing a visual approach , where you use eyesight in order to line up and land, because you have seen the runway. People do visual approaches in SFO as they are necessary to land 2 aircraft at the same time on the parallel runways ( they're like 30ft too close for parallel approaches on instrument ). It is still recommended to even in a visual approach, turn on the instrument approach systems ( for that exact reason ) but it looks like it is not mandatory for that airline.