6 ms·

Thank you! That raises the question, (a) why is there no kind of warning system for when you're about to land on the wrong runway (there's a GPS system in the a

Thank you! That raises the question, (a) why is there no kind of warning system for when you're about to land on the wrong runway (there's a GPS system in the aircraft that knows where you're going, right?) and (b) why is the pilot (or at least co-pilot) never looking at a map on final approach? Is it really that dangerous for anyone to take a quick glance?

cyberferret 9y ago
Yes, autolanding, or if the pilot was using ILS (Instrument Landing System), then this problem would almost never happen, as they would be aware there was a problem. However, most pilots eschew automation especially on short finals, and prefer the 'hand fly' the aircraft in so that they can maintain complete control over the aircraft. Not a bad thing, and pilots want to actually fly the plane at crucial times. When hand flying on final approach, your eyes and senses are 75% outside the aircraft. All you are worried about is your airspeed, your rate of descent and whether the runway is remaining visible at all times. Your eyes are darting from your primary instruments in front of you to the runway outside, and your arms and legs are busy working the throttles, control stick and rudder pedals. Maps and charts are well stowed away at this point. In fact, once you enter the main airport traffic pattern, they are put away as all the details should be memorised by then. At best, the pilot will have the approach plate on his/her control column. But this just gives the instrument approach paths and radio frequencies etc. and not really a detailed topography of the runways/taxiways. Ironically, AFTER the plane is on the ground, the non commanding pilot will usually pull out the airport plate which details all the taxiways and routes to gates etc., especially if they are unfamiliar with the airport and have to find their way around.
- wfunction 9y ago
  Fantastic explanation, and the question on my mind the entire time is "but why??"! Surely the copilot can look at a map (when I say map I don't mean a piece of paper -- I mean a digital one with GPS and everything) and see their trajectory while the pilot is landing, right? Like I'm imagining there should be something on the plane that shows them their trajectory and the runway information. If there is, why isn't it telling them when they're going the wrong way? If there isn't, why not? Is the technology simply behind, or is there a safety reason or something?
  - cyberferret 9y ago
    Ah, I think you are picturing something like a HUD (heads up display) that they have on fighter jets? That would certainly go a long way towards solving the issue, but commercial aircraft don't have a HUD display system (though I believe the 787 has a partial HUD display now). Commercial aircraft have a HSI (horizontal situation indicator) located front and center on the panel in front of the pilots. This instrument presents about 12 distinct pieces of information to the pilot, but once again, on short finals, the pilots is mainly concerned with (1) airspeed (2) altitude (3) rate of descent on this instrument. All of which are displayed on the left and right edge of the HSI in the form of moving bars. The information in the centre with relation to position and orientation is discarded as unnecessary 'noise' under this extremely high workload. You are right in that the co-pilot has to work in conjunction with the pilot to ensure safe flight. Indeed, in many cases, it was the co-pilot (or non flying pilot) that alerted the flying pilot as to an imminent danger. But that doesn't always happen either. Take the case mentioned elsewhere here of the worlds worst aviation disaster. In that scenario, the junior co-pilot of the KLM jet notified the Captain (who was one of the the most senior pilot in KLM at the time) TWICE that he thought the PanAm jet was still on the runway, only to be ignored.
    - wfunction 9y ago
      Yes, I don't know the types, but any kind of display that can show the relevant information would seem viable in 2017 :-) so it seems the main answer to "why?" is just "because adopting such technology is abysmally slow" rather than because it's inherently a bad idea? (Thank you for all the responses again! They're excellent.) (Edit: just saw your other comment, please feel free to ignore this if it's redundant.)
      - cyberferret 9y ago
        Yes, because getting ANY type of new technology on airplanes certified by the FAA (as well as the relevant air safety authorities in every other country in the world) is a laboriously long, slow and expensive exercise. It is sad, but the bright side is that is seems to be getting better nowadays as compared to when I was flying decades ago.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  I was going to ask about the ILS, which I assumed pilots always used for lining up their approach. I watched a friend of mine who was a pilot, punching in ILS codes on a training simulator and I remembered it myself years ago from Microsoft Flight Simulator 4. (now that I think about it, I think he even mentioned that he didn't often use ILS). It seems like a pretty critical system for lining up an approach on the right runway. FS4 even had a training mode where it would display the ILS bars on the screen without needing to look at the instruments. You'd think some commercial airliners would at least put this in a heads up display, where it would be totally obvious you're lined up with the taxi way since the bar would be glued to one side or the other. Don't Navy pilots have a similar HUD for just their vertical approach angle?
  - cyberferret 9y ago
    Yes. I flew actual planes, and loved playing with MS Flight Sim too, and the number of times I WISHED we could have the same sort of heads up information on the real thing was quite funny. (Also, would have loved SLEW MODE on the real thing, but that is a conversation for another time and dimension) :D
- 0xbear 9y ago
  Why not put a big ass array of red lights to indicate where not to land though?
  - HappyTypist 9y ago
    All you need is an universal (ICAO) visual indication for "this is a taxiway, do not fucking landing here". For example, a stripe of alternating red and blue lights.
    - 0898 9y ago
      The runway is where you do want to land.
      - HappyTypist 9y ago
        Thanks, corrected.
- dorfsmay 9y ago
  > most pilots eschew automation especially on short finals Don't pilots have a legal requirement to manually fly a minimum number of landings per month?
  - bronco21016 9y ago
    Sort of. A pilot is required to have at least 3 takeoff and landings in the type of aircraft he is to be operating in the preceding 90 days. And I say sort of because an autopilot coupled ILS approach down to 100 ft above the runway still counts. This mean that as long as the pilot set up the automation correctly the airplane will have him lined up and on proper vertical path at 100 ft. He can disconnect autopilot and gently set it down. So one, mostly automated, landing per month is all that is required.
- MarkMc 9y ago
  What about an audio warning: "Alert! You are about to land on a taxiway!". Wouldn't that be useful?
  - cyberferret 9y ago
    Could be, but there have been many cases of pilots missing an audible warning while under heavy workload too. Most notably the Adam Air(?) crash in Indonesia, where the crew were so intent on debugging a faulty minor flight computer that they simply didn't hear the the warning klaxon indicating that the autopilot had become disengaged and the plane ended up rolling over, entering a spin and crashed into the sea.
- bronco21016 9y ago
  I have to disagree about the maps and charts being stowed away at this point. I personally can only think of one 121 certificated carrier in the US that isn't using an EFB setup. These are typically mounted to the side of the pilot and there's no reason at all they can't still be on and open to either the airport diagram or the approach in use. In fact I frequently do this and do reference it on approach to parallel runways and to reference the turn offs for taxi. As this discussion progressed, the lack of progress in the FAA adopting technology was addressed. It seems to me that the FAA is completely missing the boat on tons of safety to be gained with these EFBs due to the bureaucracy. My carrier was recently certified for EFBs and the vendor has the capability to have GPS geo-referenced charts but because of the complicated certification process the airline chose to get certified without to save money and time. As part of that we also received devices without GPS so now there's no way it's coming until the next cycle of devices. Personally I can't understand why there would need to be additional certification for something GA pilots have been using for years now.
  - cyberferret 9y ago
    I am going to say you are probably more right than me. I haven't flown in over two decades, so things are bound to be different/better nowadays and procedures and safety improves. Take my replies here with a grain of salt and as being 'old school'. :)
ryandrake 9y ago
When flying visually (VFR), taxiway lighting and runway lighting are visually very different. Taxiway lighting is almost always blue, whereas runway lighting is white (with any displaced threshold marked with red lights). In daylight, the markings on the runway are unmistakably different. I'm not instrument rated but my understanding is that with ILS, instrument approaches can handle multiple parallel runways precisely and therefore the pilot has the tools necessary to distinguish between a runway and taxiway when in instrument conditions. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Let the investigation happen, but from the reported facts, this seems to be a pretty clear case of pilot error. And I think you meant to say "raises the question" rather than "begs the question."
- wfunction 9y ago
  Haha, thanks! Will fix that last bit.
- antiphase 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
  - mercutio2 9y ago
    I’m intrigued by the question of what you were hoping to add to the conversation with a Wikipedia link with zero explanatory text. Did you mean “look, some people think popular usage has won out and beg the question is now a reasonable substitute for raise the question”? Or something else?
- vacri 9y ago
  So many people use 'begs the question' as 'raises the question' now that it's a valid meaning for the phrase. EDIT: To the downvoters: I don't think you understand how human language works.
  - bbcbasic 9y ago
    I upvoted you (fwiw I'm hellbanned)
phdp 9y ago
It would be like looking at a map of California and expect to be able to get around San Francisco - the aeronautical charts are generally for long haul navigation purposes. There are approach plates for instrument landings, but for landing there you'd be looking at your instruments, which you've dialed into the correct runway, not the plate, in order to land the plane. In this situation, however, I can only imagine the pilot was on visual approach because otherwise the plane wouldn't have been lined up to land on the taxi way.
pc86 9y ago
> Is it really that dangerous for anyone to take a quick glance? Speaking as a private pilot, it absolutely is. Even in a Cessna you're going to be travelling at least 75 mph. Possible faster if the conditions are gusty. For the last 1/4-1/2 mile at least, your vision needs to be 100% outside of the airplane. Now if you need to do that in a Cessna at 75 mph with no more than 4 people on board, why wouldn't you also need to do in a 787 that lands at ~180 mph with nearly 300 people, or an A380 that lands at ~140 mph with over 500?
- wfunction 9y ago
  > Now if you need to do that in a Cessna at 75 mph with no more than 4 people on board, why wouldn't you also need to do in a 787 that lands at ~180 mph with nearly 300 people, or an A380 that lands at ~140 mph with over 500? Because you have 1-3 other copilots who also have eyes and could be doing this instead of you...?

cyberferret 9y ago

Yes, autolanding, or if the pilot was using ILS (Instrument Landing System), then this problem would almost never happen, as they would be aware there was a problem. However, most pilots eschew automation especially on short finals, and prefer the 'hand fly' the aircraft in so that they can maintain complete control over the aircraft. Not a bad thing, and pilots want to actually fly the plane at crucial times. When hand flying on final approach, your eyes and senses are 75% outside the aircraft. All you are worried about is your airspeed, your rate of descent and whether the runway is remaining visible at all times. Your eyes are darting from your primary instruments in front of you to the runway outside, and your arms and legs are busy working the throttles, control stick and rudder pedals. Maps and charts are well stowed away at this point. In fact, once you enter the main airport traffic pattern, they are put away as all the details should be memorised by then. At best, the pilot will have the approach plate on his/her control column. But this just gives the instrument approach paths and radio frequencies etc. and not really a detailed topography of the runways/taxiways. Ironically, AFTER the plane is on the ground, the non commanding pilot will usually pull out the airport plate which details all the taxiways and routes to gates etc., especially if they are unfamiliar with the airport and have to find their way around.

wfunction 9y ago
Fantastic explanation, and the question on my mind the entire time is "but why??"! Surely the copilot can look at a map (when I say map I don't mean a piece of paper -- I mean a digital one with GPS and everything) and see their trajectory while the pilot is landing, right? Like I'm imagining there should be something on the plane that shows them their trajectory and the runway information. If there is, why isn't it telling them when they're going the wrong way? If there isn't, why not? Is the technology simply behind, or is there a safety reason or something?
- cyberferret 9y ago
  Ah, I think you are picturing something like a HUD (heads up display) that they have on fighter jets? That would certainly go a long way towards solving the issue, but commercial aircraft don't have a HUD display system (though I believe the 787 has a partial HUD display now). Commercial aircraft have a HSI (horizontal situation indicator) located front and center on the panel in front of the pilots. This instrument presents about 12 distinct pieces of information to the pilot, but once again, on short finals, the pilots is mainly concerned with (1) airspeed (2) altitude (3) rate of descent on this instrument. All of which are displayed on the left and right edge of the HSI in the form of moving bars. The information in the centre with relation to position and orientation is discarded as unnecessary 'noise' under this extremely high workload. You are right in that the co-pilot has to work in conjunction with the pilot to ensure safe flight. Indeed, in many cases, it was the co-pilot (or non flying pilot) that alerted the flying pilot as to an imminent danger. But that doesn't always happen either. Take the case mentioned elsewhere here of the worlds worst aviation disaster. In that scenario, the junior co-pilot of the KLM jet notified the Captain (who was one of the the most senior pilot in KLM at the time) TWICE that he thought the PanAm jet was still on the runway, only to be ignored.
  - wfunction 9y ago
    Yes, I don't know the types, but any kind of display that can show the relevant information would seem viable in 2017 :-) so it seems the main answer to "why?" is just "because adopting such technology is abysmally slow" rather than because it's inherently a bad idea? (Thank you for all the responses again! They're excellent.) (Edit: just saw your other comment, please feel free to ignore this if it's redundant.)
    - cyberferret 9y ago
      Yes, because getting ANY type of new technology on airplanes certified by the FAA (as well as the relevant air safety authorities in every other country in the world) is a laboriously long, slow and expensive exercise. It is sad, but the bright side is that is seems to be getting better nowadays as compared to when I was flying decades ago.
djsumdog 9y ago
I was going to ask about the ILS, which I assumed pilots always used for lining up their approach. I watched a friend of mine who was a pilot, punching in ILS codes on a training simulator and I remembered it myself years ago from Microsoft Flight Simulator 4. (now that I think about it, I think he even mentioned that he didn't often use ILS). It seems like a pretty critical system for lining up an approach on the right runway. FS4 even had a training mode where it would display the ILS bars on the screen without needing to look at the instruments. You'd think some commercial airliners would at least put this in a heads up display, where it would be totally obvious you're lined up with the taxi way since the bar would be glued to one side or the other. Don't Navy pilots have a similar HUD for just their vertical approach angle?
- cyberferret 9y ago
  Yes. I flew actual planes, and loved playing with MS Flight Sim too, and the number of times I WISHED we could have the same sort of heads up information on the real thing was quite funny. (Also, would have loved SLEW MODE on the real thing, but that is a conversation for another time and dimension) :D
0xbear 9y ago
Why not put a big ass array of red lights to indicate where not to land though?
- HappyTypist 9y ago
  All you need is an universal (ICAO) visual indication for "this is a taxiway, do not fucking landing here". For example, a stripe of alternating red and blue lights.
  - 0898 9y ago
    The runway is where you do want to land.
    - HappyTypist 9y ago
      Thanks, corrected.
dorfsmay 9y ago
> most pilots eschew automation especially on short finals Don't pilots have a legal requirement to manually fly a minimum number of landings per month?
- bronco21016 9y ago
  Sort of. A pilot is required to have at least 3 takeoff and landings in the type of aircraft he is to be operating in the preceding 90 days. And I say sort of because an autopilot coupled ILS approach down to 100 ft above the runway still counts. This mean that as long as the pilot set up the automation correctly the airplane will have him lined up and on proper vertical path at 100 ft. He can disconnect autopilot and gently set it down. So one, mostly automated, landing per month is all that is required.
MarkMc 9y ago
What about an audio warning: "Alert! You are about to land on a taxiway!". Wouldn't that be useful?
- cyberferret 9y ago
  Could be, but there have been many cases of pilots missing an audible warning while under heavy workload too. Most notably the Adam Air(?) crash in Indonesia, where the crew were so intent on debugging a faulty minor flight computer that they simply didn't hear the the warning klaxon indicating that the autopilot had become disengaged and the plane ended up rolling over, entering a spin and crashed into the sea.
bronco21016 9y ago
I have to disagree about the maps and charts being stowed away at this point. I personally can only think of one 121 certificated carrier in the US that isn't using an EFB setup. These are typically mounted to the side of the pilot and there's no reason at all they can't still be on and open to either the airport diagram or the approach in use. In fact I frequently do this and do reference it on approach to parallel runways and to reference the turn offs for taxi. As this discussion progressed, the lack of progress in the FAA adopting technology was addressed. It seems to me that the FAA is completely missing the boat on tons of safety to be gained with these EFBs due to the bureaucracy. My carrier was recently certified for EFBs and the vendor has the capability to have GPS geo-referenced charts but because of the complicated certification process the airline chose to get certified without to save money and time. As part of that we also received devices without GPS so now there's no way it's coming until the next cycle of devices. Personally I can't understand why there would need to be additional certification for something GA pilots have been using for years now.
- cyberferret 9y ago
  I am going to say you are probably more right than me. I haven't flown in over two decades, so things are bound to be different/better nowadays and procedures and safety improves. Take my replies here with a grain of salt and as being 'old school'. :)

ryandrake 9y ago

When flying visually (VFR), taxiway lighting and runway lighting are visually very different. Taxiway lighting is almost always blue, whereas runway lighting is white (with any displaced threshold marked with red lights). In daylight, the markings on the runway are unmistakably different. I'm not instrument rated but my understanding is that with ILS, instrument approaches can handle multiple parallel runways precisely and therefore the pilot has the tools necessary to distinguish between a runway and taxiway when in instrument conditions. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Let the investigation happen, but from the reported facts, this seems to be a pretty clear case of pilot error. And I think you meant to say "raises the question" rather than "begs the question."

wfunction 9y ago
Haha, thanks! Will fix that last bit.
antiphase 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
- mercutio2 9y ago
  I’m intrigued by the question of what you were hoping to add to the conversation with a Wikipedia link with zero explanatory text. Did you mean “look, some people think popular usage has won out and beg the question is now a reasonable substitute for raise the question”? Or something else?
vacri 9y ago
So many people use 'begs the question' as 'raises the question' now that it's a valid meaning for the phrase. EDIT: To the downvoters: I don't think you understand how human language works.
- bbcbasic 9y ago
  I upvoted you (fwiw I'm hellbanned)

phdp 9y ago

It would be like looking at a map of California and expect to be able to get around San Francisco - the aeronautical charts are generally for long haul navigation purposes. There are approach plates for instrument landings, but for landing there you'd be looking at your instruments, which you've dialed into the correct runway, not the plate, in order to land the plane. In this situation, however, I can only imagine the pilot was on visual approach because otherwise the plane wouldn't have been lined up to land on the taxi way.

pc86 9y ago

> Is it really that dangerous for anyone to take a quick glance? Speaking as a private pilot, it absolutely is. Even in a Cessna you're going to be travelling at least 75 mph. Possible faster if the conditions are gusty. For the last 1/4-1/2 mile at least, your vision needs to be 100% outside of the airplane. Now if you need to do that in a Cessna at 75 mph with no more than 4 people on board, why wouldn't you also need to do in a 787 that lands at ~180 mph with nearly 300 people, or an A380 that lands at ~140 mph with over 500?

wfunction 9y ago
> Now if you need to do that in a Cessna at 75 mph with no more than 4 people on board, why wouldn't you also need to do in a 787 that lands at ~180 mph with nearly 300 people, or an A380 that lands at ~140 mph with over 500? Because you have 1-3 other copilots who also have eyes and could be doing this instead of you...?