3 ms·

> Having a bus or lorry use an active runway is just a single, malicious UDP packet away... There are multiple safeguards in place to avoid single points of fa

by mopsi 7y ago

> Having a bus or lorry use an active runway is just a single, malicious UDP packet away... There are multiple safeguards in place to avoid single points of failure, such as runway crossing procedures with mandatory call to air traffic control unit for explicit permission before entering a runway. Many ATC recordings on VASAviation Youtube channel show that even rescue services (during emergencies) adhere to that. Taxiways leading to runways are marked with holding positions that may not be crossed without authorization: https://i.imgur.com/dCF8lFi.jpg https://i.imgur.com/dCF8lFi.jpg For extra visibility in poor weather, many airports are also equipped with runway guard lights paved into the ground or blinking on either side of the taxiway: https://i.imgur.com/dbix1Aw.png https://i.imgur.com/dbix1Aw.png Surface movement radars and transponder-based systems have also become widespread. They trigger alerts when a vehicle is about to enter an active runway: https://i.imgur.com/sJQ94zq.jpg https://i.imgur.com/sJQ94zq.jpg

djsumdog 7y ago
True, and you have real pilots. Many really busy airports do visual approaches and I know a couple pilots personally who don't often bother with ILS unless the conditions are bad. Remember in San Fransisco where a plane almost landed on a taxi way instead of the runway? It's worth reading the complex situation with the off-line runway and the way ILS was setup with those runways being so close together, but what prevented the disaster was a pilot in the Taxi line of aircraft getting on the radio and saying, "Where is this guy going?!" and everyone suddenly realizing they were lined up for the Taxi way! Real people, being aware, looking and reacting prevented that accident. That's why human checks and cross-checks are so important.
- godelski 7y ago
  > I know a couple pilots personally who don't often bother with ILS unless the conditions are bad Because it is a pain. Every pilot has to learn to do visual approaches. I think it just makes one thing apparent though. If we go to fully automated flying then there must ALSO be a visual check. In fact we can make it better than humans because we should make sure that the plane can see through fog. But key point is that there is always some redundancy built in.
  - inferiorhuman 7y ago
    If we go to fully automated flying then there must ALSO be a visual check. I don't think a visual check is needed (otherwise you would be much more limited in where/when you can land), but cross-checking some other data is. Turns out we're already there, and in an ILS approach the pilots should already be checking other instruments.

by mopsi 7y ago

djsumdog 7y ago

True, and you have real pilots. Many really busy airports do visual approaches and I know a couple pilots personally who don't often bother with ILS unless the conditions are bad. Remember in San Fransisco where a plane almost landed on a taxi way instead of the runway? It's worth reading the complex situation with the off-line runway and the way ILS was setup with those runways being so close together, but what prevented the disaster was a pilot in the Taxi line of aircraft getting on the radio and saying, "Where is this guy going?!" and everyone suddenly realizing they were lined up for the Taxi way! Real people, being aware, looking and reacting prevented that accident. That's why human checks and cross-checks are so important.

godelski 7y ago
> I know a couple pilots personally who don't often bother with ILS unless the conditions are bad Because it is a pain. Every pilot has to learn to do visual approaches. I think it just makes one thing apparent though. If we go to fully automated flying then there must ALSO be a visual check. In fact we can make it better than humans because we should make sure that the plane can see through fog. But key point is that there is always some redundancy built in.
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  If we go to fully automated flying then there must ALSO be a visual check. I don't think a visual check is needed (otherwise you would be much more limited in where/when you can land), but cross-checking some other data is. Turns out we're already there, and in an ILS approach the pilots should already be checking other instruments.