4 ms·

> suggesting [...]the previous flight crew had left the altitude setting at [...] 00000 feet Does the system really display as "00000"? That seems like an odd

> suggesting [...]the previous flight crew had left the altitude setting at [...] 00000 feet Does the system really display as "00000"? That seems like an odd design choice, I'd have thought just a single "0" would be far more legible in this scenario, especially if it's on a 7-segment display. I don't think passengers would have noticed this as anything other than a regular takeoff, because ATC does request slow climbs (ie. slower rate of ascent) every now and then.

pdonis 5y ago
> I don't think passengers would have noticed this as anything other than a regular takeoff It looks like the aircraft didn't leave the runway until the runway safety area at the end. That is something any passenger looking out the window could notice. A normal takeoff has the aircraft leaving the runway well before the end.
- diebeforei485 5y ago
  > That is something any passenger looking out the window could notice. I don't think so, because the departure was at 3:10AM local time (23:10Z). It would have been too dark to perceive.
  - pdonis 5y ago
    The runway lights and taxiway lights would be on. Sure, you wouldn't be able to see the ground itself outside the range of the lights, but you would be able to see enough to tell that the plane had not taken off at the end of the runway.
  - ipython 5y ago
    You can see the lighted markers along the side of the runway indicating the number of thousand feet of runway remaining. I’d definitely be concerned as we pass by 2…1…and still not rotated.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
pilot7378535 5y ago
Speaking of bad UX choices, the FAA is constantly dropping one or two or more digits from numbers like altitudes, runway lengths, heading, timestamps, etc. For example, "the runway from 180° is 5200 feet long" becomes "RWY18 52" which I suppose you get used to, but it's just begging for mixups.
- wjossey 5y ago
  As a student pilot, this drives me nuts. The volume of abbreviations, especially in NOTAMS, METARs, etc, is a bit obscene. What’s wonderful too is that the abbreviations are often based on non English words as well, so they aren’t intuitive. As an example, instead of typing “mist” in a METAR it is “BR” based on the French word brume.
  - jdavis703 5y ago
    And yet, on a general interest site you write in acronyms only pilots and aviation buffs will understand.
    - ahefner 5y ago
      Exactly.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  AIUI it is a holdover from the days when such reports were sent by telegraph/teletype, and saving characters mattered. The abbreviations became standard convention and changing them now would be more disruptive than teaching new pilots how to decipher them.
- oceanplexian 5y ago
  It still matters since most communication is over the radio, and in many areas it’s highly congested. When there are 50 pilots on the radio and things are moving fast there isn’t time to slow down and spell things out, and doing so can actually be more dangerous when extraneous stuff ends up on the radio and is misinterpreted.

pdonis 5y ago

> I don't think passengers would have noticed this as anything other than a regular takeoff It looks like the aircraft didn't leave the runway until the runway safety area at the end. That is something any passenger looking out the window could notice. A normal takeoff has the aircraft leaving the runway well before the end.

diebeforei485 5y ago
> That is something any passenger looking out the window could notice. I don't think so, because the departure was at 3:10AM local time (23:10Z). It would have been too dark to perceive.
- pdonis 5y ago
  The runway lights and taxiway lights would be on. Sure, you wouldn't be able to see the ground itself outside the range of the lights, but you would be able to see enough to tell that the plane had not taken off at the end of the runway.
- ipython 5y ago
  You can see the lighted markers along the side of the runway indicating the number of thousand feet of runway remaining. I’d definitely be concerned as we pass by 2…1…and still not rotated.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

pilot7378535 5y ago

Speaking of bad UX choices, the FAA is constantly dropping one or two or more digits from numbers like altitudes, runway lengths, heading, timestamps, etc. For example, "the runway from 180° is 5200 feet long" becomes "RWY18 52" which I suppose you get used to, but it's just begging for mixups.

wjossey 5y ago
As a student pilot, this drives me nuts. The volume of abbreviations, especially in NOTAMS, METARs, etc, is a bit obscene. What’s wonderful too is that the abbreviations are often based on non English words as well, so they aren’t intuitive. As an example, instead of typing “mist” in a METAR it is “BR” based on the French word brume.
- jdavis703 5y ago
  And yet, on a general interest site you write in acronyms only pilots and aviation buffs will understand.
  - ahefner 5y ago
    Exactly.
throwawayboise 5y ago
AIUI it is a holdover from the days when such reports were sent by telegraph/teletype, and saving characters mattered. The abbreviations became standard convention and changing them now would be more disruptive than teaching new pilots how to decipher them.
oceanplexian 5y ago
It still matters since most communication is over the radio, and in many areas it’s highly congested. When there are 50 pilots on the radio and things are moving fast there isn’t time to slow down and spell things out, and doing so can actually be more dangerous when extraneous stuff ends up on the radio and is misinterpreted.