3 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster We've learned the lesson once already that not

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster We've learned the lesson once already that not having ground radar is a bad idea.

Retric 4y ago
I think the million flights after that point suggests otherwise. Technology isn’t the only option, proper procedures can also work.
- Sakos 4y ago
  It would interest me to know what the reasons are for ground radar not being more widespread and how many accidents are preventable by ground radar yearly. My first guess is that incidents where ground radar would've prevented them are so rare that it isn't worth the expense or the additional complexity or additional point of failure, and it's more productive/effective to solve the issue at different points in the system instead.
- TrickyRick 4y ago
  This is like saying "I don't wear my seatbelt because I've never been in an accident". Safety systems isn't about one or the other, it's about having multiple systems and procedures in place to prevent a disaster. Proper procedures are good, and it's a first line of defense, but humans make mistakes and are imperfect in other ways (Such as not being able to see through fog). Proper procedure in the case of near 0 visibility would be to greatly increase separation between planes, something which wasn't done in this case, and something which would slow down traffic a lot more than passengers and companies like.
  - Retric 4y ago
    It’s more like saying school busses don’t need seatbelts because based on a great deal of evidence, they don’t significantly improve school bus safety. In this case the accident was avoided because aircraft could see each other long before there was a meaningful risk. It wasn’t a mismanaged zero visibility situation but rather proper procedures working.
trelane 4y ago
Once? There was also a recent Cloudberg article about a place radar would've been real handy to have. (Plane and ground thought they were S of Kathmandu when they were N, until they suddenly went silent, due to hitting a mountain.) Edit: Bah, wrong comment on the chain.
- Retric 4y ago
  That’s a different problem. Regular radar is setup to detect flying aircraft and is very useful to avoid flying into mountains, avoid mid air collisions, etc and it’s not what we’re talking about. That type of Radar has proven necessary on many occasions. Spending a great deal of money to track aircraft on the ground however is only helpful when one of the aircraft is on the ground. It’s only partially useful when visibility is low, at which point air traffic control can be especially paranoid.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster We've learned the lesson once already that not having ground radar is a bad idea.

Retric 4y ago

I think the million flights after that point suggests otherwise. Technology isn’t the only option, proper procedures can also work.

Sakos 4y ago
It would interest me to know what the reasons are for ground radar not being more widespread and how many accidents are preventable by ground radar yearly. My first guess is that incidents where ground radar would've prevented them are so rare that it isn't worth the expense or the additional complexity or additional point of failure, and it's more productive/effective to solve the issue at different points in the system instead.
TrickyRick 4y ago
This is like saying "I don't wear my seatbelt because I've never been in an accident". Safety systems isn't about one or the other, it's about having multiple systems and procedures in place to prevent a disaster. Proper procedures are good, and it's a first line of defense, but humans make mistakes and are imperfect in other ways (Such as not being able to see through fog). Proper procedure in the case of near 0 visibility would be to greatly increase separation between planes, something which wasn't done in this case, and something which would slow down traffic a lot more than passengers and companies like.
- Retric 4y ago
  It’s more like saying school busses don’t need seatbelts because based on a great deal of evidence, they don’t significantly improve school bus safety. In this case the accident was avoided because aircraft could see each other long before there was a meaningful risk. It wasn’t a mismanaged zero visibility situation but rather proper procedures working.

trelane 4y ago

Once? There was also a recent Cloudberg article about a place radar would've been real handy to have. (Plane and ground thought they were S of Kathmandu when they were N, until they suddenly went silent, due to hitting a mountain.) Edit: Bah, wrong comment on the chain.

Retric 4y ago
That’s a different problem. Regular radar is setup to detect flying aircraft and is very useful to avoid flying into mountains, avoid mid air collisions, etc and it’s not what we’re talking about. That type of Radar has proven necessary on many occasions. Spending a great deal of money to track aircraft on the ground however is only helpful when one of the aircraft is on the ground. It’s only partially useful when visibility is low, at which point air traffic control can be especially paranoid.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]