6 ms·

No, but I figure an airport servicing a metropolitan area with nearly 2 million people would be using all the best practice risk minimization approaches. What

No, but I figure an airport servicing a metropolitan area with nearly 2 million people would be using all the best practice risk minimization approaches. What scares me about this is that I have no idea how common or uncommon this is, and what other airports are in a similar situation.

hef19898 4y ago
If you are not involved directly with any of that professionally, it is better to treat it the way non-developer treat the OS. Assume it will work as intended because loads of highly trained professionals take care of it. Added benefit ehen it comes to aviation: strict and sensible regulation (the MAX disaster notwithstanding).
- EdwardDiego 4y ago
  Well, I'm fucked if I assume that it's working as intended, and fucked if I don't, because as you say, I'm entirely reliant on professionals doing their job correctly when I'm flying. And that professionalism seems to have failed in parts in this circumstance. (And has been well noted to have failed in many other circumstances with often tragic consequences.) All that aside, I still want to understand why the Austin airport doesn't have ARIS? Cost/benefit? Not mandated by the FAA? I'm afraid that "shush, and leave it to the professionals" isn't a very compelling argument.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    No idea about Austin airport. Regarding professionalism and failure, the Austin incident is actually proof of the system working as intended. There was, by the looks of it, only one real mistake made, maybe two. Training of everyone involved, including the ATC, prevented those mistakes from creating a cascade of failures that could have let to two hull losses and 100+ dead passenger on the Southwest flight. For fatal accidents to happen in aviation and aerspace, more than one thing has to go wrong at the same time. Single, isolated failures are no longer sufficient to cause serious accidents.
    - piva00 4y ago
      I don't think Austin is proof of the system working as intended, the only thing that saved them was the FedEx flight being able to take action at the last moment during their approach, if the fog was a little thicker and they couldn't see the Southwest flight on the runway as early as they did it would be a catastrophe. That's just luck, not a system that's working as intended.
      - hef19898 4y ago
        No, that is good training on behalf of FedEx, Southwest (knowing you have a plane above your own during take off and still follow ATC guidance is no easy feat) and the ATC (knowing you fucked up, staying calm and giving the correct instructions and keep everyone alive is again no easy feat). And training of operators absolutely is part of the overall system.
        michaelt 4y ago
        If the wings fall off my plane mid flight, I jump out with a parachute, and I land without injury then the "overall system" of plane-plus-parachute-plus-training has succeeded. However, the plane component of the system failed, because the wings aren't supposed to fall off.
        doctor_eval 4y ago
        A safe system is resilient to errors. The controller made a mistake - that happens, the system should deal with it. But in this case, a crash was averted only because the fog lifted. It was pure luck. Ground movement radar, a runway incursion warning system, or a different landing clearance protocol could all have provided the necessary safety buffers. When you’re up to the last “hole” in the cheese, that’s a failure.
- qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
  Is this sarcasm? In a thread were we discuss the breaking down of a systems run by professionals?
  - hef19898 4y ago
    No, I'm dead serious. To usr another example: surgery. Just assume people cutting you up know what they are doing, even if you do not have the slightst clue.
    - qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
      Eh, i know surgery videos of people who know what they are doing.. so i can verify what they do in best/good times. (Recommend ARD/Alpha for those heart transplant videos) The daylight of observation keeps all involved honest. Then i also know horror stories from someone thrustworthy, about surgeons throwing extracted body parts after nurses in high stress situations. No, i will not name names, but life and death situations need a perfect team and you dont always got that perfect team. And surgery quality being dependant on the actual execution of the surgery (chief surgeon is not automatic the best individual contributor to surgery). You want the most hours on the knife guy for best outcome, not some administrator with white coat. Also you want to be near univesity clinics, they are spearheading new stuff, the more you get away from them, the operation technique is depending on the age of the doctors education and the hospitals financials to keep up to date, send doctors to regular re-trainings and try new things. Then there are lawsuits, they keep the people responsible, but also risk averse. So if you are in a high risk situation, in a lawsuit rich country you are fucked, cause nobody will try the dice throw when worst comes to worst. Trust in systems working, is upkept by untrusting agents. So like in capitalism, were the price aware negotiate the deals down for the crowd who does not want to haggle. Finally: The infrastructure & hierarchy of hospitals (in europe), as we know them today, emerged largely from the two world wars were lots of nurses and doctors were integrated into army structures. Which means it suffers from the same inefficency and structural problems those armies back then suffered from. Now you have the MBA process micro optimization on top of that, so i wouldnt trust that machine blindly..
    - nmeofthestate 4y ago
- nenad 4y ago
  > If you are not involved directly with any of that professionally, it is better to treat it the way non-developer treat the OS. Assume it will work as intended because loads of highly trained professionals take care of it. Added benefit ehen it comes to aviation: strict and sensible regulation (the MAX disaster notwithstanding). Allow me to chime in and respectfully disagree with this sentiment and the metaphor. As the saying goes - the aviation (just as the automotive) industry saves lives (as in "advances security") one accident at the time. It would make sense that close calls like this Austin near mass casualty event should contribute to the future safety as well. In that context, it's absolutely legitimate to be suspicious and ask safety-related questions, including in a HN comment or in real life - instead of shutting someone down. Speaking of the developer-OS metaphor - any non-rookie developer should be aware of not only the security and vulnerability of one's own software but also of the security and vulnerability of the underlying OS, infrastructure and even hardware. The number of building blocks gets larger by the day and nearly each building block is becoming increasingly complex. Yes, there are professionals working on each those blocks yet there are new CVEs and associated attacks all the time (incl. ransomware). If we add 0-days into consideration (a.k.a. "the unknown unknowns" in the software context) IMHO we should be able to conclude that the used developer-OS metaphor is not helpful. The older and more experienced we all become, the more should we be cognizant of the potential risks (not only in our particular industry niche) and we should welcome and consider a normal, widely accepted practice to challenge the status quo and pose questions that should overall increase the number of brains and eyeballs on the problem and (unknown) unknowns - be it vulnerabilities or security risks, especially to our bare lives.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    And what makes anybody think this incident will not be properly reviewed, analyzed and suitable mitigation actions identified? And why do people on HN always think they know it better than the actual experts in this field, while just expectung users of their products, I just asse in most cases that is some piece of software, to worry about the details at all?
    - Xcelerate 4y ago
      > And why do people on HN always think they know it better than the actual experts in this field When the experts in the field have successfully prevented all accidents and near misses, maybe HN commenters will stop providing their input. There is such a thing as tunnel vision in a field you have been in too long.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  Wut? Because I’m aware of how the software world works I’m worried about literally every other professional endeavour. If it works it’s because it’s been refined over many years, or because of duct tape and spit.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Best case: well refined duct tape and spit. Even better with added swiss army knifes.
- jameshart 4y ago
  The aviation industry in the US is subject to federal regulation, meaning that the scope and purpose of its regulation is laid out by statutory authority granted to the FAA by laws passed by congress, who are elected by the people of America. In other words, aviation regulation exists to serve the interests of the people. If the airport or airline industry is trying to cut corners or save money at the expense of the safety of passengers, the interests of other air users, or the people who live under flight paths, items the job of congress to grant the FAA the authority needed to stop that - or to ensure that it is using its already-granted authority effectively to that end. And ultimately the only check on whether or not that is happening is the electorate’s oversight of its congresspeople. So yes, you can take an interest in how the airline industry is regulated, as a passenger or a random person who has planes fly over your head from time to time, because you have a say in making sure it’s not captured by industry and allowed to compromise your safety.
  - dghlsakjg 4y ago
    The airport and the airlines don’t make any decisions about ATC. That is controlled entirely by the FAA. The airlines and airports don’t pay for it either (directly anyway) They designate the class of an airport not by the number of people living in the metro area around it, but based on the complexity of the airspace and the density of the traffic. Austin probably isn’t a class b because while it may be an airport for a large city it doesn’t see a ton of traffic as it isn’t a huge hub. The regional hubs in that area are DFW and Houston and are way more traffic. It’s also worth noting that making a this a class B airport wouldn’t have changed anything in terms of how the arrivals and departures are controlled at the runway level. In spite of what happened with Boeing, the FAA is usually very good at airspace safety. That’s WHY this incident is notable.
    - jameshart 4y ago
      I have bad news for you. If the FAA were contemplating adjusting the requirements for certain classes of airport or the rules applicable under certain conditions at certain classes of airport, that perhaps airport operators and airlines whose costs and operations might be impacted by such a change can take part in a process called lobbying where they apply pressure to the regulator to make sure those changes don’t adversely affect them. Lobbying can be good, of course! Airports and airlines likely have good knowledge about how regulations impact their operations! But it’s the job of Congress in theory to represent their constituents’ interests - not merely their constituents who own airline stock or work for airport ground handling companies but all their constituents - to make sure that the framework the FAA correctly takes into account the competing interests of ensuring an efficient and high capacity aviation industry, as well as making sure that passenger safety is maintained. As you say, the FAA has a good record of doing this. But individuals saying ‘well I’m sure the industry knows best’ is precisely what leads to regulatory capture and that leads to the situation where airports are permitted to accept heavy automated landings under conditions where maybe they really ought not to without additional ground safety equipment in place.

hef19898 4y ago

If you are not involved directly with any of that professionally, it is better to treat it the way non-developer treat the OS. Assume it will work as intended because loads of highly trained professionals take care of it. Added benefit ehen it comes to aviation: strict and sensible regulation (the MAX disaster notwithstanding).

EdwardDiego 4y ago
Well, I'm fucked if I assume that it's working as intended, and fucked if I don't, because as you say, I'm entirely reliant on professionals doing their job correctly when I'm flying. And that professionalism seems to have failed in parts in this circumstance. (And has been well noted to have failed in many other circumstances with often tragic consequences.) All that aside, I still want to understand why the Austin airport doesn't have ARIS? Cost/benefit? Not mandated by the FAA? I'm afraid that "shush, and leave it to the professionals" isn't a very compelling argument.
- hef19898 4y ago
  No idea about Austin airport. Regarding professionalism and failure, the Austin incident is actually proof of the system working as intended. There was, by the looks of it, only one real mistake made, maybe two. Training of everyone involved, including the ATC, prevented those mistakes from creating a cascade of failures that could have let to two hull losses and 100+ dead passenger on the Southwest flight. For fatal accidents to happen in aviation and aerspace, more than one thing has to go wrong at the same time. Single, isolated failures are no longer sufficient to cause serious accidents.
  - piva00 4y ago
    I don't think Austin is proof of the system working as intended, the only thing that saved them was the FedEx flight being able to take action at the last moment during their approach, if the fog was a little thicker and they couldn't see the Southwest flight on the runway as early as they did it would be a catastrophe. That's just luck, not a system that's working as intended.
    - hef19898 4y ago
      No, that is good training on behalf of FedEx, Southwest (knowing you have a plane above your own during take off and still follow ATC guidance is no easy feat) and the ATC (knowing you fucked up, staying calm and giving the correct instructions and keep everyone alive is again no easy feat). And training of operators absolutely is part of the overall system.
      - michaelt 4y ago
        If the wings fall off my plane mid flight, I jump out with a parachute, and I land without injury then the "overall system" of plane-plus-parachute-plus-training has succeeded. However, the plane component of the system failed, because the wings aren't supposed to fall off.
      - doctor_eval 4y ago
        A safe system is resilient to errors. The controller made a mistake - that happens, the system should deal with it. But in this case, a crash was averted only because the fog lifted. It was pure luck. Ground movement radar, a runway incursion warning system, or a different landing clearance protocol could all have provided the necessary safety buffers. When you’re up to the last “hole” in the cheese, that’s a failure.
qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
Is this sarcasm? In a thread were we discuss the breaking down of a systems run by professionals?
- hef19898 4y ago
  No, I'm dead serious. To usr another example: surgery. Just assume people cutting you up know what they are doing, even if you do not have the slightst clue.
  - qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
    Eh, i know surgery videos of people who know what they are doing.. so i can verify what they do in best/good times. (Recommend ARD/Alpha for those heart transplant videos) The daylight of observation keeps all involved honest. Then i also know horror stories from someone thrustworthy, about surgeons throwing extracted body parts after nurses in high stress situations. No, i will not name names, but life and death situations need a perfect team and you dont always got that perfect team. And surgery quality being dependant on the actual execution of the surgery (chief surgeon is not automatic the best individual contributor to surgery). You want the most hours on the knife guy for best outcome, not some administrator with white coat. Also you want to be near univesity clinics, they are spearheading new stuff, the more you get away from them, the operation technique is depending on the age of the doctors education and the hospitals financials to keep up to date, send doctors to regular re-trainings and try new things. Then there are lawsuits, they keep the people responsible, but also risk averse. So if you are in a high risk situation, in a lawsuit rich country you are fucked, cause nobody will try the dice throw when worst comes to worst. Trust in systems working, is upkept by untrusting agents. So like in capitalism, were the price aware negotiate the deals down for the crowd who does not want to haggle. Finally: The infrastructure & hierarchy of hospitals (in europe), as we know them today, emerged largely from the two world wars were lots of nurses and doctors were integrated into army structures. Which means it suffers from the same inefficency and structural problems those armies back then suffered from. Now you have the MBA process micro optimization on top of that, so i wouldnt trust that machine blindly..
  - nmeofthestate 4y ago
nenad 4y ago
> If you are not involved directly with any of that professionally, it is better to treat it the way non-developer treat the OS. Assume it will work as intended because loads of highly trained professionals take care of it. Added benefit ehen it comes to aviation: strict and sensible regulation (the MAX disaster notwithstanding). Allow me to chime in and respectfully disagree with this sentiment and the metaphor. As the saying goes - the aviation (just as the automotive) industry saves lives (as in "advances security") one accident at the time. It would make sense that close calls like this Austin near mass casualty event should contribute to the future safety as well. In that context, it's absolutely legitimate to be suspicious and ask safety-related questions, including in a HN comment or in real life - instead of shutting someone down. Speaking of the developer-OS metaphor - any non-rookie developer should be aware of not only the security and vulnerability of one's own software but also of the security and vulnerability of the underlying OS, infrastructure and even hardware. The number of building blocks gets larger by the day and nearly each building block is becoming increasingly complex. Yes, there are professionals working on each those blocks yet there are new CVEs and associated attacks all the time (incl. ransomware). If we add 0-days into consideration (a.k.a. "the unknown unknowns" in the software context) IMHO we should be able to conclude that the used developer-OS metaphor is not helpful. The older and more experienced we all become, the more should we be cognizant of the potential risks (not only in our particular industry niche) and we should welcome and consider a normal, widely accepted practice to challenge the status quo and pose questions that should overall increase the number of brains and eyeballs on the problem and (unknown) unknowns - be it vulnerabilities or security risks, especially to our bare lives.
- hef19898 4y ago
  And what makes anybody think this incident will not be properly reviewed, analyzed and suitable mitigation actions identified? And why do people on HN always think they know it better than the actual experts in this field, while just expectung users of their products, I just asse in most cases that is some piece of software, to worry about the details at all?
  - Xcelerate 4y ago
    > And why do people on HN always think they know it better than the actual experts in this field When the experts in the field have successfully prevented all accidents and near misses, maybe HN commenters will stop providing their input. There is such a thing as tunnel vision in a field you have been in too long.
Aeolun 4y ago
Wut? Because I’m aware of how the software world works I’m worried about literally every other professional endeavour. If it works it’s because it’s been refined over many years, or because of duct tape and spit.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Best case: well refined duct tape and spit. Even better with added swiss army knifes.
jameshart 4y ago
The aviation industry in the US is subject to federal regulation, meaning that the scope and purpose of its regulation is laid out by statutory authority granted to the FAA by laws passed by congress, who are elected by the people of America. In other words, aviation regulation exists to serve the interests of the people. If the airport or airline industry is trying to cut corners or save money at the expense of the safety of passengers, the interests of other air users, or the people who live under flight paths, items the job of congress to grant the FAA the authority needed to stop that - or to ensure that it is using its already-granted authority effectively to that end. And ultimately the only check on whether or not that is happening is the electorate’s oversight of its congresspeople. So yes, you can take an interest in how the airline industry is regulated, as a passenger or a random person who has planes fly over your head from time to time, because you have a say in making sure it’s not captured by industry and allowed to compromise your safety.
- dghlsakjg 4y ago
  The airport and the airlines don’t make any decisions about ATC. That is controlled entirely by the FAA. The airlines and airports don’t pay for it either (directly anyway) They designate the class of an airport not by the number of people living in the metro area around it, but based on the complexity of the airspace and the density of the traffic. Austin probably isn’t a class b because while it may be an airport for a large city it doesn’t see a ton of traffic as it isn’t a huge hub. The regional hubs in that area are DFW and Houston and are way more traffic. It’s also worth noting that making a this a class B airport wouldn’t have changed anything in terms of how the arrivals and departures are controlled at the runway level. In spite of what happened with Boeing, the FAA is usually very good at airspace safety. That’s WHY this incident is notable.
  - jameshart 4y ago
    I have bad news for you. If the FAA were contemplating adjusting the requirements for certain classes of airport or the rules applicable under certain conditions at certain classes of airport, that perhaps airport operators and airlines whose costs and operations might be impacted by such a change can take part in a process called lobbying where they apply pressure to the regulator to make sure those changes don’t adversely affect them. Lobbying can be good, of course! Airports and airlines likely have good knowledge about how regulations impact their operations! But it’s the job of Congress in theory to represent their constituents’ interests - not merely their constituents who own airline stock or work for airport ground handling companies but all their constituents - to make sure that the framework the FAA correctly takes into account the competing interests of ensuring an efficient and high capacity aviation industry, as well as making sure that passenger safety is maintained. As you say, the FAA has a good record of doing this. But individuals saying ‘well I’m sure the industry knows best’ is precisely what leads to regulatory capture and that leads to the situation where airports are permitted to accept heavy automated landings under conditions where maybe they really ought not to without additional ground safety equipment in place.