4 ms·
By assuming these are “bad pilots” before the investigation completes, you are demonstrating why all pilots benefit from the union defending them.
by brookst 4y ago
By assuming these are “bad pilots” before the investigation completes, you are demonstrating why all pilots benefit from the union defending them.
- powera 4y agoThey nearly had a crash, and they are trying to cover up what happened. I think it is reasonable to assume they are "bad pilots" in this situation until there is more information.
- VLM 4y agoWho, exactly, is this "they"? On HN of all places we should realize complicated technical systems result in complicated technical problems and the easiest, lowest status, people to blame are usually not the cause of all problems in a system. It seems highly likely there could be a problem with ATC giving a misleading or inconsistent clearance, or radio coverage being faulty or inadequate (I said "stop and hold at ground point One Alpha, not stop and hold at ground point One shhhhh"), or signage being inadequate, or the architecture of the airport being inherently faulty by design. No amount of knee jerk punishing the pilots automatically without impartial investigation will fix any of those safety concerns and as such that does not increase the safety of flight. Seems rather odd the NTSB is strongly opposed to a detailed impartial judicial review of their process? If I had nothing to cover up, and someone asked for a different recording service to be used "no skin off my back" because I have nothing to cover up. Seems like the NTSB is trying to cover something up. I wonder why they would use a non-technical travel blogger to release their side of the story instead of numerous ATC organizations and unions or pilots orgs etc. What a fascinating source for the story?
- powera 4y ago"They" refers to the pilots. And, while a complicated technical problem is likely to not be the pilot's fault, after a certain degree of refusing to cooperate with the investigation, it becomes their fault. Also, onemileatatime is a long-standing news website that reports on the aviation industry; the NTSB "released their side of the story" in press releases.
- prmoustache 4y agoIt could be they had been given bad informations. Unless suicidal I doubt anyone would just cross a lane knowing another plane is taking ofand risk hiting them at full speed. Also we have no idea from the article if they crossed said lane by being around the safety margins usually set or if it was a close call. I guess there is a lot of safety margin taken in aero between saying "sure you can cross that lane nobody is about to take off" and "a jet is already bombing at full speed on that lane, don't cross!!" The point of an investigation is to investigate. Not punish someone you are already sure it is the culprit.
- legutierr 4y agoEdit: I’ve changed my mind, I agree with the union.
- ramphastidae 4y ago[flagged]
- dang 4y agoThat is nasty and crosses into personal attack, which is not cool. Please don't post like this again. You can make your substantive points without getting aggressive; please do that instead. We've had to ask you not to break the site guidelines before. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- ramphastidae 4y agoOk, sorry about that.
- upsidesinclude 4y agoThis is not logical. Interesting to see how the escalation works in someones thought process, but these are not valid arguements. "If you have nothing to hide, you dont need privacy" Perhaps there are antiquated rules and possibly dangerous flight systems approved by the FAA. Maybe these pilots need to be protected from being publicly persecuted in the interest of corporate profit and confidence in the government.