4 ms·
It's rarely that straightforward: most all runway collisions involve ATC giving correct instructions, but the crew mishears them, misunderstands them, hears the
by resolutebat 3y ago
It's rarely that straightforward: most all runway collisions involve ATC giving correct instructions, but the crew mishears them, misunderstands them, hears them correctly but accidentally goes to the wrong runway/taxiway, etc etc. And there's usually complicating factors like terrible weather, diversions to unfamiliar airports etc in the mix as well. What remains the world's worst single aviation disaster in Tenerife checked pretty much all these boxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_accidents_and_incidents_involving_ground_collisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_accidents_an...
- konschubert 3y agoAll of which would be prevented if the plane refused to steer onto a runway that it knows is occupied. The ATC computer should talk to the plane computer.
- resolutebat 3y agoAirplane taxiing is manual. ATC can tell the plane to use runway A, and the plane can check that A is free, but neither will stop the pilot from accidentally steering into runway B.
- Aeolun 3y agoThere’s nothing preventing airplanes from knowing the coordinates of every runway in the world and working out the truth using GPS though.
- konschubert 3y agoModern passenger airplanes absolutely do have runway maps.
- lxgr 3y agoThis would elevate the impact of GPS spoofing from a minor or major [1] nuisance to a significant terrorism threat. [1] https://ops.group/blog/new-gps-spoofing-incident-shows-how-it-works/ https://ops.group/blog/new-gps-spoofing-incident-shows-how-i...
- Aeolun 3y agoOnly if you rely on it for your positioning 100%. Presumably none of the existing measures would change.
- LightBug1 3y agoYeah, throw in different languages and accents and all kinds of variations and ... I tend to agree.
- epolanski 3y ago> The ATC computer should talk to the plane computer. Not as simple: 1) You need to implement it for very small airplanes too, which is far from easy. In the Linate air disaster a small Cessna Citation invaded the runtime due to fog and misscomunication. 2) You need to implement it for ground vehicles too, as in the LATAM example it was a fire truck that invaded the runtime. 3) You need A LOT of infrastructural update. 4) Even if you had computers talking to computers, this may still be far from enough to avoid collisions, as those mistakes are often a matter of seconds (as in the both accidents quoted before). 5) Automation brings its own issues. One of them is complacency where attention levels unavoidably get lower as reliance on automation increases. In turn complacency can make runways more prone to such incidents in case of malfunctions/bugs.
- konschubert 3y agoYou can have this as an additional safety layer. You don’t need to update everything at once. If anything is able to react within seconds, it’s a computer.
- epolanski 3y agoI think you might be way underestimating number 5. While on the first hand your point sounds very reasonable, in practice it may have more adverse effects than we may think and make the whole system more unsafe.
- konschubert 3y agoI guess the question is if you think the current system is good enough. The next big crash will change people’s minds on this.
- hef19898 3y agoNo, the question is what authorities and regulators conclude, after this incident is properly investigated, regarding improvements and risk mitigation measures have to be put in place. Aerospace regulations are written in blood, and almost-blood, not in public outcry.
- Dalewyn 3y agoThe absolute worst thing is for an aircraft to refuse control input from the pilots, regardless their state of informedness. Lest we forget, we saw what happens when computers take priority over pilots thanks to 737 MAX MCAS.
- konschubert 3y agoOkay, so let’s add an override.
- alphabettsy 3y agoThat system had an override didn’t it, just wasn’t well known?
- konschubert 3y agoThen let’s make it obvious and include it in the training.
- KiwiJohnno 3y ago>Then let’s make it obvious and include it in the training. Which cuts right to the heart of the B737 MAX issue - Boeing substantially changed the design, then added sensors & software to make the changed airframe handle similarly to the old 737 airframe and claimed that this meant the pilots did not need retraining If Boeing had been upfront about MCAS, and required that pilots were trained in what it did and how to override it then the crashes probably would not have happened.
- Dylan16807 3y agoTraining or not, the system was not obvious and the override was even further from obvious.
- shiroiuma 3y agoNo, we need more than this: the system must be documented and pilots must be trained for it. If the aircraft manufacturer fails to do this, they go to prison. If it's found that hiding this information was intentional, the corporate executives and everyone else in the company who knew are publicly executed by firing squad (with them aiming at their stomachs).
- xcdzvyn 3y agoThis exists. - https://skybrary.aero/articles/runway-awareness-and-advisory-system-raas https://skybrary.aero/articles/runway-awareness-and-advisory... - https://skybrary.aero/articles/autonomous-runway-incursion-warning-system-ariws https://skybrary.aero/articles/autonomous-runway-incursion-w...