6 ms·

Because you cannot stop a plane mid air to wait for confusion to be cleared up.

by brazzy 3y ago

ajross 3y ago
No, but you can sound a loud warning in the cockpit if you're lined up as if on final and the runway isn't clear. Go-arounds are a standard maneuver. It's dismissals like this that are preventing progress. I think the upthread comment was insightful and correct.
- CPLX 3y ago
  How do you determine programatically if the runway is clear? Or more accurately if it won't be clear when you get there? That's a substantially harder problem than you're letting on.
  - ajross 3y ago
    So, just to be glib, my car reports GPS positions at about 3 Hz at all times to an app (Teslamate) under my control, which is far more accurate than needed for runway incursion detection. And to boot, it literally drives me around, autonommously, every day, in an environment (my suburban neighborhood) vastly more complicated than any mere airport. To say that the problem will require some engineering is correct. To claim it's infeasible is just ridiculous.
  - michaelt 3y ago
    With a 'runway incursion system' - https://www.atgairports.com/solutions-and-systems/airfield-control-systems/runway-incursion-systems https://www.atgairports.com/solutions-and-systems/airfield-c... You don't necessarily need a system that scales all the way down to tiny airports. Major airports like Haneda presumably already have things like stop-bar lighting, for operating in foggy weather. If we already know where each aircraft is, and whether they're permitted to cross the stop bar right now - I can believe this runway incursion could have been detected.
    - mannykannot 3y ago
      Haneda does have such equipment, but it was not working at the time. This fact was promulgated in a NOTAM in effect at the time. https://www.businessinsider.com/japan-jet-crash-runway-warning-lights-reportedly-werent-working-2024-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/japan-jet-crash-runway-warni...
      - BobaFloutist 3y ago
        Well that at least seems like relatively low hanging fruit.
  - konschubert 3y ago
    It’s hard, but come on. It’s totally doable.
  - burnerthrow008 3y ago
    > Or more accurately if it won't be clear when you get there? I love how all the replies to your comment completely ignore this point. If implemented as the other commenters naively suggest, it would cut the runway acceptance rate by probably 90%. Planes are normally sequenced so that each one touches down just seconds after the previous one turns off the runway. Otherwise, the horn would be constantly blaring for the entire approach, which would do exactly one thing: train pilots how to ignore the horn. Exactly like gear warning horns in planes without a radar/lidar altimeter (based on airspeed and manifold pressure). So many gear-up accidents happened with the pilot reporting that he was distracted by the warning horn on final. Why? Because there were so many false positives that the horn became nothing more than a nuisance device. And now you’re in exactly the same situation as before the incursion warning system, but the pilots on approach have to communicate over the incursion horn all the time. Great idea, guys! Why didn’t anyone think of this before? Those aviation folks sure are stupid, aren’t they? Even more problematic, the coast guard plane entered the runway just seconds before the JAL flight touched down. Even with a warning system for a plane on approach, there probably wasn’t enough time to execute a go-around.
    - CPLX 3y ago
      Indeed. I am definitely not an aviation expert or professional but I do have a pilot's license and some hands on familiarity with how this all works. It's not easily automated. That's just factual. It's not impossible but it's way trickier than people who have never thought about this much are letting on. The accuracy of GPS is absolutely irrelevant for example.
    - johnwalkr 3y ago
      On topics like this there are always "why don't they just do this" comments as if nobody in one of the most safety-minded has thought of it yet. I collect them in my HN favorites. Also there is a lot of safety that comes from not being too reactionary and adding complexity anytime someone has an idea. I think it's better to ask something like "does the industry use or plan to use any automation for this?"
    - konschubert 3y ago
      You are right, designing a perfect system is complicated. Of course, you have account for planes that are expected to leave the runway before the next touchdown. The train equivalent for this is called CBTC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications-based_train_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications-based_train_con... My bigger point here is that there are a bunch of low-hanging fruit that could have prevented this. A system doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. The tower could have known, that a plane was expected to land in the next 30 seconds. They could have automatically transmitted that to the cost guard plane and this could have sounded an alarm in the cockpit of the taxiing plane.
- bronson 3y ago
  You 100% certain your system won't false? Playing a loud horn/sound on final is a good way to overload the crew and needlessly cause a crash.
  - konschubert 3y ago
    If thee crew is this easily rattled, how come we trust their communication skills so much? I see your point, but I think that the rate of false positives can be tuned to be very low, with a good design of the system. In the rare event of a false positive, it’s still extremely unlikely that this will cause any more disruption than the co-pilot pushing a button and double checking with the tower.
    - bronson 3y ago
      I never said the crews were easily rattled. I can see you're more interested in argument than discussion so I'll leave you with this thought: software engineers can throw features into a product and A/B test it. When aviation engineers throw features into a cockpit without thinking through EVERY side, accidents happen. You're technically correct that, when skies are clear and the crew is idle, adding sounds and buttons is no big deal. But that's obvious, and not the scenario you need to be thinking about. EDIT: I thought it was obvious from context but maybe not... Imagine I said "overload an already heavily loaded crew." An unloaded crew isn't normally worth worrying about.
      - alistairSH 3y ago
        I'm not sure a properly-designed warning would add much load to the flight crew. They're already listening for "go around" commands from ATC. This would just be an automated "go around" based on runway sensor data.

Because you cannot stop a plane mid air to wait for confusion to be cleared up.

by brazzy 3y ago

Because you cannot stop a plane mid air to wait for confusion to be cleared up.

No, but you can sound a loud warning in the cockpit if you're lined up as if on final and the runway isn't clear. Go-arounds are a standard maneuver. It's dismissals like this that are preventing progress. I think the upthread comment was insightful and correct.

CPLX 3y ago
How do you determine programatically if the runway is clear? Or more accurately if it won't be clear when you get there? That's a substantially harder problem than you're letting on.
- ajross 3y ago
  So, just to be glib, my car reports GPS positions at about 3 Hz at all times to an app (Teslamate) under my control, which is far more accurate than needed for runway incursion detection. And to boot, it literally drives me around, autonommously, every day, in an environment (my suburban neighborhood) vastly more complicated than any mere airport. To say that the problem will require some engineering is correct. To claim it's infeasible is just ridiculous.
- michaelt 3y ago
  With a 'runway incursion system' - https://www.atgairports.com/solutions-and-systems/airfield-control-systems/runway-incursion-systems https://www.atgairports.com/solutions-and-systems/airfield-c... You don't necessarily need a system that scales all the way down to tiny airports. Major airports like Haneda presumably already have things like stop-bar lighting, for operating in foggy weather. If we already know where each aircraft is, and whether they're permitted to cross the stop bar right now - I can believe this runway incursion could have been detected.
  - mannykannot 3y ago
    Haneda does have such equipment, but it was not working at the time. This fact was promulgated in a NOTAM in effect at the time. https://www.businessinsider.com/japan-jet-crash-runway-warning-lights-reportedly-werent-working-2024-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/japan-jet-crash-runway-warni...
    - BobaFloutist 3y ago
      Well that at least seems like relatively low hanging fruit.
- konschubert 3y ago
  It’s hard, but come on. It’s totally doable.
- burnerthrow008 3y ago
  > Or more accurately if it won't be clear when you get there? I love how all the replies to your comment completely ignore this point. If implemented as the other commenters naively suggest, it would cut the runway acceptance rate by probably 90%. Planes are normally sequenced so that each one touches down just seconds after the previous one turns off the runway. Otherwise, the horn would be constantly blaring for the entire approach, which would do exactly one thing: train pilots how to ignore the horn. Exactly like gear warning horns in planes without a radar/lidar altimeter (based on airspeed and manifold pressure). So many gear-up accidents happened with the pilot reporting that he was distracted by the warning horn on final. Why? Because there were so many false positives that the horn became nothing more than a nuisance device. And now you’re in exactly the same situation as before the incursion warning system, but the pilots on approach have to communicate over the incursion horn all the time. Great idea, guys! Why didn’t anyone think of this before? Those aviation folks sure are stupid, aren’t they? Even more problematic, the coast guard plane entered the runway just seconds before the JAL flight touched down. Even with a warning system for a plane on approach, there probably wasn’t enough time to execute a go-around.
  - CPLX 3y ago
    Indeed. I am definitely not an aviation expert or professional but I do have a pilot's license and some hands on familiarity with how this all works. It's not easily automated. That's just factual. It's not impossible but it's way trickier than people who have never thought about this much are letting on. The accuracy of GPS is absolutely irrelevant for example.
  - johnwalkr 3y ago
    On topics like this there are always "why don't they just do this" comments as if nobody in one of the most safety-minded has thought of it yet. I collect them in my HN favorites. Also there is a lot of safety that comes from not being too reactionary and adding complexity anytime someone has an idea. I think it's better to ask something like "does the industry use or plan to use any automation for this?"
  - konschubert 3y ago
    You are right, designing a perfect system is complicated. Of course, you have account for planes that are expected to leave the runway before the next touchdown. The train equivalent for this is called CBTC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications-based_train_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications-based_train_con... My bigger point here is that there are a bunch of low-hanging fruit that could have prevented this. A system doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. The tower could have known, that a plane was expected to land in the next 30 seconds. They could have automatically transmitted that to the cost guard plane and this could have sounded an alarm in the cockpit of the taxiing plane.
bronson 3y ago
You 100% certain your system won't false? Playing a loud horn/sound on final is a good way to overload the crew and needlessly cause a crash.
- konschubert 3y ago
  If thee crew is this easily rattled, how come we trust their communication skills so much? I see your point, but I think that the rate of false positives can be tuned to be very low, with a good design of the system. In the rare event of a false positive, it’s still extremely unlikely that this will cause any more disruption than the co-pilot pushing a button and double checking with the tower.
  - bronson 3y ago
    I never said the crews were easily rattled. I can see you're more interested in argument than discussion so I'll leave you with this thought: software engineers can throw features into a product and A/B test it. When aviation engineers throw features into a cockpit without thinking through EVERY side, accidents happen. You're technically correct that, when skies are clear and the crew is idle, adding sounds and buttons is no big deal. But that's obvious, and not the scenario you need to be thinking about. EDIT: I thought it was obvious from context but maybe not... Imagine I said "overload an already heavily loaded crew." An unloaded crew isn't normally worth worrying about.
    - alistairSH 3y ago
      I'm not sure a properly-designed warning would add much load to the flight crew. They're already listening for "go around" commands from ATC. This would just be an automated "go around" based on runway sensor data.