4 ms·
If 1,700 is a huge percentage of runway uses (obviously it isn't but grant it, say at a single airport), then it's mandatory it be investigated because it's so
by bombcar 8mo ago
If 1,700 is a huge percentage of runway uses (obviously it isn't but grant it, say at a single airport), then it's mandatory it be investigated because it's so huge.
If 1,700 is a minuscule fraction of all runway uses (as it likely is) then investigating it should be a proportionally minuscule amount of the budget.
- throw0101d 8mo agoThere are five categories of incursion, with the top one being where a collision occurs: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_incursion#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_incursion#Definition * https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/resources/runway_incursions https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/resources/runway_... All incursions (in the US) are tracked: * https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/statistics https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/statistics Given there are ~45,000 flights per days in the US (and so aircraft and vehicles would move hither and fro around an airport for each flight), 1700 feels like a small number.
- bombcar 8mo agoExactly - it's a small number and should be investigated, because if we reduce the number of all incursions, we reduce the number of collisions (and fatalities).
- throw0101d 8mo agoThey are classified as operation/ATC error, pilot error, and vehicle/pedestrian error. Human can misspeak or mishear instructions, but if they were communicated and understood correctly (a read back was correct), but the pilot had a 'brain fart' and went forward instead of stopping, how do we eliminate brain farts?
- bombcar 8mo agoThat's a big part of the story of aviation; the way things are communicated has changed because of brain farts, the way things are lined up, etc. See 5-2-5 for an example: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap5_section_2.html https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html... NOTE- Previous reviews of air traffic events, involving LUAW instructions, revealed that a significant number of pilots read back LUAW instructions correctly and departed without a takeoff clearance. LUAW instructions are not to be confused with a departure clearance; the outcome could be catastrophic, especially during intersecting runway operations. The older term was "hold short runway X" and that was too close to "hold runway X" - the first meant do NOT enter the runway, the second meant enter and line up but do NOT takeoff.
- lisper 8mo agoThe old version of “line up and wait” was “taxi into position and hold”. “Hold short of runway” is still in use but means something different.