IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th February 2023, 08:43 AM   #1
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
 
shemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Where the Old Man of the Mountain used to stand
Posts: 58,585
U.S. investigates aborted FedEx landing in Texas, two planes cleared for same runway

U.S. investigates aborted FedEx landing in Texas, two planes cleared for same runway

Quote:
The Federal Aviation Administration and the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board are investigating an aborted landing in Austin, Texas, on Saturday morning by a FedEx cargo plane that had been set to land on a runway on which a Southwest Airlines jet was also cleared to depart from, the agencies said.

The two planes came close to colliding when the FedEx plane was forced to overfly the Southwest plane to avoid a crash, two sources briefed on the matter told Reuters.

“Shortly before the FedEx aircraft was due to land, the controller cleared Southwest Flight 708 to depart from the same runway,” the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said.

The NTSB separately said it was investigating “a possible runway incursion and overflight involving airplanes from Southwest Airlines and FedEx.”

The incident occurred in poor visibility conditions in Austin. The FAA said FedEx Express Flight 1432, a Boeing 767 cargo plane, which had departed from Memphis, was cleared to land on Runway 18-Left around 6:40 a.m. while the aircraft was several miles from the airport. The Southwest plane had not yet departed when the FedEx plane was nearing the runway.

“The pilot of the FedEx airplane discontinued the landing and initiated a climb out,” the FAA said.

It was not clear precisely how close the two airplanes came to colliding, but flight tracking website data suggested they came very close.
Flightradar24 will show you that it was pants ******** close:

https://twitter.com/jxlars/status/1622010477520764928

There are claims that air traffic control gave the pilot of the Southwest flight plenty of time to take off in advance of the FedEx landing but the pilot took too long to get going.
__________________
Being the victim of genocidal atrocities does not give you free reign to commit your own genocidal atrocities.

When Republican politicians were young, they were the kids who watched James Bond movies and said "I want to grow up to be just like [insert name of villain here]."
shemp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2023, 09:41 AM   #2
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 68,744
Doesn't the FedEx plane normally just throw itself into the front yard of the airport, landing anywhere from the porch to the bushes to a big mud puddle?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2023, 09:44 AM   #3
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
I like how the headline calls out FedEx, even though the story seems to make it clear that it's Southwest that should have been called out. I guess Southwest must be one of CNBC's big advertisers.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2023, 09:49 AM   #4
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
 
shemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Where the Old Man of the Mountain used to stand
Posts: 58,585
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I like how the headline calls out FedEx, even though the story seems to make it clear that it's Southwest that should have been called out. I guess Southwest must be one of CNBC's big advertisers.
Since the Southwest plane took off and continued its flight, would you prefer the headline "U.S. investigates unaborted Southwest takeoff in Texas, two planes cleared for same runway"?
__________________
Being the victim of genocidal atrocities does not give you free reign to commit your own genocidal atrocities.

When Republican politicians were young, they were the kids who watched James Bond movies and said "I want to grow up to be just like [insert name of villain here]."
shemp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2023, 09:50 AM   #5
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,921
This is along the lines of "**** happens". Until everything is completely automated we'll have humans in the loop with both their failures and brilliant saves.

I have experienced a landing at Toronto International where on approach the pilot suddenly accelerated and banked away in an ascending turn to the right. He told us he had noticed there was an Air India plane in the process of taking off from the runway on which he was cleared to land. I actually saw it pulling up from the runway as our plane banked.

Quite scary at the time.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2023, 09:54 AM   #6
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 36,113
I don't see calling out here, at least in a negative way. The Fedex plane is the one that actually did something, as it probably was the only agent that could in time, and one could see the headline as much crediting them for it as blaming them.

I sure would like to hear the radio exchanges that likely occurred. I somehow imagine the Fedex pilot's expressions would be pretty colorful.
__________________
Like many humorless and indignant people, he is hard on everybody but himself, and does not perceive it when he fails his own ideal (Molière)

A pedant is a man who studies a vacuum through instruments that allow him to draw cross-sections of the details (John Ciardi)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2023, 09:58 AM   #7
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 68,744
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
This is along the lines of "**** happens". Until everything is completely automated we'll have humans in the loop with both their failures and brilliant saves.
And after automation it'll be the humans who did the automating who are in the loop with their failures and saves. An air traffic controller misses seeing a plane...a programmer misses a parenthesis...and disaster ensues.

The classic example in programming classes is Therac-25.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2023, 10:10 AM   #8
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
And after automation it'll be the humans who did the automating who are in the loop with their failures and saves. An air traffic controller misses seeing a plane...a programmer misses a parenthesis...and disaster ensues.

The classic example in programming classes is Therac-25.
Had to look it up. Bad news.
Quote:
Firstly, the software controlling the machine contained bugs which proved to be fatal. Secondly, the design of the machine relied on the controlling computer alone for safety. There were no hardware interlocks or supervisory circuits to ensure that software bugs couldn’t result in catastrophic failures.
https://hackaday.com/2015/10/26/kill...the-therac-25/
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2023, 12:58 PM   #9
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
 
shemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Where the Old Man of the Mountain used to stand
Posts: 58,585
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I don't see calling out here, at least in a negative way. The Fedex plane is the one that actually did something, as it probably was the only agent that could in time, and one could see the headline as much crediting them for it as blaming them.

I sure would like to hear the radio exchanges that likely occurred. I somehow imagine the Fedex pilot's expressions would be pretty colorful.
Do I have to do everything for you?

https://twitter.com/haemaker/status/1622093320951566336
__________________
Being the victim of genocidal atrocities does not give you free reign to commit your own genocidal atrocities.

When Republican politicians were young, they were the kids who watched James Bond movies and said "I want to grow up to be just like [insert name of villain here]."
shemp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2023, 01:24 PM   #10
jadebox
Master Poster
 
jadebox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,870
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
I have experienced a landing at Toronto International where on approach the pilot suddenly accelerated and banked away in an ascending turn to the right. He told us he had noticed there was an Air India plane in the process of taking off from the runway on which he was cleared to land. I actually saw it pulling up from the runway as our plane banked.
I had a similar experience. The jet I was in did a sudden go-around. The pilot told us that it was "due to some other traffic in the area and sloppy air traffic controllering." The event was scary, but the obvious anxiety in his voice made it even more scarier.

I watch a lot of YouTube videos on airline accidents and near accidents. Interestingly, they make me feel more confident that flying is safe because they usually result from multiple unlikely things going wrong. In this case something went wrong, but something went right to avoid a tragedy.
jadebox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2023, 01:35 PM   #11
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,921
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
And after automation it'll be the humans who did the automating who are in the loop with their failures and saves. An air traffic controller misses seeing a plane...a programmer misses a parenthesis...and disaster ensues.

The classic example in programming classes is Therac-25.
That is true but history does show improvement with automated processes as they are perfected. Look at elevators for example.

A snippet of automatic elevator history here:Remembering When Driverless Elevators Drew Skepticism

I'll go with an ex-chairman of BOAC who I remember being asked about 1955 or so if he would fly in a completely automated airliner said, "If it was proven to be safer that an piloted one, I certainly would".
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2023, 07:51 PM   #12
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,305
Originally Posted by shemp View Post
Yup. That is what we call in the trade, a ******* near miss!!
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!!
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 01:29 AM   #13
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,305
The Fedex aircraft was on Cat 3 Autoland because of low RVR (visibility) due to foggy conditions (1400 ft) and mid-runway 600 ft. This changes everything.

There is not allowed to be an aircraft waiting to take of during ANY stage of Autoland because its presence so close to the ILS antennas can cause interference with the Localizer and Glideslope beams leading to erroneous approach angles.

One of my aircraft incident "go to guys", Juan Browne explains in detail...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE



NOTE: It seems that the minimum separation at one point was about 150 ft. For reference, the wingspan of the Fedex is 156 feet, the Southwest 117 feet... so yeah, way too close for comfort!
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!!

Last edited by smartcooky; 6th February 2023 at 02:08 AM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 05:44 AM   #14
sarge
Penultimate Amazing
Moderator
 
sarge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 11,485
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The Fedex aircraft was on Cat 3 Autoland because of low RVR (visibility) due to foggy conditions (1400 ft) and mid-runway 600 ft. This changes everything.

There is not allowed to be an aircraft waiting to take of during ANY stage of Autoland because its presence so close to the ILS antennas can cause interference with the Localizer and Glideslope beams leading to erroneous approach angles.

One of my aircraft incident "go to guys", Juan Browne explains in detail...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE



NOTE: It seems that the minimum separation at one point was about 150 ft. For reference, the wingspan of the Fedex is 156 feet, the Southwest 117 feet... so yeah, way too close for comfort!
In my experience, planes approaching a busy runway that have been IFR would be cleared for a visual approach so that simultaneous arrival/departures can continue, but with the departing planes being given a ‘without delay’ takeoff clearance. Under low ceiling or RVR conditions, the hold short area for the departing plane would be well short of the runway (again in my experience).
__________________
My previous signature risked (unknowingly) violating the Hatch Act!
sarge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 10:52 AM   #15
Planigale
Philosopher
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 6,754
Presumably the issue lies here?
Quote:
A voice reportedly from an air traffic control recording is heard warning: "Southwest abort. FedEx is on the go."
But the Southwest pilot was probably aware that aborting is a felony in Texas, he had to get out of state, Mexico is a common destination for those in Southern states wanting to abort.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 12:06 PM   #16
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by shemp View Post

There are claims that air traffic control gave the pilot of the Southwest flight plenty of time to take off in advance of the FedEx landing but the pilot took too long to get going.
The Southwest plane did not do anything wrong. It took longer to take off than the controller was expecting, obviously; but when a plane has been cleared to take off it owns the runway for as long as it needs in order to get up safely. A plane on the runway can't see backwards, it has no way of knowing how close the approaching traffic is getting, and if the controller needed Southwest to expedite its takeoff then the controller needed to say that out loud because traffic separation is his whole job.

According to the professional pilot in the video smartcooky posted, FedEx was on a high-level controlled instrument landing and no plane should have been cleared to take off in front of it.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 12:38 PM   #17
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I don't see calling out here, at least in a negative way. The Fedex plane is the one that actually did something, as it probably was the only agent that could in time, and one could see the headline as much crediting them for it as blaming them.

I sure would like to hear the radio exchanges that likely occurred. I somehow imagine the Fedex pilot's expressions would be pretty colorful.
The headline describes a problem, and names a specific entity in connection with that problem. I think it is bad editorial form, and mildly unfair, to connect the correct-acting entity with the problem, rather than the wrong-acting entity. People don't read articles as much as they form opinions from headlines and then move on to the next headline.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 12:44 PM   #18
sarge
Penultimate Amazing
Moderator
 
sarge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 11,485
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
The Southwest plane did not do anything wrong. It took longer to take off than the controller was expecting, obviously; but when a plane has been cleared to take off it owns the runway for as long as it needs in order to get up safely. A plane on the runway can't see backwards, it has no way of knowing how close the approaching traffic is getting, and if the controller needed Southwest to expedite its takeoff then the controller needed to say that out loud because traffic separation is his whole job.

According to the professional pilot in the video smartcooky posted, FedEx was on a high-level controlled instrument landing and no plane should have been cleared to take off in front of it.
If a tower controller wants a plane to take off quickly, he will often ask if the pilot needs time for a run-up at the hold short line, and if the answer is no will clear the pilot for take off before the plane reaches the end of the taxiway and will give the clearance as “cleared for immediate take-off, no delay, traffic on x-mile final”. In this case, those instructions would not be appropriate for the type of approach the FedEx plane was already cleared for.

I see no way for this to land on anyone but the tower controller.


ETA: not a controller, but I would have expected the tower to recognize the developing situation they had created, canceled SWs takeoff clearance, and ordered the FedEx to execute the published missed approach procedure.
__________________
My previous signature risked (unknowingly) violating the Hatch Act!

Last edited by sarge; 6th February 2023 at 12:47 PM.
sarge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 12:45 PM   #19
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 68,744
Seems to me the fault in these situations is with the air traffic controller, not either plane or airline, unless it can be proven the instructions were correctly given but not followed by the plane/s.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 12:52 PM   #20
lobosrul5
Philosopher
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 7,349
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
That is true but history does show improvement with automated processes as they are perfected. Look at elevators for example.

A snippet of automatic elevator history here:Remembering When Driverless Elevators Drew Skepticism

I'll go with an ex-chairman of BOAC who I remember being asked about 1955 or so if he would fly in a completely automated airliner said, "If it was proven to be safer that an piloted one, I certainly would".
I was actually thinking of this the other day. The biggest problem I have with going on a totally pilotless airline is now there is no one in the control loop who has a vested interest in safety. What I mean is, if the pilot decides something is unsafe/improper that jeopardizes the passengers, his ass is also on the line. He will be more likely, IMO, to not fly when unsafe than a controller on the ground who may be under pressure to maximize profits.

ETA: doing the calculation... if it costs $1000 per pilot for a fully loaded 777 it only works out to a savings of about $6 a passenger. Is it worth it taking them off the flight, just in case something unexpected happens?

Last edited by lobosrul5; 6th February 2023 at 12:56 PM.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 01:02 PM   #21
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,305
Originally Posted by sarge View Post
In my experience, planes approaching a busy runway that have been IFR would be cleared for a visual approach so that simultaneous arrival/departures can continue, but with the departing planes being given a ‘without delay’ takeoff clearance. Under low ceiling or RVR conditions, the hold short area for the departing plane would be well short of the runway (again in my experience).
Agree. Actually, on runways with ILS, there is a marked line well short of the usual "hold short" line. For example, here is the east end of Auckland Airport runway 23...



While an aircraft is on ILS approach in RVR conditions, taxiing aircraft are not permitted to proceed beyond the "ILS Critical Area" lines
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!!
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 01:20 PM   #22
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,574
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
I was actually thinking of this the other day. The biggest problem I have with going on a totally pilotless airline is now there is no one in the control loop who has a vested interest in safety. What I mean is, if the pilot decides something is unsafe/improper that jeopardizes the passengers, his ass is also on the line. He will be more likely, IMO, to not fly when unsafe than a controller on the ground who may be under pressure to maximize profits.

ETA: doing the calculation... if it costs $1000 per pilot for a fully loaded 777 it only works out to a savings of about $6 a passenger. Is it worth it taking them off the flight, just in case something unexpected happens?
I do not know if I will ever be willing to be a passenger on an airplane without a pilot supervising that is actually on the plane. Even if most of the time they do little or none of the actual steering.
__________________

gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 02:02 PM   #23
sarge
Penultimate Amazing
Moderator
 
sarge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 11,485
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Agree. Actually, on runways with ILS, there is a marked line well short of the usual "hold short" line. For example, here is the east end of Auckland Airport runway 23...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/im22wkvm6h...L23L.png?raw=1

While an aircraft is on ILS approach in RVR conditions, taxiing aircraft are not permitted to proceed beyond the "ILS Critical Area" lines
All true…..but it is an important distinction that it isn’t up to a pilot to know not to proceed past or stop in an ILS Critical Area. It is the responsibility of a controller to give such an instruction. I haven’t listen to a recording of any of the ATC chatter, but I suspect that both the SW and the FedEx flights were in complete compliance with ATC instructions and required required environment procedures.
__________________
My previous signature risked (unknowingly) violating the Hatch Act!
sarge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 02:07 PM   #24
Lplus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 2,300
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
I was actually thinking of this the other day. The biggest problem I have with going on a totally pilotless airline is now there is no one in the control loop who has a vested interest in safety. What I mean is, if the pilot decides something is unsafe/improper that jeopardizes the passengers, his ass is also on the line. He will be more likely, IMO, to not fly when unsafe than a controller on the ground who may be under pressure to maximize profits.

ETA: doing the calculation... if it costs $1000 per pilot for a fully loaded 777 it only works out to a savings of about $6 a passenger. Is it worth it taking them off the flight, just in case something unexpected happens?

Without the pilots the automatic system would just have gone on to land on top of the departing aircraft, so I think that answers your question.
Lplus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 02:10 PM   #25
BowlOfRed
Master Poster
 
BowlOfRed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 2,459
Originally Posted by sarge View Post
ETA: not a controller, but I would have expected the tower to recognize the developing situation they had created, canceled SWs takeoff clearance, and ordered the FedEx to execute the published missed approach procedure.
Not only to recognize it on their own, but in this case the Fedex pilots asked a "you sure about this?" type of question. That should have set off all sorts of spidey-sense in the controller to check what's happening.

It's super hard when the controllers are right and professional and trying to stack things up correctly 99.999% of the time to be able to call them out when it's not. It can take a while to clear the "maybe it's me that's not sure what's happening" thoughts and know it's time to take action.
BowlOfRed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 02:16 PM   #26
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
 
shemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Where the Old Man of the Mountain used to stand
Posts: 58,585
Air traffic controller has got to be one of the most thankless jobs in the world. You can be right 999,999 times out of a million, but that one time you screwed up is the only thing people are going to know about you.
__________________
Being the victim of genocidal atrocities does not give you free reign to commit your own genocidal atrocities.

When Republican politicians were young, they were the kids who watched James Bond movies and said "I want to grow up to be just like [insert name of villain here]."
shemp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 02:21 PM   #27
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
Originally Posted by shemp View Post
Air traffic controller has got to be one of the most thankless jobs in the world. You can be right 999,999 times out of a million, but that one time you screwed up is the only thing people are going to know about you.
"I built that bridge, but do they call me George the bridge builder? No. But if you **** one sheep..."
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 02:58 PM   #28
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,921
Originally Posted by Lplus View Post
Without the pilots the automatic system would just have gone on to land on top of the departing aircraft, so I think that answers your question.
That does not follow. A truly automated system would include an intelligent replacement both for the human pilot and for the human controller.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 03:27 PM   #29
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
I suspect a head or two will roll at the FAA over this.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 03:37 PM   #30
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by sarge View Post
ETA: not a controller, but I would have expected the tower to recognize the developing situation they had created, canceled SWs takeoff clearance, and ordered the FedEx to execute the published missed approach procedure.
I can't verify this, but I've READ that Austin does not have ground radar and so wouldn't be able to tell the locations of planes on the taxiways and runways except visually. That would have been impossible at the time of the incident because visibility was 1/8-mile and the control tower probably couldn't see the runway.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 04:20 PM   #31
lobosrul5
Philosopher
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 7,349
Originally Posted by Lplus View Post
Without the pilots the automatic system would just have gone on to land on top of the departing aircraft, so I think that answers your question.
Unless there is a fault. Either with the software, hardware, or radio signal. I've heard ATC comms where they told a plane over and over again instructions with no reply. Then heard from the pilot: we seemingly cannot hear you. What happens if an AI pilot system cannot communicate with the automated ATC system and there is no pilot on board?
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 04:21 PM   #32
BowlOfRed
Master Poster
 
BowlOfRed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 2,459
Ground radar isn't exactly common, but it shouldn't matter here. That could be a thing when an aircraft is lost and not following controller instructions. But these planes were where the controller requested, following instructions.

If two planes in the air lose required separation, the terminal should throw up an alert. I don't know if that system has any ability to factor aircraft still on a runway.
BowlOfRed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 04:24 PM   #33
lobosrul5
Philosopher
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 7,349
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
I can't verify this, but I've READ that Austin does not have ground radar and so wouldn't be able to tell the locations of planes on the taxiways and runways except visually. That would have been impossible at the time of the incident because visibility was 1/8-mile and the control tower probably couldn't see the runway.
Originally Posted by BowlOfRed View Post
Ground radar isn't exactly common, but it shouldn't matter here. That could be a thing when an aircraft is lost and not following controller instructions. But these planes were where the controller requested, following instructions.
Wow, I would've assumed the vast majority of major airports* had ground radar. Kind of asking for an accident in dense fog without it. I'm not a pilot but I have successfully landed most planes in MS Flight Sim at several airports. And crashed them too...

*Austin has grown almost exponentially in the last few decades, I'd think they'd be considered major by now
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 04:30 PM   #34
BowlOfRed
Master Poster
 
BowlOfRed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 2,459
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Unless there is a fault. Either with the software, hardware, or radio signal. I've heard ATC comms where they told a plane over and over again instructions with no reply. Then heard from the pilot: we seemingly cannot hear you. What happens if an AI pilot system cannot communicate with the automated ATC system and there is no pilot on board?
How would having a pilot on board change things? I assume it would be programmed to do something similar to what is done today: follow the last given flight plan unless TCAS goes off.

Although I'll bet a non-zero number of those communication failures were not equipment failure.
BowlOfRed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 04:40 PM   #35
BowlOfRed
Master Poster
 
BowlOfRed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 2,459
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Wow, I would've assumed the vast majority of major airports* had ground radar. Kind of asking for an accident in dense fog without it. I'm not a pilot but I have successfully landed most planes in MS Flight Sim at several airports. And crashed them too...

*Austin has grown almost exponentially in the last few decades, I'd think they'd be considered major by now
It's new-ish (new for aviation). I think the 30 largest in the US either had it or were getting it (and that was several years ago). At many airports, fog that dense is rare, and the airport will close. So ground ops isn't as much of a problem.

Also, ground radar is just one piece. Other surface movement guidance technology is active lighting systems. You get big red lights at the stop way, and the controller can signal when they're ready for you to take the runway. So when everything is working, there's positive confirmation without the controller being able to see the aircraft.

No one piece is perfect. Ground radar gives more coverage and can alert a controller about problems, but it doesn't help guide pilots.
BowlOfRed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 06:04 PM   #36
BowlOfRed
Master Poster
 
BowlOfRed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 2,459
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Agree. Actually, on runways with ILS, there is a marked line well short of the usual "hold short" line.
Normally true, not sure it's a separate line in this case.

It looks like at Austin, the ILS glidescope antenna may be located east of runway. So aircraft approaching the runway from the west (as the Southwest jet was), are still somewhat separated from the signal.

Google maps doesn't show a separate ILS critical area marking on the west side (while one is quite visible on the east side). If that's correct, even during CatIII planes would go to the normal hold short line.

There should also be a sign marking it, but that's not visible on google maps.

Last edited by BowlOfRed; 6th February 2023 at 06:10 PM.
BowlOfRed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 06:05 PM   #37
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
 
novaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sunny South Australia
Posts: 6,803
Originally Posted by BowlOfRed View Post
How would having a pilot on board change things? I assume it would be programmed to do something similar to what is done today: follow the last given flight plan unless TCAS goes off.

Although I'll bet a non-zero number of those communication failures were not equipment failure.
Hmm...

TCAS usually says go up or go down, or go down faster or go up faster...

Not much use to a plane on the runway.
__________________
We would be better, and braver, to engage in enquiry, rather than indulge in the idle fancy, that we already know -- Plato.
novaphile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 06:15 PM   #38
BowlOfRed
Master Poster
 
BowlOfRed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 2,459
Originally Posted by novaphile View Post
Hmm...

TCAS usually says go up or go down, or go down faster or go up faster...

Not much use to a plane on the runway.
If you're on the runway and you have a communication failure, you don't take off. I was just talking about "what does an AI do in a communication failure?" Fly as filed unless there's some reason not to. Pretty much the same as a human would do.

A human would have an option of landing VFR somewhere. But I can't remember any airliner in the US doing so due to comms failure. Permanent loss of comms doesn't seem to be a common failure.
BowlOfRed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 07:34 PM   #39
sarge
Penultimate Amazing
Moderator
 
sarge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 11,485
Originally Posted by BowlOfRed View Post
Not only to recognize it on their own, but in this case the Fedex pilots asked a "you sure about this?" type of question. That should have set off all sorts of spidey-sense in the controller to check what's happening.

It's super hard when the controllers are right and professional and trying to stack things up correctly 99.999% of the time to be able to call them out when it's not. It can take a while to clear the "maybe it's me that's not sure what's happening" thoughts and know it's time to take action.
Pilots with less experience may be reluctant to question a controller. ATPs are not. All pilots may be complacent however, and if you fly the same route often, you start to expect the next thing the controller is going to say. When I’m approaching FAY on the ILS 4 approach from the south, I expect to hear from approach “turn right heading 010, maintain 2300 until established, contact tower on 118.3, cleared for the ILS 4 approach”. If I hear anything else, it causes a little pause while I try to digest what was said.

Once, practicing approaches in VMC conditions, I was on a VOR approach that included a circle to land. The controller gave me circle instructions that made no sense at all. It took at least 7-8 seconds for me to digest what was said, formulate my ‘did you really mean…….” reply and transmit the question. The controller, to his credit, recognized his error and corrected it immediately.
__________________
My previous signature risked (unknowingly) violating the Hatch Act!
sarge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2023, 08:09 PM   #40
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,305
Originally Posted by BowlOfRed View Post
How would having a pilot on board change things? I assume it would be programmed to do something similar to what is done today: follow the last given flight plan unless TCAS goes off.

Although I'll bet a non-zero number of those communication failures were not equipment failure.
TCAS RA function is disabled on the ground (usually by the "weight on wheels" switches")... for obvious reasons.
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!!
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:00 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.