Originally Posted by
AerocatS2A
Well, it happens all the time. The tower controller doesn’t have a lot to do when it comes to landing aircraft, just clear them to land, they’ve already been sequenced by approach. Remember the controller is busy because he’s dealing with ground vehicles, aircraft wanting an airways clearance, aircraft wanting to taxi and the aircraft on final, if he dies the only aircraft that can’t just wait around are the couple on final. As for vacating the runway, you think we land without briefing an expected exit? We just get off by the most efficient exit, we don’t need someone to hold our hand every step of the way. Is operating somewhere like SFO with no controller a good idea? Of course not, but if there is one controller and he has a heart attack, the aircraft on finals will land with no problem, and once they realize no ones talking to them they’ll be letting approach know pretty quick. If the preceding aircraft is still on the runway then the following just goes around, same with vehicles on the runway. This incident notwithstanding, it is normally easy enough to see if the runway is a, a runway, and b, clear.
a) Well, apparently not.
b) And you can see everything with absolute clarity
at night?
The whole point of aviation safety measures is to minimise the possibility of system failure. Belt and braces and belt and braces. There's a line where there's no real safety gain for extra safety measures. It probably wouldn't increase safety much to have ten controllers in the tower at 23.30. It's probably pointless to have five. But one controller? To go with a single point of failure on the basis that the chances of failure are low and only a few a/c would be affected?
This is not how aviation safety is supposed to work.
Is it just SFO? What other safety measures are shaved to the bone for reasons of cost-cutting, hubris or machismo, that this trusting, fare-paying passenger doesn't know about?