|
Originally Posted by Ian W
(Post 10571238)
What HAL could have known was that it was set up for runway 10 but it was lined up on runway 01. That kind of check could be useful as a second level of safety. Out of interest, how many 01 and 10 runways exist worldwide? |
Originally Posted by Speed of Sound
(Post 10571260)
Out of interest, how many 01 and 10 runways exist worldwide?
But when you add other potentially confusing combinations (03 and 30, 12 and 21) as well, there are probably a fair few. |
The candidates I've been able to find (discounting runways shorter than 6000'):
Airports with both a 01 and 10: Albany, Presque Isle and Savannah. With both a 03 and 30 (and therefore also a 12 and 21): Albuquerque, Appleton, Artesia, Tel Aviv/Ben Gurion, Prestwick, Laramie |
Originally Posted by Speed of Sound
(Post 10571260)
But this would also flag up a conflict while inputting runway data at any other position other than being lined up on the correct runway. Another software check would be to include an ‘Are you sure?’ prompt, when it detects another runway at a particular airport which could be mistaken for the desired one. Out of interest, how many 01 and 10 runways exist worldwide? |
Originally Posted by Airbanda
(Post 10571073)
That 01/10 confusion is possible is one thing and worrying; that initial mistake was not detected in cross/check is more so.
And yes, I have when using varying tactical and nav displays now and again fat fingered it and hit the wrong key/button. |
Perhaps for a cross check the computer should require the pilot to enter the runway length as well. As long as humans are in the loop we will screw this sort of thing up. We are not yet at the point where you just touch "Chicago" on a map and the computer figures out all the rest for you (by talking to the ATC computer and the ground control computer and the corporate computer....)
|
Things will be SO much easier when we hop into our personal Ooober flying car and just talk to the computer to tell it where we want to go. Then we sit back and play with our smut-phones while HAL does the thinking.
|
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10571348)
But when you add other potentially confusing combinations (03 and 30, 12 and 21) as well, there are probably a fair few.
Worse yet, I can imagine a little light reflection on the screen obscuring the readability between 1L and 10; add a fair dose of presbyopia and you get my drift. What about 1l and 11, not nice. Which SW were they using? |
Originally Posted by Speed of Sound
But this would also flag up a conflict while inputting runway data at any other position other than being lined up on the correct runway.
As I said before: just add a check of the ND when you arm NAV before takeoff. It will stand out like dog's balls if you are not using the runway/SID you put in the box, or check the runway on the ND as you start rolling. |
Originally Posted by farefield
(Post 10571064)
Could this problem be compounded by the habit of saying, say, one left, instead of zero one left?
Calling and thinking about a runway by only its non-zero digit might lead to confusion - doing so gets one into the habit of ignoring the zero and just concentrating on the other number. This is dangerous because you then lose the crucial distinction between, say, 01 and 10. Voicing the zero adds safety because it reinforces the image of the number in the mind as one looks at the MCDU or NAV display - of both the digits instead of just the non-zero digit. Pilots in certain places in the world almost routinely abbreviate RT comms and use non standard phrases - presumably to sound slick? - but in my experience this practice often adds confusion, and the irony is that non standard messages have to be repeated much more often than in airspace where standard phraseology is more fully adhered to. |
Originally Posted by Uplinker
(Post 10572050)
Calling and thinking about a runway by only its non-zero digit might lead to confusion - doing so gets one into the habit of ignoring the zero and just concentrating on the other number. This is dangerous because you then lose the crucial distinction between, say, 01 and 10.
Voicing the zero adds safety because it reinforces the image of the number in the mind as one looks at the MCDU or NAV display - of both the digits instead of just the non-zero digit. Yes, it's compounded by the fact that, as mentioned above, long-standing US practice is not to paint the leading zero on the threshold marking, in contravention of ICAO SARPS (Annex 14), which specifies that runway heading markings should always include two digits. |
Originally Posted by hans brinker
(Post 10570714)
"A typical commercial airliner is traveling at 184 mph at liftoff,"
All I needed to read. Pretty hard to find a well written aviation story. |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10571388)
The candidates I've been able to find (discounting runways shorter than 6000'):
Airports with both a 01 and 10: Albany, Presque Isle and Savannah. With both a 03 and 30 (and therefore also a 12 and 21): Albuquerque, Appleton, Artesia, Tel Aviv/Ben Gurion, Prestwick, Laramie |
Originally Posted by OldLurker
(Post 10572147)
02 and 20 are reciprocal, so there are plenty of those (also 13/31).
Unlike the other examples, confusing 02 with 20 or 13 with 31 isn't typically going to make much difference to the TORA, though the resulting wind might come as a bit of a surprise. :O |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10572152)
Well yes, that's why I didn't include those.
Unlike the other examples, confusing 02 with 20 or 13 with 31 isn't typically going to make much difference to the TORA, though the resulting wind might come as a bit of a surprise. :O |
2R and 20R, the letter does not really give a strong warning.
|
Originally Posted by aterpster
(Post 10572131)
That's 160 knots.
|
Originally Posted by hans brinker
(Post 10572419)
And there is no typical airliner liftoff speed.
Regarding the incident, my airline has had crews misread performance data for 01 and 10 at SFO. I assume it’s got to do with the way our brain processes information. You’re much more likely to confuse 01 and 10 than 08 and 18. Similar situation with 13/31. Even more so since it’s the same bit of pavement, and your mental picture of the airport may actually add to the confusion. “Did ATC say 13L or 31L?” Always have to look out for that at JFK, for example. |
Originally Posted by Check Airman
(Post 10572532)
I’m pretty sure the journalist was just trying to give the reader some general idea of the speed involved. “How fast are we going at takeoff/landing?” is a fairly common question. 160kt is a reasonable enough answer without getting into a lesson on runway performance. Regarding the incident, my airline has had crews misread performance data for 01 and 10 at SFO. I assume it’s got to do with the way our brain processes information. You’re much more likely to confuse 01 and 10 than 08 and 18. Similar situation with 13/31. Even more so since it’s the same bit of pavement, and your mental picture of the airport may actually add to the confusion. “Did ATC say 13L or 31L?” Always have to look out for that at JFK, for example. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:14. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.