[flagged]
In the incident last month when a DAL flight had a rejected takeoff after a UA flight crossed their runway, the UA flight crew was clearly at fault when you listen to the transcript and barring any major new evidence i'm sure the FTC report will agree.
The flight in November where a LATAM flight collided with a fire truck was also not the fault of ATC, thought we might never know exactly what caused the runway incursion there because the driver (and everyone else) in the lead vehicle was killed.
A pilot may have made an error and been at-fault, but blamelessness means that you focus on preventing the issues that led to them making the error. The point is to acknowledge that humans make errors and to fix the conditions that allowed the human error to take place to begin with. The point is not to avoid identifying who made the error.
Of course, gross negligence is still deserving of punishment, especially when lives are at stake.
This sounds wrong to me. If the processes in place allow an incident when everyone is properly following the process, that seems like the most important time for a postmortem, since the existing process clearly is insufficient and must be adjusted.
The alternative is impossible; you cannot specify any process that prevents the occurrence of incidents.
I remember one about a collision between a Bundeswehr fighter jet and a glider over the Black Forest. The detailed report found that both aircraft were where they were allowed to be, the fighter pilot had little chance to see the glider, and it was an unfortunate event.
The report ended with "Recommendations: None"
(https://www.bfu-web.de/DE/Publikationen/Untersuchungsbericht...)
The UA crew basically got lost on the ground at JFK and drove onto an active runway without clearance and then argued with ATC about it. They were clearly negligent. ATC gave them clear instructions, there was clear and correct signage, they mistook a runway for a taxiway.
> there was clear and correct signage, they mistook a runway for a taxiway.
This would contradictory claims to me. I have 0 experience in aviation, but just running a general post mortem, I would say for whatever reason they got lost and the sins of the UA crew don’t matter. Unless the UA crew was doing this deliberately, either JFK signage isn’t actually as clear as you claim or JFK’s runways are so complicated that they need dedicated training. Them arguing with ATC is also strange and I’d like to better understand why the crew thought they needed to do that and resolve that underlying problem.
Basically, devoid of malicious intent, what are situational changes earlier that would have prevented the sins from occurring in the first place. For what it’s worth, that’s the way self driving cars are developing. People worry about the trolly problem when I’m fact software just tries really hard to avoid getting into that situation in the first place.
We have seen a number of very close ATC calls, including recently at JFK.
Curious to see hard numbers if there are more incidents or just more eyes/coverage of similar incident numbers.
We all know flying has been crazy the last couple years, maybe understaffed, overstretched, cutting corners trying to turn flights, etc?
But in general there is some concern in the industry due to the COVID induced reduced number of flights in the last years, which led to less "day to day work/practice" for both ATC and crew. Simulator trainings don't always necessarily cut it.
> On 1 December 2003 at 6am, a major disaster in the stack was narrowly avoided. An air traffic controller was blamed by a later inquiry for misdirecting traffic when he ordered a United Airlines Boeing 777 into a level of the Bovingdon Hold (or stack) already occupied by a similar British Airways plane. The two planes, carrying 500 passengers, flew within 600 vertical feet (180 m) of each other.[4]
In this example the ATC quiet quitting would result in operations performing as normal no?