Hacker News Reader

Comment by AdamJacobMuller | Hacker News Reader

It very subjectively feels like the number of incidents i've seen in post-covid commercial aviation has increased significantly, but, again subjectively, I'll say I don't think ATC is the issue.

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.

View on HN

How does “at fault” really apply here? Shouldn’t these be blameless post mortems that identify what needs to change for everyone to avoid an incident like that in the future? Not sure assigning blame to a single crew really helps in moving forward unless there’s a pattern of repeated negligence by some individual or group.

Being at fault doesn't mean you're being blamed. It would be really stupid to have a postmortem if nobody is indicated as having done something wrong.

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.

> It would be really stupid to have a postmortem if nobody is indicated as having done something wrong.

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 processes in place everywhere always allow for an incident to occur when everyone is properly following the process.

The alternative is impossible; you cannot specify any process that prevents the occurrence of incidents.

But if someone wasn't following the process, and you avoid stating that they made an error for the sake of blamelessness, you're avoiding talking about how the incident occurred. That doesn't mean the process doesn't need fixing.

"Nobody done wrong" happens in aviation accident investigations.

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...)

A blameless postmortem can apply in some circumstances, especially when there are multiple confounding factors but in the case of the JFK runway incursion it really doesn't. There were many confounding factors but they were all sins committed by the UA crew.

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.

> The UA crew basically got lost on the ground at JFK

> 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.

That was my question though I obviously put it too lightly for the killjoys here this evening.

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?

HN does not like people who point out the "quiet quitting" idea.

I think ATC is overworked and there hasn't been as many advances in technology in that sector as well as under training for years. Honestly surprising that planes don't collide more often, the world around us relies on airplanes for logistics but everything about the entire aviation field from pilots to mechanics is a battle of never having enough people.

"quiet quitting" is just starting to be used as a substitute for "the lack of our workers ability to feed themselves and focus on their work is starting to impact job performance"

ATC has been understaffed since at least the Reagan administration so there's nothing particularly new here. the job is demanding with crazy hours for the wages. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/08/22/airl-a22.html

To be fair, the one that happened at JFK isn't looking like it was ATCs fault, but rather a possible pilot deviation. Maybe ATC could have caught it earlier? I don' think a report has been produced yet.

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.

Do you mean AA rather than UA, or is this a different incident to the one at JFK?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com