|
Runways are designed taking into account prevailing wind directions.
Wind doesn’t always blow in the same direction, so the two most common directions are chosen for alignment of the runways.
Hence you get intersecting runways.
It is the job of the air traffic and ground traffic controllers at the airport to ensure that planes don’t come close to each other on the taxiways and runways.
They do an excellent job and that is why you rarely hear of planes running into each other.
The possibility exists that communication between the controller and the pilots in planes are distorted by static or external factors such as pilots being too busy and not paying sufficient attention to the radio. This is why both pilots and controllers are required to repeat what they hear and not just reply ‘ok’ or ‘Roger’ or ‘understood’. Pilots also need to identify their aircraft by the airline and flight number each time they have a conversation with the controller so that the controller can be sure that his instructions have been heard by the pilot to whom they are addressed.
But in case the pilots are battling a sudden unforeseen emergency, such as a bird strike or loss of engine power or unexpected wind shear, it is entirely possible their attention to radio communication is reduced and then incidents/accidents happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks very much for the detailed answer.
|
|
|
|
|
To add to Vivi's detailed answer, when there are parallel runways, one is usually being used for take-offs and the other for landings. Intersecting runways usually mean a lack of space. When there are two (or even three) runways serving different directions, they usually meet close to their apexes, forming either a V or a triangle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The animation is scary. Lucky escape for all passengers.
The Delta speed was such that brakes were really effective in stopping it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Tenerife disaster, from the info I get, was on a single runway, where the one which landed was just about to turn into the taxiway, whereas the other was taking off, and it was a dense fog scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
But it was all down to human error, one pilot thinking he had been cleared for take-off. There was also 1976 Zagreb mid-air collision - Wikipedia[^] when an air traffic controller forgot about one aircraft's postion.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. That's the WORST air disaster ever (the Tenerife one). Let's hope nothing surpasses it in future.
|
|
|
|
|
Tenerife was a complete fluster cluck, and one pilot should have known better. Single runway, and the KLM pilot was in a hurry due to max hours flight rules. That said, it is always the person in command who is responsible. If you cannot see, if you are not absolutely sure about safety, you stop. Period.
The ATC crew were also completely overwhelmed, and went ahead because everyone wanted to get moving, etc. Look at how the US lost the Challenger... I have not read any of the reports yet, but I will gamble and say this is why the container ship took out the Francis Scott Key bridge in Baltimore...
Years ago, I obtained my bareboat captain license. It was pounded into me that *I* as the captain am the only person responsible for the safety of everyone on board. End of discussion. So, a few weeks later, I'm out sailing with my wife, and we get caught in a thunderstorm. We had our life jackets on and what not, so there was no danger of drowning. But, things got interesting due to my inexperience. Scared the living #$%^%^ out of me.
Safety procedures are everything. They form habit and muscle memory. When you start to try altering them, usually something like "this is going to hurt" comes up in your brain. Guard rails exist for a reason.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that it has been reported the ship that hit the bridge in Baltimore lost power and was just drifting when it happened.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
That is what was initially reported. But the general discussion here is safety. Considering the size of container ships, you would think there would be some redundancy in their systems. I'm looking forward to the NTSB report.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
The few redundancies in place also failed in this case. Part of the problem was the lag time for those redundancies to come online.
You can read the NTSB preliminary report here[^].
|
|
|
|
|
ty sir
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Neither plane was landing. They were both back-taxing up the runway, the PanAm after the KLM. The PanAm was still on the runway, looking for their turn-off in dense fog when the KLM started its takeoff roll. The PanAm saw the KLM was rolling and desperately tried to turn-off the runway, but it was too late.
Ultimately, as captain of the KLM, the final responsibility came down to van Zanten. He failed to verify his runway was clear before starting his takeoff roll, knowing the PanAm was behind him on the runway. His FO even questioned whether the PanAm was clear of the runway when the throttles were pushed up. van Zanten dismissed the concern and continued with the takeoff roll anyway.
Communication was a serious problem in this disaster. Controllers and pilots on the same frequency can only talk one at a time and in only one direction at a time. If two people transmit at the same time, chances are really high everyone will not hear anything except noise, called a heterodyne. In this crash, the PanAm and the controller (I think!) both transmitted at the same time just before the KLM started its takeoff roll, hiding critical information from van Zanten.
This crash resulted in reworking all communications between pilots and controllers, standardizing phraseology, and overhauled cockpit crew culture, creating the field of "crew resource management."
Air traffic and controller workload has only increased since that time, increasing the strain on the half-duplex radio communications we still use today, resulting in more mis- and missing communications. Today, there's over 1200 runway incursions every year, like what you described. Until we come up with a better, high-capacity way of communicating with planes, the problem is only getting worse.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Neither plane was landing.
Thanks. I stand corrected. Just saw an animation on Youtube, and is as what you describe.
|
|
|
|
|
It's far more dangerous getting to the airport. Don't sweat it. Up until Boing screwed up (deliberate typo), I was doing some reading on air traffic safety statistics. Considering the growth of air travel over the last 20 years, the safety record is simply incredible. Not only have procedures been updated, there is more safety equipment out there. Most airports have ground tracking radar to monitor their tarmacs and taxi ways.
I live north of Atlanta and our airport is the busiest in the world. We have 5 huge runways, all parallel. Not too much cross runway traffic, but aircraft do have to exit the runway to the concourses. So, it's a taxi situation. It is a finely orchestrated dance but predictable. My house is under the northern approach for the airport. During the evening, I see hundreds of a/c descending and departing from the area.
I flew into Kansas City years ago, and it scared the living daylights out of me.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
charlieg wrote: Considering the growth of air travel over the last 20 years, the safety record is simply incredible.
Nice to know.
charlieg wrote: Atlanta and our airport is the busiest in the world
Exiting the runway to the concourses, is indeed time-critical. Have seen one such intersection at Zurich Airport.
My first flight was in November 1996, in India, just a couple of weeks after this - 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision - Wikipedia [^]. Was holding on to dear life throughout my flight. Now, after many years of flying, fear of flying has reduced.
|
|
|
|
|
If we'd put the same effort into car and roads safety, there would not be any car accidents.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien wrote: If we'd put the same effort into car and roads safety, there would not be any car accidents.
And cars would cost $2M each, and you'd have to have a complete overhaul after every oil change.
People are the major cause of traffic accidents, not mechanical failures, and I don't see that changing any time soon.
|
|
|
|
|
New all-optical approach to revolutionise night vision technology | TMOS[^]
For these who wish a synopsis : Australian Laboratory invented thin film from lithium niobate meta-surface which provides same function as bulky night vision technology. Can merely be placed onto surface of one's glasses bingo presto voila instant night vision + is transparent to visual spectrum.
|
|
|
|
|
Sign me up. Thanks for the synopsis.
As it happens, I was just at the eye Doctor's and I may soon be in the market for new glasses.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not as if "The Chinese" don't have their own R&D...
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
The shortest horror story: On Error Resume Next
|
|
|
|
|
The article doesn't mention China, or the Chinese. Why the gratuitous subject line?
Not to suggest that you're wrong, you're probably 100% right. I'm not coming to their defense. I just thought it came out of nowhere.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
