[HN Gopher] Hearing and Doing
___________________________________________________________________
Hearing and Doing
Author : 1970-01-01
Score : 46 points
Date : 2024-01-17 14:44 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.planeandpilotmag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.planeandpilotmag.com)
| gwern wrote:
| I wonder to what extent cruft builds up in systems built on
| 'regulations written in blood'-style approaches to safety? There
| is always a loud proponent for another safety procedure, more
| explicitness, more repetition, more features and doodads, but
| there is rarely a proponent for removing things, even though it
| cannot be the case that those additions were always right & never
| become wrong. If there were a reset to zero of the whole airplane
| ecosystem, how much would just never be recreated?
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Possibly a new equilibrium, but it would probably be a similar
| set of rules also written in blood. The tricky thing about just
| another extra rule, is that usually it's not a big
| disadvantage. But at some point, there will be just too many
| rules which can slow things down and cause more failures.
|
| It would be interesting to see examples of procedures having
| been simplified for this reason.
| BWStearns wrote:
| Look up NOTAMs. They've gotten so crufty that there are now
| apps to pare them down so you can actually see the relevant
| ones.
|
| The interesting thing though is that there are actually
| proponents for reducing NOTAM spam because aviation has
| recognized that alert fatigue is real. It's dangerous if you
| don't find out about the closed runway because your eyes glazed
| over after reading about the 30th 200 ft crane 8 miles from the
| airport.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| True, the cranes are a pest now. And they're well marked
| anyway.
|
| There should be a live mapping system that can just be
| updated on the fly IMO.
| jkaljundi wrote:
| Wonder where does it come that: "Cleared for the visual, report
| three mile left base for Runway 31," becomes "Cleared to land,
| 31" or "Line up and wait" was interpreted as "Cleared for
| takeoff" Maybe I fly too little as a private pilot but I can't
| imagine those interpretations happening.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| It's pretty common for us to comprehend but not _actually
| comprehend_ something if it 's mundane.
|
| Our brains are lazy and put stuff on autopilot when it can, so
| stuff that we experience very often and regularly gets
| truncated and simplified and shuffled off to be auto'd away so
| our brain can do better things.
|
| For an IT example, it's common knowledge that dialog boxes and
| windows are almost always instantaneously closed by hitting the
| OK button. It doesn't matter what it's saying, it's just second
| nature to just OK it away because that's what we do with them.
| Even as we try to read it our hand is already clicking the OK
| button.
|
| And so "Cleared for the visual, report three mile left base for
| Runway 31" becomes "Cleared, Runway 31" in our minds and we end
| up with incidents.
| Stranger43 wrote:
| My perception is that General aviation is mostly stuck in 1950ies
| when it comes to technology and we might be seeing an issue where
| the real issue is the limit of verbal communication to be
| unambiguous enough for modern standards.
|
| It would be fairly easy to replace the whole hear/repeat with an
| system of unambiguous text messages using hardware not much more
| expansive the cost of an tank full of avgas for the average plane
| but it seems like people still try to solve this by regulating
| the already crowded radio frequencies with more verbose
| instructions.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| There is highly standardized phraseology though, through
| lessons learned from the terrible Avianca disaster and others.
|
| It's absolutely nothing like the 1950s. ATC controllers didn't
| even have visibility of most aircraft movement back then. They
| relied on pilots self-reporting and the phraseology was
| unclear. Many lives were lost due to this.
|
| The tech is still AM radio but this I believe is mainly
| selected due to its reliability in poorer radio conditions.
| pi-e-sigma wrote:
| AM is worse than FM in every imaginable way but one - in AM
| you can hear if two people transmit at the same time. In the
| FM the stronger signal completely suppresses the weak one
| which can be dangerous because a pilot or the ATC could miss
| some radio traffic and not be even aware of it.
| Bnichs wrote:
| Something I find interesting is that IMO, flight simulators
| handle ATC better than real life. In MSFS Obviously there isn't a
| human there but all messages are displayed as unambiguous text
| and you are able to choose various reply options based on the
| context.
|
| ATC is way too complicated to completely capture in a decision
| tree, but the text thing seems like a no brainer, ATC/pilots
| should be able to deliver messages via text that is easy to
| send/receive so that your runway clearance and such is right on
| your HUD or nav screen. I don't see any reason for the ambiguity
| of radio in this day and age with the exception of emergencies
| where you need to comminuicate long specific details quickly.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| For a more realistic ATC there are people who actually love
| ATCing simmers. Like on VAT-SIM.
| piloto_ciego wrote:
| It's really not that hard - most of my career flying was single
| pilot IFR, and the issue was seldom confusion about the
| clearance - the issue I found more often was either "I was in a
| hurry" or "ATC was in a hurry" and we inadvertently generated
| confusion through mutual incompetence.
|
| The solution is to slow down, talk clearly, and also - to be
| clear, there needs to be a service to deliver clearances
| electronically. The initial clearance should absolutely always
| be available as text, but on the radio in flight, I don't see
| text being THAT helpful, except in cruise, but not much happens
| fast in cruise anyway.
| btreecat wrote:
| Getting older has consequences.
|
| Flying isn't cheap, the average private pilot is just under 50,
| and with the prices of planes, fule, maintenance, and storage
| costs add up. And that's after you've already dropped over 10K
| just to learn how.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Yeah I think this is why pilots are getting older. It's so
| expensive that they are doing it after the kids are out of
| college etc
| BWStearns wrote:
| > it was expected that we knew where the runway was and would
| call the tower for takeoff in due course > But pilots botched up
| from time to time, blundering into blind-alley taxiways or
| heading across an active runway. So taxi instructions gradually
| got more complex and wordy
|
| Amusingly there's now Foreflight so you really shouldn't need
| directions now unless there's some unpublished barrier to getting
| there via the shortest route. I imagine this adaptation to
| previous issues is now a contributing factor to present issues.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| If you blunder onto an active runway you've really missed a lot
| of cues like big flashing red lights.
|
| I've never used foreflight though. It doesn't seem to be very
| common here in GA.
| BWStearns wrote:
| All of my instructors and all of the people in my clubs have
| used ForeFlight. I've heard it's less common in Europe but it
| seems pretty ubiquitous in Florida at least.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Oh I see. Yeah I'm in Europe. I've never seen anyone at the
| flying club using it.
| BWStearns wrote:
| For folks saying "just make it text", I think you really need to
| consider the human element here. Pilot->ATC text would be an
| absolute no go since now you'd basically be muted if it's bumpy.
| Instead of being able to just talk and occasionally ask for
| clarification, now you have to mess around with a shitty $40,000
| Garmin pager device while getting bumped around and missing the
| buttons and typoing a bunch. Oh yeah, and you gotta also fly a
| plane.
|
| A slightly reasonable system where ATC->Pilots is text and
| Pilots->ATC is audio is now just making the whole thing more
| complicated with some slight reduction of "Say again"s. You still
| would need to ask for clarification if the instruction is unclear
| or unexpected but now also ATC has to develop new workflows and a
| mixed text/voice system seems likely to induce higher workload
| and produce more errors.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Totally agree, this would not work. The ideal thing about
| speech and hearing is that they're really easy to multitask
| with. There's so many moments in the cockpit where your
| literally wouldn't have your hands free.
|
| A display for visual reinforcement of basic clearances would
| work I guess but more as a backup. Part of the audio of ATC is
| not just being aware of your own traffic but also the presence
| and intentions of others. Putting all that on a screen would
| cause a lot more to monitor visually and there's so much in the
| instrument scanning loop already.
| volemo wrote:
| Easy solution: use mouthpad [1] to control the plane and free
| the hands to communicate with the ground. :D
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38997930
| tass wrote:
| I agree it would get more complicated, but there are some nice
| things we could get with text.
|
| For example, a "turn right heading 320" or "proceed direct
| BUXOM" could become a popup on the screen, which can then be
| pushed straight to the FMS with a single press. The plane could
| also report its active flight plan and mode (i.e., whether it's
| tracking a course or following a heading) which would confirm
| whatever ATC expects the plane to be doing.
|
| There's a myriad of downsides to this, including bad actors
| sending instructions to pilots without ATC being aware, so in
| balance this might be overall worse than just keeping it
| simple.
| audeyisaacs wrote:
| "line up and wait" is no less declarative than "position and
| hold", and has the advantage of not being confused with "hold
| short". Who is confusing "line up and wait" with "cleared for
| takeoff", and are they really any less likely to have been
| confused with "position and hold"?
| wkat4242 wrote:
| It shouldn't be confused because the word 'takeoff' is only
| ever given together with a clearance due to terrible mistakes
| in the past.
|
| Even a pilot wouldn't say the word takeoff, it would be 'ready
| for departure'.
| tdooner wrote:
| Agreed. The change was made to conform to ICAO standards[1],
| which the article alludes to, but doesn't examine the
| implications of remaining unstandardized. Surely having
| different phraseology in the US is a separate risk and
| cognitive burden!
|
| To me the main issue is not "wait" vs "hold"... it's that
| either way, pilots may misremember having been issues the
| takeoff clearance. The best defense against this, IMHO, is
| ground radar to detect the movement as early as possible.
|
| [1]: https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/resources/luaw
| buildsjets wrote:
| Regardless of nomenclature, it is the PROCESS of entering the
| runway environment but not immediately starting takeoff that is
| confusing and should be eliminated.
|
| No aircraft should ever be sitting still on a runway blind to
| landing traffic behind them. The time saved by eliminating the
| short taxi from the hold short line to the runway is not worth
| the additional risk incurred, either the risk of taxiing to
| position and failing to hold, or taxiing to position and
| holding while you get rearended by a landing aircraft.
| tdooner wrote:
| Here is my favorite ATC mouthful. Flying in the Bay Area is full
| of these kinds of complicated instructions that will burn anyone
| unfamiliar:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQYZtPhK-mg
|
| The controller expects you to hear, interpret, and read back the
| following clearance:
|
| > N1234, you're cleared to airport XXX via fly runway heading
| until past the diamond-shaped waterway. Then turn right heading
| 120. Keep your turn within 2 miles of the airport. Radar vectors
| Woodside, then as filed. Maintain VFR conditions at or below 1100
| feet until crossing the Oakland 165 radial, then climb and
| maintain 2100. Expect FL350 five minutes after departure.
| Departure frequency 135.65. Squawk 1234.
|
| No wonder the pilots messed it up.
| piloto_ciego wrote:
| This isn't that crazy of a clearance - you just have to stop,
| write it down and take it slow. They're going to fast.
|
| For weird stuff like this I'd always draw it out.
|
| "Ok runway heading until I pass the diamond shaped waterway,
| then right turn to heading 120. Keep it tight.
|
| Now thinking about altitude, 1100 or less but VFR until
| OAK-165R, then 2100, expect 350 in 5.
|
| Finally, 135.65 and 6320."
|
| Then sit for a second and brief it, it's not crazy. Those guys
| are just going to fast and they're a little behind. But "draw
| it out" on a piece of paper is such an easy way to to handle
| these sort of situations.
|
| When stuff like this came up, I did not give a shit about ATC
| flow control or whatever - if I need 30 seconds of delay to
| understand the clearance they can wait. Its more important that
| we get it right than push out 1 extra airplane but do it
| incorrectly and make a big mess of things.
| arinazari wrote:
| New youtube rabbit hole unlocked, thanks.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-19 23:00 UTC)