SupermachJM said:

---

My dad's a pilot and one of his favorite jokes is how the ideal future flight crew is a pilot and a dog. The pilot's job is to feed the dog, and the dog's job is to bite the pilot if they try to touch anything.

With autopilot these days there's a lot of newer pilots who are trained to let the aircraft do the flying and not touch it unless it's an emergency. My father told me about how he was recently flying with a younger Captain (he's a career FO) who was having a hard time inputting some parameters into the autopilot (don't remember the specifics of the situation).
My dad said "Why don't you just fly it by hand then?" He said the captain looked at him like he had two heads.

---

Some pilots today are totally reliant on automation and barely know how to actually fly. Over reliance on or not understanding automation has already caused more than a few accidents.

And IIRC, the pilot & dog joke first appeared, or at least became commonplace, in the early 1990s with the advent of the A320 and its heavy reliance on automation.

Nm, misread

Rapier108 said:

---

SupermachJM said:

---

My dad's a pilot and one of his favorite jokes is how the ideal future flight crew is a pilot and a dog. The pilot's job is to feed the dog, and the dog's job is to bite the pilot if they try to touch anything.

With autopilot these days there's a lot of newer pilots who are trained to let the aircraft do the flying and not touch it unless it's an emergency. My father told me about how he was recently flying with a younger Captain (he's a career FO) who was having a hard time inputting some parameters into the autopilot (don't remember the specifics of the situation).
My dad said "Why don't you just fly it by hand then?" He said the captain looked at him like he had two heads.

---

Some pilots today are totally reliant on automation and barely know how to actually fly. Over reliance on or not understanding automation has already caused more than a few accidents.

And IIRC, the pilot & dog joke first appeared, or at least became commonplace, in the early 1990s with the advent of the A320 and its heavy reliance on automation.

---

I think a lot of pilots would take exception to that. Stick and rudder skills are drummed into every pilot I know. I used to be a private pilot.

one safe place said:

---

AgNav93 said:

---

one safe place said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

I hope they don't get the bright idea of "let's replace all ATCs with AI!" and fire everyone even before the tech has been proven to work 100% (not 99%). But knowing how things work, I won't be surprised if they do it to grab headlines, cut costs and make bonus targets.

---

Self-flying aircraft could be the next step from self-driving cars.

---

I would never under any circumstances set foot on a pilotless aircraft. Just because you can do something does not mean you should.

---

Nor would I. I don't plan to ever be in a self-driving vehicle, much less an aircraft.

---

I work in unmanned aviation and I've been saying for awhile that the biggest obstacle is public acceptance rather than anything technical or regulatory.

I think younger folks will be more willing to try it than older folks, too...

More proof for Darwin.

TexasRebel said:

---

More proof for Darwin.

---

Meh...

Advanced Air Mobility IS coming.

Most eVTOL companies are making their initial aircraft manned, but with the goal to go unmanned as soon as possible. However, Wisk Aero (it's backed by Boeing) will start out fully unmanned.

I'm also working on another project that involves using an unmanned UH-60 for wildfire response. No one's getting on that one, though...

I'd get in an unmanned aircraft before I'd get in a Robinson with a pilot, though...

Time for the government to take some accountability. Sufficient staffing would have saved lives. But I guess they are more than capable of putting a dollar amount on what it's worth to save.

WaltonAg18 said:

---

Time for the government to take some accountability. Sufficient staffing would have saved lives. But I guess they are more than capable of putting a dollar amount on what it's worth to save.

---

Really?

I had read that they were on different frequencies so the ATC gave the truck the go ahead on ground frequency and the plane didn't hear it.

You can go around all the way until the thrust reversers are deployed. I'm not sure the exact timing but would imagine that even if they initiated the go around they might not have been sure if they would have cleared the truck at that point. Might have hit them full throttle.

That's kind of what I suspected. I'll get on liveatc later tonight or tomorrow when I have some time and try to listen to both the tower and ground feeds from that time separately to see what was actually transmitted on each.

SupermachJM said:

---

You can go around all the way until the thrust reversers are deployed. I'm not sure the exact timing but would imagine that even if they initiated the go around they might not have been sure if they would have cleared the truck at that point. Might have hit them full throttle.

---

Pretty sure blancolirio or CW Lemoine or both said the thrust reversers were deployed a few seconds before impact

The pilot of the aircraft didn't have a chance even if he heard it.

As I said above, ATC would have been broadcasting on both frequencies. They would have heard the truck being cleared.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

As I said above, ATC would have been broadcasting on both frequencies. They would have heard the truck being cleared.

---

It may have been cleared, but how does the truck not look out to its right and see the ******* plane coming?

They weren't 90 degrees to the runway. It was more like 45. Imagine trying to look as the driver over your right shoulder to check traffic but with a firetruck not a car

SupermachJM said:

---

They weren't 90 degrees to the runway. It was more like 45. Imagine trying to look as the driver over your right shoulder to check traffic but with a firetruck not a car

---

I understand that, but you would still think he would've gone in a better angle to look back just one more time when you're on a damn tarmac.

I don't disagree with you but I've also never been in that position. Swiss cheese model tells me he probably has either done it 1000 times and trusted the ATC completely or was a newbie on a Sunday night and didn't know

SupermachJM said:

---

I don't disagree with you but I've also never been in that position. Swiss cheese model tells me he probably has either done it 1000 times and trusted the ATC completely or was a newbie on a Sunday night and didn't know

---

Well, it is certainly tragic but the plane really had no chance here. I still think I would've stopped or repositioned the truck and looked one more time.

Even though he was technically cleared, it's the same thing when you're pulling onto freeway. It never hurts to look again.

Yeah, I'm with you there. I definitely don't think I'd pull out without looking.

SupermachJM said:

---

Yeah, I'm with you there. I definitely don't think I'd pull out without looking.

---

especially if you are running the red light

Calls for Air Canada Ceo cause he didn't do his condolences in French

https://apnews.com/article/air-canada-ceo-french-apologizes-crash-73dddcb277af099ff69c91aceca48477

Fhk Canada

annie88 said:

---

SupermachJM said:

---

They weren't 90 degrees to the runway. It was more like 45. Imagine trying to look as the driver over your right shoulder to check traffic but with a firetruck not a car

---

I understand that, but you would still think he would've gone in a better angle to look back just one more time when you're on a damn tarmac.

---

When The Hubs and I were first dating, Bergstrom was in final construction but not operational yet. Their new trucks had been delivered however since they needed to be in place with the fire station operational before the FFA would certify the airport for opening. Fire station had a skeleton crew. So one night he took me for a ride in the new Oshkosh Snozzle. Huge truck with and extending turret that can pierce an airplane fuselage. Back then, all of the cameras and infrared displays in the cockpit were placed in order to accomplish that mission.

We drove around the empty runways and taxiways chasing jackrabbits with the bumper turret. (Water) I can attest that visibility to the side and at a backwards angle is very limited. There is a ton of instrumentation in that cockpit, that engine is very very loud, even at idle. When accelerating, it gets even louder. And those huge trucks don't stop on a dime. Not with all of the water, drychem and equipment they have on it..

SupermachJM said:

---

They weren't 90 degrees to the runway. It was more like 45. Imagine trying to look as the driver over your right shoulder to check traffic but with a firetruck not a car

---

Exactly what I noticed. The driver has to rely on the passenger to look for him, which I'm assuming there was.

Here's a big part of the problem. The ASDX (identifying vehicles and aircraft on the ground) only works well if everything on the airport operations area (AOA) have a transponder installed and operating. So the airport put that system in years ago but they had no ability to force the Port Authority, who owns all of the trucks and maintains them to add transponders to all of their vehicles. And the Port Authority did not buy nor install transponders.

So that's a bureaucracy problem.

Hussein shouldn't have gone all-in on DEI and staffing wouldn't be an issue.

Thanks, Obama!

aggiehawg said:

---

Here's a big part of the problem. The ASDX (identifying vehicles and aircraft on the ground) only works well if everything on the airport operations area (AOA) have a transponder installed and operating. So the airport put that system in years ago but they had no ability to force the Port Authority, who owns all of the trucks and maintains them to add transponders to all of their vehicles. And the Port Authority did not buy nor install transponders.

So that's a bureaucracy problem.

---

They could have has ADSB which works with ASDE-X and is much cheaper than a transponder. SWISS cheese event.

MTSB preliminary report out...

Nose gear was on the runway for 2 seconds before impact which happened at just over 100mph. Fire truck was driving ahead at 30 mph. Air Canada was at 87 ft when the Firetruck started to cross. Red runway entrance lights were illuminated red despite the mistaken clearance. It's possibly that between the angle of the taxiway to the runway the aircraft landing lights may have been blending into the NYC skyline.

so many holes in the swiss cheese with this incident at LGA. the pilots never had a chance at no fault of their own

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA26MA161.aspx