However, most pilots eschew automation especially on short finals, and prefer the 'hand fly' the aircraft in so that they can maintain complete control over the aircraft. Not a bad thing, and pilots want to actually fly the plane at crucial times.
When hand flying on final approach, your eyes and senses are 75% outside the aircraft. All you are worried about is your airspeed, your rate of descent and whether the runway is remaining visible at all times. Your eyes are darting from your primary instruments in front of you to the runway outside, and your arms and legs are busy working the throttles, control stick and rudder pedals.
Maps and charts are well stowed away at this point. In fact, once you enter the main airport traffic pattern, they are put away as all the details should be memorised by then. At best, the pilot will have the approach plate on his/her control column. But this just gives the instrument approach paths and radio frequencies etc. and not really a detailed topography of the runways/taxiways.
Ironically, AFTER the plane is on the ground, the non commanding pilot will usually pull out the airport plate which details all the taxiways and routes to gates etc., especially if they are unfamiliar with the airport and have to find their way around.
I personally can only think of one 121 certificated carrier in the US that isn't using an EFB setup. These are typically mounted to the side of the pilot and there's no reason at all they can't still be on and open to either the airport diagram or the approach in use. In fact I frequently do this and do reference it on approach to parallel runways and to reference the turn offs for taxi.
As this discussion progressed, the lack of progress in the FAA adopting technology was addressed. It seems to me that the FAA is completely missing the boat on tons of safety to be gained with these EFBs due to the bureaucracy. My carrier was recently certified for EFBs and the vendor has the capability to have GPS geo-referenced charts but because of the complicated certification process the airline chose to get certified without to save money and time. As part of that we also received devices without GPS so now there's no way it's coming until the next cycle of devices. Personally I can't understand why there would need to be additional certification for something GA pilots have been using for years now.
Take my replies here with a grain of salt and as being 'old school'. :)
Commercial aircraft have a HSI (horizontal situation indicator) located front and center on the panel in front of the pilots. This instrument presents about 12 distinct pieces of information to the pilot, but once again, on short finals, the pilots is mainly concerned with (1) airspeed (2) altitude (3) rate of descent on this instrument. All of which are displayed on the left and right edge of the HSI in the form of moving bars. The information in the centre with relation to position and orientation is discarded as unnecessary 'noise' under this extremely high workload.
You are right in that the co-pilot has to work in conjunction with the pilot to ensure safe flight. Indeed, in many cases, it was the co-pilot (or non flying pilot) that alerted the flying pilot as to an imminent danger. But that doesn't always happen either. Take the case mentioned elsewhere here of the worlds worst aviation disaster. In that scenario, the junior co-pilot of the KLM jet notified the Captain (who was one of the the most senior pilot in KLM at the time) TWICE that he thought the PanAm jet was still on the runway, only to be ignored.
I can't imagine a scenario where this ought to be allowed.
Now, the iPad part is not certified, but the nav/comm (including software) is.
Similar to how a map or GPS won't stop you from turning down the wrong way on a divided highway. Or how there have been many cases of people following GPS and turning onto railroad tracks that parallel roads. https://www.google.com/search?q=driver+turns+onto+train+trac...
It's not like it happens every day, so I expect there is some significant thought going into how to mistake-proof this particular problem.
It's not like the pilot doesn't know there is a parallel taxiway. Of course there is. They would be (subconsciously anyway) looking for it to complete their mental map. It just went wrong in this case.
You wouldn't even have needed a fancy automated system to realise you were looking at a taxiway in that particular situation. There were four big aircraft on there, with position lights and taxi lights and everything. And apparently visibility was good. It was just a spectacular brain fart.
While the system you're suggesting might give better situational awareness, it might also be a dangerous distraction in other cases -- or be wrong for some reason. So more tools aren't automatically better.
In this case the existing system actually worked flawlessly: another controlling instance (the tower controller) discovered the error, took appropriate action, and all that happened was a 15 minute landing delay and a good story. Probably happens more often than we'd care to imagine.
> Like I'm imagining there should be something on the plane that shows them their trajectory and the runway information. If there is, why isn't it telling them when they're going the wrong way?
Well, there's the ILS (instrument landing system), but pilots like to land manually. IIRC it's recommended these days, just to remain in training. I suppose it's also fun.
Also, ILS might be wrong somehow (interference, technical defects, the pilot accidentally entering the data for the left runway when he was told to land on the right, etc).
So the truth is this was just human error, and that kind of thing just happens. You know the saying: if you make a system idiot-proof, nature invents better idiots.
However yes, it's the copilot's job to double check what the pilot says and to warn if anything's not what it should be (like trying to land on a runway)
I mean I wasn't assuming that was the case either...
It seems like a pretty critical system for lining up an approach on the right runway. FS4 even had a training mode where it would display the ILS bars on the screen without needing to look at the instruments. You'd think some commercial airliners would at least put this in a heads up display, where it would be totally obvious you're lined up with the taxi way since the bar would be glued to one side or the other. Don't Navy pilots have a similar HUD for just their vertical approach angle?
(Also, would have loved SLEW MODE on the real thing, but that is a conversation for another time and dimension) :D
Don't pilots have a legal requirement to manually fly a minimum number of landings per month?
A pilot is required to have at least 3 takeoff and landings in the type of aircraft he is to be operating in the preceding 90 days.
And I say sort of because an autopilot coupled ILS approach down to 100 ft above the runway still counts. This mean that as long as the pilot set up the automation correctly the airplane will have him lined up and on proper vertical path at 100 ft. He can disconnect autopilot and gently set it down.
So one, mostly automated, landing per month is all that is required.
Most notably the Adam Air(?) crash in Indonesia, where the crew were so intent on debugging a faulty minor flight computer that they simply didn't hear the the warning klaxon indicating that the autopilot had become disengaged and the plane ended up rolling over, entering a spin and crashed into the sea.
I'm not instrument rated but my understanding is that with ILS, instrument approaches can handle multiple parallel runways precisely and therefore the pilot has the tools necessary to distinguish between a runway and taxiway when in instrument conditions. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Let the investigation happen, but from the reported facts, this seems to be a pretty clear case of pilot error.
And I think you meant to say "raises the question" rather than "begs the question."
Did you mean “look, some people think popular usage has won out and beg the question is now a reasonable substitute for raise the question”? Or something else?
EDIT: To the downvoters: I don't think you understand how human language works.
For example using “because” without a preposition doesn’t become correct just because Buzzfeed makes it popular.
People make grammar/useage mistakes not because they consciously want to change the language but because they don’t know any differently. It’s quite different than how slang enters a language. Begs vs. raises the question isn’t some kind of colloquial thing, it’s just a misuse. I get things wrong when the language frequently enough, but when it’s pointed out, I don’t continue doing it; in fact, I am happy for the opportunity to increase my precision with the language.
This isn't true in natural language. Do something enough times -- 'wrong' or 'right' -- and it becomes a part of the language. Like it or not.
Crack an Oxford English Dictionary sometime. Look up your favorite word. Notice that there will be tens of different definitions, including a historical trace of 'first uses' through semantic changes, for the single word.
>People make grammar/useage mistakes not because they consciously want to change the language but because they don’t know any differently
Consciously or not, they are changing the language. Language isn't a fixed thing with unbreakable rules. It is mutable. A language is however people use it; it isn't a thing to know in its entirety before using.
It's like the word 'irregardless'. As much as 'it isn't a word', it clearly is, because you know what is meant when it's said, and plenty of people say it.
Speaking as a private pilot, it absolutely is. Even in a Cessna you're going to be travelling at least 75 mph. Possible faster if the conditions are gusty. For the last 1/4-1/2 mile at least, your vision needs to be 100% outside of the airplane. Now if you need to do that in a Cessna at 75 mph with no more than 4 people on board, why wouldn't you also need to do in a 787 that lands at ~180 mph with nearly 300 people, or an A380 that lands at ~140 mph with over 500?
Because you have 1-3 other copilots who also have eyes and could be doing this instead of you...?
https://www.ntsb.gov/about/employment/_layouts/ntsb.aviation...
https://scaredflightless.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/approac...
Taxiways generally have green lights along the centerline to guide aircraft rolling on the ground, but runways usually have white (bright) lights along the edges. There are times when even THAT causes confusion, because sometimes the taxiway centreline lights can look like the edge lights of the runway - especially if the light is refracting off a wet windscreen.
So, in the end the problem is generally avoidable, but if you are on finals at a really busy airport after a gruelling 20 hours trans oceanic flight, at night, in the rain, and the tower is trying to hurry you up to expedite traffic, you can make mistakes.
They ARE actually quite different in terms of lighting, width etc. and 99.9% of the time there is no issue telling them apart. Runways also have extra approach lights etc. at night to really make it clear where you should be pointing the nose.
(NB: Check out the video posted elsewhere in this thread of the cockpit view of a 747 landing at SFO at night. It is pretty clear which is the runway and which is the taxiway).
However, it is those 0.01% of the times where the weather is bad, or you are landing into the sun or the traffic is really congested and you are trying to talk on the radio at the same time etc. where mistakes can be made.
In this particular scenario in the OP, I am assuming that having 4 heavy aircraft lined up on the runway pointing at the landing plane, then 4 sets of bright landing and navigation lights on the taxiway could have looked like runway lighting, and disoriented the Canada Air pilot? Just outside speculation here, but stranger things have happened.
It's like the case of the Air New Zealand CD-10 crash into Mt. Erebus in clear weather. Non pilots were incredulous that a plane could fly into the side of a mountain in clear daylight weather, but the visual trickery played by bright snow on a slope actually fooled ALL pilots on board that they were flying down a valley instead of into an upward slope. [0] (A badly programmed navigation computer didn't help at all.)
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_New_Zealand_Flight_901
They turn them on when theyre cleared to enter the runway.
To be able to see a taxiway light 50m in front of the plane, the light will have to be angled up to an extent that a plane 500 feet in the air a mile away will also be able to see it.
Not putting down your idea at all - anything workable that will improve flight operations should be considered.
Trivia: Speaking of lighting assistance, Did you know one of the best inventions out of Australia is the T-VASIS landing system [0] that is in use at nearly every major airport in the world?? Oh, and we invented the DME too [1], in the aviation world... :)
[0] - https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/innovation/tee-visual-approac...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance_measuring_equipment
Fun fact! The A380's flight deck isn't that high off the ground. It's exactly the same height as the A330 and A340, part of an effort to reduce differences and cut down on the amount of new things pilots would have to deal with to train on the type.
This is also why the A380 has such a pronounced "forehead" -- the much lower flight-deck height (compared to a 747) means there's a lot of plane above that.
(and bonus fun fact: the 747's flight deck is way up top not for visibility, but because Boeing anticipated supersonic planes would take over the passenger market; the 747's high flight deck was meant to accommodate converting the plane to cargo use, so that the whole nose could swing open for loading and unloading)
Not all runways are equipped for ILS landings. Sometimes the ILS equipment gets taken out of service for maintenance. And even autoland has its limitations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN41LvuSz10
Just be sure to make a note of the video title so you can find it again -- copies of it tend to get taken down, since American Airlines got in some trouble after other parts of this training course were blamed for the crash of AA flight 587:
More specifically, the pilots manipulated the rudder on that airplane so aggressively that it sheared off in flight. They were trained to react aggressively in the "Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program", which this video is a part of. (There are also related videos that I'm going through now that are more relevant to this particular incident; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfNBmZy1Yuc, etc.)
BTW, if AA is indeed DMCA-ing these videos, that's pretty interesting. Copyright was designed to incentivize the progress of science and the arts -- not to make large corporations look less bad after they unintentionally kill a few hundred people. Oops.
I think electric airplanes powered by Mr. Fusion mini nuclear reactors would be the future I’d like to see!
Is that overall, or as a percentage of all airliner crashes? Because another commenter stated that human error is responsible for most of the crashes.
Don't forget that almost all taxiways run parallel to the runway, for about the same length.
(NB: I used to be a commercial pilot.)
In most airports I flew into, the surface material for the taxiways was different from the runway, so sometimes the taxiway could end up looking brighter and more prevalent than the runway under certain lighting conditions. Yep, I have had moments of confusion when on long finals into an unfamiliar airport. Never to the point of actually ending up landing on the taxiway, but the confusion is a thing that pilots have to contend with.