> 'Close call' without 'accident' still means there wasn't an accident.

It's a giant red flag in any serious OSHA system in resource mining, energy extraction, military logistics, etc.

In order to reduce fatal accidents close attention is paid to the full incident pyramid, minor accidents and near misses.

Fiftty years of practice about the globe strongly makes the case that a reduction in near misses and non fatal incidents has a real flow on to reducing fatal accidents.

> the one in place is incredibly safe with many years of statistics to prove it.

Achieved via exactly the kind of OSHA attention to small details and near misses system just outlined.

The safety officers at New York and elsewhere will be failing at their job if they are not putting some the hours in to looking at this incident and how to mitigate future occurrences .. especially when visibility is lower than on this day.

I agree with all your points. My discussion points were about the original comment about the need to 'overhaul' the system. Right now I bet there is an investigation going on into this incident and it will likely lead to appropriate changes. I also suspect that many different entities have just upped their trackers of incidents to collect exactly the trend data that can prevent future issues, just like they should be doing. In other words the current system doesn't need a safety overhaul because it is doing everything reasonable and doing it well and has the stats to back up that it is doing reasonable things.

Arguing that the system is safe and doesn't need an overhaul is not the same thing as arguing that the system should start ignoring things.

Furious agreement here;

iterative change is a part of the system, self reflection and pivoting to address issues as they first appear to avoid future consequences is very much how these things should work.

We've had too many runway incursions throughout US aviation, and efforts to reduce them with minor iterations to process have not been successful. It may be time to think about more major changes.

> 'Close call' without 'accident' still means there wasn't an accident.

Close calls are a very important signal for how safe the system is.

Good safety systems are redundant and require many failures to result in a crash. Here, we got down to the last link in the chain: weather was clear and the departing pilots could see there was an obvious problem while there was time to stop.

> since the one in place is incredibly safe with many years of statistics to prove it.

We've gotten to this safe system by chipping away at problems we see-- both from actual accidents and close calls. The only way we reach and keep (and perhaps surpass) this level of safety is to keep (carefully) correcting problems.

(And yes, there is risk of changes making things worse. We need to do our best to avoid that and detect it quickly if it happens).

> However, overhauling the current system because it is incapable of handling the future where autonomous vehicles flood the skies, now that is something I can get behind.

Until cars can drive themselves without crashing into stopped fire trucks[1], I don’t want anything autonomous flying anywhere near where I live.

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tesla-driver-killed-plo...

People do that a lot too. Over 40k people died on the roads in 2022. Maybe we could save some of them if we went autonomous. The better decision point is about overall safety, not one-off incidents. In aviation, like driving, the #1 source of accidents is human error.