"Pilot had to dive aggressively to avoid midair collision over Burbank airport."
-
stuff like this is why i'm lowkey terrified of flying
also this isn't a shitpostSo you'd rather stick to the ground, where you can't dive to avoid an oncoming vehicle?
-
Bus and Rail rules.
Motorcycles are for the young who don't want to get old.
Everyone wants to shit on motorcycles, but it's as much a red herring as a meaningful statement. You might as well mention that horse riding is 25x more dangerous than motorcycles. And if you really want to get into the weeds, go look up how many motorcycle fatalities are single vehicle accidents, and how many of those are due to speeding or alcohol involvement. So if you don't drink, and don't act like a fool, you're really not all that badly off. Still worse than being in a steel cage for protection, but it's not only for people "who don't want to get old."
-
Agreed. The point of a conservative warning is to give plenty of time and opportunity to react without bouncing your passengers off the ceiling.
Fault for the loss of separation seems to be on the controllers. Not all separation incidents are the same, though. This one seems to be rather minor. By my estimation, the encroachment was a maximum of 264 yards, and the duration of that encroachment (without pilot or controller intervention) would have been less than 10 seconds. Too tight, yes. It needs addressed so it doesn't become a habitual violation that could lead to more severe encroachment by these controllers. But there was no real danger of bodily harm from this encroachment.
Fault for an overly aggressive maneuver is on the pilot. There was a risk of injury from that overly aggressive response. The pilot's actions elevated a minor, no-risk event to one that risked serious injury to the passengers and crew. But, he was following instructions from a device designed to improve aviation safety, and the nature of the warnings from that device, an over-response is much safer than an under-response. He has to trust his instruments, and his instruments (erroneously) told him to push the nose down, quickly, lest he hit another plane.
TCAS is designed and intended to reduce risk and prevent harm. In this specific incident, though, it seems like the TCAS-RA actually increased the risk of harm, by calling for an immediate action that wasn't actually necessary to prevent harm. Is there a way to improve TCAS?
I, too, would like to know how often TCAS incidents were recorded before and after the layoffs. Those layoffs definitely harmed aviation safety. But if someone were injured in this incident, I don't think I could point the finger at the controllers or lack thereof. This particular incident seems to suggest a shortcoming in the TCAS system.
Very thoughtful and informed reply. Thank you for sharing your knowledge!
-
This ain't no shitpost.
You have to admit it'd be pretty shitty to run into another airplane in the sky though?
-
As with all statistics, you can make the numbers say what we you want. Planes can carry 500+ people, so an incident risks all 500 of those passengers; similar for rail, but not so much for the bus. And I think about bus and there's two different kinds of buses, IMO, the inner city bus that's on the road for hours, but doing few miles while making frequent stops. Not sure what a journey is then, whether it's stop by stop or from start to finish. And there's
So yeah, I dunno. If it's your time it's your time. I don't think any of these means of travel are "unsafe," whatever that means. But I'll still have a couple of beers before I get on the plane, because I'm not afraid of flying, but having a couple beers beforehand makes it better.
I’ll still have a couple of beers before I get on the plane, because I’m not afraid of flying..
Have to admit this is kind of funny.
-
Yeah, but people are still going to be using the bathrooms and such, even if you assume everyone actually obeys the rules
Pour one out for the poor fella who finally got his turn to poop just before this happened.
-
Uh, what? Something like 80 % of their economy is now government spending.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I meant getting Trump elected to sow discord and chaos in the US has allowed Russia to continue their war while facing fewer repercussions
-
So you'd rather stick to the ground, where you can't dive to avoid an oncoming vehicle?
-
Planes are the safest form of transportation if you look at safety per km travelled. If you look at other metrics, like safety per trip or per travel time then they are less safe than busses or trains.
Planes have nonetheless huge advantages over the others, like if you have to travel hundreds of km, or across the ocean.
Cruising through the Atlantic in a Greyhound would be wild, though. -
I don't think you get what I'm saying.
If you build your house in a flood zone... Well, I feel for you. That sucks, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it
If the state is cutting taxes to incentize building in a flood plain (which is a thing that has happened), in going to be very upset
Okay, I see what you're saying there. I don't agree with the stance for the first part, but that's a personal choice. After all, the government could not only not incentivize building in a flood zone, they could make it illegal.
-
I can assure you some pants were shit on that flight
Shitpantsing then
-
This post did not contain any content.
Damn
We almost got rid of Jimmy dore
-
This post did not contain any content.
If only there were a device to keep you in your seat when something like this happens
-
Without pilot intervention, the closest they would have come would have been 4.85 nautical miles laterally, and at the same altitude.
With the pilot intervention, the closest they came was 4.85 nautical miles laterally, and 500 feet vertically.
-
Everyone wants to shit on motorcycles, but it's as much a red herring as a meaningful statement. You might as well mention that horse riding is 25x more dangerous than motorcycles. And if you really want to get into the weeds, go look up how many motorcycle fatalities are single vehicle accidents, and how many of those are due to speeding or alcohol involvement. So if you don't drink, and don't act like a fool, you're really not all that badly off. Still worse than being in a steel cage for protection, but it's not only for people "who don't want to get old."
I was commenting on the vast difference in the statistical numbers. I have no doubt there are lots of steps that can be taken to decrease the risk of shortened lifespan.
But yes, we can safely engage in high-risk behavior (or in some instances like air racing pilots, come to terms that they will likely -- and preferably -- end their lives explosively and spectacularly). And then there's how James Cameron does super-deep submersible exploration vs. Stockton Rush.
My mother would not only climb up rock faces and summit mountains all over the Sierra Nevadas (and later in other parts of the world) but would lug twenty five pounds of old-school photography gear to show she did it and take pics of the astounding vistas. As a kid I went along with her sometimes, and encountered a few two many poison oak pushes, mosquito swarms, and stories about lost bits due to frostbite. I Belong To The City now (I belong to the night).
