← Back to context

Comment by lenerdenator

4 days ago

Kinda surprised there's no data link for that sort of telemetry so that you don't necessarily have to take the pilot's word for it.

Second guessing a pilot saying they have a problem is a really bad idea. ATC second guessing an emergency is a really bad idea. Making a pilot explain why they're actually low on fuel, despite whatever some computer is saying, instead of focusing on flying the plane is a really, really bad idea.

Also, that sort of telemetry does exist for most major airlines, however it goes via satellite to the airline not the ATC.

  • I am not saying you are wrong, but both Type I and Type II errors are problematic. What if the pilot is wrong?

    Korean Air Flight 801 could have used someone 2nd guessing a pilot. They didn't until they were almost dead and then it was too late. Not 2nd guessing the pilot was a really really bad idea.

    • If the pilot is wrong you hope the copilot or someone else on the crew picks up on the error and corrects it. If they’re both wrong, or if they don’t feel empowered to challenge the pilot like in Korean Air 801, everyone is usually fucked.

      ATC doesn’t have the kind of situational awareness or manpower to fix these kinds of problems the vast majority of the time. It only seems like they could have done something after the fact when the disaster has already happened and hindsight activates.

      Like the GP said, ATC second guessing pilots is a really, really bad idea. A few incidents doesn’t change that.

      1 reply →

    • > Korean Air Flight 801 could have used someone 2nd guessing a pilot.

      ...yeah, the second pilot. And in this case, also flight engineer.

      IIRC The problem was pretty much aside from errors the cultural issues with pilots, the "lower ranks" wouldn't dare to be assertive to seniority and just voiced the issues they saw without doing anything.

I expect that they take the pilot's word in case of a rare situation [1] and then make the fill a ton of paparwork to try to solve the main cause and also discourage lies.

[1] In one case someone mixed imperial and metric unix, and instead of $something-kilograms, they put only $something-pounds of fuel.

Would that be more reliable than just ensuring there are consequences for lying?

  • Perhaps. If the pilot knows that the ATC can see he's full of it, he might be less likely to lie.

    Those who still do can be grounded and be moved into management or take up a career in politics.

    • Putting a theory of "you shouldn't trust pilots" into ATC breaks the entire system.

      It is a system built out of very regulated parts, very professional people, and tight controls.

      Pilots are encouraged to be very forward and proactive about fuel situations because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_052

      Minimum fuel requirements are calculated as "Time of fuel for cruise to certain points", which is usually good enough, but if an Airport is stupid busy, or has bad wind patterns, just a couple go-arounds will chew through your fuel way faster than the regulation expects.

      Turbofan engines are also dramatically less efficient at low altitude than high altitude cruise. So holding at low altitudes because a congested airport is dealing with traffic will chew through your reserves much faster than you expect.

      Ryanair flies short hops to congested airports. They will have relatively low reserves, and you should expect them to run into "Hey we are low on fuel" more often than international flights for example.

      3 replies →

    • I’m surprised the “fuel on board” isn’t something communicated via transponder considering previous low fuel emergencies/crashes.

      1 reply →

    • As a rule airline pilots don't lie about this stuff. They take safety pretty seriously.

Might be useful for fire crews in an emergency. Maybe have data for souls on board also.