As I remember the Tenerife "incident" not only fog was the problem, but also the KLM-pilot error (big ego or there abouts...)
I guess you can't make anything 100%...
Remember the Linate accident with the Cessna and the Scandinavian a couple of years ago?
Several "abnormalities" followed up to the accident....
Aftermaths usually shows what could have been done differently, and in most case taken ad notam to better the safety for us all.
But 100% you can never be...unfortunately...
So my bet is that a new Tenrife could happen, but hopefully it wont...
Mr. President...
Moderators: Guru's, The Ministry
-
speedbird591
- Battle of Britain
- Posts: 4038
- Joined: 24 Jun 2004, 05:56
- Location: Wiltshire, UK
- Contact:
As long as there are humans there will be human error. (I've always been strong on philosophy 
). With aircraft fitted with highly reliable, fail-safe and backed-up systems, it seems extraordinary that the final reliance is put on a verbal understanding between pressured individuals often communicating in a second language :roll:
Another Tenerife type accident could be avoided by having a simple electronic 'traffic light' system linked to the aircraft hand brake (for instance). Until ATC electronically cleared the runway for take-off the aircraft could not move. Access points could be protected in the same way and an unauthorised attempt to enter the runway would cause the aircraft to come to a stand. There is a basic system along these lines on the railway. If a train passes a red signal or approaches one too fast the brakes will be applied automatically. In recent years, the risk of a train collision caused by driver error has been reduced considerably by this simple system.
I suspect that pilots don't want any more control taken away from them and will refuse any such suggestions (especially from me ). It wouldn't do much for FS either! But my point is that we have the technology to improve air safety by taking more control away from humans but there would be huge resistance in doing so. Look at how indignant we get when strict road safety laws are enforced even though they would save lives.
Ian
). With aircraft fitted with highly reliable, fail-safe and backed-up systems, it seems extraordinary that the final reliance is put on a verbal understanding between pressured individuals often communicating in a second language :roll:Another Tenerife type accident could be avoided by having a simple electronic 'traffic light' system linked to the aircraft hand brake (for instance). Until ATC electronically cleared the runway for take-off the aircraft could not move. Access points could be protected in the same way and an unauthorised attempt to enter the runway would cause the aircraft to come to a stand. There is a basic system along these lines on the railway. If a train passes a red signal or approaches one too fast the brakes will be applied automatically. In recent years, the risk of a train collision caused by driver error has been reduced considerably by this simple system.
I suspect that pilots don't want any more control taken away from them and will refuse any such suggestions (especially from me
). It wouldn't do much for FS either! But my point is that we have the technology to improve air safety by taking more control away from humans but there would be huge resistance in doing so. Look at how indignant we get when strict road safety laws are enforced even though they would save lives.Ian
