LGA accident

[MikeD]

You might never hear it. Canadian carrier, Canadian aircraft, the Canadians may take the lead. If run under TSB rules, you won’t even see a transcript.

NTSB should be the lead investigators as it happened at a US airport. Canada TSB will obviously be invited to participate closely, but this is NTSB jurisdiction.

Same back in ‘85 with Arrow Air at Gander. US carrier, but Canada jurisdiction for the investigation.

 

[Bob Ridpath]

I’m going to go ahead and call “AI” marketing for what it really is, a “Language Learning Model”.

When you are able to learn how it actually works, it’s not necessarily “intelligent”, just really good at word association and probability from proximity of term usage — which is why it’s really good at creating sourced, incredibly convincing but profoundly incorrect results.

I’ve been trying to use Claude to correct some software coding, but every query brings up a different result, neither of them work properly, but man, it looks good!

I ran it on some basic A350 questions and referenced actual source materials and OpenAI basically created entire systems and procedures which don’t even exist and said so with great confidence. I’m still trying to figure out what a ‘red warning button’ on the ‘autopilot’ is (it’s an “AFSCP”) for a minor “auththrottle anomaly”.

A. “Autothrust”
B. Minor “autothrottle anomaly”
C. Red warning button?
D. No, my guy, Reddit and AvWeb shouldn’t be referenced because we have actual source material

LLM’s are not our savior but they will hasten the demise of domain expertise.

Acknowledging cheerfully that I'm a Luddite, I firmly believe that AI and Robotics will herald our demise, o day or another.

 

[ppragman]

I’m going to go ahead and call “AI” marketing for what it really is, a “Language Learning Model”.

When you are able to learn how it actually works, it’s not necessarily “intelligent”, just really good at word association and probability from proximity of term usage — which is why it’s really good at creating sourced, incredibly convincing but profoundly incorrect results.

I’ve been trying to use Claude to correct some software coding, but every query brings up a different result, neither of them work properly, but man, it looks good!

I ran it on some basic A350 questions and referenced actual source materials and OpenAI basically created entire systems and procedures which don’t even exist and said so with great confidence. I’m still trying to figure out what a ‘red warning button’ on the ‘autopilot’ is (it’s an “AFSCP”) for a minor “auththrottle anomaly”.

A. “Autothrust”
B. Minor “autothrottle anomaly”
C. Red warning button?
D. No, my guy, Reddit and AvWeb shouldn’t be referenced because we have actual source material

LLM’s are not our savior but they will hasten the demise of domain expertise.

did you provide it with the source material you were referencing? And are you using a paid model?

The new models are pretty good for this sort of thing even when you try to trip it up by suggesting that there's only "one" limitation.

to be clear, you have to further prompt it to get a page reference, which is kind of annoying, but yeah... this is all correct albeit with caveats.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

NTSB should be the lead investigators as it happened at a US airport. Canada TSB will obviously be invited to participate closely, but this is NTSB jurisdiction.

Same back in ‘85 with Arrow Air at Gander. US carrier, but Canada jurisdiction for the investigation.

Yeah I was going to say. There’s almost a zero percent chance this gets handed over to the TSB. Party member/participation, sure. But this will be a NTSB investigation.

 

[Roger Roger]

Not to mention they have the worst attitude in all of the system. I understand they have a tough job, but LGA controllers specifically go out of their way to be dicks.



AI isn't ready yet, obviously, but the FAA does need an overhaul to their tech stack.

But yes, we can go much further with existing tech. Machine learning/whatever stuff could do a lot of the TMU sequencing type stuff to build the lineups out over Ohio, it’s literally what this kind of tech is best at. There is soooo much more that multi sensor fusion can do to prevent exactly this kind of accident. Between IR and visual spectrum cameras, ADS-B in/out, etc there’s no reason we couldn’t, with today’s tech, have ground vehicles and air traffic projected on helmet displays in the cockpit and in the fire truck, full-windscreen HUD, or at least a PFD with synthetic vision and audible warning callouts. But, Elon might have to sell off part of his sex compound and that would be communism.

Shoot man, make the windows of the tower cab a monster HUD with sensor fusion to point highlight ground and air traffic, anticipate/cleared flight or taxi path, use speech recognition to highlight the guy you’re talking to while you deliver a clearance… but we won’t pay to keep 1980s tech alive so the Star Trek future seems unreachable

 

[ppragman]

But yes, we can go much further with existing tech. Machine learning/whatever stuff could do a lot of the TMU sequencing type stuff to build the lineups out over Ohio, it’s literally what this kind of tech is best at. There is soooo much more that multi sensor fusion can do to prevent exactly this kind of accident. Between IR and visual spectrum cameras, ADS-B in/out, etc there’s no reason we couldn’t, with today’s tech, have ground vehicles and air traffic projected on helmet displays in the cockpit and in the fire truck, full-windscreen HUD, or at least a PFD with synthetic vision and audible warning callouts. But, Elon might have to sell off part of his sex compound and that would be communism.

We have to be willing to dream of a better future - not merely to own our own sex compounds.

 

[tcco94]

Is this to be believed?


View attachment 88964






UA guys on the 737, what’s your policy on aborts for a yellow master caution light?


Our shop once you’re above 80 kts we don’t stop for a yellow master caution light.


Similar question to anyone at Delta and AA on the 737.

Only curious.

Before 80 yes
above 80 no

FOM here not airplane specific

 

[pwttogfk]

Not to mention they have the worst attitude in all of the system. I understand they have a tough job, but LGA controllers specifically go out of their way to be dicks.



AI isn't ready yet, obviously, but the FAA does need an overhaul to their tech stack.

I’m doing my best to be nice, but yeah. Only one place has harassed me over “not wanting to get my plane wet.”

New York controllers are New Yorkers first, controllers second. And that’s all I have to say about that.

 

[tcco94]

Before 80 yes
above 80 no

FOM here not airplane specific

Sorry I’m wrong it’s a fleet manual specific maneuver not FOM* so I can’t speak to 737, but my 2 types the master caution/warning was the same

 

[GolfChuck]

I’m doing my best to be nice, but yeah. Only one place has harassed me over “not wanting to get my plane wet.”

New York controllers are New Yorkers first, controllers second. And that’s all I have to say about that.

Do you fly for legacy AA? Because they definitely have a reputation about being the first to deviate for weather.

On the other hand TAM has a reputation for doing stupid crap and disregarding weather and advice.

 

[CFI A&P]

NTSB should be the lead investigators as it happened at a US airport. Canada TSB will obviously be invited to participate closely, but this is NTSB jurisdiction.

Same back in ‘85 with Arrow Air at Gander. US carrier, but Canada jurisdiction for the investigation.

It would be great if TSB took the lead. It is hard to imagine our current political climate wont impact the investigation.

 

[ArcherII]

If the ARFF was in the middle of an emergency aid, it would be interesting to see how the rights of way rules play in this kind of situations...

 

[jhugz]

100kts is the threshold for the high speed regime on the bus at UA. Assume it’s the same for the 737

We use 100 knots on the 73 at UA also. Not really sure why, probably to keep it standard across the company, but in my previous Boeings (74 and 76) at the old shop it was 80.

My brief is above 100 knots we will only reject for:

-Any fire
-Engine Failure
-Aircraft Unsafe of Unable to Fly
-Windshear
-Tower calls the reject

 

[Boots2Wings]

Isn't there an airframe limitation prohibiting go-arounds once the TRs have deployed?

That's really splitting hairs over timing over who saw what, and when, but if the thrust reversers are out (not Dee Howards, but Safran/ Ontic) the math on the go around gets a little more complicated.

On le bus at my shop, reversers out = “decision to land”…Airbus is pretty explicit, once you pop the buckets, you commit.

I would be hard pressed after TR deployment to Go-Around…but in this case, with the runway layout at LGA…once the mains hit; theres no options.

Rip