[jamiek88]

It’s not a street light.

You aren’t going to have poles or hanging lights on a runway.

It is embedded lights.

That have to work without fail in extreme temps, all weathers, with planes rolling over them all day.

They have to have certain visibility at different angles, they have to fail gracefully.

These things are rarely ‘that’s just…’

[mopsi]

You make it sound much more difficult problem than it actually is. Embedded lights are nothing new, every small to medium airport has hundreds of them, larger airports thousands - marking runway and taxiway centerlines. Technical characteristics, installation requirements etc have been standardized a long time ago by the International Civil Aviation Organization and it's paint-by-the-numbers now. Such lights are literally off-the-shelf products and every airport maintenance team already knows how to install and take care of them.

Honeywell et al all have huge catalogues with all kinds of aerodrome lights. Here's Hughey & Phillips: https://www.hugheyandphillips.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06...

As you can see, embedded lights are also represented from pg 23 onwards and red "stop bar" lights can be found on pg 38. Here's a picture of them installed: https://i.imgur.com/ThNIQaw.jpg

[doubleunplussed]

They're a backup system if the currently in-use systems fail. If they work only 99% of the time, they've cut accidents in the class they are designed to prevent by 99%. That's excellent. Perfection does not seem any more necessary here than in other contexts, and seems like the enemy of the good.

This compliant seems to me akin to me not backing up my computer's internal drive to this external drive I have sitting on my desk, until I can make a little RAIDed setup to address the small probability that the backup drive will fail. Having no backup at all is worse than requiring a high standard to the point that the backup may not be implemented.

It's not like if they break, nobody will notice. Install them, have a process to verify they're working regularly, fix them if they break. Any downtime whilst they're being fixed is just as risky as every day the project is delayed to to this high standard of reliability.

[cguess]

When it comes to airplanes 99% is never enough. It's why after every accident (or this near accident) there are months if not years of inquiries and analysis of every second leading up the incident going back days or weeks or even months. It's why flying is the safest way to travel by a huge margin.

If even one indecent like this happens hundreds of people die in a horrible all consuming fire, travel for the entire seaboard would be halted, hundreds of thousands of passenger would be dealt with for not being where they are supposed to be, and that's before the extraordinarily expensive repair to the tarmac and the scrapping of the planes. There is, quite literally, zero margin of error.

[exmadscientist]

> 99% is never enough

99% is absolutely reasonable for one layer of defense among many! That is one of the best methods to achieve truly high reliability, as is needed in this case: stack many reliable systems in such a way that they all must fail to get an overall failure. It is not perfect, of course, and things can always cascade, but it is a powerful technique.

[cguess]

I'm guessing you've never worked in system-critical infrastructure? Airplanes are another level up from that. I'm not the one saying this, the FAA and NTSB are. Nothing is allowed to go wrong, ever.

[astrange]

I've been stuck at SFO for hours at least once a year because our flight had some mechanical issue. (Always on a Delta flight to ATL or MSP, don't know why.)

They did fix it and then eventually we took off. In a way that's "not going wrong". On the other hand, they didn't cancel it and send the plane to be disassembled for failure analysis. That'd certainly be safer.

[crote]

A single mechanical issue isn't an incident.

Everything involved in aviation is designed to be extremely reliable, but parts are still expected to break. Airplanes have a list of parts which are allowed to be broken without grounding the airplane. Every part has a well-documented procedure for inspection, maintenance, and replacement.

Investigations happen when, despite following the documented procedures, stuff somehow still goes wrong. They are done to improve the procedures so that it can never happen again.

Inspection and maintenance is a significant source of errors, though. Nobody wants to disassemble an entire plane when a single part develops a well-isolated failure.

Air Transat Flight 236 had its engine swapped out with a spare during routine maintenance. However, the engines had a different "patch level", leading to them installing a hydraulic hose with the wrong length. This hose rubbed on the fuel line leading it to develop a leak. The subsequent flight ran out of fuel halfway over the Atlantic, and they narrowly avoided having to ditch it into the ocean.

American Airlines Flight 4439 was done on an aircraft with a faulty trim switch. Prior to the flight, maintenance engineers wanted to replace it, but this was cancelled mid-process due to the time required to acquire a replacement part. They re-installed the switch and marked it as inoperable - which is not an issue as - despite the switch being safety-critical - there are two other trim switches available. However, the faulty trim switch was reinstalled backwards, and the pilot still tried to use it due to muscle memory. This nearly lead to a pilot-induced stall.

There are literally dozens of stories like that. In aviation, there is no room for error.

[jquery]

The fact they didn’t take off with the mechanical issue should be a point in their favor, not against them.

More accurately though, safety critical things are not allowed to go wrong. If they do, they get investigated. What is and isn’t deemed safety critical is a document written in blood, unfortunately.

[zmgsabst]

Right.

So it’s very strange you’re passionately arguing to keep the riskier current setup that almost had a massive accident — rather than improve it.

Perfect is the enemy of better.

[ajross]

Runway lighting is 80 year old technology; we solved all those problems long, long ago. I mean, come on. It's one thing to point out that problems are inherently complicated, but to pretend that we can't deploy something as obvious as, yes, a street light because of expense is making yourself part of the problem, not the solution.

[ClumsyPilot]

> lighting is 80 year old technology

The first gas turbine was invented in 1791

Are they cheap? Can you buy them for next day delivery?

[mopsi]

> Are they cheap? Can you buy them for next day delivery?

Yes. They are consumables comparable to bulbs and light fixtures at home, just good LEDs on a PCB in a metal/plastic case. It's sheer insanity to pretent that aerodrome lights are some magic technology.

[astrange]

Are there actually different more expensive lighting technologies for this? Or do you just get more lights so there's more redundancy?

Seems like most of those problems would be more caused by the power cables than the light itself.