Signage matters. Usability matters. Visuals matter. Particularly for aircraft.
Design could have prevented this tragedy. Maybe a sign in big letters that reads "This Runway Small Aircraft Only" with a picture of a small aircraft.
Having flown a lot I can say that I don’t understand the signs at most airports. When reading them out the airplane window they are cryptic. One of the lessons from the 9-11 commission was to use normal speak. Airports communicate in a way such that you have to be trained to understand. Why?
At the beginning of the shorter runway put a sign with a picture of the maximum size plane that can possibly take off from that runway. Maybe it is stacked like a traffic light showing 5 size aircraft. Everything too large to take off from a given runway has a big red X through it. I would understand that even if I was tired. Design with strong visuals can and does save lives.
Being an air traffic controller has got to be one of the hardest jobs — although I’m not sure another body in the tower would’ve made a difference in this particular instance. I really like your visualization ideas for better runway markings. Sometimes even if you *have* studied an airport’s strip layout, you still can have slip-ups. Human error is such a nasty *&^% sometimes… better to have warnings/messages smacked into your face than risk losing lives.
Posted on September 1, 2006 at 10:34 am.
Without reading the full NTSB report, it is hard to comment on what, exactly caused this crash. When they have analysed the data recorders and so on, they’ll have a good insight into what was going through the pilot’s minds.
Speaking as a pilot myself, the reality is that the pilots would have had ample information about the length of the runway and the performance capabilities of their aircraft. Their charts and airport maps would have clearly indicated the runway lengths, also they probably had GPS or FMS systems with the data in it. Aircraft performance and takeoff planning are a critical part of the commercial pilot training.
The issue is that the length of runway required is determined by lots of factors. An empty plane with little fuel can take off on a very short runway but needs much more runway if fully loaded. This is true for 747s and for little Cessnas. The runway altitude, temperature, surface and rain/snow also have a major impact. Most aircraft manuals have pages and pages of tables that let you calculate the runway required. It’s isn’t really a question of a simple sign.
My hunch is that something else was wrong. Perhaps they miscalculated their fuel weight or something and thought they could get airborne from the shorter runway.
Posted on September 2, 2006 at 5:09 am.
Thanks for the comments Katya and Matt.
Matt – from reading your blog I realize you are familiar with Tufte’s work on signage. And I hear what you are saying about runway length being subject to multiple factors. Yet I still think you can accomplish the task with a well designed sign.
They say programmers only understand three numbers. 0, 1 and infinity. Thus they program for exceptions on the extremes creating complexity. Complexity reduces usability.
Perhaps pilots are the same? There is a median we can clarify while still allowing the pilot to make a decision to override given other calculations.
And again, my thoughts and prayers are first and foremost with the victims.
PS – Also saw this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083100959.html
Posted on September 2, 2006 at 11:57 am.