A running joke on /r/StardewValley is that any popular post will be a buzzfeed or other slopsite article the next day.

Perhaps in a scenario where there is an active emergency and one controller, protocol should be that ground and air frequencies are combined.

That would have given the jet a chance to hear the truck cleared to cross the runway they were landing on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Tom_Bombadil Has similar poetry.

Just declare that any router that can be flashed to OpenWRT without loss of functionality is allowed to be imported.

Requiring a one-click option to configure to open source would be a sensible across-the-board law.

Legalize debt for all and all are in debt. Strange and surprising.

Someone who bought Windows 3.1 could easily be a grandparent by now, even if their first kid was born on release day.

And the kid could be born when this upload was done, and now be downloading!

The corollary is that it's only the budget that is tracked that anyone cares about.

Often your salary is not on that budget, so if it takes you twice as long but you don't have to buy/hire/use AWS, winner.

Salary does not need to be on the budget because it is the same whether you work 40hrs per week or 80.

As someone who once spent two months reworking a system because a 4GB Oracle instance was okay, but 8GB was verboten, I agree.

Which is exactly what failed here, so saying "it shouldn't fail by not failing" doesn't help terribly much.

Having grade-separate crossings for vehicles might, but that introduces new issues (plane skidding off runway could hit the incline and break up).

O’Hare has those but it’s not helpful for emergencies that happen on the runway itself.

Well, sure, but in that case it's expected that the runway is closed.

The fire truck was responding to an emergency which is why it needed to cross an active runway.

Even without anticipated clearance to land you have to define what "the runway is empty and yours" means.

Of course it matters. All of these entities have limited budgets and personnel and almost unlimited ways they could apply those resources. They have to choose what to chase and they do that by deciding how big of a problem it is.

If 1,700 is a huge percentage of runway uses (obviously it isn't but grant it, say at a single airport), then it's mandatory it be investigated because it's so huge.

If 1,700 is a minuscule fraction of all runway uses (as it likely is) then investigating it should be a proportionally minuscule amount of the budget.

There are five categories of incursion, with the top one being where a collision occurs:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_incursion#Definition

* https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/resources/runway_...

All incursions (in the US) are tracked:

* https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/statistics

Given there are ~45,000 flights per days in the US (and so aircraft and vehicles would move hither and fro around an airport for each flight), 1700 feels like a small number.

Exactly - it's a small number and should be investigated, because if we reduce the number of all incursions, we reduce the number of collisions (and fatalities).

They are classified as operation/ATC error, pilot error, and vehicle/pedestrian error.

Human can misspeak or mishear instructions, but if they were communicated and understood correctly (a read back was correct), but the pilot had a 'brain fart' and went forward instead of stopping, how do we eliminate brain farts?

That's a big part of the story of aviation; the way things are communicated has changed because of brain farts, the way things are lined up, etc.

See 5-2-5 for an example:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html...

NOTE- Previous reviews of air traffic events, involving LUAW instructions, revealed that a significant number of pilots read back LUAW instructions correctly and departed without a takeoff clearance. LUAW instructions are not to be confused with a departure clearance; the outcome could be catastrophic, especially during intersecting runway operations.

The older term was "hold short runway X" and that was too close to "hold runway X" - the first meant do NOT enter the runway, the second meant enter and line up but do NOT takeoff.

The old version of “line up and wait” was “taxi into position and hold”. “Hold short of runway” is still in use but means something different.

You can't know how big of a problem it is without an investigation. Frequently, the initial "obvious" cause of a collision or incursion turns out to be a multi-layered set of failures. Tightening up procedures or recognizing a previously overlooked defect in the systems makes us all safer and should be prioritized.

We talk about Vision Zero for streets. Vision Zero is actually achievable in aviation.