A new term has been coined: "runway excursion incident"

[usmbguest5318]

A Pegasus Airlines 737-800 landing at Trabzon Airport in northeastern Turkey had, according to Turkish officials, a "runway excursion incident." Apparently, that means "the plane ran off the runway and nearly crashed into the Black Sea." LOL

​

Obviously, it's fortunate that the plane did not end up in the water and that nobody onboard was seriously injured. But is saying "the plane ran/skidded off the runway and we have yet to determine how or why" such an unclear, bad or ineffective way to describe what happened that saying it "had a runway excursion incident" is a better way of putting it?

 

[aaronleland]

Was 9/11 a terrorist attack or a building excursion incident?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Was 9/11 a terrorist attack or a building excursion incident?

How does a plane running off a runway during a routine landing in Turkey, and where nobody was seriously injured, conjure in your mind thoughts of 9/11? Do you, as a matter of course, think of 9/11 at the mere utterance of the word "plane?"

 

[Circe]

A Pegasus Airlines 737-800 landing at Trabzon Airport in northeastern Turkey had, according to Turkish officials, a "runway excursion incident." Apparently, that means "the plane ran off the runway and nearly crashed into the Black Sea." LOL

​

Obviously, it's fortunate that the plane did not end up in the water and that nobody onboard was seriously injured. But is saying "the plane ran/skidded off the runway and we have yet to determine how or why" such an unclear, bad or ineffective way to describe what happened that saying it "had a runway excursion incident" is a better way of putting it?

Sure. It's complex bureaucratic talk to keep people from paying attention to such interesting photos as you have posted, which might lead people to think some incompetence has occurred. Good catch.

Sometimes they obfuscate with ridiculously simple language, like last night's episode in Hawaii, where the entire state was warned of imminent nuclear obliteration -- for 38 minutes -- before a false alarm notice was posted. The officials were pleased to say that someone pushed a wrong button.

You know, I don't believe that. It was at a "shift change" when a saboteur could have gotten in, and it is hard to believe there was just one easy-to-push button as they imply. What, no computer program? Passwords? Permissions required? Just a big red button labeled "Push here to warn Hawaiians they are all going to die"? No, I don't believe that.

 

[usmbguest5318]

A Pegasus Airlines 737-800 landing at Trabzon Airport in northeastern Turkey had, according to Turkish officials, a "runway excursion incident." Apparently, that means "the plane ran off the runway and nearly crashed into the Black Sea." LOL

​

Obviously, it's fortunate that the plane did not end up in the water and that nobody onboard was seriously injured. But is saying "the plane ran/skidded off the runway and we have yet to determine how or why" such an unclear, bad or ineffective way to describe what happened that saying it "had a runway excursion incident" is a better way of putting it?

Sure. It's complex bureaucratic talk to keep people from paying attention to such interesting photos as you have posted, which might lead people to think some incompetence has occurred. Good catch.

Sometimes they obfuscate with ridiculously simple language, like last night's episode in Hawaii, where the entire state was warned of imminent nuclear obliteration -- for 38 minutes -- before a false alarm notice was posted. The officials were pleased to say that someone pushed a wrong button.

You know, I don't believe that. It was at a "shift change" when a saboteur could have gotten in, and it is hard to believe there was just one easy-to-push button as they imply. What, no computer program? Passwords? Permissions required? Just a big red button labeled "Push here to warn Hawaiians they are all going to die"? No, I don't believe that.

It's complex bureaucratic talk to keep people from paying attention to such interesting photos as you have posted, which might lead people to think some incompetence has occurred. Good catch.

??? Did you mean that sarcastically?

Seeing those photos and not knowing the details of why the plane skidded off the runway, one might also be inclined to think the pilots exhibited some measure of great competence in ensuring the plane didn't crash into the Black Sea and/or in generally handling things so that nobody was seriously injured.

You know, I don't believe that. It was at a "shift change" when a saboteur could have gotten in, and it is hard to believe there was just one easy-to-push button as they imply. What, no computer program? Passwords? Permissions required? Just a big red button labeled "Push here to warn Hawaiians they are all going to die"? No, I don't believe that.

Okay. I'm inclined to think you are indeed being sarcastic.

 

[Circe]

A Pegasus Airlines 737-800 landing at Trabzon Airport in northeastern Turkey had, according to Turkish officials, a "runway excursion incident." Apparently, that means "the plane ran off the runway and nearly crashed into the Black Sea." LOL

​

Obviously, it's fortunate that the plane did not end up in the water and that nobody onboard was seriously injured. But is saying "the plane ran/skidded off the runway and we have yet to determine how or why" such an unclear, bad or ineffective way to describe what happened that saying it "had a runway excursion incident" is a better way of putting it?

Sure. It's complex bureaucratic talk to keep people from paying attention to such interesting photos as you have posted, which might lead people to think some incompetence has occurred. Good catch.

Sometimes they obfuscate with ridiculously simple language, like last night's episode in Hawaii, where the entire state was warned of imminent nuclear obliteration -- for 38 minutes -- before a false alarm notice was posted. The officials were pleased to say that someone pushed a wrong button.

You know, I don't believe that. It was at a "shift change" when a saboteur could have gotten in, and it is hard to believe there was just one easy-to-push button as they imply. What, no computer program? Passwords? Permissions required? Just a big red button labeled "Push here to warn Hawaiians they are all going to die"? No, I don't believe that.

It's complex bureaucratic talk to keep people from paying attention to such interesting photos as you have posted, which might lead people to think some incompetence has occurred. Good catch.

??? Did you mean that sarcastically?

Seeing those photos and not knowing the details of why the plane skidded off the runway, one might also be inclined to think the pilots exhibited some measure of great competence in ensuring the plane didn't crash into the Black Sea and/or in generally handling things so that nobody was seriously injured.

You know, I don't believe that. It was at a "shift change" when a saboteur could have gotten in, and it is hard to believe there was just one easy-to-push button as they imply. What, no computer program? Passwords? Permissions required? Just a big red button labeled "Push here to warn Hawaiians they are all going to die"? No, I don't believe that.

Okay. I'm inclined to think you are indeed being sarcastic.

No indeed --- I wouldn't say "good catch" if I were being sarcastic. It is an interesting thread topic.

 

[usmbguest5318]

A Pegasus Airlines 737-800 landing at Trabzon Airport in northeastern Turkey had, according to Turkish officials, a "runway excursion incident." Apparently, that means "the plane ran off the runway and nearly crashed into the Black Sea." LOL

​

Obviously, it's fortunate that the plane did not end up in the water and that nobody onboard was seriously injured. But is saying "the plane ran/skidded off the runway and we have yet to determine how or why" such an unclear, bad or ineffective way to describe what happened that saying it "had a runway excursion incident" is a better way of putting it?

Sure. It's complex bureaucratic talk to keep people from paying attention to such interesting photos as you have posted, which might lead people to think some incompetence has occurred. Good catch.

Sometimes they obfuscate with ridiculously simple language, like last night's episode in Hawaii, where the entire state was warned of imminent nuclear obliteration -- for 38 minutes -- before a false alarm notice was posted. The officials were pleased to say that someone pushed a wrong button.

You know, I don't believe that. It was at a "shift change" when a saboteur could have gotten in, and it is hard to believe there was just one easy-to-push button as they imply. What, no computer program? Passwords? Permissions required? Just a big red button labeled "Push here to warn Hawaiians they are all going to die"? No, I don't believe that.

It's complex bureaucratic talk to keep people from paying attention to such interesting photos as you have posted, which might lead people to think some incompetence has occurred. Good catch.

??? Did you mean that sarcastically?

Seeing those photos and not knowing the details of why the plane skidded off the runway, one might also be inclined to think the pilots exhibited some measure of great competence in ensuring the plane didn't crash into the Black Sea and/or in generally handling things so that nobody was seriously injured.

You know, I don't believe that. It was at a "shift change" when a saboteur could have gotten in, and it is hard to believe there was just one easy-to-push button as they imply. What, no computer program? Passwords? Permissions required? Just a big red button labeled "Push here to warn Hawaiians they are all going to die"? No, I don't believe that.

Okay. I'm inclined to think you are indeed being sarcastic.

No indeed --- I wouldn't say "good catch" if I were being sarcastic. It is an interesting thread topic.

Okay. TY for clarifying that. Perhaps when I return from my run, I'll share my thoughts about the ideas/doubts you posited.

It is an interesting thread topic.

TY. Indubitably, catalyzing discussion about a damn airplane accident itself is not the aim of this thread's rubric. LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

A Pegasus Airlines 737-800 landing at Trabzon Airport in northeastern Turkey had, according to Turkish officials, a "runway excursion incident." Apparently, that means "the plane ran off the runway and nearly crashed into the Black Sea." LOL

​

Obviously, it's fortunate that the plane did not end up in the water and that nobody onboard was seriously injured. But is saying "the plane ran/skidded off the runway and we have yet to determine how or why" such an unclear, bad or ineffective way to describe what happened that saying it "had a runway excursion incident" is a better way of putting it?

Obfuscation, the defense of the incompetent and ignorant.

 

[usmbguest5318]

A Pegasus Airlines 737-800 landing at Trabzon Airport in northeastern Turkey had, according to Turkish officials, a "runway excursion incident." Apparently, that means "the plane ran off the runway and nearly crashed into the Black Sea." LOL

​

Obviously, it's fortunate that the plane did not end up in the water and that nobody onboard was seriously injured. But is saying "the plane ran/skidded off the runway and we have yet to determine how or why" such an unclear, bad or ineffective way to describe what happened that saying it "had a runway excursion incident" is a better way of putting it?

Sure. It's complex bureaucratic talk to keep people from paying attention to such interesting photos as you have posted, which might lead people to think some incompetence has occurred. Good catch.

Sometimes they obfuscate with ridiculously simple language, like last night's episode in Hawaii, where the entire state was warned of imminent nuclear obliteration -- for 38 minutes -- before a false alarm notice was posted. The officials were pleased to say that someone pushed a wrong button.

You know, I don't believe that. It was at a "shift change" when a saboteur could have gotten in, and it is hard to believe there was just one easy-to-push button as they imply. What, no computer program? Passwords? Permissions required? Just a big red button labeled "Push here to warn Hawaiians they are all going to die"? No, I don't believe that.

You know, I don't believe that. It was at a "shift change" when a saboteur could have gotten in, and it is hard to believe there was just one easy-to-push button as they imply. What, no computer program? Passwords? Permissions required? Just a big red button labeled "Push here to warn Hawaiians they are all going to die"? No, I don't believe that.

Saboteurs:

There is no indication that any unauthorized persons had access to the alert system. If there's going to be a saboteur, it's going to be someone who is authorized to send an alert and who does so maliciously.
​

"As easy as pushing a button":

Well, given the explanation given by the folks in Hawaii who manage that system, it was that easy. There were several protocols/controls that should have been in place and that were not.

• Only one person was needed to issue an alert of the nature that was issued. Just as launching nuclear weapons requires two people to do so, so too should have the procedure warning residents of an inbound missile strike (nuclear or otherwise). After all telling folks a warhead is inbound is no less important than is sending a warhead to explode on an enemy. The affected parties/locales in either situation are destined to suffer mayhem, and obviously nobody wants to needlessly cause mayhem among one's own populace on account of a procedural error.
• Hawaiian emergency alert employees were performing a test of the alert system and they did so using what people in my industry call "TIP" -- testing in production.
  
  While there are reasons to test the production implementation/apparatuses of an emergency broadcast system -- we routinely have had them in D.C. at least since I was a child, and I presume other locales do as well -- when doing so, the emergency broadcast tone is followed by a statement indicating that what one is hearing is a test of the emergency broadcast system, that it's just a test, and that in the event of there being an actual emergency, the would have been followed by information and instructions of the nature of the emergency and what they should do.
  
  
  
• The Hawaiian officials who designed and subsequently manage the emergency alert process did not, along with the standard alert process and procedures, implement exception processes and procedures, instead, having only what folks in my profession -- management consulting -- sometimes call "happy path" procedures and processes, i.e, what to do when events and circumstances present themselves as one, rightly, expects that they usually will and as one, thus, prefers they do occur. Thorough risk management and mitigation requires that one acknowledge that while most things will occur in accordance with "happy path" expectations, a share of them will not, and one must also have in place efficient and effective procedures that allow staff and managers to, with adroitness and aplomb, address them.
  
  Simply put, while the emergency broadcast technology worked just fine, this weekend's events highlighted a material failing in the processes the technology supports. I guess that's no surprise to me and keen observers of the difference between realized billing rates IT consultants command and those process and strategy consultants command. [1] Any consultant will tell you that on any given technology implementation, the hard part has nothing to do with the technology; the hard parts are the people and the process.
  
  
  • Note:
  1. Don't get the wrong idea. IT consultants make a very fine living, or at least good ones do. That differential is part of why I directed my career toward strategy and tactical consulting and not technology consulting. The other part is, of course, that because I wasn't ever particularly intrigued with computer software and hardware, at not in a "designing and building it" sense, I sought to develop no notable and specific IT skills by which I could make a living; my formal training was obtained in economics and business management. LOL

 

[miketx]

A Pegasus Airlines 737-800 landing at Trabzon Airport in northeastern Turkey had, according to Turkish officials, a "runway excursion incident." Apparently, that means "the plane ran off the runway and nearly crashed into the Black Sea." LOL

​

Obviously, it's fortunate that the plane did not end up in the water and that nobody onboard was seriously injured. But is saying "the plane ran/skidded off the runway and we have yet to determine how or why" such an unclear, bad or ineffective way to describe what happened that saying it "had a runway excursion incident" is a better way of putting it?

Why do you have to emphasize that it's the black sea? Is their some reason you single out black seas? Why couldn't you just say "the sea" and leave it at that? Why bring race into it?

 

[Circe]

You know, I don't believe that. It was at a "shift change" when a saboteur could have gotten in, and it is hard to believe there was just one easy-to-push button as they imply. What, no computer program? Passwords? Permissions required? Just a big red button labeled "Push here to warn Hawaiians they are all going to die"? No, I don't believe that.

Saboteurs:

There is no indication that any unauthorized persons had access to the alert system. If there's going to be a saboteur, it's going to be someone who is authorized to send an alert and who does so maliciously.​

I'm trying to believe all the "Mistake! Mistake!!" yelling today, but I've gotten very cynical about government cover-ups. And as Lily Tomlin said, however cynical I become, it's never enough to keep up.


​

"As easy as pushing a button":

Well, given the explanation given by the folks in Hawaii who manage that system, it was that easy. There were several protocols/controls that should have been in place and that were not.

• Only one person was needed to issue an alert of the nature that was issued. Just as launching nuclear weapons requires two people to do so, so too should have the procedure warning residents of an inbound missile strike (nuclear or otherwise). After all telling folks a warhead is inbound is no less important than is sending a warhead to explode on an enemy. The affected parties/locales in either situation are destined to suffer mayhem, and obviously nobody wants to needlessly cause mayhem among one's own populace on account of a procedural error.

Well, I sure agree enthusiastically with that!
Two movie stars had real meltdowns on Twitter from the panic, and lots of stories are now coming about how it felt to believe you are moments away from a flaming death by nuclear bomb.

There is no point to this emergency alert system except to promote the power of government. Either you are going to die of getting nuked or not: no use waiting in terror for it.

We have an emergency warning system in my county whereby county people call up phones with a robocall. They got to abusing that: it might rain. It might be a terrible snowstorm, call off school, stay home from work! (Two inches fell that time.) The new county exec cut back on the calling a lot --- people had started to sneer, naturally.
​

 

[usmbguest5318]

You know, I don't believe that. It was at a "shift change" when a saboteur could have gotten in, and it is hard to believe there was just one easy-to-push button as they imply. What, no computer program? Passwords? Permissions required? Just a big red button labeled "Push here to warn Hawaiians they are all going to die"? No, I don't believe that.

Saboteurs:

There is no indication that any unauthorized persons had access to the alert system. If there's going to be a saboteur, it's going to be someone who is authorized to send an alert and who does so maliciously.​

I'm trying to believe all the "Mistake! Mistake!!" yelling today, but I've gotten very cynical about government cover-ups. And as Lily Tomlin said, however cynical I become, it's never enough to keep up.


​

"As easy as pushing a button":

Well, given the explanation given by the folks in Hawaii who manage that system, it was that easy. There were several protocols/controls that should have been in place and that were not.

• Only one person was needed to issue an alert of the nature that was issued. Just as launching nuclear weapons requires two people to do so, so too should have the procedure warning residents of an inbound missile strike (nuclear or otherwise). After all telling folks a warhead is inbound is no less important than is sending a warhead to explode on an enemy. The affected parties/locales in either situation are destined to suffer mayhem, and obviously nobody wants to needlessly cause mayhem among one's own populace on account of a procedural error.

Well, I sure agree enthusiastically with that!
Two movie stars had real meltdowns on Twitter from the panic, and lots of stories are now coming about how it felt to believe you are moments away from a flaming death by nuclear bomb.

There is no point to this emergency alert system except to promote the power of government. Either you are going to die of getting nuked or not: no use waiting in terror for it.

We have an emergency warning system in my country whereby county people call up phones with a robocall. They got to abusing that: it might rain. It might be a terrible snowstorm, call off school, stay home from work! (Two inches fell that time.) The new county exec cut back on the calling a lot --- people had started to sneer, naturally.
​

I'm trying to believe all the "Mistake! Mistake!!" yelling today, but I've gotten very cynical about government cover-ups. And as Lily Tomlin said, however cynical I become, it's never enough to keep up.

However cynical I feel about any given issue, I'm unwilling to air my cynicism when I lack strong facts II can use to support my cynical assertions about the nature and extent of the matter in question. The mere fact that I suspect something be "rotten in Denmark" is not enough for me to contrive and assemble a hodgepodge of circumstantially and/or obliquely pertinent data points that result in my publishing a procrustean claim that there is something "rotten in Denmark," even that I think there be.

Call that patience; call it prudence; call it pride. I call it merely a practice that's served me well 30+ years of personal and professional relationship and reputation building whereby among the people who rely upon and know me well, perfidious is not what they call me.

 

[Circe]

However cynical I feel about any given issue, I'm unwilling to air my cynicism when I lack strong facts II can use to support my cynical assertions about the nature and extent of the matter in question. The mere fact that I suspect something be "rotten in Denmark" is not enough for me to contrive and assemble a hodgepodge of circumstantially and/or obliquely pertinent data points that result in my publishing a procrustean claim that there is something "rotten in Denmark," even that I think there be.

Call that patience; call it prudence; call it pride. I call it merely a practice that's served me well 30+ years of personal and professional relationship and reputation building whereby among the people who rely upon and know me well, perfidious is not what they call me.

"Perfidious" can't be quite right, can it? They wouldn't call you perfidious, implying a small-scale villainy, dishonesty, if you indulged in cynical expressions of opinion. More --- a pop-off? Inclined to conspiracy theories? Paranoid?

Well, me and Willy Shakespeare --- we default to rotten in Denmark. I spent far too many years being far too trusting and the world sure loved making a fool of me for that. So now I'm veering over the other way, like Martin Luther's drunk on a horse: the one thing he can't do is sit up straight in the middle. But maybe you can: ride on.

 

[usmbguest5318]

However cynical I feel about any given issue, I'm unwilling to air my cynicism when I lack strong facts II can use to support my cynical assertions about the nature and extent of the matter in question. The mere fact that I suspect something be "rotten in Denmark" is not enough for me to contrive and assemble a hodgepodge of circumstantially and/or obliquely pertinent data points that result in my publishing a procrustean claim that there is something "rotten in Denmark," even that I think there be.

Call that patience; call it prudence; call it pride. I call it merely a practice that's served me well 30+ years of personal and professional relationship and reputation building whereby among the people who rely upon and know me well, perfidious is not what they call me.

"Perfidious" can't be quite right, can it? They wouldn't call you perfidious, implying a small-scale villainy, dishonesty, if you indulged in cynical expressions of opinion. More --- a pop-off? Inclined to conspiracy theories? Paranoid?

Well, me and Willy Shakespeare --- we default to rotten in Denmark. I spent far too many years being far too trusting and the world sure loved making a fool of me for that. So now I'm veering over the other way, like Martin Luther's drunk on a horse: the one thing he can't do is sit up straight in the middle. But maybe you can: ride on.

"Perfidious" can't be quite right, can it? They wouldn't call you perfidious, implying a small-scale villainy, dishonesty, if you indulged in cynical expressions of opinion. More --- a pop-off? Inclined to conspiracy theories? Paranoid?

Um, yes, perfidious is what I meant. (Click here too.) I suppose I could have written "untrustworthy," but I was clearly feeling p-alliterative, so I went with the adjectival form of "perfidy."

 

[usmbguest5318]

So now I'm veering over the other way, like Martin Luther's drunk on a horse: the one thing he can't do is sit up straight in the middle. But maybe you can: ride on.

LOL

 

[Manonthestreet]

Do you have to pay xtra for the excursion package?

 

[IsaacNewton]

An incursion is when something gets on the runway that shouldn't be there, while excursion is when a plane leaves the runway improperly. These words aren't that big I don't see the problem.

It looks like the pilot overshot the end of the runway and should have gone around but landed anyway and as it rolled along the runway he was scared they would go off the end of the runway and turned while braking hard or some other attempt to get the plane stopped before the end of the runway. They also said the pilot reported one or both engines improperly kept accelerating as they were landing. Again probably should have gone around but if he detected engine problems on finals most people would think it a good idea to get the thing on the ground and figure it out there rather than risk going around and have a catastrophic failure.

It isn't as clear cut as it may appear. And how muddy does a hill have to be to stop a 100,000lb aircraft from sliding all the way down the hill? It appears they weren't going very fast when it went over the edge.

 

[fncceo]

Was 9/11 a terrorist attack or a building excursion incident?

9/11 was a CFIT incident. Controlled Flight Into Terrain.

NOTE: Actual term.

 

[Circe]

Was 9/11 a terrorist attack or a building excursion incident?

9/11 was a CFIT incident. Controlled Flight Into Terrain.

NOTE: Actual term.

It makes me happy that's an actual term.

Reminds me of the old rule that your take-offs should equal your landings; if so, everything is fine.

 

[Circe]

An incursion is when something gets on the runway that shouldn't be there, while excursion is when a plane leaves the runway improperly. These words aren't that big I don't see the problem.

You don't see the problem? How about leaving off those utterly useless bureaucratic concealment words and saying " a COW got on the RUNWAY, for God's sake, can't you guys deal with livestock better than that????"

And excursion definitely does not mean leaves the runway improperly. The word for that is, "We fell down the HILL almost into the SEA and CNN and the whole damn world is looking at us on CABLE."

People, could we not let bureaucrats use obfuscation words to conceal their complete inability to cope with the modern world and instead use plain English to describe what HAPPENED?