AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?

[Rockie]

It should point out that even though I don't fly for Air Canada I do understand that when a crew do not have situational awareness during any approach be it IMC or VFR and they come that close to other airplanes lined up on a taxi way I personally think those people in the back were put at great risk and no amount of P.R B.S. will change my mind.

In the first place nobody has given any PRBS yet, so your condemnation of it is somewhat premature. Secondly, while the bold part of this statement is self-evident to anyone with a brain, the unnecessary and irrelevant comparison to airshow flying was shall we say...gratuitous? Thirdly, how about we find out why the situational awareness broke down so we can prevent a recurrence rather than just call it a one off due to incompetent crew?

[Jet Jockey]

So it turns out the incident is far worse than first reported according to the latest details from the NTSB (if correct and/or factual).

The aircraft actually made it all the way down to 81' AGL before starting it's climb. It actually overflew the first two aircrafts on taxiway C just missing the second aircraft and clearing the second United flight, a B787 by only 26' vertically as it started to climb. Also according to this story, the AC pilots only initiated the go around after the tower told them to do so.

If these facts are correct, I simply don't understand how these two pilots allowed themselves to get into that position. I cannot believe they did not see the four aircrafts lined up just below them and continued the landing procedure.

I will wait for an actual report from the proper/official sources before passing judgement but if all correct, these guys are in deep poo poo.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/17/n ... g-landing/

[Rockie]

I cannot believe they did not see the four aircrafts lined up just below them and continued the landing procedure.

So you believe they did see those airplanes and continued to land anyway? There's a double negative there and I may misunderstand exactly what you're trying to say.

[photofly]

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/17/n ... g-landing/

a now-infamous near-disaster

They're not pulling any punches, are they?

[CpnCrunch]

It is somewhat inexplicable, based on the current information. But I'm not sure what you guys think you're going to get out of Rockie. I'm surprised he even bothers replying to all this crap here, but perhaps it's somewhat entertaining.

[rookiepilot]

What a ridiculous world. For the uneducated, safety issues like this arise every day, multiple times a day. It was a go around due to an unstable approach. No one crashed, I don't even think a drink was spilled, get over it.

Are we all still supposed to be here, then?

[FICU]

How any of the "professionals" here believe they would have actually landed on the taxiway is beyond comprehension. If they were going to land they wouldn't have been 100 feet above the surface 1/4 mile down... they would have been about 50 feet over the threshold and I'm sure there would have been a lot more chatter from the aircraft on the taxiway.

So much sensationalist BS from the media.

[Jet Jockey]

I cannot believe they did not see the four aircrafts lined up just below them and continued the landing procedure.

So you believe they did see those airplanes and continued to land anyway? There's a double negative there and I may misunderstand exactly what you're trying to say.

Sorry for my "double negative", English not being my first language.

Like I said I will wait for an actual official report (FAA, NTSB, TSB) before passing judgement. However if what is reported is correct or factual and they indeed overflew two aircrafts on taxiway C and were only 81' AGL prior to the GO Around, then I have to believe they were indeed ready to land on the taxiway even with the traffic taxiing on it.

[FICU]

Like I said I will wait for an actual official report (FAA, NTSB, TSB) before passing judgement. However if what is reported is correct or factual and they indeed overflew two aircrafts on taxiway C and were only 81' AGL prior to the GO Around, then I have to believe they were indeed ready to land on the taxiway even with the traffic taxiing on it.

So you figure they were going to land on the taxiway when they were 100 feet AFE 1/4 mile down it?

If they were at 81 feet and descending when the go-around was initiated they would have descended further before starting to climb so what was the lowest they got to? Why isn't the media reporting that?

How about they were in the go-around already and it bottomed out at 81 feet?

[Rockie]

Sorry for my "double negative", English not being my first language.

No problem, sorry for the misunderstanding.

But I must ask why you would "judge" this crew for making a mistake? We all make mistakes and herculean effort is devoted to minimizing those mistakes recognizing that they will still be made, but even then continuing to fight to bring things back into the green. Deliberate negligence I can get onboard with judging...but "mistakes"?

Uh uh. I make too many of them myself.

Before anybody loses their minds, that isn't to say corrective action or further training is not required if it proves necessary (among many other possible causes), but hanging the crew is not an option unless what they did was deliberate.

[Jet Jockey]

How about they were in the go-around already and it bottomed out at 81 feet?

That is what my understanding of the latest quote in the article means.

They got down to 81' AGL before they started to climb again... They probably started the GO Around at 100'AGL but the inertia of the aircraft combined with spool up time of the engines allowed the aircraft to go down to 81' AGL.

Hey I'm totally baffled too and I can't imagine a professional crew allowing this to happen... Over flying two aircrafts and continuing to land? Hope the official reports disproves all of this for everyone's sake involved in this incident.

[rookiepilot]

Sorry for my "double negative", English not being my first language.

No problem, sorry for the misunderstanding.

But I must ask why you would "judge" this crew for making a mistake? We all make mistakes and herculean effort is devoted to minimizing those mistakes recognizing that they will still be made, but even then continuing to fight to bring things back into the green. Deliberate negligence I can get onboard with judging...but "mistakes"?

Uh uh. I make too many of them myself.

Rockie, an honest question:

Were you as charitable in these types of comments regarding the Asiana crew at SFO...never mind.

[Rockie]

Were you as charitable in these types of comments regarding the Asiana crew at SFO...never mind.

I think so, it's all on here so why don't you go back and find out.

I'm a big proponent of training and a thorough understanding of the autoflight system you happen to be flying. If there is a gross misunderstanding like what happened in SFO with Asiana the first place I'm inclined to look at is the training..or lack of. I don't automatically crucify the crew regardless of where they come from.

Go ahead and find a quote from me where I did that, a search should do the trick.

[Black_Tusk]

Thirdly, how about we find out why the situational awareness broke down so we can prevent a recurrence rather than just call it a one off due to incompetent crew?

IMO, this is really all that matters. People (and pilots) make mistakes. We're human. There are pilots still flying that have had incidents/accidents much worse than this. The point is to find out WHY it happened and prevent it from happening again. I think we can all agree that the pilots in this aircraft likely had many hours under their belts, have passed multiple rides and training events, landed and departed successfully many times before. What I want to know is how something like this could happen. Clearly, if it happened.. then something is wrong with either the airports approach, layout, the company's SOPs, or the crew were not flying to the SOPs. One, or all need to be fixed.

One question that hasn't been asked yet, where was TCAS? I have not operated out of SFO before, is it a transponder ON or OFF airport during taxi? If it is transponder OFF, maybe that needs to be reassessed? Regardless of how good the ground radar is (YVR for example) having a transponder ON could have prevented this. That being said, if it is a transponder ON airport, why did the crew not see the multiple alerts? Why was there not a resolution? Did the aircraft on the ground not have their transponders ON when they should have been? These are all questions that will be answered in time, I'm sure.

When the investigation is complete I bet there is going to be multiple factors reported, and just blaming the crew before this report is released is the last thing anyone should be doing. Even if the report finds the AC crew %100 at fault, we need to know why. Was is a lack or loss of situational awareness? Were the SOPs being followed? Everyone knows these pilots will likely continue to fly, after what will probably be some recurrent training. We can all learn from this.

And RookiePilot, I still want to know where you work.

[Cat Driver]

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-can ... o-released

[Jet Jockey]

But I must ask why you would "judge" this crew for making a mistake? We all make mistakes and herculean effort is devoted to minimizing those mistakes recognizing that they will still be made, but even then continuing to fight to bring things back into the green. Deliberate negligence I can get onboard with judging...but "mistakes"?

Again, assuming the facts in the article are correct and the crew did overfly two aircrafts on taxiway C and were about to land on it, I don't think any kind of training would help these guys.

I cannot understand how on a clear night, VFR weather, a crew that already questioned the tower about traffic on their landing runway (and were told the runway was clear of traffic), lined up on the parallel taxiway servicing that runway with not one or two aircrafts but four aircrafts taxiing towards the threshold and them (basically facing them) did not get an uneasy feeling about the whole situation.

These are some of the facts I would like to know...

1- Was there a NOTAM indicating that runway 28L was closed? If so, did the crew know that runway 28L was closed?

2- Was there indeed a big light up X on runway 28L? If so, did the crew see the big light up X on runway 28L?

3- Were the approach lights on 28R "ON"? Were the runway 28R centerline lights and runway edge lights "ON" on runway 28R? (assuming there are some)

4- How can a crew on a clear night not be able to differentiate runway lights (combo of green end lights and white edge lights) from low intensity blue taxiway lights?

5- With their landing lights on, would you not want to look for the markings on the runway indicating 28R?

6- With their landing lights on, would you not be able to clearly see the aircrafts on the taxiway?

I know, so many questions but all are critical here in this situation and that's why I am completely baffled by this incident and hope the "facts" we are now reading from various sources that are supposedly quoting "official sites" are completely erroneous.

[Rockie]

All good questions among the many more the investigators will be asking. But recognize that the "facts" you're hearing are nothing more than where the aircraft was in space. There's been absolutely nothing on the factors that brought it there or what the crew was actually doing. You know, the important stuff.

[Jet Jockey]

One question that hasn't been asked yet, where was TCAS? I have not operated out of SFO before, is it a transponder ON or OFF airport during taxi? If it is transponder OFF, maybe that needs to be reassessed? Regardless of how good the ground radar is (YVR for example) having a transponder ON could have prevented this. That being said, if it is a transponder ON airport, why did the crew not see the multiple alerts? Why was there not a resolution? Did the aircraft on the ground not have their transponders ON when they should have been? These are all questions that will be answered in time, I'm sure.

The transponder must be in the "ON" position just about everywhere now in the world, even "ON" with the "ALT" mode is now the norm in lots of places. However the transponder must not be selected to "TA/RA" while on the ground (at least on the types I fly).

PS... You would not get an RA while on the ground because the feature is deactivated below a certain altitude while on the approach (only TA available).

[Cat Driver]

Jet Jocky:

You are not the only one wondering about the questions you have asked.

This incident is really baffling, however like I have previously said the American officials generally figure out what happened and usually release their findings in a relatively short time frame.

Unlike the Canadian officials that take so long by the time the report is released so much time has passed the incident has been replaced by many more.

Maybe we should offer to pay more taxes so they can be more efficient?

[Jet Jockey]

The tracking info is from FlightAware and some claim it is very accurate...