AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?

[wallypilot]

Wow...good image in the lower frame of how low they were.

[pelmet]

AC went down to 59 feet. A 747-8 is 63 feet tall. If one had been at the wrong place at the wrong time, this would have been a disaster.

But they didn't , didn't they? They initiated a go-around because they saw the obstacle. Close, yes. Too close for comfort, yes. A near crash? Not really. Crew knew someting was wrong and went around.

From reading the report, I suspect that the only reason the crew knew something was wrong was that the aircraft on the runway started making statements over the radio. If crew on the taxiway had been head down, which is quite possible, I suspect that AC would have been even lower. Two seconds later for a go-around initiation could have been totally different depending on positioning of the aircraft on the taxiway.

We keep on getting evidence of the aircraft being lower and lower in this incident, now backed up bypictures. Yet it appears that this makes others here more and more adament that there was no near-accident. What exactly is a near accident then? Is the picture in the post above not close enough to be considered one? How much closer does he have to be to the aircraft on the taxiway before it becomes a near accident?

[Cat Driver]

There is a saying pelmet that goes like this.

"" It depends on who's Ox is being gored ""

Or in the case of aviation.

"" It depends on who's airline is getting bad publicity. ""

[Jet Jockey]

@ digits_

"But they didn't , didn't they? They initiated a go-around because they saw the obstacle. Close, yes. Too close for comfort, yes. A near crash? Not really. Crew knew someting was wrong and went around."

I'm sorry but I have a hard time with you (and a few others) that are pretending that this is a non incident... IMHO AC 759 was going to land on taxiway C but if it were not for UAL 1's call to the tower advising them that AC 759 was lined up on taxiway C (first wake up call to AC's pilots) and then most importantly and probably the one thing that saved the whole day was the fact that PAL 115 an Airbus 340 and the second aircraft on taxiway C then turned on their landing lights as a warning to the approaching AC 759.

Some facts and comments...

- According to their testimony, both AC pilots claim they never saw the aircrafts on taxiway C, very hard to believe IMHO.

- Both pilots apparently mistook taxiway C for 28R and 28R for 28L despite NOTAMS saying that 28L was closed and had an X light up on it. 28r was fully operational with all its lights working including the approach lights. Taxiway C had its blue edge lights and its green centerline lights working.

- the CVR was overridden, so no data from that piece of equipment which I believe goes against the CARS.

- AC 759 was far enough of course (north of centerline) that the airport's radar could not see it for 12 seconds.

- UAL 1 was probably not in danger of getting hit by AC 759 because it had already turned the corner. However if you look carefully at the picture available you can see that the half end section of the fuselage of UAL 1 is light up by the landing lights of AC 759.

- Abeam the threshold and over the end of taxiway C, AC 759 is 131 feet above ground.

- AC 759 while over flying taxiway C applies go around trust at 85 feet AGL (probably after seeing PAL 115's lights) but continues descending for 2.5 seconds until it is 59 feet AGL and this near taxiway W where PAL 115, the Airbus 340 is located... The tail of an A340 is 56 feet tall, so AC 759 most likely cleared PAL 115's tail by 3 feet maybe more. Also worth noting in the pictures is that the tail section of PAL 115 is brightly light up by AC 759's landing lights.

You and others may think this is a non event and the "guys" did a great job but I beg to differ! You cannot put your aircraft into such a position and risk the lives of many onboard your aircraft and other aircrafts and get away with it. The union and AC management may want to spin this anyway they want but this was way more than "just too close for comfort".

[confusedalot]

Hence my handle.............Sometimes, I just don't get it. How could this happen, I dunno.

Flying experience does not matter, good equipment does not matter. Superb airports do not matter. Good ATC does not matter, and pilots with the wherewithal to state a problem and turn all of their lights on do not matter.

I remain confused. Alot.

Mysteries of the human mind I suppose.

[AuxBatOn]

I sure am puzzled by this whole episode because it should not matter if you are flying a Cessna 150 or the space shuttle the picture is the same.

Human factors certainly are different between an A320, C172 and Space shuttle. Since this incident is probably all about human factors, the "picture" is not the same. But with your years of experience in aviation, you certainly understand this. Or not.

[Cat Driver]

Hence my handle.............Sometimes, I just don't get it. How could this happen, I dunno.

Flying experience does not matter, good equipment does not matter. Superb airports do not matter. Good ATC does not matter, and pilots with the wherewithal to state a problem and turn all of their lights on do not matter.

I remain confused. Alot.

Mysteries of the human mind I suppose.

Yes it is very disturbing to know that despite all the advancement in aircraft and airports these things still happen.

The weak link of course is the human factor.

Maybe we need three pilots so at least one of them will have enough situational awareness to correct something like what happened in San Fran soon enough that it would not have turned into a public news nightmare.

Sure it would cost more for three pilots but what cost would the loss of hundreds of people be.

Eventually the human factor will be taken out of the equation by advanced automation, both in the airplane and on the ground.

[photofly]

"About 2.5 seconds after advancing the thrust levers, the minimum altitude recorded on the FDR was 59 ft agl"

The altitude of which bit of the aircraft is recorded by the FDR?

[Black_Tusk]

I wonder how long they were working? When was their check in? Could fatigue have been a factor?

[leftoftrack]

705 pilots won't be affected by sleep science for another 10 months, 703/704 won't be affected by sleep science for another 4 years. Thanks Mr Astronaut

[wallypilot]

I have only landed on the 28's maybe 15-20times...and none in the past 3 years, but was the LOC out? As per the quiet bridge visual, they should have been tracking the LOC. If they were, I dont understand how this could have happened. Also, add to that big bright lights on end of runway, no lights on end of taxiway. I honestly don't know why there is so much debate. This, most likely, was a major f-up.

[Nark]

Wallypilot,


Air Canada pilots don't @#$! up... ever. Not in Halifax, not in Montgomery Bay, not if San Fran....

I can't remember where the radar altimeter antenna is, but I imagine with the deck angle during go around, the tires were lower than 59'.

[Rockie]

The NTSB is only stating facts in this preliminary report, not jumping to any conclusions like the people here. But some facts are worth recapping:

The crew went around as they are trained to do. Nobody was hurt and nothing was bent. Not a non-event because we need to understand why they misidentified the runway so we can prevent all pilots (even the ones ready to hang this crew who are convinced it could never happen to them) from making that mistake again - the whole point of an investigation.

The CVR was over-written, not erased. That is not a violation of the CAR's nor a deliberate act of deception by the crew.

The lights were on. If asked ATC would have said the lights were on. The crew didn't think the lights were off. I don't see here why the crew would ask about them or what confusion would be cleared up if they did. They thought they were lined up on the correct runway. Again - why?

[pelmet]

The NTSB is only stating facts in this preliminary report, not jumping to any conclusions like the people here. But some facts are worth recapping:

The crew went around as they are trained to do. Nobody was hurt and nothing was bent. Not a non-event because we need to understand why they misidentified the runway so we can prevent all pilots (even the ones ready to hang this crew who are convinced it could never happen to them) from making that mistake again - the whole point of an investigation.

The CVR was over-written, not erased. That is not a violation of the CAR's nor a deliberate act of deception by the crew.

The lights were on. If asked ATC would have said the lights were on. The crew didn't think the lights were off. I don't see here why the crew would ask about them or what confusion would be cleared up if they did. They thought they were lined up on the correct runway. Again - why?

Are you talking about approach lights? I have been specifically talking about approach lights as that is what the notam was about and that is typically what is used for runway alignment on a night visual approach. The term "The lights" that you are using can refer to many things. Clarity in communications is important.

As for the CVR, I don't know what AC's policy is. Let us know that the ops manual says.

[Rockie]

Yes, I'm talking about the approach lights, and the runway lights. Although I'm sure they can be adjusted separately I would be surprised if they weren't controlled as a single unit as a matter of policy - perhaps a tower controller here can shed some light on that? When a controller says "lights on strength 5" do you ask them specifically what light's he's talking about in the interest of clear communications?

As for AC's CVR policy, you can assume it complies with the regulation and is consistent with industry practice.

[ktcanuck]

The NTSB is only stating facts in this preliminary report, not jumping to any conclusions like the people here. But some facts are worth recapping:

The crew went around as they are trained to do. Nobody was hurt and nothing was bent.

Why do you keep expressing the event this way? Why don't you state. as a fact, "The highly trained Air Canada crew lined up, approached, descended and came close to landing on the taxiway at SFO International airport on top of fueled and populated aircraft waiting to depart."

What point are you trying to make? That they didn't crash? I said that too AND it gets the gravity of the situation across at the same time, unlike your statement. Ah, maybe that's the point!

[jschnurr]

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/air- ... -1.4233236

New images show Air Canada came within 18 meters of other aircraft.

[Rockie]

The NTSB is only stating facts in this preliminary report, not jumping to any conclusions like the people here. But some facts are worth recapping:

The crew went around as they are trained to do. Nobody was hurt and nothing was bent.

Why do you keep expressing the event this way? Why don't you state. as a fact, "The highly trained Air Canada crew lined up, approached, descended and came close to landing on the taxiway at SFO International airport on top of fueled and populated aircraft waiting to depart."

What point are you trying to make? That they didn't crash? I said that too AND it gets the gravity of the situation across at the same time, unlike your statement. Ah, maybe that's the point!

I say nobody got hurt and nothing was bent to inject some much needed non-hysteria to the dialogue. If it is your belief I'm dismissing this as a non-event unworthy of investigation then I suggest you go back and read all of my posts again.

[ktcanuck]

The NTSB is only stating facts in this preliminary report, not jumping to any conclusions like the people here. But some facts are worth recapping:

The crew went around as they are trained to do. Nobody was hurt and nothing was bent.

Why do you keep expressing the event this way? Why don't you state. as a fact, "The highly trained Air Canada crew lined up, approached, descended and came close to landing on the taxiway at SFO International airport on top of fueled and populated aircraft waiting to depart."

What point are you trying to make? That they didn't crash? I said that too AND it gets the gravity of the situation across at the same time, unlike your statement. Ah, maybe that's the point!

I say nobody got hurt and nothing was bent to inject some much needed non-hysteria to the dialogue. If it is your belief I'm dismissing this as a non-event unworthy of investigation then I suggest you go back and read all of my posts again.

The last thing I need to do is read all your posts again. And the last you need to do is take it upon yourself to determine and correct "the level of hysteria" for us. We are all intelligent enough to do that for ourselves thank you.

[Rockie]

Why do you keep expressing the event this way? Why don't you state. as a fact, "The highly trained Air Canada crew lined up, approached, descended and came close to landing on the taxiway at SFO International airport on top of fueled and populated aircraft waiting to depart."

What point are you trying to make? That they didn't crash? I said that too AND it gets the gravity of the situation across at the same time, unlike your statement. Ah, maybe that's the point!

I say nobody got hurt and nothing was bent to inject some much needed non-hysteria to the dialogue. If it is your belief I'm dismissing this as a non-event unworthy of investigation then I suggest you go back and read all of my posts again.

The last thing I need to do is read all your posts again. And the last you need to do is take it upon yourself to determine and correct "the level of hysteria" for us. We are all intelligent enough to do that for ourselves thank you.

Then just finish reading the one you cherry picked your quote from. You can do that can't you?

I might also suggest you don't take it upon yourself to determine the correct level of hysteria for me.