AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?

[ktcanuck]

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.

Whatever you say, your highness.

[Rockie]

[rudder]

Like it or not, this is the second time in fairly recent history that fully qualified AC pilots flying highly automated aircraft have not been able to properly use visual cues to determine actual aircraft position with potentially catastrophic consequences. Nobody else impacted terrain on the LOC approach in YHZ and nobody else almost landed on top of aircraft on a taxiway in SFO.

Time to take a good close look at what part of company procedures may have contributed. Not sure if the common thread here is the Airbus approach set up procedures.

We all make mistakes. And sometimes it is simply a confluence of events that coincide. But at some point we also have to accept responsibility for our performance as we are an integral part of the system. I am loath to ever rush to place blame on a fellow pilot. However, always starting with exoneration is as pointless as always starting with pilot error.

[Cliff Jumper]

I know this will infuriate a few frequent posters here, but I'm with Rockie on this one.

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."

It's the frequent use of such hysterical comments, both here and in the press, that are annoying (to me, him, and a few others).

You didn't see the NTSB using such language. Most times that I hear or see such language I roll my eyes and think the person is exaggerating and foolish, whether there are or not.

It's the difference between saying this.....

"The aircraft lined up with an occupied taxiway, instead of a runway, and went around very late in the sequence, getting as low as 59 feet"

and this....

"The old aircraft, with antiquated electronics, flown by likely fatigued and probably incompetent pilots, barrelled recklessly down the approach. The ignorant pilots weren't aware that there was a windshield in front of them, nevermind hundreds of innocent people, and thousands of tonnes of high explosives. Little Suzy in seat 32a was just trying to visit her sick grandmother, and was 0.3 seconds from being ruthlessly murdered by these terrorist loving Canadians."


But, unfortunately, to some people that second sentence is as factual as the first.

[Jet Jockey]

Sorry Rockie but you are out to lunch on this one.

Please, please stop defending Air Canada or its pilots when something like this happens.

There are no ifs and buts in this incident; the crew screwed up BIG time and perhaps came within 3 feet of clipping the tail of PAL 115 and perhaps crashing into the third aircraft on taxiway C.

There are no excuses for this crew... NOTAMS were in place that explained the runway situation at KSFO which included that RWY 28L was closed with no approach light and runway lights functioning and with a bright X on it. The approach lights on 28R were functioning, so was the PAPI and all other runway lights for 28R.

IMO PAL 115's crew action to turn on their landing lights was the only thing that prevented a major disaster that night so stop telling us that your "highly trained crew" did a go around and prevented a disaster from happening.

You make it sound like only Air Canada as "highly trained crews" which of course is not the reality. I don't know why these two chaps got into that position in the first place and we will probably never know because of an important part of the puzzle is missing.

IMO the crew lied about this incident. The CVR should have been preserved after such a close call but it wasn't. This would have been a very important tool to have in trying to identify what went wrong in the last few minutes of that flight.

They both said to the investigators that they NEVER saw any aircrafts on taxiway C which to me is impossible...

So, if like they claim to the investigators that they never saw anything on Taxiway C, why did they initiate a go around at 85 feet AGL prior to the tower telling them to go around? I'm sure they just did not decided a few seconds before touch down to take their passengers on a sight seeing tour of San Francisco at night.

For the record I' am still willing to entertain the possibility of crew fatigue and/or Circadian effect on this crew as a possible cause.

[vrefplus5]

@ Rudder....+1 last sentence.

[Old fella]

Not being an airline pilot and certainly not A320 qualified and only time in SFO I was a pax( with AC on a 320), I imagine this incident is getting the full attention of AC flight operations and the various safety sections within, with the intent to establish corrective action to ensure this doesn't happen again. To me, pontification aside, the question is why a very experienced crew lined up on a taxiway thinking it was the active landing runway. Perhaps an unforeseen trap of some sort, unknown or obvious let this happen. An unnerving situation with disastrous consequences, absolutely and no doubt about it. Thankfully it didn't happen due the actions of all who saw what was Unfolding (ATC, AC flight crew, other aircraft on taxiway). A miss by 20ft or 200ft whatever,doesn't matter as a major disaster was avoided.

[Rockie]

Jet Jockey

I'm not defending the pilots and I defy you to show me where I am. I'm also not condemning them which seems to drive some of you crazy. I am saying whatever caused them to misidentify the runway needs to be discovered via investigation and measures put in place that we can all use to prevent a recurrance.

Do you have a smaller font size?

[ktcanuck]

I know this will infuriate a few frequent posters here, but I'm with Rockie on this one.

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."

It's the frequent use of such hysterical comments, both here and in the press, that are annoying (to me, him, and a few others).

You didn't see the NTSB using such language. Most times that I hear or see such language I roll my eyes and think the person is exaggerating and foolish, whether there are or not.

It's the difference between saying this.....

"The aircraft lined up with an occupied taxiway, instead of a runway, and went around very late in the sequence, getting as low as 59 feet"

and this....

"The old aircraft, with antiquated electronics, flown by likely fatigued and probably incompetent pilots, barrelled recklessly down the approach. The ignorant pilots weren't aware that there was a windshield in front of them, nevermind hundreds of innocent people, and thousands of tonnes of high explosives. Little Suzy in seat 32a was just trying to visit her sick grandmother, and was 0.3 seconds from being ruthlessly murdered by these terrorist loving Canadians."


But, unfortunately, to some people that second sentence is as factual as the first.

But all quite different from saying this: "The crew went around as they are trained to do. Nobody was hurt and nothing was bent."

[Rockie]

Time to take a good close look at what part of company procedures may have contributed. Not sure if the common thread here is the Airbus approach set up procedures.

Trust me that that has been done with Halifax, Montego Bay, and is being done here. There are no sacred cows and safety really is first, last and always. Nobody likes this.

[Rockie]

I know this will infuriate a few frequent posters here, but I'm with Rockie on this one.

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."

It's the frequent use of such hysterical comments, both here and in the press, that are annoying (to me, him, and a few others).

You didn't see the NTSB using such language. Most times that I hear or see such language I roll my eyes and think the person is exaggerating and foolish, whether there are or not.

It's the difference between saying this.....

"The aircraft lined up with an occupied taxiway, instead of a runway, and went around very late in the sequence, getting as low as 59 feet"

and this....

"The old aircraft, with antiquated electronics, flown by likely fatigued and probably incompetent pilots, barrelled recklessly down the approach. The ignorant pilots weren't aware that there was a windshield in front of them, nevermind hundreds of innocent people, and thousands of tonnes of high explosives. Little Suzy in seat 32a was just trying to visit her sick grandmother, and was 0.3 seconds from being ruthlessly murdered by these terrorist loving Canadians."


But, unfortunately, to some people that second sentence is as factual as the first.

But all quite different from saying this: "The crew went around as they are trained to do. Nobody was hurt and nothing was bent."

Stop cherry picking and put up the rest of my post you're referring to. Or I can do it for you.

[mbav8r]

@jetjockey,
If the font is large to get your point across or the equivalent of raising your voice, it had the opposite effect for me, I completely glossed over your entire post and dismissed it as a rant, just FYI, also it's annoying!

[Jet Jockey]

Jet Jockey

I'm not defending the pilots and I defy you to show me where I am. I'm also not condemning them which seems to drive some of you crazy. I am saying whatever caused them to misidentify the runway needs to be discovered via investigation and measures put in place that we can all use to prevent a recurrance.

Do you have a smaller font size?

Well to most on here you are always defending AC pilots or the company by coming up with all sorts of excuses.

I'll second Rudder's last sentence posted above.

Sorry about the font size, I fixed it.

Don't get me wrong, I am very happy this incident is just that an incident (although severe IMO) and that we are not talking about a major accident/disaster.

You have explained to us that due to the avionics on the 320, selecting the ILS as a back up is possible but a PITA. However on another forum someone claimed it is their policy to do so anyway on the Airbus when conducting a visual, perhaps AC needs to adopt this procedure.

Take your AC hat off for a minute and answer these questions for us as a professional pilot...

What is your opinion on the CVR being over written? Do you think after a close call like this, the pilots should have saved the CVR?

What is your opinion on why they decided to initiate a "go around" at 85 feet AGL if as they claim they never saw any aircrafts on taxiway C?

Personally I think they lied and are trying to cover up their mistakes, if so IMHO they should be fired.

[Jet Jockey]

@jetjockey,
If the font is large to get your point across or the equivalent of raising your voice, it had the opposite effect for me, I completely glossed over your entire post and dismissed it as a rant, just FYI, also it's annoying!

Dude get over it!

I selected the wrong thing and I fixed it.

[digits_]

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

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

*IF* the 18 meters is correct, some thoughts:

- The airplanes are designed to clear obstacles by 35 ft single eninge. 18 meters is 60 ft. An engine failure at take-off, while challenging, should be an abnormal event but definitely not a "disaster". They had about twice that space here.

- During every landing of an A380 in SFO, there can be planes as close as 92 ft to the landing airplane (distance holding point - wing tip). Assuming the plane stays on the centerline perfectly. 18 meters in an A320 is way closer than normal for that plane, and can/should be cause for concern, but the doomsday-inferno-disaster reports are a bit over the top IMO.

[Jean-Pierre]

Holy ****

[Rockie]

No comment on saving the CVR Jet Jockey, I don't know the mindset of the crew.

No comment on when they decided to do the go-around for the same reason, and I'm waiting for the NTSB report and company internal response. Your opinion about the crew lying is noted and immediately discarded as baseless.

Displaying the ILS as a PITA is not how I described it. It is simply more complicated than on other airplanes and having such a policy involves more considerations than you, and even me, are aware of.

I will also add that had it been you that night with whatever company you work for I would be saying exactly the same thing. Rational pilots don't deliberately play chicken with other airplanes on the ground, so unless you're summarily condemning these pilots for being irrational I'd think you'd be interested in why this occurred. The factual truth in other words. I know you think a desire for factual truth in lieu of summary conviction means defending the pilots and the company, but it's not really.

[rigpiggy]

Not sure if this video was posted, but somebody up there was on the switch.https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=218_1501760697

[Jet Jockey]

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

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

*IF* the 18 meters is correct, some thoughts:

- The airplanes are designed to clear obstacles by 35 ft single eninge. 18 meters is 60 ft. An engine failure at take-off, while challenging, should be an abnormal event but definitely not a "disaster". They had about twice that space here.

- During every landing of an A380 in SFO, there can be planes as close as 92 ft to the landing airplane (distance holding point - wing tip). Assuming the plane stays on the centerline perfectly. 18 meters in an A320 is way closer than normal for that plane, and can/should be cause for concern, but the doomsday-inferno-disaster reports are a bit over the top IMO.

What does a single engine climb performance of an aircraft have to do with this near disaster?

What does a possible lateral separation on landing of a 380 have to do with this incident?

While on landing AC 759 over flew four aircrafts on taxiway C, one by possibly only 3 feet according to the NTSB so yes I'd say that's as close as can be to a disaster.

[digits_]

What does a single engine climb performance of an aircraft have to do with this near disaster?

To put the 60ft separation into perspective. If 35 ft separation with a mountain is acceptable, then why is 60 ft separation with another airplane not?

What does a possible lateral separation on landing of a 380 have to do with this incident?

To put the 60ft separation into perspective. If 90 ft separation with another airplane is acceptable, then why is 60 ft separation all of a sudden a big disaster?

While on landing AC 759 over flew two aircrafts on taxiway C, one by possibly only 3 feet according to the NTSB so yes I'd say that's as close as can be to a disaster.

I was working with the 18 meter out of the report. If it is only 3 ft, then yes, it was much worse and close to a major incident.