AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?

[Rockie]

Well, with all this acknowledgement of luck in our careers it's puzzling why those same people would be so quick to condemn this crew. Internet bravado I guess, even if you use your real name..

[Jet Jockey]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but those altitude readouts are from the transponder, one thing about transponders everyone should be aware of, they're not precise and that three feet could easily be 23 feet. I'm certain the TSB investigation will not rely solely on that and perhaps use the video they have to calculate exactly how much they cleared by, until then your three feet is purely sensational BS

First you tell me there was lateral separation too, and I prove to you according to the diagrams from the NTSB which correlates what the other aircraft on the ground said that they over flew taxiway C until at least past the fourth aircraft.

Now you come back at me again with my possible 3 feet vertical separation as sensational BS.

In all my posts I always said it was "possibly" as low as a 3 foot clearance and even said it could have been 10 feet or even 20 feet but you keep sticking with the 3 feet as if it was the absolute reality.

And even if I take your 23 foot separation, don't you think it was a "near disaster? The FAA and NTSB sure think so because this is classified as "Serious Incident".

The only BS I see here is you... Keep smoking what ever you are smoking.

[Rockie]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but those altitude readouts are from the transponder, one thing about transponders everyone should be aware of, they're not precise and that three feet could easily be 23 feet. I'm certain the TSB investigation will not rely solely on that and perhaps use the video they have to calculate exactly how much they cleared by, until then your three feet is purely sensational BS

First you tell me there was lateral separation too, and I prove to you according to the diagrams from the NTSB which correlates what the other aircraft on the ground said that they over flew taxiway C until at least past the fourth aircraft.

Now you come back at me again with my possible 3 feet vertical separation as sensational BS.

In all my posts I always said it was "possibly" as low as a 3 foot clearance and even said it could have been 10 feet or even 20 feet but you keep sticking with the 3 feet as if it was the absolute reality.

And even if I take your 23 foot separation, don't you think it was a "near disaster? The FAA and NTSB sure think so because this is classified as "Serious Incident".

The only BS I see here is you... Keep smoking what ever you are smoking.

You guys are actually splitting hairs on separation as if it was relevant to preventing a recurrence. How about we just say it was only 1 foot and concentrate on trying to prevent a recurrance?

[Old fella]

Lot of hate-on for Air Canada..........

[Black_Tusk]

Lot of hate-on for Air Canada..........

It's a Canadian past-time.

[Old fella]

Lot of hate-on for Air Canada..........

It's a Canadian past-time.

Indeed!!

[mbav8r]

Fair enough, anyhow I considered a possibility tonight, keep in mind I have no idea if SFO has LED lighting but white LED lights have a blue hue to them and if the taxiway lights were low could they appear as white LED lights? As to why they weren't seeing the four aircraft on the taxiway, I have nothing

[Eric Janson]

I stand by my comment. It was a non-event.

Sorry - don't agree. Just because it didn't end in disaster doesn't make it a "non-event".

The NTSB doesn't agree with you either.

The pictures speak for themselves. Very disturbing to see how close the aircraft are to each other vertically.

I fly A340. I hope I never see what the Filipino Pilots must have seen. I'd be interested in hearing their account.

[Eric Janson]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but those altitude readouts are from the transponder, one thing about transponders everyone should be aware of, they're not precise and that three feet could easily be 23 feet. I'm certain the TSB investigation will not rely solely on that and perhaps use the video they have to calculate exactly how much they cleared by, until then your three feet is purely sensational BS

Since the report talks about altitude referenced to ground level I suspect the height data is from the Radio Altimeter.

This extremely accurate.

[JeppsOnFire]

Funny comment Jepps, except this incident was over before anybody heard about it and now all that's left is to dissect it to hopefully prevent a recurrence.

The situation down south is an ongoing accelerating disaster that everyday exceeds even the most pessimistic fears. Not the same thing at all..

OK. Of course this incident was over before anyone heard about it. I am not clairvoyant enough to discuss it before it happened and I if you expect Avcanada to be already abuzz while this Airbus was spooling up on the Go, you're optimistic at best.

Of course an Airbus Go-Around is dissimilar to a Presidential election. The common ground between the two is that Rockie from the internet, by decree, will announce what is worthy of hysteria and what is not. Unbiased of course.

If anyone looks at those photos and thinks 'meh', that's disturbing.

Too funny. You apparently fail to see the irony between your statement against me and declaring yourself what should be hysteria worthy. You can disagree Jepps, but don't presume your opinion is any less or more relevant than mine. This is the internet, learn the rules.

It's all good fun, nobody loses an eye and airlines and TC don't read this site looking for insight.

Jeez...

I see those photos and I don't think 'meh'. Yes, hysteria.
Straw man argument - fail. If this is a debate, learn the rules.

[ktcanuck]

Height above the ground for the latter part of the approach and landing is measured by a radar altimeter and it is very accurate as demonstrated in the " retard " voice command just prior to touch down.

Well, that's it then! That's how he figured it was time to go around; the radalt called the pilot flying a "retard" and he hit the switch!!

[ktcanuck]

Confused, how did you escape an entire career without learning the first thing about why investigations are conducted? Really...you're confused and I'm curious.

Your reliance on insults only draws attention to your inability to supply a cohesive intelligent response.

[rookiepilot]

I stand by my comment. It was a non-event.

Sorry - don't agree. Just because it didn't end in disaster doesn't make it a "non-event".

The NTSB doesn't agree with you either.

.

Yep --

Is it the position then that the NTSB is engaging in media hysteria by investigating a "non event"?

Are the NTSB "professionals" at what they do? I think it's bizzare for "professionals" to critique and second guess the "professionals" at the NTSB.

In other words -- the only ones I'd believe that it was a "non event, media hysteria nothing to see here, move along" -- are the NTSB. They are the disinterested party.

They seem to see a reason to take this seriously.

[Jet Jockey]

Height above the ground for the latter part of the approach and landing is measured by a radar altimeter and it is very accurate as demonstrated in the " retard " voice command just prior to touch down.

Well, that's it then! That's how he figured it was time to go around; the radalt called the pilot flying a "retard" and he hit the switch!!

Well, well... That's not very nice of you.

[mbav8r]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but those altitude readouts are from the transponder, one thing about transponders everyone should be aware of, they're not precise and that three feet could easily be 23 feet. I'm certain the TSB investigation will not rely solely on that and perhaps use the video they have to calculate exactly how much they cleared by, until then your three feet is purely sensational BS

Since the report talks about altitude referenced to ground level I suspect the height data is from the Radio Altimeter.

This extremely accurate.

The photos showing positions and altitudes of the aircraft, the ones on the taxiway show 13' and AC at 131', they say the go around was initiated at "about 85'" then goes on to say 2.5secs after advancing thrust levers the lowest recorded on the FDR was 59', this I would assume was rad alt. I'm not saying this wasn't a serious situation, the aircraft was in a climb at 59' agl and established in the go around. AC may have crossed the tail of the 747 in question at 100', we don't know and that is what the investigation will show, but I take exception to the posting the worst case(3feet) without anything to back it up because nothing so far has shown the altitude readout at the moment AC was directly over the 747.
Assuming they initiate the go around because the aircraft on the taxiway turned on their landing lights, this happened prior to crossing over them, so no one knows what altitude they were at, at the exact moment they crossed over the tail section with the information provided so far, saying it was possibly 3' is to provoke a sense of very near catastrophe in the reader and to me nothing but exaggeration without proof.

[rookiepilot]

Can't believe some of the tweets. 100 feet clearance isn't serious enough? How close would everyone like it?

What if the engines didn't spool for any reason, instantly? Get real people. We are talking a matter of what a few seconds?

Comedy hour here, except it's not funny.

[photofly]

saying it was possibly 3' is to provoke a sense of very near catastrophe in the reader and to me nothing but exaggeration without proof

"Small war, not many dead."

[ktcanuck]

Can't believe some of the tweets. 100 feet clearance isn't serious enough? How close would everyone like it?

What if the engines didn't spool for any reason, instantly? Get real people. We are talking a matter of what a few seconds?

Comedy hour here, except it's not funny.

Careful not to raise the level of hysteria!

[mbav8r]

Can't believe some of the tweets. 100 feet clearance isn't serious enough? How close would everyone like it?

What if the engines didn't spool for any reason, instantly? Get real people. We are talking a matter of what a few seconds?

Comedy hour here, except it's not funny.

Clearly, this has been addressed, the fact the go around was initiated at about 85 feet and then 2.5 secs later they were at 59 feet covers the spool up and clearly I've stated this was a serious event that requires investigation, my point is posters saying they only cleared by three feet are no better than the hysteria the media is trying to invoke.
Also, we train for low level, low energy go around for this very reason, something on the runway that's not supposed to be or in this case something on what they thought was the runway, the training worked they did a go around, they missed everything on the taxiway and nobody knows by how much until the investigation is complete, anything other than that is pure unsubstantiated speculation with a touch of hysteria.
Does anyone know if SFO has switched to LED lighting? Last few trips in has been during daylight and I'm curious. I do think that blue taxi lights on low could be close enough to white LED to make a mistake, however I can't seem to visualize it and it's been awhile since I've flown in the dark somewhere with LED lights. Is there anything on the charts to indicate if a runway has LED vs incandescent, I've not seen it and am too lazy to look right now.

[55+]

Can't believe some of the tweets. 100 feet clearance isn't serious enough? How close would everyone like it?

What if the engines didn't spool for any reason, instantly? Get real people. We are talking a matter of what a few seconds?

Comedy hour here, except it's not funny.

On a CAT 1 ILS approach at DH 200ft HAT and calculated 3000ft from the 3deg GPI the calculated ROC(required obstacle clearance) is less than 100 ft. Nothing to do with the San Francisco situation being discussed but just to give you a little prospect on numbers when people start float them about.

Carry on with your discussion.