AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?

[complexintentions]

Even working in far more punitive cultures (Middle East, Far East) there has never been any consequences for a go-around no matter the reason. If the approach isn't working out, you do it again.

You really expect to get an honest answer on this one?

We get it rookiepilot, you have a hate-on for Air Canada but c'mon, give it a rest. Approach policy isn't a secret.

[photofly]

There are no consequences for doing a go-around ever. How foolish do you think it would be for an airline to adopt that kind of policy?

You're being disingenuous. Clearly there are no consequences for the go-around but there could be consequences for a mistake that made a go-around necessary.

For instance, I've no doubt that there will be consequences for the two pilots here, even though they did a go-around.

So, I ask again, if they had gone around at 700agl, would there still have been consequences? How low could they go and still "get away with it"? obviously 86 feet agl was too low. Where would the line be drawn?

As for the 2nd question pretty much every airline on the planet adheres to the stable approach policy which essentially begins at 1000 AGL. By then we have to be on the correct flight path to the runway with the final configuration selected. If that is not the case a go-around is mandatory. Further criteria applies at 500 feet or a go-around is mandatory.

OK. So they need to be on a stable approach by 1000agl. How much higher than 1000agl would they have to begin a transition from being lined up on the taxiway to be lined up and stable on the runway approach by 1000agl?

[mbav8r]

For crying out loud, they didn't know they were lined up with the taxiway, do you think they would've continued that low if they did!

[confusedalot]

There are no consequences for doing a go-around ever. How foolish do you think it would be for an airline to adopt that kind of policy? As for the 2nd question pretty much every airline on the planet adheres to the stable approach policy which essentially begins at 1000 AGL. By then we have to be on the correct flight path to the runway with the final configuration selected. If that is not the case a go-around is mandatory. Further criteria applies at 500 feet or a go-around is mandatory.

Go arounds were required to be reported in the SMS system for further investigation, at my last employer.

[Old fella]

I have a question ... if the pilots had noticed their mistake at, say, 700AGL and gone around, what would the consequences internally within AC have been?

You really expect to get an honest answer on this one?

Gonna ask rookie..... how many missed approaches have you done in the shit wx when the gales of November come slashing. Again I ask what is your background, you give me the appearance of somebody who hasn't been above 200kts and 10,000ft in anything with two engines.

[rookiepilot]

I have a question ... if the pilots had noticed their mistake at, say, 700AGL and gone around, what would the consequences internally within AC have been?

You really expect to get an honest answer on this one?

Gonna ask rookie..... how many missed approaches have you done in the shit wx when the gales of November come slashing. Again I ask what is your background, you give me the appearance of somebody who hasn't been above 200kts and 10,000ft in anything with two engines.

You know what, OF, your correct, and I'm not the only one. . Does that matter?

Last I looked this thread wasn't about me, or my experience, or any other poster's experience.

Also last I looked this thread was about a crew coming within a hairs breadth of causing a horrible accident in Visual conditions. Not the gales of November, so I'm not sure where that comes in here.

And it doesn't matter. Airlines, especially North American hold themselves up as THE standard for safe operations, far surperior to anyone else (which is a load of crap, BTW). So when an accident or near miss happens, expect to get questioned! And yes, some questioners might be sub 10,000 hours.

If Old Fella you want to see experience prerequisites for making comments, I suggest you set up a private closed forum for whatever you deem are the acceptable professionals.

I suggest sticking to the thread material. You look really foolish making an point by personally going after another poster when one doesnt like the question. Just answer it. Or don't answer. I don't really care.

I find it amusing how some seem to be such blind "team players", threatened by questions, stating with authority "nothing to see here, happens every day", it's all "media hysteria" and even implying the NTSB shouldn't even be looking at it. Well, they are.

Well, sorry, that attitude is going to get challenged.

[Rockie]

You're being disingenuous. Clearly there are no consequences for the go-around but there could be consequences for a mistake that made a go-around necessary.

I'm not at all being disingenuous. What you described is an unstabilized approach and this is what you asked:

I have a question ... if the pilots had noticed their mistake at, say, 700AGL and gone around, what would the consequences internally within AC have been?

I answered you. The answer is "nothing". Nothing for discovering the mistake, and nothing for doing the go-around. If you don't already know why that is it's probably a waste of time explaining it to you but I will if you ask.

For instance, I've no doubt that there will be consequences for the two pilots here, even though they did a go-around.

Based on what?

So, I ask again, if they had gone around at 700agl, would there still have been consequences?

Answered. Want me to repeat it a third time?

How low could they go and still "get away with it"? obviously 86 feet agl was too low. Where would the line be drawn?

A line would be drawn at negligence or deliberate noncompliance. Were you there to say one or the other was the cause?

So they need to be on a stable approach by 1000agl. How much higher than 1000agl would they have to begin a transition from being lined up on the taxiway to be lined up and stable on the runway approach by 1000agl?

They approach at around 150 knots. Figure out how long it would take whatever you fly to do it at whatever speed you fly at on the approach and extrapolate. Shouldn't be that hard for you and I'm sure you'll be in the ballpark.

[Rockie]

There are no consequences for doing a go-around ever. How foolish do you think it would be for an airline to adopt that kind of policy? As for the 2nd question pretty much every airline on the planet adheres to the stable approach policy which essentially begins at 1000 AGL. By then we have to be on the correct flight path to the runway with the final configuration selected. If that is not the case a go-around is mandatory. Further criteria applies at 500 feet or a go-around is mandatory.

Go arounds were required to be reported in the SMS system for further investigation, at my last employer.

At AC as well.

[Shady McSly]

You really expect to get an honest answer on this one?

Gonna ask rookie..... how many missed approaches have you done in the shit wx when the gales of November come slashing. Again I ask what is your background, you give me the appearance of somebody who hasn't been above 200kts and 10,000ft in anything with two engines.

You know what, OF, your correct, and I'm not the only one. . Does that matter?

Last I looked this thread wasn't about me, or my experience, or any other poster's experience.

Also last I looked this thread was about a crew coming within a hairs breadth of causing a horrible accident in Visual conditions. Not the gales of November, so I'm not sure where that comes in here.

And it doesn't matter. Airlines, especially North American hold themselves up as THE standard for safe operations, far surperior to anyone else (which is a load of crap, BTW). So when an accident or near miss happens, expect to get questioned! And yes, some questioners might be sub 10,000 hours.

If Old Fella you want to see experience prerequisites for making comments, I suggest you set up a private closed forum for whatever you deem are the acceptable professionals.

I suggest sticking to the thread material. You look really foolish making an point by personally going after another poster when one doesnt like the question. Just answer it. Or don't answer. I don't really care.

I find it amusing how some seem to be such blind "team players", threatened by questions, stating with authority "nothing to see here, happens every day", it's all "media hysteria" and even implying the NTSB shouldn't even be looking at it. Well, they are.

Well, sorry, that attitude is going to get challenged.

You just fly PC flight sims, don't you...

[Eric Janson]

You're being disingenuous. Clearly there are no consequences for the go-around but there could be consequences for a mistake that made a go-around necessary.

For instance, I've no doubt that there will be consequences for the two pilots here, even though they did a go-around.

So, I ask again, if they had gone around at 700agl, would there still have been consequences? How low could they go and still "get away with it"? obviously 86 feet agl was too low. Where would the line be drawn?

Disclaimer:- I don't work for Air Canada and all the remarks below concern my Airline. I am in no way calling for anyone to be fired.

If I did a go-around at 700" there wouldn't be an issue - I would just fill out the reason. That would be the last I would ever hear about it.

Now if I had descended to 59' whilst being lined up on a taxiway with 4 Airliners on it - that's a lot more serious.

I'm 100% certain that would cost me my job.

[Rockie]

Are you saying your company would just fire you without trying to find out why it happened?

[photofly]

I have a question ... if the pilots had noticed their mistake at, say, 700AGL and gone around, what would the consequences internally within AC have been?

I answered you. The answer is "nothing". Nothing for discovering the mistake, and nothing for doing the go-around.

You're still, rather hilariously, obfuscating. Nothing for discovering the mistake ... good. Nothing for the go-around ...very good. What about the consequences for making the mistake in the first place?

Could an AC pilot in severe VFR and with a perfectly functioning airplane line up on a taxiway, descend to 700', and do a go-around, fill in my form saying "lined up on a taxiway in error - oops" and never hear about it again?

If AC pilots can do it to 86' over four other airliners without even so much as a talking-to from the CP maybe I should reconsider AC as my first choice for international travel...

...
A line would be drawn at negligence or deliberate noncompliance. Were you there to say one or the other was the cause?

"The airplane made me do it.", lol.
But seriously, at what altitude does a minor error excusable under SMS or some self-reporting schemes become negilgence worthy of disciplinary action?

Rockie, if *you* had been looking out of the window that night, at four airliners on the taxiway on which you were lined up, at what altitude would you have called for the go-round?

[ktcanuck]

Well, we have now had 27 pages of, mostly, name calling, experience doubting, pure rudeness, ignorance, arrogance and occasional stupidity interspersed with relevant good comment and, Rockie, should you care to browse all 27 pages you will find examples of them all.

When it comes out we are all sure the report will give us the experts' best guess or facts regarding the causes of this potentially catastrophic incident.

FWIW to me the fundamental issue comes down to this:

If the flight crew had performed the following, as suggested by the SAFO is there any doubt whether this incident would have occurred?

"D. Utilization of Available Resources: Effective CRM also establishes the use of all available resources including but not limited to:
• A briefing of the airfield diagram;
• A review of airport lighting including any approach lights systems (ALS);
• A review and discussion of Notices to Airmen (NOTAMS);
• Performance of the approach and landing checklists according to approved procedures;
• Use of approach navigational aids under both IMC and VMC conditions;
• Monitoring of the Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) for information and changes to field conditions;
• Listening closely to all radio transmissions for pertinent information; and,
• Identification and verification of visual glide path information such as a Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) or Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) not only for glide path indications but also their location relative to the runway of intended landing.

And, if they didn't, how is that not poor airman-ship or even negligence regardless of why they didn't?

And if there was a reason why they didn't, a CVR that recorded the last 30 hours (technically trivial to effect) rather than minutes would be likely to provide clues as to why.

Wouldn't one good outcome of this incident be a change to CVRs to require longer recording times?

[rookiepilot]

FWIW

I made my comment because I thought,

a) Photofly asked a very good question,
B) the AC cheerleader squad would be too spineless to give a direct answer. And I'm right on that.

Now I have a simple question of my own, for the Rockie and Complex crowd:

Did that crew, Yes or No, read and brief the Notam for the RWY 28L closure that night?

The choices are A) Yes B) No. Don't insult by claiming no one knows this.

Gee, can a lowly CPL ask a question about reading a Notam, or only those understanding the intricacies of the A320 PFD do that? I know it's complicated.

Cause NOT reading that Notam MIGHT explain a lot here.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but...........I don't hate AC. I hate the PR type spin.

[Illya Kuryakin]

Another 27 page thread on "mine is bigger than yours..l"
Can we move along to something new.....this has been beat to death.
Illya

[photofly]

Here's another couple of questions for Rockie, or anyone else who knows AC.

Who is the officer at AC who, with all the reports and interviews in from of them, makes the decision if this was negligence, and what, if any consequences the pilots should suffer?

What criteria do they use to make that decision?

[rookiepilot]

Here's another couple of questions for Rockie, or anyone else who knows AC.

Who is the officer at AC who, with all the reports and interviews in from of them, makes the decision if this was negligence, and what, if any consequences the pilots should suffer?

What criteria do they use to make that decision?

How much union flak likely to be received. Convince me that doesn't play even a slight role.

[pelmet]

Are you saying your company would just fire you without trying to find out why it happened?

The last two companies I have worked for have fired and/or demoted pilots for significant screw-ups that have made the news and for one of the companies, incidents that didn't make the news.

While my initial instinct for this case, if I were the boss, would not be punishment unless there was a history of issues, the idea of giving awards to people who save the day after creating an unsafe situation themselves(not making any comment on the SFO case) as we have seen in the past is ridiculous in my opinion.

[rxl]

How much union flak likely to be received. Convince me that doesn't play even a slight role.

There is no "union flak". The union plays an important role in first of all helping to determine the cause and then works with all concerned parties to prevent reoccurrence.
The union also provides the representation that all workers are entitled to to ensure fair treatment.
If that's flak, then let the guns blaze.

[Old fella]

You really expect to get an honest answer on this one?

Gonna ask rookie..... how many missed approaches have you done in the shit wx when the gales of November come slashing. Again I ask what is your background, you give me the appearance of somebody who hasn't been above 200kts and 10,000ft in anything with two engines.

You know what, OF, your correct, and I'm not the only one. . Does that matter?

Last I looked this thread wasn't about me, or my experience, or any other poster's experience.

Also last I looked this thread was about a crew coming within a hairs breadth of causing a horrible accident in Visual conditions. Not the gales of November, so I'm not sure where that comes in here.

And it doesn't matter. Airlines, especially North American hold themselves up as THE standard for safe operations, far surperior to anyone else (which is a load of crap, BTW). So when an accident or near miss happens, expect to get questioned! And yes, some questioners might be sub 10,000 hours.

If Old Fella you want to see experience prerequisites for making comments, I suggest you set up a private closed forum for whatever you deem are the acceptable professionals.

I suggest sticking to the thread material. You look really foolish making an point by personally going after another poster when one doesnt like the question. Just answer it. Or don't answer. I don't really care.

I find it amusing how some seem to be such blind "team players", threatened by questions, stating with authority "nothing to see here, happens every day", it's all "media hysteria" and even implying the NTSB shouldn't even be looking at it. Well, they are.

Well, sorry, that attitude is going to get challenged.

Whatever you say Rookie as a single engine pilot (VFR ??)critiquing the operations of a major Canadian
Airline A320 type and its flight crew conducting a missed approach at a major International airport on what they did/didn't, should have/could have/required to. Fill your commentary boots.