AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?

[complexintentions]

SFO near miss might have triggered ‘greatest aviation disaster in history’


What brutally sensationalist reporting. If it's even true, a non-event. Unless of course the pilots were landing with their eyes closed. (Which I occasionally do, it seems to improve my flare technique).

Maybe AC should add RAAS to GPS on their Christmas wish list for the 320 fleet?

Also, is it not SOP to tune up an ILS or plug in an RNAV approach when flying a visual? I humbly submit that whether it is or not, it's actually a Pretty Good Idea. (PGI)

[crazyaviator]

A go around initiated by a tower call due to an approach to a taxiway is a non-event ?? I guess the DC-3 "landing" on the ice is a non-event also WHEN there are no deaths, do we call it a non-event UNTIL enough bodies pile up ?

[Eric Janson]

Well - the FAA is investigating. I'd say this is a bit more than a "non event".....

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5969 ... c-sfo.html

Ground track from the noise monitoring website (post eight) clearly shows the flight lined up with twy 'C'.

[Jimmy2]

What is going on with all the incidents on the 320 fleet? Is it possible this related to the PML and hiring of crews that otherwise perhaps wouldn't have been?

[av8ts]

What is going on with all the incidents on the 320 fleet? Is it possible this related to the PML and hiring of crews that otherwise perhaps wouldn't have been?

What does that even mean. The PML pilots who wouldn't have been hired didn't get hired

[linecrew]

http://www.jacdec.de/2017/07/11/2017-07 ... francicso/

Air Canada flight AC 759 from Toronto was on a visual approach for landing on runway 28R at San Francisco International Airport, CA (Chart) in darkness but good visibility conditions. The flight was cleared to land behind a Delta Air Lines Boeing 737-900 (DL 521) and the landing clearance correctly acknowledged.

On final approach the aircraft began deviating to the right of the propper approach track aiming to the parallel taxiway „charlie“.

The pilots questioned the tower about disturbing lights that appeared to be on the runway but tower controller responded there is any other aircraft on the runway.

At the time several other departing aircraft queued on taxiway „Charlie“ awaiting departure from runway 28R after the landing of AC 759. The first in the line was United Airlines flight 1 (UAL 1) from San Francisco to Singapore, a Boeing 787-900 (N29961). It was only after the pilot of this aircraft expressed his concerns about the misdirected approach when tower controller instructed AC 759 to do a go-around.

The pilots immediately responded and abandoned the landing. According to flight tracking websites, the A320 was put into a climb at about 200 feet and the flight returned for a safe landing on runway 28R about 15 minutes later.

[ktcanuck]

...can this happen with approach lights as they are?

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/10/e ... n-history/

[Bajan Pilot]

"Is it possible this related to the PML"

Give me a friggin' break. The crap some people post amazes me sometimes.

[goingnowherefast]

Express pilots have been doing a pretty good job of landing on the runway. Don't think that would change when they switch employers.

[Jean-Pierre]

Well
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/pi ... t-sea-tac/

[Localizer]

When did Harrison Ford get hired at Air Canada?

[av8ts]

If we can have four threads about the same story why not?

[AirFrame]

When did Harrison Ford get hired at Air Canada?

Damn it... Beat me to it by 14 minutes...

[Inverted2]

When did Harrison Ford get hired at Air Canada?

Stevie Wonder was doing Harrison's line indoc

[pelmet]

Typically, one just sets up for the ILS approach(or RNAV if ILS not available) which brings you down on the centerline making visual illusions less likely to result in lining up with something that you should not be lining up with. Seattle is a good example that catches the occasional airliner landing on a taxiway instead of a runway. The last guys to do it in SEA were a locally based crew accepting a sidestep with sunshine in their eyes.

[wallypilot]

Without any information at all, and not reading the article,because I am ina rush, if there was SOIA operations ongoing, there is that possibility on the right when angling in and transitioning to visual that they lined up to the right of the intended landing runway...if you were straight in on an ILS, I really don't see how this could have happened.

[altiplano]

The visual approach on 28R is an offset approach that tracks in from the right of centerline across the apparent approach for the taxiway.

I think this was just being cautious after the comment from the guy on the ground.

28R at night is very obvious.

[The Hammer]

Yikes

"ACA759 had overflown Taxiway C for approximately 0.25 miles when ATC instructed the
aircraft to go around. Four aircraft were positioned on Taxiway C at the time of the event. It is
estimated that ACA759 overflew the first two aircraft by 100 feet, the third one by 200 feet and the
last one by 300 feet. The closest lateral proximity between ACA759 and one of the four aircraft on
Taxiway C was 29 feet. The NTSB is investigating."

[rookiepilot]

Yikes

"ACA759 had overflown Taxiway C for approximately 0.25 miles when ATC instructed the
aircraft to go around. Four aircraft were positioned on Taxiway C at the time of the event. It is
estimated that ACA759 overflew the first two aircraft by 100 feet, the third one by 200 feet and the
last one by 300 feet. The closest lateral proximity between ACA759 and one of the four aircraft on
Taxiway C was 29 feet. The NTSB is investigating."

That appears a tad more dangerous than Harrison ford, but I'm certainly no expert ---

[ditar]

I can see how this might all be a lot of hoopla about nothing. Flying the approach offset to the right is the correct procedure. I've landed 28R before and kept it offset maybe a little longer than necessary due to another airplane off my left wingtip. Given that 28R is not the usual departure runway, the crew of an aircraft waiting on the taxiway might have gotten nervous. I guess the question is if the AC crew knew where they were going why did they think there were lights where there shouldn't be. It's possible there are a few important facts missing here.

[complexintentions]

When I call it a non-event, I am directly referring to the "GREATEST AVIATION DISASTER IN HISTORY" nonsense rhetoric in the news story. I think I am correct in pointing out that this disaster did not happen? Hence, an event that did not occur, or as I call it...a non-event. Of course for those who enjoy breathless telenovelas it certainly sounds exciting "HE FLEW RIGHT OVER ME", wow! I like to poke fun at my AC brethren on occasion but I'm 100% sure they weren't going to land on top of the lights they obviously saw (obvious, because they asked what they were). Yes, they lost situational awareness, and no, it wasn't SECONDS AWAY FROM DISASTER.

rookiepilot, I know you're convinced you're making some profound point about the difference in responses to this and Asiana, but if you can't discern the differences between both the scenarios and the outcomes, well, carry on I guess. And you do realize Harrison Ford actually landed, right? So a go-around is more dangerous than landing, is that it?

The offset mentioned isn't a valid defence - as published (Quiet Bridge) the offset is only required to be maintained until San Mateo bridge, which is about 6 mile final - they went around at 200ft. Does anyone even know what approach they were flying? (ILS/visual/charted visual)

I was not attempting to completely minimize the event - someone goofed up and they are looking at why. But everything worked exactly as designed and the error was corrected.

Next drama, please.

[pelmet]

Apparently cleared for a Bridge visual not a SOIA.

This post that I linked from another forum seems like a very plausible scenario....Perhaps only one set of approach and runway lights that are assumed to be for the other runway. If it looked like the first video at 3:41 seconds but without the PAPIs for 28L illuminated, one starts to see what may have happened. To add to it......A set of bright approach lights visible, a second set of green lights visible(oops, don't we all know that they are for taxiways only), crew has been to SFO several times but never seen the north parallel taxiway used and not really aware that it exists.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5969 ... ost9827343

Also, some audio here....

https://soundcloud.com/user-66001055/au ... liveatcnet

I wonder if the Bridge Visual is in the FMS and being displayed on the PFD and if so, can an ILS still be tuned as a backup?

[Navajo Flyer]

It always seems to happen when conducting a visual approach. Here's another AC incident on a visual approach into Kelowna.
http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r ... 3p0259.pdf

Hopefully we can all learn from it!!!

[justwork]

I can see how this might all be a lot of hoopla about nothing. Flying the approach offset to the right is the correct procedure. I've landed 28R before and kept it offset maybe a little longer than necessary due to another airplane off my left wingtip. Given that 28R is not the usual departure runway, the crew of an aircraft waiting on the taxiway might have gotten nervous. I guess the question is if the AC crew knew where they were going why did they think there were lights where there shouldn't be. It's possible there are a few important facts missing here.

Might have gotten nervous? Didn't I just read AC was 100 Feet away from the first aircraft vertically, and 29 feet laterally... I'd have been pretty nervous too. I'd imagine that to get that close, it was more than just "kept the offset a little longer than necessary".

The good news is this is being investigated in the US, so a report will be issued promptly. If this was being investigated in Canada, which is a HUGE if, the report would be issued in months.... maybe longer.

[xsbank]

I feel for these guys because they went around, spending a bit more of the company's money than they liked, but it certainly wasn't the disaster of the century, or even of that day. Humans make funny mistakes for strange unexplained reasons and some survive, some don't - we pay all those guys to watch over us so that this doesn't happen - it didn't.