AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?

[patter]

Didn't a Canadian land ksea on the taxiway?

[Eric Janson]

Apparently cleared for a Bridge visual not a SOIA.

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?

Selecting an approach in the FMGC will cause the ILS for that runway to be auto tuned on the RAD NAV page.

Any selection on the RAD NAV page can be manually overridden. It is also possible to tune navaids not in the database.

Not familiar with what Air Canada has in their database.

[brooks]

Those old Airbus's don't seem to be doing that well with LNAV and VNAV these days. I doubt the FAA and TSB will be as nonchalant as Transport Canada was with AC624.

[brooks]

Globe and Mail article today.
Like I said, I doubt the FAA will be interested in the Air Canada sugar coating.

Investigators looking into what caused an apparent close call involving an Air Canada flight at San Francisco International Airport are expected to examine whether human error or controller procedures played a role in the incident, an aviation expert said Tuesday

The state of the aircraft's and controller's equipment, and the design of the air space will also be under review as officials try to determine how a flight from Toronto came to line up with a taxiway rather than the runway as it prepared to land, said Barry Wiszniowski, president of Aviation Safety Management Experts.

An Air Canada Airbus A320 was cleared to land on one of the runways at the San Francisco airport just before midnight on Friday when the pilot "inadvertently" lined up with the taxiway, which runs parallel to the runway, the U.S. Federal Aviation Authority said.

There were four aircraft lined up on the taxiway waiting for departure when the incident occurred, the FAA said in a statement. The Air Canada plane eventually made another approach and landed without incident, it said.

The FAA and Air Canada are investigating what happened.

"One of the questions that they may ask is were the pilots fatigued? ... Were they in their normal window of wakefulness?" Wiszniowski said. "There are a lot of questions that need to be asked."

Wiszniowski said the safety systems in place managed to prevent what could have been a serious incident, noting that at least one previous case in which a plane landed on a taxiway where there were other planes resulted in multiple fatalities.

Thirty-four people died in February 1991 when a USAir Boeing 737 landed on a taxiway at Los Angeles airport and collided with a commuter plane, causing a massive explosion. Sixty-seven passengers survived.

Air traffic management and equipment, as well as aircraft exterior lighting and visibility, were among the safety issues raised by the FAA in its report on that crash.

Recommendations made in the wake of such incidents have helped improve safety procedures, Wiszniowski said.

"The lessons learned from LAX — now at night, whenever an aircraft is on the runway, we turn our strobe lights on," he said. "When we cross a runway, even in the daytime, we turn our strobe lights on."

A similar report on Friday's incident will highlight areas for improvement, he said.

An exchange recorded by the website LiveATC.net provided some details on the incident involving the Air Canada flight.

In the clip, the Air Canada pilot is heard requesting permission to land and is given the go-ahead from the control tower before another pilot issues a warning.

"Where is this guy going? He's on the taxi lane," the second pilot says in the recording.

The controller then tells the Air Canada pilot to pull up and go around.

The aviation agency said it is now investigating the distance between the Air Canada aircraft and the jets lined up on the taxiway.

Air Canada said 135 passengers and five crew members were aboard its plane, but gave little other information, citing its own ongoing investigation.

[JBI]

Globe and Mail article today.

Thirty-four people died in February 1991 when a USAir Boeing 737 landed on a taxiway at Los Angeles airport and collided with a commuter plane, causing a massive explosion. Sixty-seven passengers survived.

[...]
"The lessons learned from LAX — now at night, whenever an aircraft is on the runway, we turn our strobe lights on," he said. "When we cross a runway, even in the daytime, we turn our strobe lights on."

[/quote]

I'm assuming the article is referring to USAir 1493 and Skywest 5569. In that situation both aircraft were on the runway NOT on a taxi-way. Skywest had been cleared in to position (but did not turn on their strobes nor were they required to) while due to confusion in the tower, USAir was cleared to land. They impacted on the runway, not the taxiway. Very different facts and circumstances - but that doesn't really seem to get in the way of a good news story these days.

In this situation, there seems to be a mistake made - whether it was by the AC crew lining up incorrectly or the UA pilot misjudging the location of the AC flight, the appropriate checks & balances caught the mistake before it caused any damage. The AC crew queried the tower on something not looking right, the UA crew queried the tower and tower called for a go around. I wasn't there, but I'm willing to bet that the AC crew would have called for the go around on their own even if not instructed by tower. Whichever aviation expert used the quote "it could have been the biggest aviation disaster in history" really ought to have chosen his words more carefully.

[Black_Tusk]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1165 ... sc=ORXa0tJ

[brooks]

I agree. An unusual situation for both the pilots sitting on the taxiway and the offset approaching Air Canada.

[pelmet]

I can see it now..in a way that is similar to what happened after YHZ, AC will stop doing night visual approaches and start telling TC that the same restriction should apply today other airlines as well. In the name of safety of course.

In the interest of safety AC hasn't done night visual approaches at any airport where terrain might be an issue for many years. You didn't know that?

Strange...one would have thought you knew everything.

Apparently cleared for the FMS Bridge Visual. Hmmm, any terrain in SFO. There was the last time I flew in, although 28L/R have some wide open spaces as well.

SFO 07/026 SFO RWY 10R/28L CLSD 1707080600-1707081500
SFO 06/017 SFO RWY 28L ALS OUT OF SERVICE 1706021357-1707211500

Is Rockie a bit touchy these days perhaps because he is an instructor pilot on type?

[pelmet]

I have noticed at my company that some pilots like to turn off the taxi light when the aircraft comes to a stop(although there was a memo saying not to do it). Perhaps this is a good reason right here to show why the light should be kept on. It might prevent a disaster. Taxi lights do not normally provide distraction for someone on approach. That being said, if someone is approaching to land on top of you, what can you do. those on the ground called the tower. I wonder if they started flashing landing lights as well. Might make the errant crew notice you earlier.

Another thought comes to mind as well....The pilots were asking about the lights on the runway. They then continued the approach after being reassured by the tower that the runway was clear and of course, the pilots believed that they were on the proper flight path to that runway. In my experience, when a major screw-up is being made, there is usually a hint of some sort...that little warning. Something that just doesn't make sense. Based on my own experience, that hint can easily be tossed aside and an excuse(which doesn't make sense either) is made to justify that out of the ordinary thing being seen. So when you see something like this that just doesn't make sense....it is time for the alarm bells to go off.

[Heliian]

What a ridiculous world. For the uneducated, safety issues like this arise every day, multiple times a day. It was a go around due to an unstable approach. No one crashed, I don't even think a drink was spilled, get over it.

[Eric Janson]

What a ridiculous world. For the uneducated, safety issues like this arise every day, multiple times a day. It was a go around due to an unstable approach. No one crashed, I don't even think a drink was spilled, get over it.

Wasn't an unstable approach from what I've read.

The fact that a go-around wasn't made until ATC told them to make one makes this a very serious incident imho.

FAA is investigating for a reason.

[Rockie]

Pelmet

The FMS Bridge Visual is a charted procedure with routing and altitude constraints contained in the FMS database. Can you see the difference between that and a freestyle "visual approach"?

[Rockie]

What a ridiculous world. For the uneducated, safety issues like this arise every day, multiple times a day. It was a go around due to an unstable approach. No one crashed, I don't even think a drink was spilled, get over it.

Wasn't an unstable approach from what I've read.

The fact that a go-around wasn't made until ATC told them to make one makes this a very serious incident imho.

FAA is investigating for a reason.

The Flight Safety Foundation defines what a stable approach is and airlines have adopted it for the most part although specific minor variation will exist. Check your own manual and see what it says. I get your point, but clearly the approach was unstable under the definition.



All flights must be stabilized by 1,000 feet above airport elevation in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) and by 500 feet above airport elevation in visual meteorological conditions (VMC). An approach is stabilized when all of the following criteria are met:

1. The aircraft is on the correct flight path;

2. Only small changes in heading/pitch are required to maintain the correct flight path;

3. The aircraft speed is not more than VREF + 20 knots indicated airspeed and not less than VREF;

4. The aircraft is in the correct landing configuration;

5. Sink rate is no greater than 1,000 feet per minute; if an approach requires a sink rate greater than 1,000 feet per minute, a special briefing should be conducted;

6. Powersettingisappropriatefortheaircraft configuration and is not below the minimum power for approach as defined by the aircraft operating manual;

7. All briefings and checklists have been conducted;

8. Specific types of approaches are stabilized if they also fulfill the following: instrument landing system (ILS) approaches must be flown within one dot of the glideslope and localizer; a Category II or Category III ILS approach must be flown within the expanded localizer band; during a circling approach, wings should be level on final when the aircraft reaches 300 feet above airport elevation; and,

9. Unique approach procedures or abnormal conditions requiring a deviation from the above elements of a stabilized approach require a special briefing.

An approach that becomes unstabilized below 1,000 feet above airport elevation in IMC or below 500 feet above airport elevation in VMC requires an immediate go-around.

[goingmach_1]

Not an airline guy, but been a corporate pilot for 30 plus years. So I am wondering if this type of aircraft has a runway awerness equipment? The aircraft we fly gives a audio announcement when approaching a runway both airborne and while taxing onto a runway.

[Jimmy2]

There are single engine trainers at your local flying club better equipped than Air Canada's A320 fleet.

[rookiepilot]

There are single engine trainers at your local flying club better equipped than Air Canada's A320 fleet.

Amazing how much money you can make when equipping jets like 172's:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report ... ndmail.com&

[Rockie]

Not an airline guy, but been a corporate pilot for 30 plus years. So I am wondering if this type of aircraft has a runway awerness equipment? The aircraft we fly gives a audio announcement when approaching a runway both airborne and while taxing onto a runway.

Some of the newer 321's do, but the majority of the fleet is too old.

[pelmet]

The FMS Bridge Visual is a charted procedure with routing and altitude constraints contained in the FMS database. Can you see the difference between that and a freestyle "visual approach"?

Your direct knowledge about procedures on this aircraft are much appreciated Rockie. Perhaps you even train pilots going into SFO using this procedure....

Someone mentioned on another forum that if the Airbus is set up for the charted FMS Bridge Visual Approach, it is not possible to have ILS indications on display. Is this correct? It would mean that using the ILS as a backup would be impossible.

Also, are the instrument indications given by the FMS Bridge Visual approach accurate enough to align the aircraft fairly accurately with the runway the way an RNAV approach seems to do.

[Rockie]

When a procedure is entered into the MCDU it sets the FMGC up to guide the aircraft along the procedure. If an ILS is entered it also automatically tunes the ILS frequency and course. When a procedure other than an ILS or LOC type procedure is entered it does not. Although it is not something we normally do it is possible to manually enter an ILS frequency/course and display it when flying some other type of procedure.

The FMS Bridge Visual is coded in the database, but since it is a visual approach flown only in VFR conditions identifying the runway is not something that should be a problem so no one would think to manually enter the ILS as a backup. Perhaps that's something that could be considered in the future but that involves other considerations than just the obvious ones and is way above my pay grade.

Regarding your question on guidance to the runway, that would depend on whether or not the aircraft was equipped with GPS and I have no idea if this one was. But again, this procedure ends with a visual segment to the runway from quite far back on final so electronic guidance at that point should be moot.

[pelmet]

Although it is not something we normally do it is possible to manually enter an ILS frequency/course and display it when flying some other type of procedure.

The FMS Bridge Visual is coded in the database, but since it is a visual approach flown only in VFR conditions identifying the runway is not something that should be a problem so no one would think to manually enter the ILS as a backup. Perhaps that's something that could be considered in the future but that involves other considerations than just the obvious ones and is way above my pay grade.

Based on the large number of aircraft that have landed on wrong runways, taxiways, and even the wrong airports over the years, you might want to re-evaluate that idea that no one would think to use the ILS as a back-up. It was one of the first things I thought of when I heard about this incident.

There are too many illusions and possibilities for misidentification as we see over and over again. When the system being used is not accurate enough to guarantlee alignment of the aircraft with the runway, manually tuning an available ILS as a backup, if reasonably easy to do, is an obvious simple thing to do if it does not cause interference with other required indications, especially at night.

One shouldn't need to wait for others to consider it in the future when we have the tools to do certain thing ourselves in the present.

[Eric Janson]

1. The aircraft is on the correct flight path;

Since a go-around wasn't made until ATC told them to - it appears that the crew thought this was the case. If not they should have made the go-around themselves but it appears this didn't happen.

My company has slightly more restrictive stabilised approach criteria than what you've listed.

Just a question for you Rockie - what is your SOP if the FO says to go-around?

I'm surprised at how many companies don't address this properly.

[B777guy]

If I remember correctly Air Canada revised their procedures a number of years ago so that either pilot could call for a go-around. I think it related more to a stabilized vs unstabilized approach at the time.

[ktcanuck]

Let's review the undisputed facts:

1. AC759 lined up with Taxiway C and planned to land on it believing it was 28R.
2. AC759 continued with this approach until instructed to go-around by ATC.
3. Approach lights were on at unknown intensity.
4. AC759 noticed unexpected lights on its intended landing area.
5. AC759 did not declare a go-around prior to being instructed to do so.

Add in observations of unknown or uncorroborated origin:

6. "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."

Heliian thinks this is just a typical walk in the park: "What a ridiculous world. For the uneducated, safety issues like this arise every day, multiple times a day. It was a go around due to an unstable approach. No one crashed, I don't even think a drink was spilled, get over it."

This kind of flippancy serves no good purpose except to expose ignorance. This was clearly a very serious situation whose outcome could have been disastrous.

[complexintentions]

There are single engine trainers at your local flying club better equipped than Air Canada's A320 fleet.

Single engine trainers do not have RAAS. And they are not "better-equipped" than any A320. No matter how many colours the glass cockpit may have, they are still simple, slow, unpressurized machines carrying a couple of people. Zero comparison to an airliner in design, purpose, or scale. But hey it sounded cool when you said it.

More than one poster have made an assumption that cannot be verified without interviewing the crew, crucially, that the go-around was initiated ONLY because, and when, ATC instructed it. And that it was a near-disaster because if it wasn't for ATC they would have merrily continued and landed because, hey, no one checks to make sure a runway is clear before landing, right? I particularly like the "observations of unknown or uncorroborated origin". Gee, that just screams credible. Talk about exposing ignorance.

I do not completely dismiss the incident. But I categorically reject that it was anywhere as close to an accident as some seem determined to believe it was. Of course, I could be wrong - perhaps if the crew are honest enough to admit it, maybe the report really will conclude that if it wasn't for the intervention of ATC, they would have just landed on top of the aircraft they saw ahead of them. Maybe.

Incidentally, at my own company, if ANY pilot on the flight deck (including relief crew) calls for a go-around below 1,000 feet, a go-around is mandatory.

[Rupert_Pupkin]

There are single engine trainers at your local flying club better equipped than Air Canada's A320 fleet.

Single engine trainers do not have RAAS. And they are not "better-equipped" than any A320. No matter how many colours the glass cockpit may have, they are still simple, slow, unpressurized machines carrying a couple of people. Zero comparison to an airliner in design, purpose, or scale. But hey it sounded cool when you said it.

More than one poster have made an assumption that cannot be verified without interviewing the crew, crucially, that the go-around was initiated ONLY because, and when, ATC instructed it. And that it was a near-disaster because if it wasn't for ATC they would have merrily continued and landed because, hey, no one checks to make sure a runway is clear before landing, right?

I do not completely dismiss the incident. But I categorically reject that it was anywhere as close to an accident as some seem determined to believe it was. Of course, I could be wrong - perhaps if the crew are honest enough to admit it, maybe the report really will conclude that if it wasn't for the intervention of ATC, they would have just landed on top of the aircraft they saw ahead of them. Maybe.

Incidentally, at my own company, if ANY pilot on the flight deck (including relief crew) calls for a go-around below 1,000 feet, a go-around is mandatory.

Well it's clear when you listen to the audio that they did a go around when they were instructed to or they would have made a call earlier saying were going around no?