AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?

[Old fella]

Yes, on the TSB site CVR recordings are considered "Privileged information " as it is an ICAO Annex 13 requirement.

[Rockie]

The only relation to this incident is your statement saying that the SFO pax are alive due to the expertise and skills and similar that was stated for the 767 pax. I believe it is known as "circling the wagons".

Nonsense. It's called "you don't ever stop flying the airplane no matter what happens".

[Cat Driver]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... aster.html

[confusedalot]

I'm getting bored. Anything out there of how this happened outside of gross incompetence allegations?

[av8ts]

Rockie,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am more than happy to pay whatever the market price is for an airline fare, including all safety retrofits.

As a pax I am suspicious how far the overall cost cutting trend has gone and potential effects on safety, in a variety of ways. I'm sure I do not need to list them for you. I'd far rather pay more on every flight, to see some of those changes rolled back, improving safety, comfort and civility.

I fly a lot, both business and personal, and I can assure you price is the last item I look at when choosing a flight, following -- in no order here -- the carrier, safety and perceived quality of product, the schedule, stops, ect. Price follows all of that.

I will pay more -- sometimes a lot more -- to avoid flying a substandard product.

I think BTW I'm aware that retrofitting WAAS is a bit more complex on an A320 than any spam can.

You are definitely in the minority. The vast majority of people when searching for a flight do not search for safest airline, or newest planes, or best service. They search one thing.. price.

[Black_Tusk]

Rockie,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am more than happy to pay whatever the market price is for an airline fare, including all safety retrofits.

As a pax I am suspicious how far the overall cost cutting trend has gone and potential effects on safety, in a variety of ways. I'm sure I do not need to list them for you. I'd far rather pay more on every flight, to see some of those changes rolled back, improving safety, comfort and civility.

I fly a lot, both business and personal, and I can assure you price is the last item I look at when choosing a flight, following -- in no order here -- the carrier, safety and perceived quality of product, the schedule, stops, ect. Price follows all of that.

I will pay more -- sometimes a lot more -- to avoid flying a substandard product.

I think BTW I'm aware that retrofitting WAAS is a bit more complex on an A320 than any spam can.

You are definitely in the minority. The vast majority of people when searching for a flight do not search for safest airline, or newest planes, or best service. They search one thing.. price.

Give him a break, he's still a rookie.

[FICU]

I think BTW I'm aware that retrofitting WAAS is a bit more complex on an A320 than any spam can.

We have WAAS(LPV) capability on our old 737-200s.

Those old noisemakers, smoke belching leaky clunkers still on the go. Last time on one was 2009 to YZF but I have to be honest, sure beats DHC-8 early version propeller bug chasers from a pax prospective

Oh ya... still a pilots airplane and still fun landing on gravel and ice. Hope to be flying it for many years to come. The -300 is a great machine too and so much less workload.

[FICU]

I am trying to remember a closer call to what could have been the worst accident in aviation history.

You sound like the media... you honestly believe that crew would have landed on the planes on the taxiway if it wasn't for the controller telling them to go-around?

Do you honestly, 110%, believe they would not have? They were at 175 feet. Spool the engines back a touch and they might well have.
Illya

Yes... 2 pilots in good visibility... I 100% believe they would have not landed on another plane.

[FICU]

Releasing CVR recordings to the public doesn't benefit anyone. The report will be made public when the proper regulatory and investigative agencies finish their investigation.

That is correct.

And it will be an American NTSB report and not a Canadian TSB report which is in my opinion preferable.

And should be much quicker... no taking a year to translate it to en Francais.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

I did not read the whole tread. But:

Fact 1: They were in visual conditions.
Fact 2: The Air Canada crew stated they had the taxying aircraft in sight.

Are we trying to claim that the Air Canada 320 was going to purposely land on top of aircraft it had in plain sight ?

FlightAware analysis for measuring one aircraft passed within 39 feet of another and directly on top ? Give me a break!

[Jean-Pierre]

Did they say that? I thought they asked if they are cleared to land because they saw lights on the runway. ATC said yes you are cleared to land. They continued.

[Cat Driver]

Fact 2: The Air Canada crew stated they had the taxing aircraft in sight.

Where was that information posted?

[boogs82]

I'm curious about something and will defer this to the experience of the airline pilots (which clearly I am not).

If you're asking ATC if you're cleared to land because you see lights on the runway, how long are you waiting before going around without ATC telling you to?

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Fact 2: The Air Canada crew stated they had the taxing aircraft in sight.

Where was that information posted?

They said they saw lights on the runway and asked to confirm they were cleared to land. They were told to go around 15 seconds later. I would wait for hard facts like RADAR data of DFDR data before believing the current narrative.....

[CFM Symphony]

Are we trying to claim that the Air Canada 320 was going to purposely land on top of aircraft it had in plain sight ?

No, not purposefully. Can you name more than 10 accidents off the top of your head that were purposefully caused by pilots? The aircraft on the ground clearly were not identified until very late in the approach. There is simply no other explanation as to why the approach continued to such a low altitude. I myself am not one to take numbers from Flightaware, but even the slightly more conservative numbers the NTSB issued are way too close for comfort. Your hypothesis fails precisely because they got so low on approach.

The only identifiable lights would have been steady lights on each wingtip and, from an approach angle, only the anti-collision light up top. All this on a taxiway that unlike the apron has no flood lighting. I for one don't think it's implausible that the aircraft were misidentified, especially in an environment where situational awareness was already lost (lining up with the taxiway. Were they actually going to land on top of them? Hard to tell till we have more info on who pulled the go-around trigger.

[Eric Janson]

Is there anyone here who flies the big stuff who could give an idea about the amount of altitude that is lost from the moment when the overshoot is called? I've only ever flown light twins, but have heard vague comments that it can be significant. Could it be as much as 100 ft? More...?

Disclaimer:- I do not work for Air Canada.

Disclaimer 2 - This is information only. It is not in any way a commentary on the SFO incident.

I see nobody has answered your question.

The only data I have is for the A330/340. A320 will be similar.

Approach speed is normally around 140 knots (Vapp + 5 knots) with a descent rate of 700'/min. Thrust will be around 50% N1 (CFM Engines).

Vapp = 1.23Vs

From the Flight Crew Techniques Manual - altitude loss in a go-around is 10 feet in this configuration and it gives a time of 2.5 seconds until this loss is recovered.

With idle thrust this increases to 35 feet and 6 seconds until this loss is recovered.

From personal experience the time from 50% N1 to full thrust is less than 3 seconds.
Pitch change is from about 4 degrees nose up to 12.5 degrees nose up with 7.5 degrees nose up being the pitch angle for level flight.

There is one important thing to remember if flying manually - the aircraft will maintain whatever pitch attitude was set until an input is made to change the pitch. This means that on a manual go-around if you do not pull the nose up the aircraft will continue to descend and accelerate on a -3 degree path. Then it's possible to lose a lot a altitude.

[confusedalot]

I'm curious about something and will defer this to the experience of the airline pilots (which clearly I am not).

If you're asking ATC if you're cleared to land because you see lights on the runway, how long are you waiting before going around without ATC telling you to?

Once the controller issues a cleared to land, responsibility is transferred from the controller to the crew. At that point, the crew can do what they want, INCLUDING a go around. That's in canada.

In the US, controller will clear you to land with aircraft still on the runway, crossing runways, etc.....Same deal, the crew has entire authority to land, or go around if they are not happy.

[boogs82]

I'm curious about something and will defer this to the experience of the airline pilots (which clearly I am not).

If you're asking ATC if you're cleared to land because you see lights on the runway, how long are you waiting before going around without ATC telling you to?

Once the controller issues a cleared to land, responsibility is transferred from the controller to the crew. At that point, the crew can do what they want, INCLUDING a go around. That's in canada.

In the US, controller will clear you to land with aircraft still on the runway, crossing runways, etc.....Same deal, the crew has entire authority to land, or go around if they are not happy.

I guess that's kind of my point. At some moment in time you have to make a decision if things don't seem right. You can be cleared for whatever but the ultimate decision about passengers' and your safety rests on the shoulders of the pilot in command. I guess I'm a little bit surprised that they asked the question because things didn't seem right and then had to be told to go around when things were clearly not right.

Caveat.....It's easy to sit here and Monday morning quarterback when not being involved in the situation at all and that's not my intent. My job is quarterbacked enough that I don't want to seem like I'm doing that.

[pelmet]

In the US, controller will clear you to land with aircraft still on the runway, crossing runways, etc.....Same deal, the crew has entire authority to land, or go around if they are not happy.

In this case, there were no aircraft on the runway as was confirmed to the flight crew by the controller. Obviously the crew came up with some sort of explanation to themselves as to what those lights were in order to justify their confirmation bias that what they thought was the runway was clear.

[boeingboy]

National Transportation Safety Board investigators said Monday in an initial report that Air Canada flight 759 from Toronto — with 140 passengers aboard — descended below 100 feet and aborted the landing “after overflying the first airplane on the taxiway.” Federal investigators interviewed the captain on Friday.

Once past the second plane, the Air Canada jet continued to drop to as low as 81 feet before it began to climb, as aviation experts say such a late aborted landing takes a moment to stop the jet’s inertia and begin to ascend.

At the Air Canada flight’s lowest point of 81 feet — and headed straight for the third plane on the ground, United Airlines flight 863 — it was only 26 feet above the top of that airplane’s tail. A Boeing 787 is 55 feet tall.

Federal officials have recovered the aircraft’s flight data recorder and security camera video from SFO of the incident approach. The NTSB says that video will be released once the public docket for this incident is opened in the next several months.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/17/n ... g-landing/

Sounds pretty f'in late to be starting a go around if you ask me. Somebody should have noticed something way before this point.

[HiFlyChick]

Is there anyone here who flies the big stuff who could give an idea about the amount of altitude that is lost from the moment when the overshoot is called? I've only ever flown light twins, but have heard vague comments that it can be significant. Could it be as much as 100 ft? More...?

Disclaimer:- I do not work for Air Canada.

Disclaimer 2 - This is information only. It is not in any way a commentary on the SFO incident.

I see nobody has answered your question....

Thanks, Eric - I figured it got lost in all of the bickering. I appreciate the info, especially the insight that if you are hand flying and slow to change the pitch attitude your altitude loss can be worse than book value (and I'm just interested in how an overshoot on a large jet goes in general, not specifically saying it applies to the SFO incident). I must admit, I was quite surprised that the altitude losses are that low - I imagined a fair bit of momentum and spool up time for the engines.

[Rockie]

I must admit, I was quite surprised that the altitude losses are that low - I imagined a fair bit of momentum and spool up time for the engines.

Some types require a significant period of time for spool up from their ground idle setting, but jets have an approach idle setting that is higher for that reason. In addition to that jets approach at a 3 degree angle which requires a power setting above approach idle to maintain at the final approach speed, and are required to be "stabilized" by no later than 500 feet AGL that involves a number of items including thrust set "normally" above idle and on final approach speed.

All this to say spool up time during a go-around should be immediate in transport category jets. The descent from the moment a go-around is decided is a function of reaction time, the 3 degree flight path, airspeed and inertia.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

I remember years ago in Port-au-Prince, a short caused by water during heavy thunderstorms, caused the runway lights breaker to trip. They couldn't be reset due to the water in a line.
Flare pots were installed on the the whole length of the runway. The VASIS were U/S as well.
There was the airport road which ran parallel to the runway from the threshold of 09 to about half way down the 10000 foot runway. That road had lights much brighter than the dim flarepots. It was nighttime and it was raining.
A AeroCondor Colombia B707 or B720 had been cleared to land when the vigilant tower controller saw that he was on short final, lined up with the airport road. He told the aircraft to go around and it flew to its alternate, Santo Domingo.

[flyer 1492]

Today in the WSJ, they reported that the crew did not have the ILS tuned for runway 28R.

[rookiepilot]

Today in the WSJ, they reported that the crew did not have the ILS tuned for runway 28R.

I'm only a "rookie", so bear with me.

Assuming this is correct -- of course anything critical could be "fake news".

Someone please give me a reason why NOT doing this somehow enhances the safety of the approach.

Maybe it's Airbus's fault?