AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
- complexintentions
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2183
- Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
- Location: of my pants is unknown.
Re: AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?
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.
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.
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
Re: AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?
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?
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?
Last edited by pelmet on Tue Jul 11, 2017 3:33 pm, edited 9 times in total.
-
- Rank 2
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 8:00 pm
Re: AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?
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!!!
http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r ... 3p0259.pdf
Hopefully we can all learn from it!!!
Re: AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?
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".ditar wrote: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.
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.
Re: AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?
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.
Last edited by xsbank on Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
Re: AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?
Didn't a Canadian land ksea on the taxiway?
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1250
- Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am
Re: AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?
Selecting an approach in the FMGC will cause the ILS for that runway to be auto tuned on the RAD NAV page.pelmet wrote: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?
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.
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
Re: AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?
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.
Re: AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?
Globe and Mail article today.
Like I said, I doubt the FAA will be interested in the Air Canada sugar coating.
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.
Re: AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?
[/quote]brooks wrote: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."
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.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 693
- Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 8:57 am
Re: AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?
I agree. An unusual situation for both the pilots sitting on the taxiway and the offset approaching Air Canada.
Re: AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?
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.Rockie wrote: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?pelmet wrote: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.
Strange...one would have thought you knew everything.
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?
Last edited by pelmet on Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:35 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Re: AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?
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.
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.
Re: AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?
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.
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1250
- Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am
Re: AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?
Wasn't an unstable approach from what I've read.Heliian wrote: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.
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.
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
Re: AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?
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"?
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"?
Re: AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?
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.Eric Janson wrote:Wasn't an unstable approach from what I've read.Heliian wrote: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.
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.
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.
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:54 pm
Re: AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?
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.
Re: AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?
There are single engine trainers at your local flying club better equipped than Air Canada's A320 fleet.