Eric Janson wrote:The best way to display NOTAM info is in graphic format imho.
Example:- A taxiway at an airport highlighted in red is very easy to understand.
My understanding is that this is coming in a future update of Jeppesen FD Pro.
They've just integrated information from the manuals into the route which is a fantastic feature.
Already have this technology on AMM(Airport Moving Map) although I am not sure if it is entered by the company or somehow automatically done by Jeppesen.
Manually highlighting in green the closed taxiways in Jepp FD Pro is useful as well for ground operations. Something likely not applicable to this incident though.
mbav8r wrote:AC does have EFBs, iPads and I'm assuming FD pro since that is what we have at Jazz.
Cool.
pelmet wrote:
Already have this technology on AMM(Airport Moving Map) although I am not sure if it is entered by the company or somehow automatically done by Jeppesen.
Done by Jepp on the AMM. But it's not always accurate to the written NOTAMS.
---------- ADS -----------
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
AC has JeppFDPro. While we don't (currently) have the system that automatically displays closures on the airport diagram, highlighting closures ourselves is an effective technique most people use. AC is embracing technologies available using the P-EFB though so the automated system may be in the offing. Not foolproof as mentioned, but certainly a step forward.
Exclusive: SFO makes changes for pilots, air traffic controllers after Air Canada close call
SAN FRANCISCO — In the wake of last month’s near-collision at San Francisco International Airport, federal officials have made significant changes to how pilots land at the airport and how many air traffic controllers must be working in the tower during nighttime hours, the Bay Area News Group has learned.
The Federal Aviation Administration also plans to begin testing modified radar systems in a few months at its Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City — and possibly also at the San Francisco airport — to allow the facility’s ground surveillance systems to alert air traffic controllers when an aircraft is attempting to land on a taxiway rather than a runway, as happened in the SFO incident. Those systems were originally designed, according to the FAA, to prevent runway incursions and runway collisions, not taxiway mishaps.
“Just about every safety improvement in aviation was written in blood or the aftermath of an egregious mistake or a screw-up,” retired United Airlines Capt. Ross Aimer, an aviation safety consultant, wrote in an email. “I think all three improvements (by the FAA) are a welcome sight and long time to come. Too bad it took a near disaster for them to finally happen!”
On July 7, Air Canada Flight 759 flew as low as 59 feet off the ground before the pilot aborted his landing, flying dangerously close to four other aircraft awaiting takeoff with an estimated 1,000 passengers on board all the planes, according to an ongoing National Transportation Safety Board investigation. Federal investigators determined that the Air Canada plane dropped off the air traffic controller’s ground surveillance system radar during its final 12 seconds on approach.
Aviation experts have said the near-miss could have triggered one of the worst aviation disasters ever and have criticized the delayed notice of the incident, which allowed the cockpit voice recorder to be overwritten.
Since the close call, the FAA no longer allows visual approaches for aircraft approaching SFO at night with an adjacent parallel runway closed, according to spokesman Ian Gregor. On July 7, Runway 28-Left was closed and darkened, and the Air Canada flight crew told investigators that they shifted their sight-line to the right, causing them to believe Taxiway C was their approved runway Runway 28-Right. Taxiway C runs parallel to 28-right.
“When these conditions prevail, our controllers (will) issue pilots Instrument Landing System approaches or satellite-based approaches, which help pilots line up for the correct runway,” Gregor said.
Sources have said the Air Canada pilot did not use his computer guidance instruments on the July 7 errant approach, which is not uncommon.
Shem Malmquist, a Boeing 777 pilot who has landed many times at SFO, said the new requirements are a positive step as instrument approach would provide precise guidance and clear indications if a pilot veers off course.
“Our human visual systems evolved for land-based creatures that moved only as fast as their legs could carry them,” Malmquist wrote in an email. “We adapt pretty well, but flight with its combination of height, weather and speed, can fool them. The use of an instrument approach keeps the pilots closely aligned with the runway threshold.”
Malmquist said challenges at SFO under such conditions are largely the result of noise-abatement requirements that keep planes at higher altitudes than normal and farther east over the bay. Pilots must take an angled approach, settling into the normal straight-on landing path when they are closer to landing.
In the tower, the FAA will now require two controllers to remain in position during busy late-night hours, Gregor said. Two controllers were working at the time of the SFO incident, he said, but only one was in the tower, and that individual was busy talking to another facility in the final seconds of Air Canada’s botched approach.
“Following the event, SFO tower management adopted a policy requiring two controllers to be on position working traffic until the late-night arrival rush is over,” Gregor said.
Malmquist said that change is good but, as other sources have said, it’s difficult for an air traffic controller at the SFO tower to determine whether an incoming plane is lined up with the runway or adjacent taxiway.
“So reliance on the (air traffic controller) radar becomes more critical — which means it has to work!” Malmquist said. “That said, more eyes are always better as they would offset bias, distraction and other factors.”
Taxiway confusion is not unheard of. In a Dec. 8 FAA memo, the agency reminded pilots that aircraft landing or departing on the wrong runway, taxiway or airport are “among the highest-profile and most dangerous events in aviation.” Those events average about 24 per year, according to the report, but increased to more than 60 in 2016.
“The common denominator for most wrong surface landings/departures was the lack of situational awareness, with closely spaced parallel runways, off set parallel runways, or taxiways which run parallel with runway,” according to the FAA.
The agency provided an example of when a Boeing 737 landed on a parallel taxiway that ran between two parallel runways at Seattle-Tacoma International airport. The FAA also said controller workload or radar limitations that preclude timely intervention by air traffic controllers could contribute to such incidents — both played roles in the SFO incident.
Bottom line....NIMBY's cause increased chances of death and destruction with noise abatement procedures. Just ask those on the 146 that crashed in Switzerland a few years ago.
pelmet wrote:Bottom line....NIMBY's cause increased chances of death and destruction with noise abatement procedures. Just ask those on the 146 that crashed in Switzerland a few years ago.
pelmet wrote:Bottom line....NIMBY's cause increased chances of death and destruction with noise abatement procedures. Just ask those on the 146 that crashed in Switzerland a few years ago.
pelmet wrote:Bottom line....NIMBY's cause increased chances of death and destruction with noise abatement procedures. Just ask those on the 146 that crashed in Switzerland a few years ago.
pelmet wrote:Bottom line....NIMBY's cause increased chances of death and destruction with noise abatement procedures. Just ask those on the 146 that crashed in Switzerland a few years ago.
altiplano wrote:The pprune post referenced is a lot of guessing and supposing...
I also think the casual way the poster dismisses what role something like fatigue could have played in this event is disturbing and telling that they lack credibility and experience in an airline environment and the types of rosters guys can be up against.
Aside from that poster probably being very aware of airline schedules......The fatigue thing has already been discussed as seen and properly responded to here.
altiplano wrote:The pprune post referenced is a lot of guessing and supposing...
I also think the casual way the poster dismisses what role something like fatigue could have played in this event is disturbing and telling that they lack credibility and experience in an airline environment and the types of rosters guys can be up against.
Aside from that poster probably being very aware of airline schedules......The fatigue thing has already been discussed as seen and properly responded to here.
pelmet wrote:Bottom line....NIMBY's cause increased chances of death and destruction with noise abatement procedures. Just ask those on the 146 that crashed in Switzerland a few years ago.
Nope. Two situations that have zero to do with each other. Sorry.
Did you even read the article?
Malmquist said challenges at SFO under such conditions are largely the result of noise-abatement requirements that keep planes at higher altitudes than normal and farther east over the bay. Pilots must take an angled approach, settling into the normal straight-on landing path when they are closer to landing.
It you are referring to me, sure did read the report. I also remember it vaguely when it happened. Read it again just to be sure.
So help me out with my cognitive limitations. How does a CFIT on a plain vanilla VOR approach where the apparently weak pilot intentionally descended below minima (that's what the report says), only because the Germans did not want noise on their part of the border, have to to with the SFO incident? It's noise abatement alright, but it is not unusual or difficult flying. It's just another approach. The only ''hard'' thing for the Swiss crew was that they did not have an ILS. Call me old fashioned, but if a VOR approach has become a risk, I don't know how to respond to the industry anymore.
---------- ADS -----------
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.
Call me old fashioned, but if a VOR approach has become a risk, I don't know how to respond to the industry anymore.
Did you mean VFR?
I also am confuesdalot about that major screw up.
From what I understand the crew told the investigators they did not see the four airplanes on the taxiway at any time during that approach and go around.
There are pictures of them on the approach with the landing lights on so why couldn't they see the airplanes they were less than a hundred feet from?
Was their windshield's contaminated?
This is the most puzzling incident I can remember since I started flying sixty four years ago.
I can understand screwing up a visual approach at night and being lined up on the taxiway instead of the runway, but to come that close to four big jets and neither pilot saw them is mind boggling.
The reason for the Air Canada hard landing was eventually cleared up but it looks like this one still has the investigators stumped as to cause.
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
confusedalot wrote:So help me out with my cognitive limitations.
How does a CFIT on a plain vanilla VOR approach where the apparently weak pilot intentionally descended below minima (that's what the report says), only because the Germans did not want noise on their part of the border, have to to with the SFO incident? It's noise abatement alright, but it is not unusual or difficult flying. It's just another approach. The only ''hard'' thing for the Swiss crew was that they did not have an ILS. Call me old fashioned, but if a VOR approach has become a risk, I don't know how to respond to the industry anymore.
No matter what you argue, you can never change the fact that neither of these accidents/incidents would have happened if it was just a plain old vectors to ILS approach. The only reason higher risk approaches were done was due to noise abatement procedures to satisfy whining neighbours who were nowhere close to being born when these airports opened.
Pilot error is fine to mention but it doesn't change the reality of what I said. Looks like they have realized this at SFO.
confusedalot wrote:So help me out with my cognitive limitations.
How does a CFIT on a plain vanilla VOR approach where the apparently weak pilot intentionally descended below minima (that's what the report says), only because the Germans did not want noise on their part of the border, have to to with the SFO incident? It's noise abatement alright, but it is not unusual or difficult flying. It's just another approach. The only ''hard'' thing for the Swiss crew was that they did not have an ILS. Call me old fashioned, but if a VOR approach has become a risk, I don't know how to respond to the industry anymore.
No matter what you argue, you can never change the fact that neither of these accidents/incidents would have happened if it was just a plain old vectors to ILS approach. The only reason higher risk approaches were done was due to noise abatement procedures to satisfy whining neighbours who were nowhere close to being born when these airports opened.
Pilot error is fine to mention but it doesn't change the reality of what I said. Looks like they have realized this at SFO.
Oh boy.
Looks like the only safe way to operate an aircraft on landing phase is via ILS. Perhaps a petition to the authorities is in order. Somehow I do not see success with said petition. This comment would normally be relegated to the sarcasm bin, but just take a look at what you are inferring.
Pelmet, some have already asked what your background would be, so I won't. I have this unproven theory that you are an aviation buff with no industry, and perhaps, no flying, experience. Not meant to be a slight at all, however there appears to be a disconnect between published statements and environmental reality.
---------- ADS -----------
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.
confusedalot wrote:So help me out with my cognitive limitations.
How does a CFIT on a plain vanilla VOR approach where the apparently weak pilot intentionally descended below minima (that's what the report says), only because the Germans did not want noise on their part of the border, have to to with the SFO incident? It's noise abatement alright, but it is not unusual or difficult flying. It's just another approach. The only ''hard'' thing for the Swiss crew was that they did not have an ILS. Call me old fashioned, but if a VOR approach has become a risk, I don't know how to respond to the industry anymore.
No matter what you argue, you can never change the fact that neither of these accidents/incidents would have happened if it was just a plain old vectors to ILS approach. The only reason higher risk approaches were done was due to noise abatement procedures to satisfy whining neighbours who were nowhere close to being born when these airports opened.
Pilot error is fine to mention but it doesn't change the reality of what I said. Looks like they have realized this at SFO.
Oh boy.
Looks like the only safe way to operate an aircraft on landing phase is via ILS. Perhaps a petition to the authorities is in order. Somehow I do not see success with said petition. This comment would normally be relegated to the sarcasm bin, but just take a look at what you are inferring.
Pelmet, some have already asked what your background would be, so I won't. I have this unproven theory that you are an aviation buff with no industry, and perhaps, no flying, experience. Not meant to be a slight at all, however there appears to be a disconnect between published statements and environmental reality.
As I said, no matter what you argue, those crashes/incidents wouldn't have happened if approaches that are statistically known to be safer(ie. precision approaches) were allowed to be done. Just because pilots should be able to do these approaches doesn't change the statistics showing that more complicated approaches have a higher rate of accidents/incidents.
As for your unproven theory.......I, personally, I have a great fear....that you actually are a pilot. And with your faulty thought process(which has been shown in a couple of threads over the last few days), you actually do put people at risk by flying airplanes. There has been a long list of accidents caused by incompetent pilots who fell through the cracks, which is a lot scarier than me being an aviation buff with no flight experience....which could be the case by the way.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by pelmet on Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:21 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Got it. Faulty thinking. Mental incompetence. Of course you are right.
And now..............you need to explain how my unbelievable luck kept my tooch and everybody elses with zero damage for over 39 years (well 3 as a high school and college kid, 36 as a worker). Had to wait for my flight test because I was not old enough.
Come clean buddy, yer a poser. But I know you will not do that. The walls are closing in.
Remember, no approaches except ILS. See how far that will get you in reality.
I think you should refrain from being a passenger, you are putting your life at risk.
Think about what you write, then think about the audience. Then come back and tell us how goofey we are. The joke is on you.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by confusedalot on Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.
I suppose you would not agree that using strong crosswind runways for noise abatement is increasing the risk of an accident as well and should not be done.
confusedalot wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:18 pm
Got it. Faulty thinking. Mental incompetence. Of course you are right.
And now..............you need to explain how my unbelievable luck kept my tooch and everybody elses with zero damage for over 39 years (well 3 as a high school and college kid, 36 as a worker). Had to wait for my flight test because I was not old enough.
Come clean buddy, yer a poser. But I know you will not do that. The walls are closing in.
Remember, no approaches except ILS. See how far that will get you in reality.
I think you should refrain from being a passenger, you are putting your life at risk.
Think about what you write, then think about the audience. Then come back and tell us how goofey we are. The joke is on you.
It sure is easy to see why you chose your handle. Nowhere did I say No approaches except ILS. If you had a rational thought process, you would understand what I meant by forcing aircraft to fly non-precision approaches over high terrain versus ILS is higher risk.
The faulty thought process of quite a few people like you, on this forum, amazes me. It explains a lot of things in life actually.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by pelmet on Thu May 23, 2019 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
