AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?

[Jet Jockey]

How about they were in the go-around already and it bottomed out at 81 feet?

That is what my understanding of the latest quote in the article means.

They got down to 81' AGL before they started to climb again... They probably started the GO Around at 100'AGL but the inertia of the aircraft combined with spool up time of the engines allowed the aircraft to go down to 81' AGL.

Hey I'm totally baffled too and I can't imagine a professional crew allowing this to happen... Over flying two aircrafts and continuing to land? Hope the official reports disproves all of this for everyone's sake involved in this incident.

[rookiepilot]

Sorry for my "double negative", English not being my first language.

No problem, sorry for the misunderstanding.

But I must ask why you would "judge" this crew for making a mistake? We all make mistakes and herculean effort is devoted to minimizing those mistakes recognizing that they will still be made, but even then continuing to fight to bring things back into the green. Deliberate negligence I can get onboard with judging...but "mistakes"?

Uh uh. I make too many of them myself.

Rockie, an honest question:

Were you as charitable in these types of comments regarding the Asiana crew at SFO...never mind.

[Rockie]

Were you as charitable in these types of comments regarding the Asiana crew at SFO...never mind.

I think so, it's all on here so why don't you go back and find out.

I'm a big proponent of training and a thorough understanding of the autoflight system you happen to be flying. If there is a gross misunderstanding like what happened in SFO with Asiana the first place I'm inclined to look at is the training..or lack of. I don't automatically crucify the crew regardless of where they come from.

Go ahead and find a quote from me where I did that, a search should do the trick.

[Black_Tusk]

Thirdly, how about we find out why the situational awareness broke down so we can prevent a recurrence rather than just call it a one off due to incompetent crew?

IMO, this is really all that matters. People (and pilots) make mistakes. We're human. There are pilots still flying that have had incidents/accidents much worse than this. The point is to find out WHY it happened and prevent it from happening again. I think we can all agree that the pilots in this aircraft likely had many hours under their belts, have passed multiple rides and training events, landed and departed successfully many times before. What I want to know is how something like this could happen. Clearly, if it happened.. then something is wrong with either the airports approach, layout, the company's SOPs, or the crew were not flying to the SOPs. One, or all need to be fixed.

One question that hasn't been asked yet, where was TCAS? I have not operated out of SFO before, is it a transponder ON or OFF airport during taxi? If it is transponder OFF, maybe that needs to be reassessed? Regardless of how good the ground radar is (YVR for example) having a transponder ON could have prevented this. That being said, if it is a transponder ON airport, why did the crew not see the multiple alerts? Why was there not a resolution? Did the aircraft on the ground not have their transponders ON when they should have been? These are all questions that will be answered in time, I'm sure.

When the investigation is complete I bet there is going to be multiple factors reported, and just blaming the crew before this report is released is the last thing anyone should be doing. Even if the report finds the AC crew %100 at fault, we need to know why. Was is a lack or loss of situational awareness? Were the SOPs being followed? Everyone knows these pilots will likely continue to fly, after what will probably be some recurrent training. We can all learn from this.

And RookiePilot, I still want to know where you work.

[Cat Driver]

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-can ... o-released

[Jet Jockey]

But I must ask why you would "judge" this crew for making a mistake? We all make mistakes and herculean effort is devoted to minimizing those mistakes recognizing that they will still be made, but even then continuing to fight to bring things back into the green. Deliberate negligence I can get onboard with judging...but "mistakes"?

Again, assuming the facts in the article are correct and the crew did overfly two aircrafts on taxiway C and were about to land on it, I don't think any kind of training would help these guys.

I cannot understand how on a clear night, VFR weather, a crew that already questioned the tower about traffic on their landing runway (and were told the runway was clear of traffic), lined up on the parallel taxiway servicing that runway with not one or two aircrafts but four aircrafts taxiing towards the threshold and them (basically facing them) did not get an uneasy feeling about the whole situation.

These are some of the facts I would like to know...

1- Was there a NOTAM indicating that runway 28L was closed? If so, did the crew know that runway 28L was closed?

2- Was there indeed a big light up X on runway 28L? If so, did the crew see the big light up X on runway 28L?

3- Were the approach lights on 28R "ON"? Were the runway 28R centerline lights and runway edge lights "ON" on runway 28R? (assuming there are some)

4- How can a crew on a clear night not be able to differentiate runway lights (combo of green end lights and white edge lights) from low intensity blue taxiway lights?

5- With their landing lights on, would you not want to look for the markings on the runway indicating 28R?

6- With their landing lights on, would you not be able to clearly see the aircrafts on the taxiway?

I know, so many questions but all are critical here in this situation and that's why I am completely baffled by this incident and hope the "facts" we are now reading from various sources that are supposedly quoting "official sites" are completely erroneous.

[Rockie]

All good questions among the many more the investigators will be asking. But recognize that the "facts" you're hearing are nothing more than where the aircraft was in space. There's been absolutely nothing on the factors that brought it there or what the crew was actually doing. You know, the important stuff.

[Jet Jockey]

One question that hasn't been asked yet, where was TCAS? I have not operated out of SFO before, is it a transponder ON or OFF airport during taxi? If it is transponder OFF, maybe that needs to be reassessed? Regardless of how good the ground radar is (YVR for example) having a transponder ON could have prevented this. That being said, if it is a transponder ON airport, why did the crew not see the multiple alerts? Why was there not a resolution? Did the aircraft on the ground not have their transponders ON when they should have been? These are all questions that will be answered in time, I'm sure.

The transponder must be in the "ON" position just about everywhere now in the world, even "ON" with the "ALT" mode is now the norm in lots of places. However the transponder must not be selected to "TA/RA" while on the ground (at least on the types I fly).

PS... You would not get an RA while on the ground because the feature is deactivated below a certain altitude while on the approach (only TA available).

[Cat Driver]

Jet Jocky:

You are not the only one wondering about the questions you have asked.

This incident is really baffling, however like I have previously said the American officials generally figure out what happened and usually release their findings in a relatively short time frame.

Unlike the Canadian officials that take so long by the time the report is released so much time has passed the incident has been replaced by many more.

Maybe we should offer to pay more taxes so they can be more efficient?

[Jet Jockey]

The tracking info is from FlightAware and some claim it is very accurate...

[pelmet]

If there is a gross misunderstanding like what happened in SFO with Asiana the first place I'm inclined to look at is the training..or lack of.

Exactly what training would have been missed here. The crew likely followed their SOP's and were trained for what they did(in general anyways) based on the limited, minimum training that AC does in order to legally comply with the regulations. I know a former trainer who quit the company back in the near bankruptcy days as he was fed up with the cutbacks in training time in order to comply with the regs only and not exceed them. I suspect the trainers are doing the best they can with their limited resources and a huge range of possible issues that can be encountered on the line. It just can't all be covered. Of course there could have been some sort of training issue and one should keep an open mind one what might have prevented this from happening in the first place but.......

I would look at the hiring that is done. From what I hear, the new emphasis is on....a degree. A degree in what you ask? Doesn't matter, just that a degree is required. But think about it for a minute. Four years in university studying something that has nothing to do with aviation gives the prospective pilot more points that the guys who flew in various locales gaining experience and.......got fooled by a night time illusion somewhere along the way when learning about flying instead of passing chemistry class. AC doesn't even do a sim eval for the pilots they hire. Weeding out problem personalities in the interview process makes sense but there is a lot more to making sure that headlines are not made around the world.

I realize that total time isn't the only measure of a qualified pilot but experience beats most classroom study on an unrelated subject any day of the week.

[Jet Jockey]

All good questions among the many more the investigators will be asking. But recognize that the "facts" you're hearing are nothing more than where the aircraft was in space. There's been absolutely nothing on the factors that brought it there or what the crew was actually doing. You know, the important stuff.

True!

I have a question for you if you don't mind.

What is the policy/procedure, if there is one at Air Canada that a flight crew must adhere to in regards to the cockpit voice recorder and/or digital flight data recorder if an event like this occurs?

[Black_Tusk]

One question that hasn't been asked yet, where was TCAS? I have not operated out of SFO before, is it a transponder ON or OFF airport during taxi? If it is transponder OFF, maybe that needs to be reassessed? Regardless of how good the ground radar is (YVR for example) having a transponder ON could have prevented this. That being said, if it is a transponder ON airport, why did the crew not see the multiple alerts? Why was there not a resolution? Did the aircraft on the ground not have their transponders ON when they should have been? These are all questions that will be answered in time, I'm sure.

The transponder must be in the "ON" position just about everywhere now in the world, even "ON" with the "ALT" mode is now the norm in lots of places. However the transponder must not be selected to "TA/RA" while on the ground (at least on the types I fly).

PS... You would not get an RA while on the ground because the feature is deactivated below a certain altitude while on the approach (only TA available).

Thanks for the info. TCAS is still a newer thing for me, but I do see aircraft that are on the ground pop up frequently. I forgot about the RA note though, thinking back I do remember that being said during training. Slipped my mind.

[Rockie]

All good questions among the many more the investigators will be asking. But recognize that the "facts" you're hearing are nothing more than where the aircraft was in space. There's been absolutely nothing on the factors that brought it there or what the crew was actually doing. You know, the important stuff.

True!

I have a question for you if you don't mind.

What is the policy/procedure, if there is one at Air Canada that a flight crew must adhere to in regards to the cockpit voice recorder and/or digital flight data recorder if an event like this occurs?

Sorry, I can't get into specifics like that.

[Jean-Pierre]

Even if they they thought the taxiway was the runway wouldn't they at least avoid landing on top of the other plane?

[Jet Jockey]

All good questions among the many more the investigators will be asking. But recognize that the "facts" you're hearing are nothing more than where the aircraft was in space. There's been absolutely nothing on the factors that brought it there or what the crew was actually doing. You know, the important stuff.

True!

I have a question for you if you don't mind.

What is the policy/procedure, if there is one at Air Canada that a flight crew must adhere to in regards to the cockpit voice recorder and/or digital flight data recorder if an event like this occurs?

Sorry, I can't get into specifics like that.

Fair enough...

The CARS do have a section on this where the crews involved in an accident/incident should pull the C/Bs of the CVR and FDR to preserve their contents. However I don't know if the incident here would "technically or "legally" fall into such parameters, thus my question about Air Canada's procedures on this.

[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...?

[skittishfox]

The tracking info is from FlightAware and some claim it is very accurate...

I think that this scheme is not correct, as UAL001 in the recording states that AC759 just flew directly over him. I think that the flight path should be to the left.

I suspect that Air Canada tried to land parallel to the taxiway, between runway and taxiway, and I think that the position of UAL001 is what confused the pilot, as he misinterpreted the aircraft lights.

[CFM Symphony]

To FICUs comments, this was an incident that seems to stem from a loss of situational awareness. Being 81ft at 1/4 mile down the taxiway is plausible if you consider that the crews already lacked the proper awareness of the "runway" they were lined up with. For all we know, they could have confused the aircraft lights for approach lights. Since they were not over a runway when they were at 81ft, the 1/4 mile argument is irrelevant. I am perfectly happy to sit and wait for more info and a report, but I wouldn't dare brush off incidents where aircraft come this close together.

[rookiepilot]

I bet there is going to be multiple factors reported, and just blaming the crew before this report is released is the last thing anyone should be doing. We can all learn from this.

And RookiePilot, I still want to know where you work.

Right. Just don't ask hard questions?

BTW, What does where I, or any other poster, work have to do with anything? I'm a pilot, Black Tusk, posting on an aviation blog, and a frequent airline pax.

Admittedly, I do not fly for any commercial carrier. I Didn't know there was pre - qualification required.

Don't know much, admittedly. Do understand "cleared tail of another airliner by less than 100 feet". Not too complicated.

I think have as much right to comment as AC pilots, about an aviation matter.

If I'm wrong, and this is an "AC pilots" blog, then the mods can restrict access as they see fit.

You may think this is complete media hysteria, that planes separated on landing by 100 feet, , happen every day and the critics should all shut up, here and elsewhere. God forbid we ever blame the crew, especially if they are good Canadian boys.

You're entitled to your opinion, IF that is the case.

I'm entitled to mine, too, and having expressed it, I will wait for the report.

This knee jerk hysterical defensiveness I repeatedly read, of anything a Canadian crew might have done wrong -- doesn't serve aviation safety, IMO.

You may choose to disagree, as in I read elsewhere, where a poster in another thread on this accident, ranted on that this was nothing --- and about how it was only the foreign based carriers that were ever substandard operators, and a safety issue at major NA airports.

This is dangerous thinking, and the whole reason I've commented in the first place.

[Cat Driver]

Rookie WTF is wrong with your thinking, how in hell could you even suggest that the pilots could be wrong don't you understand that there has to be multiple factors that were stacked against them.

Obviously a night VFR approach to a major airport in the USA is fraught with all kinds of hidden dangers that were put in place to make it very difficult for pilots to safely fly said approach.

For Gods sake don't even think of suggesting the pilots vision was restricted because of where their heads were. ....

[Rockie]

Yup, Cat Driver ladies and gentlemen. Two centuries of error free aviating and immunity from outside factors sullying his incredible awesomeness. And don't forget his 320 sim time with not one...not two...but six different instructors. Just awesome.

I wish you could sign my logbook...

[Cat Driver]

Sure , just send it over Rockie and I'll sign it.

However back the the latest bad publicity that one of your crews have brought your company shouldn't you save the energy you are using mocking my record and concentrate on Air Canada's record?

Or is it the fact you can't find anything in my flying history to give you ammunition to justify mocking me?

[Cat Driver]

Double post.

[Rockie]

Oh come on Cat, you practically beg to be mocked.