AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?

[pelmet]

I love stories from past eras, but they're just that - interesting stories from past eras. Things to learn from. And so we have: present-generation equipment will not allow the aircraft to be configured the way it was in the B747 story without a configuration warning blaring the entire time. If you could somehow sleep through that, there's also the GPWS warning "TOO LOW, GEAR". I doubt that very many landings are ever in need of these warnings, but they are there. Thus when was the last time (or even in this delightful little anecdote) an airliner accidentally landed gear-up, please?

First of all, I guarantee you that the 747 is designed with a warning if the gear is not down with landing flap down. Even the old 727 had it.

As for landing with the gear up in an airliner...PIA did do it in a 747, Continental in a DC-9 and Continental once again scraped the runway on a go-around due to them being told that the gear was not down. All this just from memory. I am sure there are more.

If you take the time to read the story carefully, you will see that it could easily be applicable to this era in some cases, although I believe Boeing has added an 800' RA constraint as well to the warning of the gear not being down....to cover more possibilities.

[photofly]

I'm not sure why the "gear not down" horn in a 747 is under discussion. Deakin explains when it sounded and that it was silenced, as well as why and by whom. Or is the point that the answer is merely more clever warning horns.

Maybe we should have a "you're lined up to land on a taxiway" horn?

[Cat Driver]

Maybe we should have a "you're lined up to land on a taxiway" horn?

Now, now that is not very nice.

[confusedalot]

Now that we are drifting like a rowboat in the mid atlantic, maybe someone can humor me on the specifics of the classic gear horn inhibit. Flew the thing as a first officer for the last time in 1993 and six type ratings later, darned if I remember the parameters. But I do remember it was a a pain in the a**. All I recall was that it was a function of airspeed and flap setting. Could not be silenced however with landing flaps selected.

Anyone?

[complexintentions]

I'm not sure why the "gear not down" horn in a 747 is under discussion. Deakin explains when it sounded and that it was silenced, as well as why and by whom. Or is the point that the answer is merely more clever warning horns.

Maybe we should have a "you're lined up to land on a taxiway" horn?

Guess you missed the point. The warning horns certainly are more clever now. Gear warning has nothing to do with the SFO incident, but hey whatever.

And there is a system to warn of lining up on a taxiway or with a wrong runway, it's called RAAS. Google if you're curious, I have no idea if AC is so equipped.

First of all, I guarantee you that the 747 is designed with a warning if the gear is not down with landing flap down. Even the old 727 had it.

As for landing with the gear up in an airliner...PIA did do it in a 747, Continental in a DC-9 and Continental once again scraped the runway on a go-around due to them being told that the gear was not down. All this just from memory. I am sure there are more.

If you take the time to read the story carefully, you will see that it could easily be applicable to this era in some cases, although I believe Boeing has added an 800' RA constraint as well to the warning of the gear not being down....to cover more possibilities.

I did read the story carefully. A story from many years ago with previous generation aircraft. PIA was 1986 and Continental was in 1996. I realize this is probably what is considered "current" in Canada given the mindset displayed, but come on. You would be more credible if you could find some examples within the last 20 years. If you read my POST carefully, you will spot the words "present generation". Again to my point that as equipment evolves, lessons are learned and systems are modified, developed, and added.

[pelmet]

I'm not sure why the "gear not down" horn in a 747 is under discussion. Deakin explains when it sounded and that it was silenced, as well as why and by whom. Or is the point that the answer is merely more clever warning horns.

Maybe we should have a "you're lined up to land on a taxiway" horn?

Guess you missed the point. The warning horns certainly are more clever now. Gear warning has nothing to do with the SFO incident, but hey whatever.

And there is a system to warn of lining up on a taxiway or with a wrong runway, it's called RAAS. Google if you're curious, I have no idea if AC is so equipped.

First of all, I guarantee you that the 747 is designed with a warning if the gear is not down with landing flap down. Even the old 727 had it.

As for landing with the gear up in an airliner...PIA did do it in a 747, Continental in a DC-9 and Continental once again scraped the runway on a go-around due to them being told that the gear was not down. All this just from memory. I am sure there are more.

If you take the time to read the story carefully, you will see that it could easily be applicable to this era in some cases, although I believe Boeing has added an 800' RA constraint as well to the warning of the gear not being down....to cover more possibilities.

I did read the story carefully. A story from many years ago with previous generation aircraft. PIA was 1986 and Continental was in 1996. I realize this is probably what is considered "current" in Canada given the mindset displayed, but come on. You would be more credible if you could find some examples within the last 20 years. If you read my POST carefully, you will spot the words "present generation". Again to my point that as equipment evolves, lessons are learned and systems are modified, developed, and added.

Hilarious...I answer you specific question as asked and shown here....

Thus when was the last time (or even in this delightful little anecdote) an airliner accidentally landed gear-up, please?

and now, somehow, I didn't read the question carefully.

When did an airliner ever land gear up? Answered by me above.

But for modern generation airliners, there don't seem to be any. That being said, a C-17 is pretty modern and these guys forgot to put their gear down. I know, I know.....it is not an airliner.

I believe a B-1 did similar as well.

https://theaviationist.com/2009/05/08/c ... n-results/

Anyways...thread drift. Perhaps something new about SFO.

[confusedalot]

are we having fun yet?

[photofly]

I have a question ... if the pilots had noticed their mistake at, say, 700AGL and gone around, what would the consequences internally within AC have been?

Actually two questions. The second is, what is the lowest altitude at which, having noticed the error, it would still have been acceptable for the pilots to reposition for the runway instead of the taxiway?

[rookiepilot]

I have a question ... if the pilots had noticed their mistake at, say, 700AGL and gone around, what would the consequences internally within AC have been?

You really expect to get an honest answer on this one?

[Rockie]

There are no consequences for doing a go-around ever. How foolish do you think it would be for an airline to adopt that kind of policy? As for the 2nd question pretty much every airline on the planet adheres to the stable approach policy which essentially begins at 1000 AGL. By then we have to be on the correct flight path to the runway with the final configuration selected. If that is not the case a go-around is mandatory. Further criteria applies at 500 feet or a go-around is mandatory.

[complexintentions]

Even working in far more punitive cultures (Middle East, Far East) there has never been any consequences for a go-around no matter the reason. If the approach isn't working out, you do it again.

You really expect to get an honest answer on this one?

We get it rookiepilot, you have a hate-on for Air Canada but c'mon, give it a rest. Approach policy isn't a secret.

[photofly]

There are no consequences for doing a go-around ever. How foolish do you think it would be for an airline to adopt that kind of policy?

You're being disingenuous. Clearly there are no consequences for the go-around but there could be consequences for a mistake that made a go-around necessary.

For instance, I've no doubt that there will be consequences for the two pilots here, even though they did a go-around.

So, I ask again, if they had gone around at 700agl, would there still have been consequences? How low could they go and still "get away with it"? obviously 86 feet agl was too low. Where would the line be drawn?

As for the 2nd question pretty much every airline on the planet adheres to the stable approach policy which essentially begins at 1000 AGL. By then we have to be on the correct flight path to the runway with the final configuration selected. If that is not the case a go-around is mandatory. Further criteria applies at 500 feet or a go-around is mandatory.

OK. So they need to be on a stable approach by 1000agl. How much higher than 1000agl would they have to begin a transition from being lined up on the taxiway to be lined up and stable on the runway approach by 1000agl?

[mbav8r]

For crying out loud, they didn't know they were lined up with the taxiway, do you think they would've continued that low if they did!

[confusedalot]

There are no consequences for doing a go-around ever. How foolish do you think it would be for an airline to adopt that kind of policy? As for the 2nd question pretty much every airline on the planet adheres to the stable approach policy which essentially begins at 1000 AGL. By then we have to be on the correct flight path to the runway with the final configuration selected. If that is not the case a go-around is mandatory. Further criteria applies at 500 feet or a go-around is mandatory.

Go arounds were required to be reported in the SMS system for further investigation, at my last employer.

[Old fella]

I have a question ... if the pilots had noticed their mistake at, say, 700AGL and gone around, what would the consequences internally within AC have been?

You really expect to get an honest answer on this one?

Gonna ask rookie..... how many missed approaches have you done in the shit wx when the gales of November come slashing. Again I ask what is your background, you give me the appearance of somebody who hasn't been above 200kts and 10,000ft in anything with two engines.

[rookiepilot]

I have a question ... if the pilots had noticed their mistake at, say, 700AGL and gone around, what would the consequences internally within AC have been?

You really expect to get an honest answer on this one?

Gonna ask rookie..... how many missed approaches have you done in the shit wx when the gales of November come slashing. Again I ask what is your background, you give me the appearance of somebody who hasn't been above 200kts and 10,000ft in anything with two engines.

You know what, OF, your correct, and I'm not the only one. . Does that matter?

Last I looked this thread wasn't about me, or my experience, or any other poster's experience.

Also last I looked this thread was about a crew coming within a hairs breadth of causing a horrible accident in Visual conditions. Not the gales of November, so I'm not sure where that comes in here.

And it doesn't matter. Airlines, especially North American hold themselves up as THE standard for safe operations, far surperior to anyone else (which is a load of crap, BTW). So when an accident or near miss happens, expect to get questioned! And yes, some questioners might be sub 10,000 hours.

If Old Fella you want to see experience prerequisites for making comments, I suggest you set up a private closed forum for whatever you deem are the acceptable professionals.

I suggest sticking to the thread material. You look really foolish making an point by personally going after another poster when one doesnt like the question. Just answer it. Or don't answer. I don't really care.

I find it amusing how some seem to be such blind "team players", threatened by questions, stating with authority "nothing to see here, happens every day", it's all "media hysteria" and even implying the NTSB shouldn't even be looking at it. Well, they are.

Well, sorry, that attitude is going to get challenged.

[Rockie]

You're being disingenuous. Clearly there are no consequences for the go-around but there could be consequences for a mistake that made a go-around necessary.

I'm not at all being disingenuous. What you described is an unstabilized approach and this is what you asked:

I have a question ... if the pilots had noticed their mistake at, say, 700AGL and gone around, what would the consequences internally within AC have been?

I answered you. The answer is "nothing". Nothing for discovering the mistake, and nothing for doing the go-around. If you don't already know why that is it's probably a waste of time explaining it to you but I will if you ask.

For instance, I've no doubt that there will be consequences for the two pilots here, even though they did a go-around.

Based on what?

So, I ask again, if they had gone around at 700agl, would there still have been consequences?

Answered. Want me to repeat it a third time?

How low could they go and still "get away with it"? obviously 86 feet agl was too low. Where would the line be drawn?

A line would be drawn at negligence or deliberate noncompliance. Were you there to say one or the other was the cause?

So they need to be on a stable approach by 1000agl. How much higher than 1000agl would they have to begin a transition from being lined up on the taxiway to be lined up and stable on the runway approach by 1000agl?

They approach at around 150 knots. Figure out how long it would take whatever you fly to do it at whatever speed you fly at on the approach and extrapolate. Shouldn't be that hard for you and I'm sure you'll be in the ballpark.

[Rockie]

There are no consequences for doing a go-around ever. How foolish do you think it would be for an airline to adopt that kind of policy? As for the 2nd question pretty much every airline on the planet adheres to the stable approach policy which essentially begins at 1000 AGL. By then we have to be on the correct flight path to the runway with the final configuration selected. If that is not the case a go-around is mandatory. Further criteria applies at 500 feet or a go-around is mandatory.

Go arounds were required to be reported in the SMS system for further investigation, at my last employer.

At AC as well.

[Shady McSly]

You really expect to get an honest answer on this one?

Gonna ask rookie..... how many missed approaches have you done in the shit wx when the gales of November come slashing. Again I ask what is your background, you give me the appearance of somebody who hasn't been above 200kts and 10,000ft in anything with two engines.

You know what, OF, your correct, and I'm not the only one. . Does that matter?

Last I looked this thread wasn't about me, or my experience, or any other poster's experience.

Also last I looked this thread was about a crew coming within a hairs breadth of causing a horrible accident in Visual conditions. Not the gales of November, so I'm not sure where that comes in here.

And it doesn't matter. Airlines, especially North American hold themselves up as THE standard for safe operations, far surperior to anyone else (which is a load of crap, BTW). So when an accident or near miss happens, expect to get questioned! And yes, some questioners might be sub 10,000 hours.

If Old Fella you want to see experience prerequisites for making comments, I suggest you set up a private closed forum for whatever you deem are the acceptable professionals.

I suggest sticking to the thread material. You look really foolish making an point by personally going after another poster when one doesnt like the question. Just answer it. Or don't answer. I don't really care.

I find it amusing how some seem to be such blind "team players", threatened by questions, stating with authority "nothing to see here, happens every day", it's all "media hysteria" and even implying the NTSB shouldn't even be looking at it. Well, they are.

Well, sorry, that attitude is going to get challenged.

You just fly PC flight sims, don't you...

[Eric Janson]

You're being disingenuous. Clearly there are no consequences for the go-around but there could be consequences for a mistake that made a go-around necessary.

For instance, I've no doubt that there will be consequences for the two pilots here, even though they did a go-around.

So, I ask again, if they had gone around at 700agl, would there still have been consequences? How low could they go and still "get away with it"? obviously 86 feet agl was too low. Where would the line be drawn?

Disclaimer:- I don't work for Air Canada and all the remarks below concern my Airline. I am in no way calling for anyone to be fired.

If I did a go-around at 700" there wouldn't be an issue - I would just fill out the reason. That would be the last I would ever hear about it.

Now if I had descended to 59' whilst being lined up on a taxiway with 4 Airliners on it - that's a lot more serious.

I'm 100% certain that would cost me my job.