AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?

[Old fella]

Actually confused, learning an aircraft thoroughly and properly does make you a better pilot. Are you one of those guys who thinks hand flying skill is all that matters? Are you the kind of guy who gets the rating and then stops reading?

Oh well, could not sleep.

Actually no, hand flying is far from being ''the only thing''. Shame that airmanship has not been addressed.

As disclosure, and as everyone has done, did lots of hands and feet in my younger years (so that's actually like riding a bike, you never forget), BUT, as the majority, ended up pushing buttons and perfecting keyboard performance, to some dismay. Seems like I was good enough at it for at least a pass. And at times to do the instructing and checking routine.

So no, hands and feet are not the only thing but it still is a requirement.

I can tell you stories about ndb approaches in classics in shitholes but I digress.........

I can tell a few about NDB approaches in BE90/100 way back, not really shitholes but when ye ole NDB was the only serviceable aid. YWK, ZUM YKL come to mind.

[Old fella]

Thanks for your contribution. Interesting that a TC guy decides how to interpret someone's posts based on what their background is instead of the content of the post. Feel free to find and post specifics in what I have said that you disagree with. Perhaps you have something to add with your years of experience. It is all about learning from and preventing these incidents and possibly saving lives.

I am not qualified to provide counselling/commentary on matters of any type of airline operations be it this topic, Halifax or whatever. I will leave it at that.

This thread, at least the earlier part of it, is about an aircraft that nearly landed on a taxiway at night at a busy airport. It happened to be an airline but these things happen to airplanes from a variety of operations. I should think that someone with around 8,000 hours of flying including a bunch of turbine stuff and worked at TC is qualified to comment and provide insight on how to prevent such a thing from happening again. So could someone else with much less experience as well but perhaps has experienced a similar issue or perhaps has prevented a similar issue from happening using certain techniques.

Pilots of lesser experience may have valuable information to provide to plots of higher experience. We should not get into the mindset that this is not the case. 8000 hours. I'm sure you must have an idea of what you might do in your Citation in a similar scenario.

By the way, I might just have some airline experience but I am happy to remain anonymous. Or you could enjoy reading my 2413 posts in detail to find out more. Trust me....you will love it, especially my debates with Rockie

Naw Pelmet, I was never really that good honestly where I can put myself in the shoes of an airline guy/gal driving an A320 or a heavy iron wide body into a very busy international spot like SFO and provide anything of interest. Hell, the busiest place I drove into was YYZ and not a lot of time doing that but I did learn to keep the speed up, I have no experience whatsoever flying into busy airports in the US of A. As for C550, yep it had the UNS-1B FMS and had GPS software so I would load in the arrival/approach but in reading posts from the guys or gals who drive the A320 things-run differently on the Bus so it goes back to I don't know......

Also if you have airline experience well I will retract my statements against you in that regard and acknowledge you do indeed know that type of operation - certainly better than me. Finally , I am currently 67 yrs old and have been retired for a number of years and getting to old to debate.

Cheers mate

[FICU]

This thread, at least the earlier part of it, is about an aircraft that nearly landed on a taxiway at night at a busy airport.

They didn't nearly land on a taxiway... that's media hyperbole that everyone seems to be falling for.

They incorrectly lined up on and over flew a taxiway.

[FICU]

I can tell a few about NDB approaches in BE90/100 way back, not really shitholes but when ye ole NDB was the only serviceable aid. YWK, ZUM YKL come to mind.

NDB and VOR approaches in a 737-200 in the arctic were fun but RNAV make it so much easier now.

[Old fella]

I can tell a few about NDB approaches in BE90/100 way back, not really shitholes but when ye ole NDB was the only serviceable aid. YWK, ZUM YKL come to mind.

NDB and VOR approaches in a 737-200 in the arctic were fun but RNAV make it so much easier now.

Never had the pleasure of Arctic flying but imagine VOR and NDB approaches in anything up that way was fun, no doubt the RNAV apch stuff makes it all easier. Somebody was saying LPV WAAS is also making its way in the Arctic , imagine that is a godsend. Guess the '37-200 is a fine old workhorse for up there especially on unprepared gravel airstrip operations. I assume they are still being used.

[ktcanuck]

This thread, at least the earlier part of it, is about an aircraft that nearly landed on a taxiway at night at a busy airport.

They didn't nearly land on a taxiway... that's media hyperbole that everyone seems to be falling for.

They incorrectly lined up on and over flew a taxiway.

What the hell is wrong with you people?

An aircraft was deliberately but mistakenly piloted towards a taxiway with four fully fueled and populated aircraft waiting to take off. It did not hit them because someone realised the error far too late or just in time depending on what you "seem to be falling for".

Get off worrying about media terminology and worry instead about it happening less in future!

And that applies to all you self important posers trying to validate (invalidate) your (his) comments based on your experience (his inexperience) rather than logic!

There, that feels better.

[FICU]

I can tell a few about NDB approaches in BE90/100 way back, not really shitholes but when ye ole NDB was the only serviceable aid. YWK, ZUM YKL come to mind.

NDB and VOR approaches in a 737-200 in the arctic were fun but RNAV make it so much easier now.

Never had the pleasure of Arctic flying but imagine VOR and NDB approaches in anything up that way was fun, no doubt the RNAV apch stuff makes it all easier. Somebody was saying LPV WAAS is also making its way in the Arctic , imagine that is a godsend. Guess the '37-200 is a fine old workhorse for up there especially on unprepared gravel airstrip operations. I assume they are still being used.

Sure are and are LPV certified too.

[FICU]

An aircraft was deliberately but mistakenly piloted towards a taxiway with four fully fueled and populated aircraft waiting to take off. It did not hit them because someone realised the error far too late or just in time depending on what you "seem to be falling for".

Get off worrying about media terminology and worry instead about it happening less in future!

Whether there were aircraft on the taxiway or not is a moot point.

It will happen again on a visual approach to some airport in the future with a 99.9% chance the aircraft will go-around and not land on another aircraft.

[Old fella]

NDB and VOR approaches in a 737-200 in the arctic were fun but RNAV make it so much easier now.

Never had the pleasure of Arctic flying but imagine VOR and NDB approaches in anything up that way was fun, no doubt the RNAV apch stuff makes it all easier. Somebody was saying LPV WAAS is also making its way in the Arctic , imagine that is a godsend. Guess the '37-200 is a fine old workhorse for up there especially on unprepared gravel airstrip operations. I assume they are still being used.

Sure are and are LPV certified too.

There you go. Arctic operators flying 1970's steam driven technology-200 airplanes able to utilize the latest in vertical nav approach procedures(WAAS). I do see some irony here as I bet you do.

[Jimmy2]

Air Canada's hiring practices over the last decade are probably being questioned with that comment. A lot of emphasis is being put on other factors besides flying experience and previous track record. Things like post secondary education becoming pretty much mandatory, emphasis on diversity both of race and sex, and a transition to a more HR dominated hiring board has perhaps left people wondering if they are taking the best or just candidates that can tick certain boxes. That's my take on what they meant anyways.

[complexintentions]

pelmet,

just so we're clear, I'm not attempting to discredit you in any way. You've already done a fine job of that yourself in multiple threads. You do seem fond of flattering yourself. I've never felt the need to say silly things like "I do quote good, informative stuff". Newsflash: that's for the people decoding your pearls of wisdom to decide, not you. People offering value don't usually have to try and convince people of the fact. I could care less what people think of me or my opinion. I offer what I might have learned from experience, and if people think they can pull something from that to add to their own knowledge, great. If not, it has no impact on me whatsoever. And if someone who flies an A320 offers some insight about an A320 incident, I'll probably listen to it a little more closely than to someone who tries to hide their agenda for whatever reason. Besides, you misunderstood. I wasn't dismissing what you said due to your little games about your background. I was dismissing it because I thought it was dumb, and reflected a viewpoint that didn't actually understand the unworkability of what you were suggesting. That was why the discussion about experience began. But it's all pretty clear now.

I can just see it now...a safety brief is given with critical potentially life-saving info, but you won't consider it until the person tells you their background.

This is what I'm talking about. You don't have a clue. Want a real-life example? Onboard medical emergencies. When we page for a doctor, do you think their credentials aren't questioned? That if they have some really great-sounding ideas and "potentially life-saving info" they don't need to have a medical license to show us? Nope - we do get them to "tell us their background" before we consider what they have to say, by them proving they're qualified and not just some wannabe with fantasies of being a hero. The type certainly does exist in all professions.

And no, offering advice on the internet isn't quite as life-or-death as a medical emergency. But since you brought up the extreme example, I figured I may as well use it as an illustration of how yes, professional experience and credentials do matter. Even in the awesome "everyone is equal anyone who disagrees is an elitist" utopia of Canada.

I'll wait for the final report as well. Even the comedy value of this thread has worn thin.

[pelmet]

if someone who flies an A320 offers some insight about an A320 incident, I'll probably listen to it a little more closely than to someone who tries to hide their agenda for whatever reason. Besides, you misunderstood. I wasn't dismissing what you said due to your little games about your background. I was dismissing it because I thought it was dumb, and reflected a viewpoint that didn't actually understand the unworkability of what you were suggesting. That was why the discussion about experience began. But it's all pretty clear now.

You say useless stuff like what I suggest is unworkable about my suggestions but then give no detail as to why. In other words, you are just typing useless stuff. Show us your supposed credibility with detail about what is unworkable(i expect you won't/can't). Very nice of you to make nice generalized statements like...."you don't have a clue". But the insult style of argument means that actually...you are the one with little credibility. Once again, you say my suggestions are "dumb". Well give specific detail of what is "dumb". You might even try telling us what you would do in a similar situation. Supposedly, you are an airline pilot, a suggestion on this thread might prevent a future incident which is the goal.

Once again, generalized insults and whining(which is pretty much all you have done) that I don't give my detailed background are meaningless. Perhaps you are just being a snowflake with hurt feelings because I dismissed the fatigue idea.

if someone who flies an A320 offers some insight about an A320 incident, I'll probably listen to it a little more closely

What I have posted as suggestions has nothing to do with A320 operation...it has to do with identifying runways. It surprises me that you havent figured that out. You will not find anything specific to Airbus operation procedures mentioned by me.

Adnittedly, I do find your thorough method of determining the credibility of a doctor or pilot to be entertaining. All they have to do is make a statement about their background and you blindly believe whatever they say. Well, OK...I am an A320 pilot and a heart specialist.

[Rockie]

The part of your suggestion about asking if the runway lights are on is what doesn't make sense in this situation Pelmet, first of all because of where it was. In a place like SFO they're always on, and since it was the active runway being used non-stop for departures and arrivals why would anyone think they were off? It's not Fort MacMurray...

The crew apparently thought something looked wrong with what they thought was the runway since they asked again if they were cleared to land. The answer they got led them to continue until they felt they had to go-around based on what they actually saw. The question that needs to be answered is why did they misidentifying the runway? Nobody knows yet.

Regarding Doctors, surely you know that when a doctor or nurse is called for on board an aircraft they have to show credentials before being permitted to help? You knew that right being an airline professional and all?

[Jean-Pierre]

It is concerning to me that the one pilot on the ground said something like 'What is this guy doing? He is going for the taxiway.'

So somebody in another airplane sitting on the ground had more situational awareness than two Air Canada pilot in their own aircraft.

[FADEC]

Let's wait for the report.

Particularly without GPS, the FMS picture can mislead; once came off the ocean in a 767 and would never have intercepted the localiser because the FMS position had shifted.

Experience led to using the RMI to correct things.

Thousands of hours of Airbus time; things are not always what they seem! Have seen "Map Shift" in 320's

Have also seen GPS displaced.

The AC guys questioned what they were seeing; wouldn't have landed on the taxiway full of aircraft.

Remember an airliner landing on a Metro at LAX because the crew didn't see the Metro (holding at the threshold) in the sea of lights; this AC crew did see the problem.

[complexintentions]

Hmm. Some reading comprehension might be in order, pelmet. You somehow completely missed my point about doctors actually having to prove they're doctors by producing their medical license. In fact you got it 180 degrees backward. Makes sense, as you seem unable to understand the snowflake avatar either. Oh well. Not everyone was blessed with the irony gene! Thank you for trying.

You ask what I would have done. Well, here's what I actually do. I've landed many, many times on 28L/R at SFO, which I assume you have as well, right? It's such a pleasure to be discussing this with an esteemed colleague!

I tune the ILS, or the RNAV approach if the ILS is off the air. Then fly the charted visual in basic modes until it rejoins final. This particular visual just follows a radial and doesn't have a missed approach procedure, so the FMS isn't much help anyway. (Of course, AC or Airbus SOP's may not permit this, I dunno.) The Quiet Bridge arrival they were flying has you stay north of 28R until the San Mateo bridge which is at 6 DME, at 1800ft. Plenty of time to rejoin final on the localizer or RNAV track and verify what you're lining up with.

If I can't positively confirm I'm established on final on the correct runway, I go around. As a general rule when landing, if I see lights of an aircraft on the patch of pavement in front of me - whether a runway or a taxiway - I go around. This isn't really a "SFO concept", I follow this procedure every landing. hahahah! Hey wait! That last part is exactly what these guys did! Amazing, eh? BUT NO, NO, NEAR DISASTER FIREBALL BIGGEST ACCIDENT IN HISTORY grumble grumble CLOSE CALL OMG WTF blah blah blah....

The point is even on a severe clear day/night, I put SOMETHING in the automation to back me up. Every time. Yes, I know, not as cool as eyeballing it, but at the end of a 14 hour flight I'm not too proud to take whatever help I can get.

Map shift does happen. The scenario you mentioned FADEC, paralleling the localizer in LNAV without capturing it. We seem to get vectored 100% of the time these days so haven't given it any thought lately, but I seem to recall the Boeing FCTM recommends switching to HDG/TRK for the intercept for just that reason? Too lazy to look it up. But map shift could definitely give enough off-track to put an aircraft beside the runway, not on it.

[pelmet]

You ask what I would have done. Well, here's what I actually do. I've landed many, many times on 28L/R at SFO, which I assume you have as well, right?

I tune the ILS, or the RNAV approach if the ILS is off the air. Then fly the charted visual in basic modes until it rejoins final. This particular visual just follows a radial and doesn't have a missed approach procedure, so the FMS isn't much help anyway. (Of course, AC or Airbus SOP's may not permit this, I dunno.) The Quiet Bridge arrival they were flying has you stay north of 28R until the San Mateo bridge which is at 6 DME, at 1800ft. Plenty of time to rejoin final on the localizer or RNAV track and verify what you're lining up with.

If I can't positively confirm I'm established on final on the correct runway, I go around. As a general rule when landing, if I see lights of an aircraft on the patch of pavement in front of me - whether a runway or a taxiway - I go around. This isn't really a "SFO concept", I follow this procedure every landing. hahahah! Hey wait! That last part is exactly what these guys did! Amazing, eh? BUT NO, NO, NEAR DISASTER FIREBALL BIGGEST ACCIDENT IN HISTORY grumble grumble CLOSE CALL OMG WTF blah blah blah....

The point is even on a severe clear day/night, I put SOMETHING in the automation to back me up. Every time. Yes, I know, not as cool as eyeballing it, but at the end of a 14 hour flight I'm not too proud to take whatever help I can get.

Map shift does happen. The scenario you mentioned FADEC, paralleling the localizer in LNAV without capturing it. We seem to get vectored 100% of the time these days so haven't given it any thought lately, but I seem to recall the Boeing FCTM recommends switching to HDG/TRK for the intercept for just that reason? Too lazy to look it up. But map shift could definitely give enough off-track to put an aircraft beside the runway, not on it.

Same basic stuff that I said a long time ago earlier in the thread. Glad you agree with me. Take whatever help you can get, including from ATC and backing up with an ILS. But, you accuse me of not comprehending or misreading and then you do what you accuse me of doing. We are not interested in aircraft that can back things up with an ILS, we have been told that this doesn't work in some of the Airbus's at AC. So what I have been focusing on and giving some ideas about(which you say are dumb) is what to do in such an aircraft in such a situation.
Meanwhile, you still haven't said what I specifically posted that was dumb. Are you ever going to do that....I suspect No because you were just posting mindless insults and have little f use to add to the thread.

Apparently, the standard backups that I mentioned long ago don't work in some aircraft including an A320 according to what others have posted. So of you were in some sort of an aircraft where your planned backup wasn't available to use that night at that airport, what would you do? Maybe the ILS of the air.

And trust me, flying a heavy into SFO after 14 hours is no different than after four hours. One can be wide awake or fatigued on either one.

You and Rockie must be such a pleasure to fly with with your condescending and insulting comments. Real professionals. And I believe at least one of the two is a training pilot.

[Old fella]

Well I would say their knowledge on the aircraft types(at least that is what I see on this site), both individuals would make great training/check pilots. That's what training is all about, you HAVE TO KNOW the aircraft in question. Putting aside their individual dispositions, no doubt they do indeed have plenty to offer and apparently their respective airlines think so as well.

[Illya Kuryakin]

It is concerning to me that the one pilot on the ground said something like 'What is this guy doing? He is going for the taxiway.'

So somebody in another airplane sitting on the ground had more situational awareness than two Air Canada pilot in their own aircraft.

Pretty much sums it up....now, back to the typical penis measuring contest this thread has become.
Illya

[Rockie]

It is concerning to me that the one pilot on the ground said something like 'What is this guy doing? He is going for the taxiway.'

So somebody in another airplane sitting on the ground had more situational awareness than two Air Canada pilot in their own aircraft.

Pretty much sums it up....now, back to the typical penis measuring contest this thread has become.
Illya

Ok, I guess I'll state the obvious then.

A pilot sitting on the ground with the park brake set and nothing to do but look out the window at the sky has far less situation to be aware of.

[Rockie]

We have already discussed this Rockie. If the pilots had asked about the approach lights at the same time as they asked about the lights, we wouldn't be discussing this and there would be NTSB major investigation...and global headlines. They didn't and here we are.

You keep saying that, and I keep saying that they thought they had the runway identified but that it didn't look right. Do you normally ask if the lights are on if you think you have the runway in sight? Better question...do you have a night rating? I also keep telling you why asking if the lights are on wouldn't occur to someone landing at a place like SFO under these circumstances and you keep ignoring that for some reason. Do you have information that the lights were out?

I can just imagine a pilot getting involved and delaying CPR to get the credentials of the medical person. Maybe stopping any medical help because the person is a physiotherapist only to discover that the person had two years experience in a trauma center previously. The cabin crew are trained for this stuff, not the pilots. And Medlink makes most of the diversion decisions based reports.

Pilots don't ask for the credentials because we are safely locked away behind the door remember? The FA's ask. And CPR is something any First Aider can do so no credentials are required for that, but you knew that I'm sure. I confess I wasn't aware they do physiotherapy at a trauma centre though. Who knew?

You and Rockie must be such a pleasure to fly with with your condescending and insulting comments. Real professionals. And I believe at least one of the two is a training pilot.

That would be insulting if it came from someone who had the slightest clue what they were talking about, but you get a pass because you don't.

[pelmet]

So of you were in some sort of an aircraft where your planned backup wasn't available to use that night at that airport, what would you do? Maybe the ILS off the air.

Well golly gee. I guess I'd do exactly what these guys did. Go around.

Just sooner.

Wow, you are impressive. I asked what would you do if the ILS was off the air and you would........."do exactly what these guys did". Really impressive. Of course I know that you will say that is not what was meant but there is a disturbing trend here. Not actually reading and responding to what I am saying(kind of like misreading notams perhaps in a well known incident).

It shows up once again and is actually a dangerous habit...no reading fully or not reading and understanding. How does it show up once again in your posts(and Rockies as well)? Well right here in your quote below that says....

I think suggesting every pilot on approach ask if the lights are on when they are, as standard procedure, is dumb.

Nowhere did I ever suggest that every pilot on approach ask if the approach lights are on. What I suggested was that if you are an aircraft in a situation like the night of the incident where you are in an aircraft that cannot positively identify their landing runway...that you ask if the approach lights are on. That means that this doesn't apply to Boeing aircraft, most regional jet aircraft, Aircraft doing ILS approaches or from what I understand....any Airbus with GPS updating(which I will guess includes United and Virgin abd their newer model aircraft. In fact AC may be the only ailine that would be in this situation as once again, their cost saving policy which has been invonlved in a crash has now led to global headlines and a major investigation.

A) I suggest more thorough reading whether at work or on a forum.
B) It appears that the incident pilots thought similar to you think.

And trust me, flying a heavy into SFO after 14 hours is no different than after four hours. One can be wide awake or fatigued on either one.

Sure, ok, whatever you say boss. I bow to your obvious experience with full-time longhaul operations.

Why thank you And don't forget to put Ultra in front of the longhaul.

[confusedalot]

Skills of CRM

The primary goal of CRM is enhanced situational awareness, self awareness, leadership, assertiveness, decision making, flexibility, adaptability, event and mission analysis, and communication. Specifically, CRM aims to foster a climate or culture where authority may be respectfully questioned. It recognizes that a discrepancy between what is happening and what should be happening is often the first indicator that an error is occurring. This is a delicate subject for many organizations, especially ones with traditional hierarchies, so appropriate communication techniques must be taught to supervisors and their subordinates, so that supervisors understand that the questioning of authority need not be threatening, and subordinates understand the correct way to question orders.

Cockpit voice recordings of various air disasters tragically reveal first officers and flight engineers attempting to bring critical information to the captain's attention in an indirect and ineffective way. By the time the captain understood what was being said, it was too late to avert the disaster. A CRM expert named Todd Bishop developed a five-step assertive statement process that encompasses inquiry and advocacy steps:[13]

Opening or attention getter - Address the individual. "Hey Chief," or "Captain Smith," or "Bob," or however the name or title that will get the person's attention.
State your concern - Express your analysis of the situation in a direct manner while owning your emotions about it. "I'm concerned that we may not have enough fuel to fly around this storm system," or "I'm worried that the roof might collapse."
State the problem as you see it - "We're showing only 40 minutes of fuel left," or "This building has a lightweight steel truss roof, and we may have fire extension into the roof structure."
State a solution - "Let's divert to another airport and refuel," or "I think we should pull some tiles and take a look with the thermal imaging camera before we commit crews inside."
Obtain agreement (or buy-in) - "Does that sound good to you, Captain?"

These are often difficult skills to master, as they may require significant changes in personal habits, interpersonal dynamics, and organizational culture.

Hey, it's only a wikipedia copy and paste.

But never mind, I am merely a retired surfer.................

[Cat Driver]

CRM is an extension of good decision making skills as it adds a second person in the process.

Note:

The above comment comes from an egotist who pretends to know something about multi crew flying.

[Rockie]

I'm afraid I don't understand the point of your cut and paste. Are you congratulating the crew for their CRM or implicating their lack of it as a contributor to this event?

Or perhaps this was just an endorsement for the general principle, in which case I wholeheartedly agree.