Near miss with 5 airliners waiting for T/O on taxiway "C" in SFO!
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It requires radar from the old plate posted earlier on the thread.Also, my FAA expert friend contacted his Jeppesen database expert. Jeppesen codes LNAV approach mode (RNP 0.30) at what they consider to be the "FAF."
The lack of standards is a bit appalling, though. At KLAS the FMS Visuals have a profile view. Not so at KSFO.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SQ accident at TPE occurred when they were taking off at night into an approaching Typhoon. Lots of rain and wind, not so much visibility. This AC incident at SFO took place in completely clear conditions, although at night. Visibility should not have been an issue.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
terpster, can you provide the entire Jepp chart you have the exerpt from?
Waypoints with coordinates in the FMS, how are these coordinated with DME?
Waypoints with coordinates in the FMS, how are these coordinated with DME?
Last edited by underfire; 26th Jul 2017 at 22:16.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am wondering if the chart shows the DME distance, or simply the waypoints. Quiet Bridge visual does, but I dont see them on the FMS Bridge Visual, but I only have the waypoints from the database.
Construction at SFO.
Construction at SFO.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The SQ accident at TPE occurred when they were taking off at night into an approaching Typhoon. Lots of rain and wind, not so much visibility. This AC incident at SFO took place in completely clear conditions, although at night. Visibility should not have been an issue.
The incident databases have many reports of TCAS alerts, missed restrictions and off-profile descents on this approach. You can flip through some on this NASA site, search for quoted text "FMS Bridge Visual" in the narrative:
https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/search/database.html
I haven't run across anything yet with lineup on the wrong runway or taxiway. A recurrent theme seems to be the casual sounding ATC clearances to join and descend via the FMS Visual Approach with crew questions over whether the aircraft are actually cleared for the approach.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thanks, every one of the waypoints can be cross-checked with either VOR/DME or, in the case of F101D, LOC/DME if the aircraft and company procedures allow it.
Still, using raw data is considered a somewhat antiquated concept in these enlightened times of ever increasing automation.
Still, using raw data is considered a somewhat antiquated concept in these enlightened times of ever increasing automation.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian W
Similarly, had ATC switched on the 28L lights the illusion would have been destroyed, had ATC added to the approach clearance 'runway 28L is out of use unlit and marked with a red cross' - the illusion would have been destroyed.
The Gorilla in the human factors research video is also totally impossible to miss unless your brain is told to focus its attention on something else. You will have to accept that when attentional tunneling occurs you will miss things that are in plain sight even those things that can be seen for miles on a clear night. This is a feature of the human attention system; trying to pretend it is not is dangerous.
I am beginning to think that rather like the decompression and hypoxia training that is done so crews recognize it, there should be some attentional training done so pilots can understand when they are likely to have cognitive issues. Unfortunately, the natural response to a stressful task with fatigue/circadian stress is to try to concentrate more and that is the classic way to initiate attentional tunneling ("count the passes by the white team" in the gorilla video)
If it is simple to ensure against the illusion by a few words on each transmission then it blocks that hole in the cheese at low cost.
Originally Posted by Ian W
Similarly, had ATC switched on the 28L lights the illusion would have been destroyed, had ATC added to the approach clearance 'runway 28L is out of use unlit and marked with a red cross' - the illusion would have been destroyed.
Originally Posted by Air Bubba
The big FAA L-893 'X' is not red, it's yellow, flashes aviation white lights and in my experience, you can see it for miles on a clear night. Hard to miss if anybody is looking out the window.
The big FAA L-893 'X' is not red, it's yellow, flashes aviation white lights and in my experience, you can see it for miles on a clear night. Hard to miss if anybody is looking out the window.
I am beginning to think that rather like the decompression and hypoxia training that is done so crews recognize it, there should be some attentional training done so pilots can understand when they are likely to have cognitive issues. Unfortunately, the natural response to a stressful task with fatigue/circadian stress is to try to concentrate more and that is the classic way to initiate attentional tunneling ("count the passes by the white team" in the gorilla video)
If it is simple to ensure against the illusion by a few words on each transmission then it blocks that hole in the cheese at low cost.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this sufficient?
I also thought that FMS Bridge visual did align with extended runway, but I see this is not the case.
Also, my FAA expert friend contacted his Jeppesen database expert. Jeppesen codes LNAV approach mode (RNP 0.30) at what they consider to be the "FAF."
When we were testing the RNAV Visuals, on the Bus, we would have the #1 set to RNAV solution using the waypoints (GPS) and the #2 set to ILS as a check. Seems reasonable to do this operationally, not sure why one could not, (I am sure you guys will let me know)
Thanx
Ian, note 'X' on post #448
EDIT: Given what happened, this would seem to raise concern on the remote tower operations. In many ways, listening to radio, you could imagine this senario. Runway appears occupied, no its clear, and no apparent warnings from any ground based system that the ac was landing on a taxiway, occupied or not.
Seems to be a failure of several systems already in place. How would remote tower operations fare?
Last edited by underfire; 27th Jul 2017 at 14:08.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Gorilla in the human factors research video is also totally impossible to miss unless your brain is told to focus its attention on something else. You will have to accept that when attentional tunneling occurs you will miss things that are in plain sight even those things that can be seen for miles on a clear night.
Yes but; NOTAM said that 28L was closed and approach light were off. Therefore you land on 28R which has all the usual lights. You should not have focus on landing on the right most set of lights that you see. The airport chart shows 28L - 28R - taxiway. You read the NOTAMS and construct a picture in your mind that 28R is the left most set of lights you will see. Indeed you will see only 2 sets of lights, and they will be very different. There will be only 1 set of approach lights and one set of white runway lights. That's the one that is open for use.
I'm beginning to think the gorilla comparison is not apples & apples. It is a scenario of complicated multi-item moving targets that you've never seen before. If there were strobe lead-in lights, and the a/c was on auto flight, and the crew had been instructed to count how many strobe flashes there were in 2 mins, I can almost guarantee they would not see the regional jet lining up ahead of them; especially at night. But this was not the scenario.
When the crew have been debriefed, which must have happened already, we might learn if this was a case of failing in the 6P's when planning the arrival into SFO.
Yes but; NOTAM said that 28L was closed and approach light were off. Therefore you land on 28R which has all the usual lights. You should not have focus on landing on the right most set of lights that you see. The airport chart shows 28L - 28R - taxiway. You read the NOTAMS and construct a picture in your mind that 28R is the left most set of lights you will see. Indeed you will see only 2 sets of lights, and they will be very different. There will be only 1 set of approach lights and one set of white runway lights. That's the one that is open for use.
I'm beginning to think the gorilla comparison is not apples & apples. It is a scenario of complicated multi-item moving targets that you've never seen before. If there were strobe lead-in lights, and the a/c was on auto flight, and the crew had been instructed to count how many strobe flashes there were in 2 mins, I can almost guarantee they would not see the regional jet lining up ahead of them; especially at night. But this was not the scenario.
When the crew have been debriefed, which must have happened already, we might learn if this was a case of failing in the 6P's when planning the arrival into SFO.
Last edited by RAT 5; 27th Jul 2017 at 14:58.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What does Jepp consider as the FAF on this chart?
I have no doubt this procedure works great when competently flown in an airplane with a GPS FMS. I have to wonder about D/D/IRU, though. The industry learned the hard way to require GPS for TSO-C-129 RNAV instrument approach procedures.
Yes but; NOTAM said that 28L was closed and approach light were off. Therefore you land on 28R which has all the usual lights. You should not have focus on landing on the right most set of lights that you see. The airport chart shows 28L - 28R - taxiway. You read the NOTAMS and construct a picture in your mind that 28R is the left most set of lights you will see. Indeed you will see only 2 sets of lights, and they will be very different.
Will it go into detail surrounding their sign on time and the time they were expected to be at the aircraft? How long did it take them to get through security? Was there sufficient time to read all the notams and briefing documents prior to walking to the aircraft ?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was there sufficient time to read all the notams and briefing documents prior to walking to the aircraft ?
I asked if AC filters their NOTAMS to hi-light such critical items and cut out the rival. No reply. However, it was not a short flight, i.e. time enough to include a NOTAM review in the approach brief prior to TOD. That is indeed what is salient.
I asked if AC filters their NOTAMS to hi-light such critical items and cut out the rival. No reply. However, it was not a short flight, i.e. time enough to include a NOTAM review in the approach brief prior to TOD. That is indeed what is salient.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by underfire View Post
I also thought that FMS Bridge visual did align with extended runway, but I see this is not the case.
I believe alignment occurs flying by F101D.
Originally Posted by underfire View Post
I also thought that FMS Bridge visual did align with extended runway, but I see this is not the case.
I believe alignment occurs flying by F101D.
More confusing is the LDA28R approach is 281 deg (a 3 deg offset) all the way in.
Also to add further confusion the RNAV app to 28R is 284 deg all the way in which coincides withe LOC 284 deg but doesn't jive with the FMS visual 281 deg from F101D?
Often the FMS course is a couple degrees off from the LOC or VOR course. I don't know what's going on here.
Last edited by cappt; 27th Jul 2017 at 16:12.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These procedures are essentially coded visual approaches and therefore do not have FAFs per se, as they are not considered to be Instrument Approach Procedures. They can only be flown when there's adequate ceiling and visibility for visual approaches.
I.e., one can obviously fly the underlying visual approach without any special equipment other than mk1 eyeballs.. Hence the use of even DME/DME/IRU is acceptable as long as there's adequate DME infrastructure nearby. Otherwise the procedure will be marked "GPS only".
I.e., one can obviously fly the underlying visual approach without any special equipment other than mk1 eyeballs.. Hence the use of even DME/DME/IRU is acceptable as long as there's adequate DME infrastructure nearby. Otherwise the procedure will be marked "GPS only".
RAT 5,
I agree, as you say, the Gorilla video is not 'apples and apples'. Nevertheless, pilots do need to be aware that the human animal is surprisingly vulnerable to various types of misperceptions either when under stress or when preconditioned by certain expectations, or when fatigued, or all of the above.
I know it seems daft - but it does happen.
I agree, as you say, the Gorilla video is not 'apples and apples'. Nevertheless, pilots do need to be aware that the human animal is surprisingly vulnerable to various types of misperceptions either when under stress or when preconditioned by certain expectations, or when fatigued, or all of the above.
I know it seems daft - but it does happen.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 842
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But can the gorilla shoot free throws?
But even so, it would seem that a more relevant set of data would be some studies in simulators with well-trained senior aviators given scenarios in which attentional tunneling is, from some reasonable standpoint, expected to occur. Gorillas and basketballs, data from (I think, correct me if this is mistaken) some long time before smartphones and electronic displays in the cockpit and a strong accommodation by literally almost everyone to "screen time" and its effects on eyesight (the physical process), vision (the perceptual processing) and cognition. This is not meant to discount or denigrate the posts about the video with the gorilla, but what if we change just one little fact about it? The gorilla now looks like it is one from the 800 pound cage. But in any event, if some Transportation Research Institute pro in Ann Arbor with a budget for human factors research were to become interested, the proper scenarios could be put together in plenty of time to generate a valid data set prior to the NTSB process reaching the end of its inquiry cycles.
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 29th Jul 2017 at 00:05. Reason: inveterate habitual proof-reading