Originally Posted by
PukinDog
A thorough briefing where both pilots pay attention to detail in order to emphasize correct and critical focal points is the primary tool/measure used by a crew to prevent blowing-it, minimize unworthy distractions, or being suckered in by illusion. Doing so purposely creates for the crew their own set of preconceived notion as to what the correct picture the approach and landing should look like. A proper briefing uses current, published information and NOTAMs, discusses what's to follow, and sets expectations/limits. It discusses what aids will be used to shoot the approach, what to expect and look for, what is to be confirmed, and limits set to wave themselves off the approach if they aren't met. SOPs are written so crews cover many of these things by following them....
Obviously, they didn't align themselves correctly when they transitioned. But how were they supposed to pick the correct string of lights way out there in the distance?
Well, 28R has charted, visual lighting aids specifically designed and calibrated for that purpose; ALSF-II and PAPI. They're both designed to be seen from miles away for use by a crew to 1) visually align themselves with the centerline of the runway (ALSF-II) and 2) visually join the correct vertical path that within a given distance ensures obstacle clearance down to near the Touchdown Zone (PAPI).
Given the existence of an ALSF-II and PAPI for 28R, let's start by throwing out the notion held by many that a visual approach at night to 28R is unreasonable or unsafe if it's based on the idea there's no ground-based guidance to use or back oneself up with if bog-s***t FMS equipment doesn't allow that back up to be an electronic ILS. ALSF-II and PAPI are ground-based guidance aids for 28R. Their existence should be noted, looked-for out the windscreen, and used for their intended purpose.
Even in a briefing for an Instrument approach, the type of ALS is noted and visual sighting while on the approach itself prompts a callout. Just because this was an FMS approach to a long visual segment doesn't negate the need for reviewing and emphasizing the ALS for 28R. The fact it's a visual approach segment doesn't negate the need for the crew to verbally confirm when these visual guidance aids are acquired visually. On the contrary, the fact that the FMS portion of the approach doesn't align the aircraft with the centerline should only raise awareness and emphasize the visual aids' existence and the need to notice/confirm them. Again, it's what they are for; visually acquiring and guiding oneself to the runway.
However, everything so far about the flight in question (ground track, altitudes, ,transmission) suggests the crew was oblivious to the existence of an ALSF-II and PAPI on 28R because, as it happened, they visually acquired, lined-up on, and overflew Taxiway C which has neither. As someone asked before, with the nearest PAPI being on the opposite side of RWY 28R from their position, what was this crew using for vertical path guidance for miles during the visual segment until reaching Taxiway C?
Also, in addition to RWY 28L's closure being NOTAMed, 28L's approach light system, a MALSR (not an ALSF-II, which is the only ALS they would have seen that night), was also NOTAMed OTS. If the crew mistook Taxiway C for RWY 28R and RWY 28R (with it's operating ALSF-II blazing away to their left) for 28L, this suggests no review of current NOTAMS that could (and did) directly affect their operation and lack of knowledge (or review) regarding Approach Light System configurations.
.
Good points PD.
Briefings are routinely interfered with by the real world, and are not infallible. Having a standardised process is of some value, however, that also fails when there is interruption.
On lighting, I agree on the merit of briefing all of that, to the extent of what type of lighting, PAPI or VASI, is it asymmetric (L or R) etc. The downside is that every brief takes one crew member out of the loop, and the second crew member is in effect being distracted form monitoring by the brief itself. Correlation of brief with programming is a great method, but that works when tactical changes don't occur in close. The 'Bus display logic is annoying in the constraints on LS, compared to a Boeing, where you can track one thing and display another, and have different setups on either side.That has it's own set of issues but it is not a bad way of doing business. HUDs remove the problem in general, however I was involved in investigating a HUD equipped aircraft that landed on a taxiway, so there are always ways of getting hurt. HUD's become problematic in strong crosswind conditions where the lateral viewing angle may not show the track and target information well.
As long as taxiways are parallel to runways, planes will get into strife. The current best tool in my kit is the foreflight moving map, that consistently will give a reliable guide of position vs the runway. The Boeing EFBs were good, but only when you were taxying.
In this day and age, the FMS programming of approaches still leaves lots to be desired; It would be reasonable to have a legs programmed that actually is what you intend to fly, not abbreviated just when things get interesting by the G/A procedure taking it's place. The systems today comprehend a G/A occurs on large jets, by the selection of TOGA, at which point the G/A procedure should be active, but until that point, there is no need for it to be taking precedence over the actual approach to the actual runway that is intended. For aircraft without ATR or GA modes, then a sensed GA could be determined where descent alters to climb for a period of time or a minimum period of time/alt gain.
If we continue to remove ground based nav aids, then the irritations that are inherent on the Airbus LS/FMC data for these types of approaches becomes moot. Again, Boeings have tried and succeeded in landing on the taxiways, so a better solution should be considered to the issue.