Originally Posted by
JayMatlock
The report actually do points out crew fatigue, due to late duty.
The report also describes confusion in the cockpit, with the first officer not even looking at the runway during final approach, and the captain going around just to be sure. Because things did not add up. He did not really understood he was on the taxiway until after the event.
My opinion remains that a runway IS clearly distinguishable from a taxiway at night.
Jay, congratulations, you would not have done what AC did, and you would not have been confused as the preceding aircraft had as well. Equally, you don't have the risk of making the error that occurs on average every few weeks in the rest of the world, english speaking and otherwise. The AC SOP is great for the QB approach, except that it is a major pain on an aircraft like an Airbus. The crew are asked to fly an approach to protect the tender ears of the dear people that have built properties to the south and east of the airfield, sine the jets have been used there. So the crews are set up to not have the best nav displays for a straight in approach, in fact we end up with converging flight paths with aircraft on an adjacent runway which is well below the standard for lateral separation, and so we are playing dodgems with other aircraft as well, and institute special procedures so that the "Risk" can be managed. Frankly, its about time to tell the world to stuff off on placing pax at risk for noise impact which results in increased risk to the crew and passengers. Globally, development has occurred around the approach paths and departure routes of airports, as the land was cheap, and then the restrictions have been applied.
We nearly ended up with 5 dead aircraft at SFO in this event, which would have added a bit of noise to the issue. About time to change the discussion, and start protecting the crew and pax rights.