Originally Posted by
Airbubba
More nonsense, AC 759 was vectored for a visual approach to 28R the second time around ... They were given a heading of 310 to join the final and cleared for a visual approach behind an AA 777 who was on the FMS Bridge Visual Approach 28R. It's on the tape at liveatc.net
I gladly accept your correction to what I had seen written elsewhere.
However, one then has to ask, what on earth in the SFO procedures allows an aircraft, which has had difficulties with a visual approach to a fully ILS capable runway, to be brought around and given just a visual, not an ILS-guided, approach again. I hope the FAA/NTSB really take them to task on this.
According to initial interviews with the flight crew, both pilots appear to have been confused by the absence of lighting on Runway 28L, which had been closed for construction. Its lights were turned off at the time of the incident, and a 20.5-foot wide flashing X had been placed near the threshold. The Air Canada pilots reporting believing that Runway 28R was actually 28L and they therefore believed that Taxiway C was Runway 28R.
Seems just the same, along with the NOTAM that 28 approach lighting was unserviceable, as the two Gatwick taxiway landing incidents, which I hope the enquiry examines closely for common factors. Bear in mind that one of the two Gatwick incident crews were actually based there.