Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Near miss with 5 airliners waiting for T/O on taxiway "C" in SFO!

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Near miss with 5 airliners waiting for T/O on taxiway "C" in SFO!

Reply

Old 18th Jul 2017, 10:13
  #321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 1,963
Anyone controlling arrivals and departures on 2 runways, (crossing, or otherwise), should not be doing GMC.
ZOOKER is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jul 2017, 11:12
  #322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,097
As I said way back this was a cognitive misperception - expecting an approach to the rightmost of 2 runways the pilot sees two rows of lights and his brain says that is the right hand runway. From then on that is what he sees a runway. if you don't think that is possible and didn't read my post before - consider this your vision cannot see a ball in flight as it is not seeing for much of the time - your brain fills in where that ball is. It is why you have to teach children to catch balls. However, you will claim you watched it all the way as your brain makes you think that you did.

So visual spatial cognitive channel is showing the taxiway as a runway and the anti-collision lights were perceived as traffic on the runway. Instead of a voice call - that worked but might not have, one or more of the aircraft putting on all their landing lights would have destroyed the illusion immediately far faster than the R/T call.

For those who are blaming all the in-cockpit entertainment toys available these days, these kind of misperceptions were happening back when those toys were not available. It is unfortunately part of the way our brains work. Knowing that these cognitive issues arise there are better ways of ensuring people do not land on a parallel taxiway than switching off all the lights on one of the runways (red cross there or not) as pilots looking for two runways see a runway and a taxiway and some will see two runways as that is what they expect to see. It would have been better if 28L had remained lit and ATC had reminded everyone that 28L was out of service.
Ian W is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jul 2017, 11:16
  #323 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,008
For those who are blaming all the in-cockpit entertainment toys available these days, these kind of misperceptions were happening back when those toys were not available
... thus lots of these toys are not necessary, even somewhat of an unnecessary distraction.
glofish is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jul 2017, 12:15
  #324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 403
A question to those who know SFO

The fact that 28L and 28R are closer together than is desirable is well known. But this seems gratuitous. Taxiway C is to the right of 28R. While it would be a big construction project, why isn't Taxiway C converted into a new 28R, and the current 28R converted into a taxiway? It would seem to be a quick way of gaining another 400-500 feet of separation between 28L and 28R.
SeenItAll is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jul 2017, 12:25
  #325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: same planet as yours
Posts: 217
Originally Posted by portmanteau View Post
Atco doesn't say, by the way you are lined up on the taxiway because that fact is not apparent to him. It's night remember.
That's why they have radar screens installed even in VCR's, with a perfect straight radar trail of AC's final approach, aligned parallel next to 28R extended centerline. But the sole ATCO with his high workload, especially with all those ground and crossing rwy movements, in VMC, with visual approaches, had to keep his eyes outside. A second pair of ATCO eyes might have caught more/earlier...
DIBO is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jul 2017, 13:02
  #326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,523
A friend has just bought a new Tiguan with lots of bells & whistles. He's fawning over the reactive braking system so that you can not have a smash up with an object in front of you. He's wowing over the lane assist control if you cross the white line on the motorway. He, or his wife is, wild about the automatic park assist.
Now they're researching all these self-drive cars with auto-nav systems. Add in all the auto-brake, crz control, auto-park etc. and they are turning manual cars into an Airbus. Well let's just see where that has got us. The carnage on the roads will mean I'm staying home with everything delivered and virtual holidays via i-phone goggles and greek takeaways sitting in the Jacuzzi at 25c with a sun lamp & cold domestica to hand. One day Greece, the next Spain, the next Italy. Better sell my TUI shares.

I hope the preliminary report will be soon then we can discuss something factual.
RAT 5 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jul 2017, 13:27
  #327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 53
Posts: 1,704
I must have missed the bit about the AC crew asking ATC if the runway was clear because they could see lights on it...
Yes, look at when they asked, and they still tried to land. Seems like if you did see aircraft lights on the runway, and had to ask someone about it, that is a failure it itself?

Last edited by underfire; 18th Jul 2017 at 14:14.
underfire is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jul 2017, 13:50
  #328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 2,978
Originally Posted by SeenItAll View Post
The fact that 28L and 28R are closer together than is desirable is well known. But this seems gratuitous. Taxiway C is to the right of 28R. While it would be a big construction project, why isn't Taxiway C converted into a new 28R, and the current 28R converted into a taxiway? It would seem to be a quick way of gaining another 400-500 feet of separation between 28L and 28R.
The cost would be huge. And for what gain? Unless they are spaced far enough part for simultaneous, independent parallel instrument approaches, what would be the point?

Perhaps 15, 20 years ago, there was a well-designed plan to fill in a portion the bay to make the airport area sufficiently large to have simultaneous, independent parallel instrument approaches. (May have included such spacing for19L/R as well as 28L/R, I don't remember.) The proposal included dredging an equivalent area in a different part of the bay so the total water area would net out the same. That replacement was to satisfy the "greens." The locals would have no part of the plan, so it died.

That's California in general and the Bay Area in particular.
aterpster is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jul 2017, 14:44
  #329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 1,963
Pukin'
If the airport had been "well lit, fully NOTAMed" etc, then PIA, AC or BA, this probably wouldn't have happened.

And for those who have listened to the various ATC recordings, don't forget that, unlike the actual 'ATC tapes', they don't include all the telephone conversations that may/may not have been taking place from the operational position.
ZOOKER is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jul 2017, 15:03
  #330 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: sfo
Age: 65
Posts: 283
Aterpster,
As I recall, those plans would have killed tidal movement in much of the bay south of the airport, turning it into a pond with little water movement. They deserved to be shelved in that case (and I am pro-airport, having worked there for nearly 40 years).
sb_sfo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jul 2017, 15:55
  #331 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
As I recall, those plans would have killed tidal movement in much of the bay south of the airport, turning it into a pond with little water movement. They deserved to be shelved in that case (and I am pro-airport, having worked there for nearly 40 years).
The expansion into the bay was envisioned when SFO's saw crazy growth rates during the dot-com days.

But subsequently the dot-com bubble burst, 9/11 happened, and United went into bankruptcy. SFO passenger traffic plunged, and the expansion plans were shelved.

Of course today SFO sees more traffic than ever before...
peekay4 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jul 2017, 16:22
  #332 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 54
Posts: 521
CVR data is lost!

I just read the NTSB official info. It did not mention the CVR. The FDR read out was provided by Canadian TSB, ergo I dare conclude the CVR was not secured.
They would have mentioned it.

So due to severe incompetence of the crew they decided not to secure the CVR in direct contradiction to Canadian law.
NTSB will find out exactly what happened here, but not nesesserely how and why.
The CVR is worth gold in this case , and the crew knew it.

On the matter at hand!
How to prevent this ever happen again:
Tune and follow the ILS inside 4 miles. And get new glasses!
BluSdUp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jul 2017, 16:27
  #333 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: same planet as yours
Posts: 217
One aspect that I don 't expect to be covered in the NTSB report and given all the psychological insights given in this thread, how might this incident impact the front row witnesses. The PIL crew sitting in their big lame duck, nowhere to go or move, within seconds being blinded by big, bright landing lights coming straight at them. Depending on how much they saw this coming, it was all over in seconds (or a few dozen of it). How would they have keept their calm afterwards. Would you have kept your calm?
Ages ago, I had a very close call, near midair in a glider. All I could do was slam the stick and duck my head. Seconds later I was regaining control (plane & myself), but my knees kept shaking uncontrollably, until after landing safely (and without a scratch). But it took some hours on terra firma to fully regain my calm...
DIBO is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jul 2017, 17:06
  #334 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 403
I should have done my research earlier.

For simultaneous landings and takeoffs using VFR, the minimum separation between centerlines of parallel runways is 700 feet (213 m). For simultaneous IFR operations, dual simultaneous precision instrument approaches are normally approved on parallel runway centerline separation of 4,300 feet (1311 m).
Because the current separation between 28L and 28R is about 750 feet, I guess adding another 500 by swapping 28R with Taxiway C won't buy nearly enough separation to permit simultaneous IFR.
SeenItAll is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jul 2017, 17:09
  #335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 2,978
Originally Posted by BluSdUp View Post

So due to severe incompetence of the crew they decided not to secure the CVR in direct contradiction to Canadian law.
Seems that the crew would be open to Canadian certificate action, at the least.
aterpster is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jul 2017, 19:19
  #336 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 53
Posts: 1,704
Unless they are spaced far enough part for simultaneous, independent parallel instrument approaches, what would be the point?
The FAA program, Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches (SOIA) allows for as little as 750 ft between runway centerlines.

The FMS Quiet Bridge visual is an example.

Last edited by underfire; 18th Jul 2017 at 19:31.
underfire is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jul 2017, 19:55
  #337 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 68
Posts: 405
Good Afternoon All:

When I retired over 7 years ago there was absolutely no requirement to pull the C.V.R. c/b at my airline after an incident. Although the tape is continuous loop for 30 minutes and overwrites after that at an A.R.T. session many years ago we were told that the laboratory can recover up to 2 hours but it takes a lot of effort to do so.

As an aside to some of the postings written I would suggest this, wait for the report to be published read then make your "informed comments".


.
a330pilotcanada is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jul 2017, 21:01
  #338 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 4,306
I've cited above what appears to be a Canadian requirement to pull a cb or otherwise remove power from a CVR after an incident or accident.

The two-hour CVR has been a requirement for several years in America:

121.359 Cockpit voice recorders.

(i) By April 7, 2012, all turbine engine-powered airplanes subject to this section that are manufactured before April 7, 2010, must have a cockpit voice recorder installed that also -

(2) Retains at least the last 2 hours of recorded information using a recorder that meets the standards of TSO-C123a, or later revision; and

(3) Is operated continuously from the use of the checklist before the flight to completion of the final checklist at the end of the flight.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/121.359

Canada has proposed upgrading to a similar two-hour standard in future regulations:

Description of the objective

Objective: To enhance the capture of Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) information needed for accident investigation purposes.
Description: Proposed amendments would:

increase the duration of CVR recordings to 2 hours;
Recommendation A91-13 - Transportation Safety Board of Canada

I have heard similar claims that the older CVR technology would allow data to be recovered after several overwrites using closely held forensic techniques but I can't find much online about this other than hearsay in forums like this one.

Also, there is some question as to whether the erase function is properly implemented in current flash memory based CVR's. Is the data really gone or can it be recovered as with a camera SD card that has been reformatted but not overwritten?

It is claimed that India's DGCA has mandated removal of the erase feature from units in its aircraft, is this true?
Airbubba is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jul 2017, 23:53
  #339 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: sfo
Age: 65
Posts: 283
Originally Posted by DIBO View Post
One aspect that I don 't expect to be covered in the NTSB report and given all the psychological insights given in this thread, how might this incident impact the front row witnesses. The PIL crew sitting in their big lame duck, nowhere to go or move, within seconds being blinded by big, bright landing lights coming straight at them. Depending on how much they saw this coming, it was all over in seconds (or a few dozen of it). How would they have keept their calm afterwards. Would you have kept your calm?
I would have thought that one of them would have needed to return to the gate for a seat cover change, at the least...
sb_sfo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 19th Jul 2017, 06:41
  #340 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 20
Any Canadian airline pilots, does Canada follow any of the FAR-117 rest rules?
Thanks
787PIC is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service