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 28th Jul 2017, 16:11
  #481 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 2,978
Originally Posted by FlightDetent View Post
https://flightaware.com/resources/ai...SFO/procedures has parsed KSFO charts, FMS Bridge VIS not there.

The charting provider I have access to delivers to several large US airlines operating there, but no trace of FMS BRIDGE. So is it perhaps a Jeppesen only proc?
It was designed by the lead carrier designated by the airlines for the airport. That airline designed the procedure in an FAA design tool called TARGETS. Those data were then given to Jeppesen for both coding the procedure into the airlines' FMS and publishing a chart to be included in all the airlines' tailored subscription.
aterpster is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Jul 2017, 16:20
  #482 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 2,978
Originally Posted by peekay4 View Post
By the time the accept the approach, which may be well before any waypoint. Typically ATC will confirm that the pilot has the airport (or preceding aircraft) in sight before offering a visual approach.
For sake of discussion let's say the weather is 3,000 and 10. Would NCT approve the procedure if the crew requested it on initial contact shortly after passing CEDES?

BTW, I checked the geometry.

The true bearing of 28R is 297.815. The true bearing of the 28R ILS is also 297.815. The true bearing from FD101 to 28R is 297.9 in my GIS software. The path angle from FD101D to the lead carrier's AER is exactly 3.0 degrees assuming the same TCH as the 28R ILS.
aterpster is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Jul 2017, 16:33
  #483 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California
Posts: 219
Originally Posted by peekay4 View Post
FAA 8260.55 explains why RVFPs exist and why they are NOT considered (special) instrument approach procedures.
a. Operator and Pilot.
3) Pilots must request the RVFP on initial contact with the controlling agency, unless previously coordinated.
I missed the part where the pilot requested this approach.
MarcK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Jul 2017, 16:41
  #484 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,523
No trace of the procedure from FAA sources.

That airline designed the procedure in an FAA design tool called TARGETS. Those data were then given to Jeppesen for both coding the procedure into the airlines' FMS and publishing a chart to be included in all the airlines' tailored subscription.

But surely the procedure would have to be FAA approved?? If it is a locally designed procedure would that limit it to US registered a/c and licensed operators?
RAT 5 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Jul 2017, 16:46
  #485 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 744
A question... Are the centerline green taxi lights always bidirectional or are they at some airports or in some instances unidirectional?
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Jul 2017, 16:50
  #486 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 40
Posts: 1,982
aterpster: that fills all the blanks, thanks. Sorry I missed it from your first posting, the idea that multiple airlines would team up for a shared tailored procedure escaped me. Thus I could not figure out how come it is not public yet at large at the same time.
FlightDetent is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Jul 2017, 16:51
  #487 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever someone will pay me to do fun stuff
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by Jet Jockey A4 View Post
A question... Are the centerline green taxi lights always bidirectional or are they at some airports or in some instances unidirectional?
It rather depends if the taxiway is bi-directional or one way. Lead off lights on a RET, for example, will be (or should be) visible only from the runway side.
LookingForAJob is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Jul 2017, 17:08
  #488 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 291
Did the ATC recordings confirm/reveal that every crew cleared for the FMS Bridge visual had previously reported the airport in sight?
Zeffy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Jul 2017, 17:30
  #489 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
For sake of discussion let's say the weather is 3,000 and 10. Would NCT approve the procedure if the crew requested it on initial contact shortly after passing CEDES?
Typically the crew would be directed to "expect" or "join" the RVFP at a waypoint, but this isn't clearance for the approach.

Then when closer, ATC will confirm if the pilots have the airport environment / landmark / preceding aircraft in sight, before clearing them for the visual approach.

But surely the procedure would have to be FAA approved?? If it is a locally designed procedure would that limit it to US registered a/c and licensed operators?
US RVFPs are FAA approved. As aterpster mentions, one airline (the "Lead Operator") will develop the procedure and work with ATC and FAA get it approved. After approval, other airlines (including Part 129 foreign air carriers) may then request authorization to use the procedure.

After all, Air Canada is a foreign airline.

I missed the part where the pilot requested this approach.
"unless previously coordinated."

I.e., if the airline is approved for the approach, then appropriate remarks may be included in the flight plan.
peekay4 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Jul 2017, 17:33
  #490 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 8,441
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
Predictably, the union paints the AC 759 pilots as heroes for doing a go-around when told to do so by the tower
The union doesn't appear to have said that, and indeed the timeline established by the TSB soon after the event indicates that the crew were already going around at the point where ATC issued the GA instruction.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Jul 2017, 18:04
  #491 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 53
Posts: 1,704
That airline designed the procedure in an FAA design tool called TARGETS.
mama mia....

the FMS Bridge Visual procedure was designed by a 3rd party in RNAV Pro.

8260.55

The design and implementation of RVFP differ from that of charted visual flight procedures (CVFP) in a number of regards. First, RVFP developed under this guidance are for use only by pilots of aircraft equipped with instrument flight rules (IFR)-approved RNAV systems. Second, these procedures are not “public” in nature, approved via a process similar to that of “special” instrument approach procedures (IAP). RVFP are not “special IAPs” by definition but rather are simply considered “special procedures”.

2) The operator, with the assistance of the regional All Weather Operations (AWO) and the RNAV and RNP Group personnel assigned to the OSG, must assess the capability of the local DME infrastructure to support all segments of the procedure. The operator should use “RNAV-Pro” for this assessment.

We put the final design into TARGETS to use the FAA obastacle data and to generate those damn 8260 forms!

Thus I could not figure out how come it is not public yet at large at the same time.
The FAA did not design the procedure, it is a tailored special.

The Lead operator owns and maintans the procedure, ie pays for its design and maintenence. Would you simply give it to everyone else for free? Same for the RNP AR procedures that have been developed.

b. Approval Process for Other than the Lead Operator.
1) The operator must submit a written request to use an RVFP to the regional AWO, via their POI.
2) The regional AWO will provide the operator and the POI with all applicable procedure documentation.
3) The operator must ensure the required aircraft equipage, operating procedures, and training are in place. The operator must also validate flyability of the procedure in a simulator approved for each make, model and series of aircraft intended for use of the RVFP.
4) Once satisfied with the operator’s aircraft equipage, procedures, and training program, the POI will issue written approval to use the RVFP. Appendix D contains a sample letter of approval for other than a lead operator.
5) The operator should provide the applicable AWO and ATC facility with a copy of the signed letter approving use of the RVFP.

FAA 8260.55 explains why RVFPs exist and why they are NOT considered (special) instrument approach procedures.

Or you can just re-read my post above.
OR you could read what I actually wrote

FMS Bridge visual is considered a special procedure, (and it is an instrument approach) which the airline and pilots are required to be approved to use. This has been discussed at length in this thread.

Last edited by underfire; 28th Jul 2017 at 18:23.
underfire is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Jul 2017, 18:24
  #492 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,348
Flew it today, still in use. Not requested, rather assigned by SFO ATC, advertised on the ATIS.
West Coast is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Jul 2017, 18:30
  #493 (permalink)  

Dog Tired
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,611
Is this still rumours and news or the inevitable PPRuNe endless thread-without-end?
fantom is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Jul 2017, 18:49
  #494 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
(and it is an instrument approach)
It is not. You will not find RVFP under 8260.3 TERPS.
peekay4 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Jul 2017, 18:56
  #495 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
THE MERCURY NEWS
PUBLISHED: July 28, 2017 at 8:00 am

Did brain phenomenon contribute to Air Canada pilot’s close-call at SFO?

SAN FRANCISCO — Could the same brain phenomenon identified as contributing to today’s polarizing political climate have played a role in an Air Canada flight crew coming within seconds of landing on a row of jets awaiting takeoff at SFO? Absolutely, experts say.

The condition, known as confirmation bias, occurs when people accept or seek out evidence that confirms their expectations and ignore or avoid facts that don’t align with their expectations. Just like when a Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton supporter tunes out an opposing viewpoint, or contrary facts.

The same mental blind spot likely impacted the Air Canada flight crew on July 7 when it nearly triggered the worst aviation disaster in history by landing on four fully-loaded planes on the SFO taxiway, says Dr. Andrew Gilbey, a senior lecturer in aviation at Massey University in New Zealand.

Sidebar:
Fisher’s experiment in 1980 for NASA had pilots land on a simulator. During one landing she secretly placed an airplane in the middle of the runway. During one phase of experiment 2 of 8 pilots didn’t see the plane.

[...]
Full article and video: Did mental bias play a role in Air Canada's SFO near-miss?
peekay4 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Jul 2017, 19:41
  #496 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,523
The Mercury News must be reading Prune?
RAT 5 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Jul 2017, 20:56
  #497 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 4,307
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
Predictably, the union paints the AC 759 pilots as heroes for doing a go-around when told to do so by the tower
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
The union doesn't appear to have said that, and indeed the timeline established by the TSB soon after the event indicates that the crew were already going around at the point where ATC issued the GA instruction.
Union spokesman Chris Praught praised the AC 759 pilots thusly:

“It is a testament to the expertise and professionalism of the highly trained crew that they were able to ensure that the flight arrived safely at its destination.”
A somewhat less generous assessment of the crew performance from one of the professional pilots on this thread:

Originally Posted by BluSdUp View Post
There is no excuse whatsoever for what these two chaps did and they better have preserved the CVR.
We need it to understand how it was possible and prevent other incompetent crew doing the same.
And for now : No more night visuals.
It is rather simple. They could not do the basic task of identify the rwy.
Give me a break.
They were about to possible triple the standing world record of aviation fu..ups.

Sorry for not being all cudely and understanding about this.
There has to be limits.
As for the tower calling the go-around, we'll see, as one news report put it, emphasis mine:

New data obtained exclusively by this news organization add to the picture, showing that the Air Canada plane was just flying over a second fully loaded Philippine Airlines jet at 106 feet in the air — still continuing its descent — when an SFO air traffic controller finally warned him to abort his landing. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada said in its initial report that the Air Canada pilot did not begin his “go-around” until the air traffic controller told the pilot to pull up.
SFO near-miss: Air Canada flew over plane before aborting

Either way, as I said here earlier:

Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
Whether AC 759 initiated the go around before or after the ATC call, 100 feet AGL is way too low to figure out they were over the taxiway.
Airbubba is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Jul 2017, 21:38
  #498 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 291
Current ATIS (about 40 mins ago):

DATIS

A2056
SFO ATIS INFO A 2056Z.
28024KT 10SM FEW010 19/11 A2992 (TWO NINER NINER TWO) RMK PK WND 29028/2052.
SIMO FMS QUIET BRIDGE VISUAL RY 28R AND ILS OR RNAV RY 28L IN USE.
LNDG RWYS 28L, 28R. DEPG RWYS 1L, 1R.
NOTAMS... TWY J CLSD, TWY S1 CLSD.
MULTIPLE CRANES NEAR THE AIRPORT. 448 FOOT CRANE 2 MILES WSW OF AIRPORT.
RWY 28R AND RWY 28L HOLD SHORT LIGHTS OTS.
ASSC IN USE ACTVT TRNSPNDR WITH MODE C ON ALL TYS AND RWYS.
READBACK OF ALL RWY HOLDING INSTRUCTIONS IS REQUIRED.
ALL ACFT ARE RQRD TO INCL ACFT CLSGN IN ALL RDBKS AND ACKMTS. ...ADVS YOU HAVE INFO A.
Zeffy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Jul 2017, 23:29
  #499 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 4,307
Originally Posted by Zeffy View Post
Current ATIS (about 40 mins ago):
...FMS QUIET BRIDGE VISUAL RY 28R...
FMS Quiet Bridge Visual? Not the Quiet Bridge Visual or the FMS Bridge Visual?

Here we go again...
Airbubba is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 29th Jul 2017, 00:42
  #500 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 2,978
Where are we going again? To the Land of Semantics?

Title strip from Jepp chart:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
title.jpg (22.6 KB, 30 views)
aterpster is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service