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!

Old 29th Jul 2017, 07:03
  #501 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,789
there are two, BOTH in the FMS database
ironbutt57 is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2017, 07:38
  #502 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,019
Like I said...
Airbubba is online now  
Old 29th Jul 2017, 07:49
  #503 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,785
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
As for the tower calling the go-around, we'll see, as one news report put it, emphasis mine:
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.
Yes, but that quote is just plain wrong.

The TSB's initial report said the opposite, making it clear that the ACA was already climbing and had overflown all 4 aircraft on the ground by the time the controller instructed the GA. If that report has been contradicted by any subsequent update from the TSB, I haven't seen it and there has certainly been no reference to it on here.

See also my previous comments about that graphic that crudely attempts to synchronise the ADS-B plot and the LiveATC recording. FlightAware should know better than to try to do that, though to be fair their analyst does caveat his analysis with "if everything lines up with my data and the timestamp from the audio" (it clearly doesn't).

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.
No argument there.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2017, 12:14
  #504 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Yes, but that quote is just plain wrong.

The TSB's initial report said the opposite, making it clear that the ACA was already climbing and had overflown all 4 aircraft on the ground by the time the controller instructed the GA. If that report has been contradicted by any subsequent update from the TSB, I haven't seen it and there has certainly been no reference to it on here.
You may be confusing TSB's initial report with FAA's. TSB estimated that ACA759 overflew Taxiway C for approximately 0.25 miles when ATC instructed the go around. That's about halfway between Whiskey and November, so at that point ACA759 had not overflown all four aircraft on the ground yet.

It's possible that the go around was already initiated by the time ATC chimed in, but the TSB report doesn't state that.
peekay4 is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2017, 16:24
  #505 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,229
Originally Posted by ironbutt57 View Post
there are two, BOTH in the FMS database
Two FMS Visuals to 28R?
aterpster is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2017, 16:41
  #506 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,510
Two FMS Visuals to 28R?

Children of the magenta line comes to mind with these 2 words in the same sentence.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2017, 16:55
  #507 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Nav providers including Jeppesen will code visual approaches -- in addition to RVFPs -- into the database, when possible. So it would not be surprising to see both FMS Bridge and Quiet Bridge visual procedures in some databases.

(There are visual approaches which cannot be coded into the database due to lack of individual landmarks or waypoints).
peekay4 is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2017, 17:06
  #508 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 54
Posts: 35
SIMO FMS QUIET BRIDGE VISUAL RY 28R AND ILS OR RNAV RY 28L IN USE.
LNDG RWYS 28L, 28R. DEPG RWYS 1L, 1R.
They need to get it together. I have also seen RNAV Bridge visual, I have also seen simply Visual 28R

Per a question on previous post, RWY 28L is at 284 and RWY 28R is at 281(per the RNP plates)

Last edited by underfire; 29th Jul 2017 at 17:17.
underfire is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2017, 17:38
  #509 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,490
Only one FMS bridge visual in my database. You'd have to build the quiet bridge visual yourself.
West Coast is online now  
Old 29th Jul 2017, 19:19
  #510 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 54
Posts: 35
(and it is an instrument approach)
It is not. You will not find RVFP under 8260.3 TERPS.
ummmm...try flying the FMS Bridge visual without DME/DME/IRU or GPS.
First, RVFP developed under this guidance are for use only by pilots of aircraft equipped with Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)‑approved RNAV systems.
underfire is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2017, 20:00
  #511 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
That doesn't make it an instrument approach.

If FMS Bridge is an instrument approach, tell us:

What are the approach minimums?
Where's the initial approach fix? Final approach fix? Missed approach point?
Why must pilots confirm visual sighting of the airport environment / preceding traffic?
Why must the the aircraft remain clear of clouds?
Per 8260.55, why is the procedure only authorized in VMC?
Per 8260.55, why may ATC offer RVFPs only when visual approaches are in use?

And again, why is it not in 8260.3, the standard for all instrument approach procedures?

aterpster gave some good insight earlier on why RVFPs are the way they are and how FAA AFS feels about them.
peekay4 is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2017, 21:56
  #512 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Paso Robles
Posts: 261
Wrong Mr. peekay4

CVFP (Charted Visual Flight Procedure) are considered instrument approaches per FAA rules. This is the relevant FAA document which states:

Despite the fact that both types of Visual Approaches are conducted in VMC, they are considered IFR procedures. As such, the pilot must comply with all applicable IFR rules when conducting them. ....... CVFPs differ from
normal Visual Approaches in that they require a pilot to have a charted landmark, rather than the airport, in sight (AIM 5-4-22/23).


https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avia.../InFO11003.pdf
porterhouse is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2017, 22:51
  #513 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Yes are conducted under IFR, but they are not instrument approach procedures, they are visual approach procedures.

Hence, the name.

From AIM:

"e. A visual approach is not an IAP and therefore has no missed approach segment."

(although they can have standard missed approach instructions)

Anyway between 8260.55 and 8260.3 it's pretty clear already.
peekay4 is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2017, 22:56
  #514 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,490
AIM isn't a definitive document. I'll stick with FAA 82XX orders for differentiating between and Instrument approach, a RVFP and otherwise.
West Coast is online now  
Old 29th Jul 2017, 23:43
  #515 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 54
Posts: 35
underfire is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2017, 23:49
  #516 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
I don't know what the point is. You can't compare RVFPs from different countries.

In fact one of the primary objections against RVFPs is exactly that they are completely non-standardized between countries, which can create a lot of confusion. Hence IFALPA, etc., recommend pilots do not fly RVFPs and I know some within CAAs would like to seem them go away. (On the flip side, orgs like NBAA want to see them expanded.)

Anyway, time for me to move on from this silly topic.
peekay4 is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2017, 23:57
  #517 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Paso Robles
Posts: 261
Originally Posted by peekay4 View Post
I don't know what the point is.
The point is that stay away from FAA terminology/definitions if you know little on the subject. Maybe it is time to leave this 'silly' topic behind however it was you who started this silliness.
porterhouse is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2017, 02:05
  #518 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 66
Posts: 3,332
The approach in question is NOT a standard approach, it's a SPECIAL.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2017, 03:16
  #519 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 217
Originally Posted by ironbutt57 View Post
there are two, BOTH in the FMS database
Just one, the RNV28R in our FMS.
cappt is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2017, 15:19
  #520 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,229
Originally Posted by porterhouse View Post
Wrong Mr. peekay4

CVFP (Charted Visual Flight Procedure) are considered instrument approaches per FAA rules. This is the relevant FAA document which states:

Despite the fact that both types of Visual Approaches are conducted in VMC, they are considered IFR procedures. As such, the pilot must comply with all applicable IFR rules when conducting them. ....... CVFPs differ from
normal Visual Approaches in that they require a pilot to have a charted landmark, rather than the airport, in sight (AIM 5-4-22/23).
"IFR Procedure" does not equate to IFR approach. Note the highlighted language in the attached. There are no standard instrument approach procedure (SIAP, FAR 97) criteria for charted visual procedures nor for FMS RVFPs.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf
InFO11003.pdf (88.5 KB, 53 views)
aterpster is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.