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 11th Jul 2017, 18:54
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Lossy city
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They were doing some construction on 28L a while back, but I thought that was supposed to have been completed at least a month ago. Construction was on weekends, which matches the Friday evening timing.

When no construction was happening, I've only ever seen aircraft line up directly alongside 28L, which I believe is 28-F (for takeoff on both 28L and 28R), so multiple aircraft on 28-C would also match up with the construction theory. Then again I've never been at the airport around midnight.
triploss is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2017, 18:58
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by triploss
When no construction was happening, I've only ever seen aircraft line up directly alongside 28L (for takeoff on both 28L and 28R), so multiple aircraft on 28C would also match up with the construction theory. Then again I've never been at the airport around midnight.
Yep, that runway 28C is downright dangerous.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2017, 18:59
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: egll
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by EGLD
I dunno what scares me more these days, the utter incompetence of pilots entrusted with the lives of their passengers, or their colleagues tendency to attempt to gloss over incidents like this as minor trivialities

They weren't merely not quite lined up, they'd been lined up for a while

And they didn't initiate a go around with an abundance of caution, they were instructed to go around to save from landing on several large fully fuelled aircraft
Humans are humans ... so long as they are involved incidences like these will occur. It is in our nature, pilots aren't a special breed who were born without flaw.

And they were the first to be aware of their error from what the tape suggests. They were alert when it counted and therefore were able to avert a disaster ... what is the issue?
momo95 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2017, 19:48
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Seattle
Posts: 725
Received 10 Likes on 3 Posts
Question from the peanut gallery: What sort of visibility or situational awareness does the tower have of proper runway alignment? Other than reports from the crew landing and those waiting (and ducking) on the taxiway? Any thoughts about camera systems lined up with the runway? A plane on proper alignment could be seen as straight on, while one heading for the taxiway would appear to be drifting left.

There is some discussion of using remote ATC for smaller (GA only?) airports. One of the advantages mentioned is that camera feeds sent to the remote facility could provide points of view not available to a traditional tower.

Or would cameras just be another maintenance headache that would end up restricting operations if inop?
EEngr is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2017, 20:07
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
EEngr,
You could send the camera feeds directly to the existing ATC Visual Control Room, no need for the facility to be remote from the airfield.
My local airport has 2 closely-spaced parallel runways and has an 'approach monitoring aid'. A piece of kit that alerts ATC of any significant deviation from the R/W centre-line inside 4 miles from touchdown. They have had this kit for at least 5 years.
ZOOKER is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2017, 20:08
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Soon after the Gatwick incidents the parallel taxiway lighting was adjusted so it doesn't show towards the direction of approach when the northern runway is in use. So when runway 08R/26L is closed for maintenance and runway lights are switched off. runway 08L/26R runway lights only can be seen. The parallel taxiway lights are visible only after
vacating 08L/26R, Also there is a radar based approach monitoring aid which provides ATC with an audible warning from a few miles out should an arriving aircraft be lined up on
the wrong runway.
Musket90 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2017, 20:36
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Seattle
Posts: 725
Received 10 Likes on 3 Posts
You could send the camera feeds directly to the existing ATC Visual Control Room, no need for the facility to be remote from the airfield.
Yes. I used the remote tower example only because it was noted that, once you have to put in cameras, you can get some interesting viewpoints. That's the context where I had originally heard of this idea.
EEngr is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2017, 21:33
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Safety at airlines is driven primarily by money and mandates. There is a system that would have given ample warning of the impending taxiway landing.

https://aerospace.honeywell.com/en/p...dvisory-system

And it's big brother system.....

https://aerospace.honeywell.com/en/p...d-smartlanding

ADS-B has the capability of providing onboard incursion/collision alerts.

But, unfortunately, it will take another Tenerife to drive the mandates to equip.

As the worlds airline pilot population becomes less and less (average) experienced, particularly in second and third world countries, the risks will increase. Here is an area where technology can shine.

Let it.......
Shore Guy is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2017, 21:41
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 724
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
According to AvHerald, they overflew the first two aircraft by 100 feet, the third by 200 feet and the fourth by 300 feet. That is astounding, if true.
fox niner is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2017, 22:10
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: California
Posts: 349
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
fox niner,
So, a positive rate of climb then....

Here is the map of SFO so that you all can see what is what.

http://flightaware.com/resources/air...RT+DIAGRAM/pdf

In no way, shape or form would they use F for anything but taxying.
fleigle is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2017, 22:26
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: England
Posts: 411
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Many accidents and incidents could be prevented by crews (1) looking out of the window, (2) being able to comprehend that something unexpected is happening – "WTF, this doesn't look right" – (3) being able and willing to respond to unusual circumstances, and unconstrained from doing so. In this case the AC crew had clearly reached the "WTF" stage and it'll be interesting to know whether they'd have made it to stage 3 (go-around) by themselves if ATC hadn't told them to. In other cases, such as Asiana 214 if I understand it correctly, the crew never get as far as stage 2.

A few years ago a 747 was cleared to land at LHR although an A320 was lined up for takeoff on the same runway. Daytime, visual; the A320's topside color happened to be gray, blending with the runway; its company's SOP was to have strobes off at that stage; so the 747 crew didn't see the A320 until the last minute ... but they did make it to stage 3 and went around from about 200ft agl.
OldLurker is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2017, 23:20
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Back in 2009, a Delta 767-300 arriving from GIG into ATL landed in the pre-dawn hours on a taxiway. Luckily at that early hour of 0600, no flights were taxiing out for departure. Thankfully just an incident, not an accident.
RobertS975 is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 00:08
  #53 (permalink)  
Psychophysiological entity
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Tweet Rob_Benham Famous author. Well, slightly famous.
Age: 84
Posts: 3,289
Received 63 Likes on 30 Posts
My thought is that the aircraft on the taxiway became the focal issue for the Air Canada guys. Perplexed by what they were seeing* they probably plodded on not really wondering why the VARSIs were WAY over there and other lighting seemed so vague.

That is the very nature of becoming fixated.

However, the very fact they were seeing the taxiing aircraft hopefully means they'd never have simply descended into them.


*When Tower said they had 28R to themselves, you could hear the continuing hint of bewilderment in the reply.
Loose rivets is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 00:19
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From the AV Herald Incident: Canada A320 at San Francisco on Jul 7th 2017, lined up with taxiway for landing
AC-759 had already overflown taxiway C by about 0.25nm when ATC instructed the aircraft to go around. 4 aircraft were on taxiway C at the time of the occurrence. It is estimated that AC-759 overflew the first two aircraft by 100 feet, the third by about 200 feet and the last by 300 feet. The closest lateral proximity between AC-759 and one of the aircraft on taxiway C was 29 feet.
I am sorry if there are people on this forum who are saying that the AC crew had everything under control and that there was no significant danger. Three seconds more reaction time and the first plane's tail gets clipped, and the rest happens like dominos. If the unidentified guy on the tapes hadn't alerted the tower that AC was over the taxiway, there would have been a disaster. This is way too close a call to dismiss.
SeenItAll is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 00:20
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
747 tail height 65'6"
misd-agin is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 01:21
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Airbubba
Yep, I'm sure a lot happened in the pre-cellphone video era that was never reported. Or, so they tell me.

Unfortunately, or fortunately perhaps, these Continental guys made the tabloids with a taxiway landing at EWR:



AIRLINE PILOT IN BLUNDER LAND TOUCHES DOWN ON NEWARK TAXIWAY | New York Post
Regarding runway lights: the full NTSB narrative for the Continential 1883 incident is available at https://ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviat...07IA015&akey=1

It references some differences in lighting brightness despite what should have been discernably different step levels.

Since the report also notes the investigation assessed REIL, PAPI and color (green/white) visibility, it made me curious as to which specific, comparable elements are equally pertinent to the SFO incident, and are likely to be addressed in the investigation.

Also: the source quoted on the 2006 Continental 1883 incident seemed to feel landing on the taxiway there was a truly inexcusable f-up. Whereas with regard to this SFO incident, professionals here seem to be of mixed opinion, but overall seem to consider it less egregious.

Are the two really even comparable? Just curious.
cordwainer is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 02:55
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Near St Lawrence River
Age: 53
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Where's this guy going?", was coming from who?

Post #4 includes a good audio of ATC, at about 25:45:
“There's no one on 2-8 Right but you!”
“OK, Air Canada 75/Where's this guy going? He's on the taxiway!”
Fortunately, there was a guy more alert than AC flight deck and ATC, all together. He cut off the AC re-confirmation. Hundreds of souls are still with us today because of this guy. Congratulations, well done, unknown hero!
_Phoenix is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 03:05
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,994
Received 15 Likes on 11 Posts
Questions:-

1/ was the ILS operating on their intended RWY?

2/ were the HIAL on?

3/ were the RTZL on?

If they were then how could a trained crew in an A320 stuff it up?
If they weren't on then why not?

Swiss cheese holes very nearly lined up that evening.

Sounds like all flights at night should be ILS approaches at so equipped runways, or all crews should be trained to tune and ident the ILS then monitor it on final for correct runway alignment. Irrespective of the wx at Airports with close parallel runways and taxiways. AND all the fancy HIALS RTZL should be operating.

Last edited by ACMS; 12th Jul 2017 at 03:25.
ACMS is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 03:17
  #59 (permalink)  

SkyGod
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Palm Coast, Florida, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 1,545
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 3 Posts
. 747 tail height 65'6"
If the A-320 passed over at 100', 34' clearance, minus the landing gear, probably 6', 28' clearance, 8,5 meters. Damn..
TowerDog is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 05:29
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: lagos
Posts: 904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The big red does it again , amazing how if it's them , these things are only a minor mishap, no problem at all .

If it happens in Africa or Asia , we have no clue what we are doing
pfvspnf is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.