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 3rd Aug 2017, 19:55
  #581 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 349
Well said.

This is so much like Comair at Lexington.
deSitter is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2017, 20:35
  #582 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: ---------->
Posts: 146
Originally Posted by nolimitholdem View Post
*sigh*

What breathless nonsense.
EGLD is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2017, 20:43
  #583 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
There has been much 'red herring' chat about the type of approach offered/requested/accepted. IMHO that has nothing to do with this incident, and I do not wish to open that discussion again. This incident started to occur at less than 3nm visual finals to RW28R. How they arrived at that point has nothing to do with it. It is what the crew did after that point that is relevant. Please, let us see the wood for the trees.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2017, 22:13
  #584 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 129
I can't help wondering that the gap after PAL and prior to the UAL 3rd in line, wound up as hugely important to the safe result? If UA had been right behind PAL....would the bottom end of that flight path during GA cleared everyone?

Terrifying to think about.
Smott999 is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2017, 00:41
  #585 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California
Posts: 335
Is it possible that they were flying the "Quiet Bridge Visual 28L/R" without FMS guidance? That approach follows the SFO 095 radial inbound, which happens to cross the airport boundary just at Taxiway C. They would have to offset left a bit after crossing the San Mateo Bridge to line up on 28R.
MarcK is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2017, 02:17
  #586 (permalink)  
Psychophysiological entity
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Tweet Rob_Benham Famous author. Well, slightly famous.
Age: 81
Posts: 4,941
Sorry if this has been shown. Just some daytime shots of the approach.


About 7mins in.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENe89j89tBA
Loose rivets is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2017, 02:22
  #587 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 468
Let me add another scenario. If you listen to the ATC tape, I am dumbfounded by the nonchalant transmission from AC saying that they are in the go-around. I am not sure that even then they realized what a f-up had just occurred and how close they were to disaster. At least we have the FDR. They should be able to synchronize it with the ATC tapes to see exactly when the go-around was commenced.
SeenItAll is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2017, 02:28
  #588 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 57
Posts: 1,543
Good reason to stick to ILS.
If ILS out of service, the RNP would line you up with the runway.
Tankengine is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2017, 03:26
  #589 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,774
Is it possible that they were flying the "Quiet Bridge Visual 28L/R" without FMS guidance
Yes it is, done so many times. Workload is much lower on the FMS bridge however.
West Coast is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2017, 03:45
  #590 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
The crew were cleared for the FMS Bridge but of course at this time we don't know what approach they actually flew and how they did it.

I don't see the expected turns to/from F101D in the (admittedly sparse) ADS-B data from FlightAware.
peekay4 is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2017, 03:45
  #591 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,885
Originally Posted by MarcK View Post
Is it possible that they were flying the "Quiet Bridge Visual 28L/R" without FMS guidance?
I've also wondered if somehow they had the wrong approach in the box or were looking at the wrong one on their tablets? Did they build a path or incorrectly heal a discontinuity that gave faulty guidance on final?

Can you pull up the Quiet Bridge Visual on the A320 FMS? Will it give guidance on final?

Some earlier opinions:

Originally Posted by ironbutt57 View Post
there are two, BOTH in the FMS database
Originally Posted by aterpster View Post
Two FMS Visuals to 28R?
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
Only one FMS bridge visual in my database. You'd have to build the quiet bridge visual yourself.
Originally Posted by cappt View Post
Just one, the RNV28R in our FMS.
You can see how much confusion there is on this thread about the two visual approaches to 28R with 'Bridge' in the name.

Since the dog ate the CVR tape, will the legacy FDR data show much about what was in the FMS?

Originally Posted by deSitter View Post
Why didn't the first two planes bail off the taxiway? I can't imagine I'd just sit there and let someone land on my nose. What are your driver's instincts here?
Actually there was an accident three decades ago where an airliner taxiing for takeoff did swerve when seeing a commuting Eastern captain in an Apache coming out of the fog lined up on the taxiway. The Pan Am 727 moved enough to avoid a direct hit and took a glancing blow. The Apache was totaled with fatal results but everybody in the 727 evacuated successfully and the plane was repaired and flew again.

Jet at Tampa Airport Hit By Small Plane

By Bill McAllister November 7, 1986

A small twin-engine plane, flown by a senior airline pilot, crashed into a taxiing Pan American World Airways jet in dense fog at Tampa International Airport yesterday morning, killing the small-plane pilot as his aircraft broke apart in a fireball.

Officials said the death toll in the Florida accident would have been higher if the pilot of the Pan Am 727 had not spotted the approaching plane seconds before impact and swerved to avoid a head-on collision.

"That maneuver . . . prevented what could have been a much more serious accident," Pan Am spokesman Alan Loflin said. Two of the jet's 17 passengers and one of its six crew members suffered minor sprains sliding down the aircraft's emergency chutes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...=.a2fbba62c493
Airbubba is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2017, 04:29
  #592 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: SCL sometimes
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by Loose rivets View Post
Sorry if this has been shown. Just some daytime shots of the approach.


About 7mins in.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENe89j89tBA
I think the approach is actually this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO12oGJPrPY
EcoFox is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2017, 04:41
  #593 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
You can see how much confusion there is on this thread about the two visual approaches to 28R with 'Bridge' in the name.
Seems they did select the correct approach, flew direct TRDOW to join before being cleared for the visual. This waypoint doesn't exist on the Quiet Bridge.
peekay4 is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2017, 04:54
  #594 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,774
Seems they did select the correct approach, flew direct TRDOW to join before being cleared for the visual. This waypoint doesn't exist on the Quiet Bridge
yup, not sure how one could confuse the two when they went to TRDOW. Non player to me.
West Coast is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2017, 05:09
  #595 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Los Angles
Age: 51
Posts: 2
New images of Air Canada near miss
Johnny Albert is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2017, 10:22
  #596 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by SeenItAll View Post
Let me add another scenario. If you listen to the ATC tape, I am dumbfounded by the nonchalant transmission from AC saying that they are in the go-around. I am not sure that even then they realized what a f-up had just occurred and how close they were to disaster. At least we have the FDR. They should be able to synchronize it with the ATC tapes to see exactly when the go-around was commenced.
Dumbfounded? I have listened, and am not dumbfounded.

You assert that you are "... not sure that even then they realized what a f-up had just occurred and how close they were to disaster" but are also surprised they made a supposedly nonchalant transmission? If, and this is a big 'if', it is true that the AC759 crew were still unaware of the disaster that had just been averted, why would you expect them to be anything other than calm? They can't be frightened by something they don't know has happened, surely? But I sincerely don't think that is going to be the case uncovered here.

As I indicated in my earlier post (#584), it is highly likely that UAL1's calls of "Wheres this guy going?" and "He's on the Taxyway!" brought things back into focus for AC759, with fear and embarrassment in equal measure in the following seconds. The radio conversation that ensues is:
Tower: "Air canada, go-around."
AC759: "In the go-around, Air Canada 759"
"In the go-around ..." implies that AC759 has already begun his go-around (as you state, the NTSB will undoubtedly be able to pinpoint precisely what was done and what was said, to the fraction of a second ...). If you currently believe AC759's reply transmission as "nonchalant", would you be willing to alternately consider it might be that, having been startled by UAL1s calls, the crew realised the enormity of what was unfolding, and were now working extremely hard not to let the emotions, fear almost certainly being one of them, overwhelm their recovery from the near disaster? They were 'boxing the chimp' and hanging on to their sensibilities - try a websearch for Dr Steve Peters and 'The Chimp Paradox' if you are not familiar with the term.

Whilst AC759's go-around reply is short and crisp, I beg to differ about it being at all "nonchalant"! I believe we will eventually learn that by then the crew did realise that a disaster had only just been averted, by the narrowest of margins, and they were desperately trying focus on recovering as calmly and professionally as they could, not making things any worse whilst they did so. Throughout the go-around and beyond, a nagging thought of "What the hell just happened?" would likely have been distracting them.

Despite the CVR loss, we are fortunate that there is still plenty of data available for the NTSB to reconstruct this serious incident, and we will learn in fine detail what went on and, hopefully, why. It seems clear that the crew of AC759 had a mental/viusal model that was disparate from what others involved could see, so it really is important to learn how and why they got there. As I declared in my earlier post, stop with the unnecessary character-bashing and rush to judgement - it isn't seemly without all the facts to hand. The NTSB final report will give us those.

If anyone is concerned I might be biased in favour of the AC759 crew, I am happy to openly declare my position:
1. I have no connection with Air Canada, or the crew members involved, whatsoever.
2. Neither do I have any connections to any of the other crew, SFO ATC, or the investigators.
3. I fly longhaul passenger aircraft, and have 38 years of professional flying experience.
4. I have operated in and out of SFO.

Now, stop being so bloody judgemental of the AC759 crew!
deeceethree is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2017, 10:32
  #597 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 54
Posts: 2,766
This incident started to occur at less than 3nm visual finals to RW28R.
If I had to bet I would say that this incident started well before that. There is only one way that I can see that this occurred. The expectation of both pilots had to be that there would be a runway to the left of their final approach track and that they wanted the second one in. This expectation had to be pretty strong in order for "expectation illusion" to 'overpower' what they actually sensed when looking out the window.
It could have been a strong expectation because they had both flown into that airport at night from the East on many occasions, or because they briefed that that is what they would see, or both. Either way I can't see how it could have been such a strong expectation in both of them if they had read and understood the notam and the ATIS.
So when the report comes out ( and I may be wrong of course) , I think we will read that the nuts and bolts of this incident are to be found a long way prior to 3nm final.
framer is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2017, 10:33
  #598 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 1,030
Well said Deeceethree.
Contact Approach is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2017, 10:40
  #599 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by Johnny Albert View Post
JA, you may wish to know that the images in your link were highlighted earlier in post #552, which itself led to this NTSB page where the images were first publicised, I believe.
Stuart Sutcliffe is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2017, 12:10
  #600 (permalink)  
Psychophysiological entity
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Tweet Rob_Benham Famous author. Well, slightly famous.
Age: 81
Posts: 4,941
My few posts have mostly been concerned with the psychology of the incident.

The tiniest hint of disbelief by the PNF when assured the runway was clear, is I feel, a very significant point. What they were perceiving has been well covered: a runway to their left and a set of lights that didn't look quite right - ringing an alarm bell in the mind of one pilot if not both.

Then there's the RT.

"Were going in the Hudson." is a sentence probably buried in the memory of every pilot in the Western World. As we all know, it did not convey the magnitude of the emergency and certainly not the intention.

"Wheres this guy going?" and "He's on the Taxyway!" brought things back into focus for AC759,
Without a second-by-second time-line into the thinking of the flying pilots, I rather think it didn't. Neither statement made the extent of the emergency totally clear - and from the holding pilot's viewpoint it was an imminent catastrophe.

If I'd been presented with that image, I like to think I'd have made it very clear - the very least, Landing aircraft. You are lined up with, or You are landing on the Taxiway. And yes, there would have been a lot of !!!!!!! to emphasise the point.

We know what was meant by He's on the Taxyway, but that was background noise in the ears of the flying pilots who were already presented with something that simply did not look right. Again, if I'd been presented with that image . . . well, I have no idea what I would have done. If the rows of lights fooled two experienced pilots, they may well have fooled me.

If we are to truly learn from this incident, the entire thing should be re-enacted, though I hasten to add I'd not have the camera aircraft overfly the holding hardware! Expensive, but it's vital to know how pilot perception can be slewed so dramatically.

N.B. I had a Boeing trundling towards me while at about 6 miles finals at night. I watched bemused as it seemed to be gathering extraordinary taxiing speed. When it rotated I asked if they'd like me to move out of the way. All good humoured. The point being, it was all so clear. I could even identify the aircraft. What was it about the row of holding aircraft that looked so different?
Loose rivets is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.