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 20th Aug 2017, 16:14
  #941 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Near St Lawrence River
Age: 53
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If it turns out the crew said to each other, "hey look, there are four jets on C, lets give them a dust up!" Then absolutely, you fire them.
Except they confused C with 28R,
...both incident pilots stated that, during their first approach, they believed the lighted runway on their left was 28L and that they were lined up for 28R.
The cockpit voice recorder had been overwritten.

_Phoenix is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2017, 18:49
  #942 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by peekay4

On possible administrative sanctions, if warranted, even the FAA may have limited recourse in seeking enforcement actions against the AC759 pilots since presumably the pilots only hold Transport Canada licenses and not FAA certificates. The FAA may refer possible violations to Transport Canada via the State Department and the Canadian Embassy; However, it would be up to Transport Canada to take matters further (or not).
From what little I know those referrals often go nowhere. When I was still working I was being hooked up to a tow bar to be towed into a gate at LAX Terminal 3. A KAL 747 was lost in the smog on a visual to 24R. He did a 90 degree turn descending out of about 500 feet and rolled wings level just in time to prevent the right wing from hitting the ground. It make the local radio news.

An FAA friend told me that the tower was really upset. It was written up and sent via the State Department to the Korean equivalent. Nothing came of it. KAL could do no wrong.
aterpster is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2017, 19:10
  #943 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CurtainTwitcher
llondel, how about taking it to the next level? Learning from others close calls & mistakes should be in our DNA

My hope is that there are many of us are now flying around with awareness of another potential "failure mode". I certainly am.

A punishment model is rarely the optimum method for imparting knowledge. Motivated professions learn much better when they seek to understand weaknesses in themselves and the system. A disciplinarian view of the world discourages this type of true evaluation in my experience.
True, I've always tried to learn from the mistakes of others because it's way less embarrassing that way (and when flying, way safer). However, a lot of people are in the "it can't happen to me, I'd never do that" camp until it does. I'm not saying this is one, but there are some mistakes you have to make personally before fully appreciating and understanding them.

I've always tried to blame "the system" for errors. Sometimes there is indeed gross negligence where the finger can be pointed at an individual or team, but for the most part they're following the routine where there are checks to spot mistakes and just occasionally something happens for which there isn't a check and we get a smoking hole. This one was saved because someone else thought it was wrong and spoke up in time, and that's probably another lesson to take on board, to keep an eye on what's in the air while you're anywhere near the landing point.
llondel is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2017, 20:28
  #944 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,387
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by CurtainTwitcher
liondel, how about taking it to the next level? Learning from others close calls & mistakes should be in our DNA

My hope is that there are many of us are now flying around with awareness of another potential "failure mode". I certainly am.

A punishment model is rarely the optimum method for imparting knowledge. Motivated professions learn much better when they seek to understand weaknesses in themselves and the system. A disciplinarian view of the world discourages this type of true evaluation in my experience.
To those seeking discipline in this event, read the above--it describes how aviation became the safest means of transporting us around.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2017, 21:12
  #945 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
An FAA friend told me that the tower was really upset. It was written up and sent via the State Department to the Korean equivalent. Nothing came of it. KAL could do no wrong.
Yeah. It gets complicated because many countries prohibit domestic legal action based solely on foreign evidence / investigation by a foreign country. It gets into due process, sovereignty, etc.

I'm going to correct myself a bit: I've been told that Canada is a "special case" and the FAA has a "direct line" to Transport Canada for referrals (so the State Department doesn't have to get involved). However, it would still be Transport Canada's decision to pursue the matter further or not.
peekay4 is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2017, 00:33
  #946 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 3,078
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by _Phoenix
Except they confused C with 28R,
I know. I was just giving an example of behaviour that would result in dismissal. I didn't mean to suggest that this is what happened.

Originally Posted by Smott999
If it turns out the AC chaps failed to do a thorough briefing and missed the NOTAM, potentially increasing their chances for 28L/R confusion....is that grounds for dismissal?
That would depend on why they didn't do a thorough briefing and missed the NOTAM.
AerocatS2A is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2017, 05:23
  #947 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Where do you find the FAA calling SAMUL anything?

The airline TARGETS source shows SAMUL as a FB step-down within the intermediate segment. This is all "story board" stuff, since the source designer is using a program intended for IFP design to design a FMS visual approach track.

I hope the NTSB really opens this can of worms, although I seriously doubt they will.
That is what I was getting at. We had discussed before the FAF definition on Jepp charts. This is very close to the FMS Bridge visual procedure.

This is the mixed bag visual detailled out, and given that, I was surprised to see a DA listed. Was interesting to see the RNP AR to visual.
underfire is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2017, 08:25
  #948 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Prairies
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In the long run, if it turns out that the pilots and airline in question are truthful and cooperative, that means that they place a high value on contributing to aviation safety for the greater good, and that they deserve to be respected and treated fairly. If, on the other hand, it were to turn out that the whole thing morphed into a cynical, sick, worthless charade, well then, I think that passengers, regulators, and insurers could perhaps take note. Over time, the prestige of airline aviation will die a death of a thousand cuts, if it is demonstrated to young and aspiring airline pilots, and to the flying public, that it is bean counters, mouthpieces, and deal makers who are really, in effect, the ones in the cockpit.
Obese is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2017, 00:26
  #949 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
n the long run, if it turns out that the pilots and airline in question are truthful and cooperative, that means that they place a high value on contributing to aviation safety for the greater good, and that they deserve to be respected and treated fairly.
Well, the airline HAS made a decision to equip its aircraft with GPS, a known safety equippage. That being said, it does not appear to be implemented yet on this ac that flew this international route.

Does that put the airlines contribution to safety in context? Perhaps the money the airline is willing to spend on the aircraft, and the upkeep of the aircraft?

As a passenger, are you be happy to know that the airline did not even spend enough money to put a GPS system in the AC? You have one in your car, your phone, and your watch, but the airline didnt even get around to putting one in the the aircraft you are riding in.

Last edited by underfire; 22nd Aug 2017 at 00:52.
underfire is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2017, 00:30
  #950 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 56
Posts: 3,028
Received 380 Likes on 96 Posts
As someone who claims to design approaches for a living you know better than that Underfire, are you just stirring?
framer is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2017, 01:22
  #951 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
you are correct, questioning an airline that flies international routes to major airports for not equipping an aircraft with GPS is just stirring.
underfire is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2017, 01:41
  #952 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by framer
As someone who claims to design approaches for a living you know better than that Underfire, are you just stirring?
He is spot on.
aterpster is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2017, 01:50
  #953 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,387
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Not having GPS equipment is probably the least important factor in this incident. Plenty of planes fly safely w/o GPS.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2017, 09:28
  #954 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not having GPS equipment is probably the least important factor in this incident. Plenty of planes fly safely w/o GPS.

This was a Mk.1 eyeball & Mk.2 brain created problem not a technological one.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2017, 14:47
  #955 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
Not having GPS equipment is probably the least important factor in this incident. Plenty of planes fly safely w/o GPS.
True enough if they don't have RNAV. But, the early RNAV FMS birds that do not have GPS are subject to small inaccuracies when the DME geometry is not good. Those small inaccuracies can become a significant factor flying an FMS visual, especially down low and close in.

We do not know if that happened in this case. But, the potential is there using DME updating instead of GPS for position determination, particularly as the airplane gets low and loses good DME geometry.

With the tight spacing of Runways 28L/R and especially 28R and Taxiway Charlie, this 28R FMS Visual should mandate GPS. Look at the RNAV IAPs to 28R. They state "DME/DME RNP-0.30 not authorized." The FMS 28R Visual should have the same restriction, particularly since it uses RNP 0.30 from F101D inbound.
aterpster is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2017, 14:48
  #956 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RAT 5
Not having GPS equipment is probably the least important factor in this incident. Plenty of planes fly safely w/o GPS.

This was a Mk.1 eyeball & Mk.2 brain created problem not a technological one.
Do you have an authoritative cite for that conclusion?
aterpster is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2017, 15:34
  #957 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Newcastle
Age: 53
Posts: 613
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by aterpster
Do you have an authoritative cite for that conclusion?
Isn't the whole thread the authoritative?
MATELO is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2017, 16:10
  #958 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MATELO
Isn't the whole thread the authoritative?
I'll stick with the NTSB.
aterpster is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2017, 16:13
  #959 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,387
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
aterpster

While I completely agree on the technicals of DNE/DME, it's a visual approach and the FMS procedure is there, as I understand, to create a more accurate path for visual pick up of the runway environment, not as a substitute for an IFR in IMC IAP.

As my clay shooting instructor says, "don't use equipment as a solution for a training problem".
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2017, 17:43
  #960 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It certainly is not an instrument approach. Nonetheless, the air carriers have seen fit to create the beast and we know at least a portion of the procedure is often flown in IMC with ATC using radar altitudes to provide obstacle clearance since an FMS visual has no criteria. And, indeed it is "a more accurate path to visually acquire the runway." So, it should work as "advertised," which only can be assured by training and RNAV GPS.

Either that, or Flight Standards should step up to bat, and cancel the concept of FMS Visuals. I doubt their airline masters would be pleased, though.
aterpster 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.