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 12th Jul 2017, 15:25
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: California
Posts: 343
Airbubba
I was referring to Triploss when I mentioned Taxi-F, who wrote:-
"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."

Anyhow, a huge accident avoided.
fleigle is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 16:10
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,885
Originally Posted by eckhard View Post
Ok, I don't see a chart for that one. Do you have a reference please?
You can hear AC 759 cleared for the FMS Bridge Visual at about 15:45 into this approach control clip (the time seems to be different depending on the .mp3 player used):

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ks...2017-0630Z.mp3

This RNAV approach requires specific approval for each airline and is what I would call a 'company page' in the Jepps.

Originally Posted by fleigle View Post
I was referring to Triploss when I mentioned Taxi-F, who wrote:-
"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."
Thanks , I probably got lost with the mention of 28-C which must mean taxiway C, not a mythical center runway.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 16:11
  #83 (permalink)  
c52
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,165
Would an airline's insurance policy cover destroying five planes and that many lives?
c52 is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 16:14
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: East of eden
Age: 77
Posts: 148
Originally Posted by eckhard View Post
Ok, I don't see a chart for that one. Do you have a reference please?
Neither do I!
19-1 Tipp Toe visual
19-2 Quiet Bridge visual.
Did the latter many times. The key is to have an FMS extended line from the runway to monitor when going visual from the bridge. 3 key strokes in the Honeywell FMS and there's both a lateral and vertical back-up.
flown-it is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 16:16
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 56
Posts: 31
folks, look at Quiet Bridge procedure, the offset is to threshold. Note the runway is at 284, while the approach is 275 until threshold.(not to 4nm as I have seen posted) As a reminder, it is a visual approach.


Thus, you will be off on the PAPI until threshold if you follow the procedure. That being said, the ac in question offset to a point far out from that, and was aligned with the taxiway for an extended timeframe, even questioning lights on the runway. The ac never deviated from the alignment on the taxiway. (even when GA, and it is not clear if the ac initiated GA before it was instructed to)
What is apparent, at least to me, is that if the taxi had been clear of other ac lights, it is very, very likely the ac would have landed on it. TCH is 55 on 28R, so a GA at 100 (as reported) means that, well, as much as many want to say this was not an issue and the crew recognized and did a GA, well, damn, they were going to land, face it. (when you GA at 28R, you turn to 265 on GA...no deviation in that FP by the crew.

In regards to the visual comment at the beginning, SFO has and does use ADSB. Comments regarding ADSB use, and how it may have saved this are not accurate. Note that ADSB, (out and in) with latency, is about useless on final in this case. Also note, that many ATM systems, in order to remove clutter from the ATC screens, remove the ADSB data (due to clutter and accuracy issues at that point)
underfire is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 16:24
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,885
At least the approach had 'Bridge' and 'Visual' in the name. Don't think it was the Quiet Bridge Visual though...
Airbubba is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 16:27
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 349
Originally Posted by OldLurker View Post
The crew's response surely indicates that somehow they were certain that they were lined up on the runway and had become fixated on that certainty, despite the various visual indications to the contrary. They queried the lights on the runway, but the tower said the runway was clear, so since they were sure they were heading for the runway, it must be clear despite the funny lights ... Nothing in that radio conversation triggered a realisation that they were looking at the taxiway, not the runway.
Absolutely, this is the key point. I was reminded of Western DC-10 in Mexico City.

It is very fortunate that a happy end was had, and people need to look at this very, very hard.

Another example would be Comair in Lexington. Despite no runway lights, they initiated TO and were completely unaware until they ran out of runway. This is clearly a "thing", fixation on unreal situations despite the obvious evidence.
deSitter is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 16:27
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 726
At least the approach had 'Bridge' and 'Visual' in the name. Don't think it was the Quiet Bridge Visual though...
Could have been quite loud if things had run to an unpleasant conclusion.
llondel is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 16:32
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 56
Posts: 31
underfire is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 16:41
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 56
Posts: 31
At least the approach had 'Bridge' and 'Visual' in the name. Don't think it was the Quiet Bridge Visual though
umm..what procedure do you think they were cleared for? I did not notice the "FMS28R able" call for the ac? Where do you see cleared for Bridge visual, especially Air Canada in the US? Aside from that, it is the same procedure, just with waypoints.

Isnt 'visual' the operative word here?


The FMS Bridge Visual Approach 28R is a version of the Quiet Bridge Visual Approach 28R which is coded with GPS coordinates and can be included in an FMS database for approved operators. This allows the procedure to be used when the SFO VOR is out of service, and also gives ATC additional flexibility by allowing them to clear pilots direct to any of the fixes without needing to intercept the radial on the standard arrival.
underfire is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 16:43
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 69
Posts: 442
Posted by deSitter: "Another example would be Comair in Lexington."


The Comair crash was the focus of a presentation recently, in Montreal (McGill), by an official (of the U.S. Justice Dep't) who had been involved in the litigation which resulted. Facts - meaning the official iteration of the relevant investigation-produced facts as recorded (or mostly recorded) in official reports - are not available, obviously (no kidding) yet, about the SFO "what did not happen" event. But even trying to think about the litigation that could have been a byproduct of a horrid conflagration - mind-boggling. I'll leave it to someone who pilots airliners (or who has) to note, or dismiss, irony in the Asiana incident at the same airport, the fire truck, the "ground getting bigger" amid silence . . . up front.
WillowRun 6-3 is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 16:55
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,996
Originally Posted by underfire View Post
At the risk of beng picky, if you are going to overlay two images, you want to scale them the same first.

The (colour) image showing the actual flightpath from WebTrak has the San Mateo Bridge just visible in the bottom RH corner.

The (black and white) approach chart has the (same) bridge right in the centre.

Last edited by DaveReidUK; 12th Jul 2017 at 17:10. Reason: edited to clarify which image is which
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 17:02
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: France / Qatar
Age: 66
Posts: 1,032
folks, look at Quiet Bridge procedure, the offset is to threshold. Note the runway is at 284, while the approach is 275 until threshold.(not to 4nm as I have seen posted) As a reminder, it is a visual approach.
Thanks underfire; however, further down the chart (not visible on your excerpt) it says:

Aircraft should remain on the SFO R-095 until passing the San Mateo Bridge
So, presumably after this position they are free to align with the runway.

This is at SFO 6D, or 5nm from the threshold. My Lido chart shows an alignment manoeuvre with the runway at this point.
eckhard is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 17:06
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: France / Qatar
Age: 66
Posts: 1,032
The image showing the actual flightpath has the San Mateo Bridge just visible in the bottom RH corner.
Good spot DaveReidUK. I think the two bridges at bottom RH corner are the Dumbarton Bridges.
The narrow white bridge is probably the San Mateo Bridge. If so, the northerly first track shows the aircraft lining up with the 'runway' at the correct point.

I agree that the superimposition seems to be not to scale.
eckhard is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 17:08
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,885
Originally Posted by underfire View Post
umm..what procedure do you think they were cleared for?
As I've said repeatedly on this thread :

Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
Not the Quiet Bridge Visual, they were cleared for the FMS Bridge Visual approach to 28R.
Originally Posted by underfire View Post
Where do you see cleared for Bridge visual, especially Air Canada in the US?
It is in the approach control audio clip I cited above, take a listen:

Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
You can hear AC 759 cleared for the FMS Bridge Visual at about 15:45 into this approach control clip (the time seems to be different depending on the .mp3 player used):

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ks...2017-0630Z.mp3
This is an 'unpublished' approach that requires specific operator approval. I agree that it mimics the Quiet Bridge but the fact that it is an FMS approach may be very pertinent to the nav setup on an early glass cockpit plane in my opinion.

I sheepishly admit to some Airbus time but I've never flown the A320. On some planes of that pre-GPS era you have to be creative to display raw data and the FMS picture at the same time. Sometimes you get a dotted line that you think may be raw data but in actuality the line is subject to a map shift.

Maybe some AC folks can verify that the FMS Bridge Visual to 28R is in their charts. Back during the glory days Air Canada did their own charts in-house, I don't know whom they use for a vendor these days.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 17:17
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: France / Qatar
Age: 66
Posts: 1,032
This is an 'unpublished' approach that requires specific operator approval. I agree that it mimics the Quiet Bridge but the fact that it is an FMS approach may be very pertinent to the nav setup on an early glass cockpit plane in my opinion.
Agreed and thanks for the clarification.
eckhard is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 17:20
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 56
Posts: 31
Sorry, I thought I had posted the correct image...thanks for spotting that.



The FMS Bridge Visual Approach 28R is an AR procedure, so without ref to that coding, not sure what procedure looks like. I would be curious as to why the FMS bridge visual, ie RNAV visual procedure does not overlay the Quiet bridge procedure.

Aside, from that, the crew lined it up visually, and with the taxiway. A bit surprised they had it, but good luck keeping the AR
underfire is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 17:34
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 57
Posts: 19
Visual at night is not a good idea without a ILS or VNAV- PATH as primary and visual as backup.
This near disaster proves it.
BluSdUp is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 17:38
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 468
Originally Posted by c52 View Post
Would an airline's insurance policy cover destroying five planes and that many lives?
At typical U.S. payouts for such an occurrence, my answer would be "only if the policy's liability limit approached $10 billion."
SeenItAll is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2017, 17:51
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Anybody thought that fatigue may have played a part in this incident, who knows what these guys where rostered in the preceding duties?
NGDRIVER 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.