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 25th Aug 2017, 22:08
  #1001 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FAA = Federal Airline Assistant
aterpster is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2017, 06:26
  #1002 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Of course. And I'm sure that at some point they thought they had clearly identified the runway. Turned out they were wrong.
Thanks Aerocat. Now my point:
Taking into consideration that the final part of this approach is requred visual and therefore under full and sole responsibility of the crew, what are we wasting energy on the initial RNAV part of the approach?
If the latter is insufficient, inappropriate or else, then go around, file a report and either have it fixed or desist using it with your equipment.
But trying to explain a mess up of the continuing in required visual condituons by pointing at the previous line up does not make sense.
glofish is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2017, 08:57
  #1003 (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
Finally, at last, someone else can see the wood for the trees, ask the most pertinent question and state the blindingly obvious.

Someone started discussing GPS FMC approaches bringing you to the correct line up. Qeh? The line up is visual! There are 2 pilots, 2 brains, 2 sets of eyes = fail passive, but still workable. A GPS line up would not have made it fail operational.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2017, 10:34
  #1004 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 3,078
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
It may still be a factor if the box lined them up on the taxiway and they put too much trust in the box. A form of automation dependancy.
AerocatS2A is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2017, 11:03
  #1005 (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
A bit like the early TomToms that told you "after 200m turn next left" and you ended up in a farm yard instead of a dual carriage way while still 5miles from destination. What would you have done???
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2017, 11:21
  #1006 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 3,078
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
I know. It would still a factor leading to the balls up though. Even though it shouldn't be.

Isn't all this FMC stuff just conjecture though? Has there been any confirmation that this aircraft had not been fitted with GPS yet and that it suffered from a bit of map shift?
AerocatS2A is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2017, 12:38
  #1007 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: England
Posts: 394
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by RAT 5
A bit like the early TomToms that told you "after 200m turn next left" and you ended up in a farm yard instead of a dual carriage way while still 5miles from destination. What would you have done???
Followed the general rule when using automation: if what you see on the screen disagrees with what you see out of the window, there's a high probability that reality is correct.
OldLurker is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2017, 12:56
  #1008 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts


Gary Larsen of course..................
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2017, 13:26
  #1009 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: India
Age: 85
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ILS was not working in SFO in the year 2013 ( Captn. Sully's remark) when Ashiana B777 crashed near threshold, though engine power was the cause of that accident. Runways are distinguishable from taxiways more by the overshoot paths. In SFO the paths are not clearly defined. Is there a ruling that captains should have landed as co-pilot in SFO before landing as captain? If so why?

Last edited by mayam13; 26th Aug 2017 at 15:03. Reason: additions
mayam13 is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2017, 14:50
  #1010 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by AerocatS2A
I know. It would still a factor leading to the balls up though. Even though it shouldn't be.

Isn't all this FMC stuff just conjecture though? Has there been any confirmation that this aircraft had not been fitted with GPS yet and that it suffered from a bit of map shift?
Indeed it is, like much of the human-factors speculation in this lengthy thread.

What is not speculation, because it was stated early in the thread, that pilots often couple up at ARCHIE (8,000, msl) to this FMS database visual when in the clouds and remain coupled well after clear of clouds and cleared for the visual. This could be as close in as JANYY or perhaps even closer to the TRACON's MVA over the bay, which is 1,600, msl.

The weather minimums are quite complex for a visual:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
minimums.jpg (107.1 KB, 78 views)
aterpster is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2017, 14:54
  #1011 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry

Gary Larsen of course..................
When that cartoon came out, my company made a large poster of it, and mounted it on an easel stand in the lobby of the training center.
aterpster is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2017, 16:35
  #1012 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: England
Posts: 394
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Aha! Yes, of course, it was a Far Side cartoon. Thanks for finding it, HH.
OldLurker is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2017, 22:27
  #1013 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Taking into consideration that the final part of this approach is requred visual and therefore under full and sole responsibility of the crew, what are we wasting energy on the initial RNAV part of the approach?
The ac did not complete the FMS portion of the procedure. They continued from SAMUL, missing the vector to F101D, which begins the visual portion of the procedure.

Yes, you are correct, albeit, once cleared for the procedure, arent they are responsible for the entire approach from ARCHI?

I think the flavor of the SAFO regarding the incident sums up very well where the responsibility will fall.

underfire is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2017, 01:54
  #1014 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It was so much simpler in my days flying into SFO. We did the plain vanilla CVFP and had the ILS tuned and ready to intercept in compliance with the CVFP.

The language in the SAFO would make me want to say," Unable visual approach. Request instrument approach."

Of course, they would send me to that holding pattern in Hades.
aterpster is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2017, 18:17
  #1015 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: India
Age: 85
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
underfire

A 'Strap on GPS' equipage can instantly enhance flight safety without waiting for integration to FMS/MCDU. Blame game can wait.
mayam13 is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2017, 18:35
  #1016 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We did the plain vanilla CVFP and had the ILS tuned and ready to intercept in compliance with the CVFP.
exactly.

Interesting, I noticed on a different board that a United pilot said they tune the ILS when on FMS Bridge visual. Not sure if that is SOP for them or not...

A 'Strap on GPS' equipage can instantly enhance flight safety without waiting for integration to FMS/MCDU.
Brilliant!

Last edited by underfire; 27th Aug 2017 at 22:11.
underfire is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2017, 20:21
  #1017 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Dirty South
Posts: 448
Received 21 Likes on 6 Posts
It's a common practice. I've been doing the same thing for the last ten years - Select Heading and arm Approach after the bridge. Then intercept the ILS for backup guidance for the last couple of miles to the runway.

Yes, it's a visual procedure. But the runways are so close, and you often have another aircraft flying a bastardized formation approach to 28L. Accident waiting to happen, and has been for a long time. In my humble opinion, of course.
JPJP is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2017, 03:45
  #1018 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Exactly....

We used the #2 system as backup to confirm flightpath, but my experience was in the procedure validation and checks.
You confirm, as I suspected, that it was used in practice.

I concur, with all of the issues with the procedure variables allowed, that this is an accident waiting to happen, but not for lining up on the 28R taxiway at night with 28L closed......that is even out there for all of the potential conflict issues.

Last edited by underfire; 31st Aug 2017 at 03:56.
underfire is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2017, 15:27
  #1019 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by JPJP

Yes, it's a visual procedure. But the runways are so close, and you often have another aircraft flying a bastardized formation approach to 28L. Accident waiting to happen, and has been for a long time. In my humble opinion, of course.
Same at LAX, when two airplanes are landing either 25L/R or 24L/R. I've had an airplane overtake me inside the FAF. One on the ILS, the other on a visual.

The airports that were designed to be jet airline airports don't have these closely space runway issues that forever compromise safety at LAX and SFO.
aterpster is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2017, 14:07
  #1020 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The way the general public goes insane when you ty to add runaways or even procedures, has created the problem. When the closely spaced runways are in dual mode, it works as intended, and was never meant for simultaneous operations.
Increased air travel with capacity issues has created these crazy operations.

How many airports do you expect a wake encounter on final?
underfire 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.