Near miss with 5 airliners waiting for T/O on taxiway "C" in SFO!

[AerocatS2A]

You are missing the point. Whether or not the crew think to pull the CVR or not depends not one little bit on what the incident was, it only depends on what they perceived the incident to be at the time. If they didn’t perceive it to have been a near disaster they may not have considered pulling the CVR.

Given they had had so little situational awareness during the incident it doesn’t seem like a stretch to me to think that their lack of situational awareness may have continued until well after landing.

[mixer_1979]

pie in the sky swiss cheese

Originally Posted by aterpster

It was not a lengthy conversation, because he was still working ground traffic.

Not to fault the controller, but had a second controller been working would the handling controller not feel as rushed leading to a more lengthy conversion and a preserved CVR? Yes, that's a mouthful. Further, and I don't recall reading anything of the like, but did any of the then-waiting aircraft indicate a severity of the incident to the controller prior to AC's post-flight phone call, something that would independently prompt someone that night to think the CVR needed to be preserved?

Despite my feelings, this feels like pie in the sky swiss cheese. We are hoping the holes line up to succeed.

[groundbum]

in this day of super connectivity and tiny high capacity gadgets it seems a bit antiquated to "pull CBs" to preserve something that documents the near loss of 100s of passengers, and could well prevent a similar accident in the future. Suggestion, why not use a secure wifi connection to automatically dump an encrypted 3 hour CVR to a secure airline server when the plane pulls into the gate. Every trip. Can only be examined by accident investigators etc.

G

[RAT 5]

There was a discussion some months ago about FDR/CVR data being transmitted live via satellite and stored on servers back at the home base of operator. This would answer many questions about MH370 and various other accidents. Some said the technology was no problem; it just needed the will to do so.

[aterpster]

Originally Posted by groundbum

in this day of super connectivity and tiny high capacity gadgets it seems a bit antiquated to "pull CBs" to preserve something that documents the near loss of 100s of passengers, and could well prevent a similar accident in the future. Suggestion, why not use a secure wifi connection to automatically dump an encrypted 3 hour CVR to a secure airline server when the plane pulls into the gate. Every trip. Can only be examined by accident investigators etc.

G

You have my vote!

[RAT 5]

Suggestion, why not use a secure wifi connection to automatically dump an encrypted 3 hour CVR to a secure airline server when the plane pulls into the gate. Every trip. Can only be examined by accident investigators etc.

Because accident investigators are usually investigating accidents that never reached the gate.

[Ian W]

Originally Posted by RAT 5

There was a discussion some months ago about FDR/CVR data being transmitted live via satellite and stored on servers back at the home base of operator. This would answer many questions about MH370 and various other accidents. Some said the technology was no problem; it just needed the will to do so.

There is now sufficient bandwidth for aircraft to continually stream DFDR and CVR data on connection oriented encrypted links to the destination of the operators choice. These days storage is also no problem either. So we are back to 'is there the will to do so'. There are qualms in some quarters that management will be 'listening in' (as they can currently do with controllers who have permanently open microphones) and that is a reason to prevent not only streaming CVR but also to object to Video recorders in the cockpit. It does seem somewhat antediluvian to have a cadre of experts gathered around a CVR playback trying to make out 'what that sound is' - when streaming video would have shown what happened. If there is concern over misuse then the information could always be held 'in escrow' by a trusted 3rd party and only released on formal written request from AAIB/NTSB/BEA or equivalents. It would certainly have assisted in the search for MH370, indeed it may have prevented it if there was an intent to 'get lost' that would have been thwarted by the aircraft avionics.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by RAT 5

Some said the technology was no problem; it just needed the will to do so.

And others said that the cost of equipping the world's fleets to mitigate against something that happens once in a blue moon would be prohibitive.

[RAT 5]

If there is concern over misuse then the information could always be held 'in escrow' by a trusted 3rd party and only released on formal written request from AAIB/NTSB/BEA or equivalents.

Is that not now the case with OFDM data? FDR/CVR would just be an extension of that. Introducing & applying legal constraints that are contractual should not be beyond the whit of man; unions or not. Video would surely require hugely more bandwidth. That's beyond my knowledge. Should any manager be identified as abusing the system they would not only be fired, but end up in court under heavy financial & penal threat. Are FAA/ EASA/Boeing/Airbus even discussing this? Surely an airline could invest in this on its own and take the initiative. It does not need legislation. ACARS was a customer option and look how many have that. When the airlines e.g. Qantas who could see just what their A380 was doing when its engine blew up, decided to invest in that technology you wonder why they don't go further and include FDR/CVR. Mind you that would need cooperation of the manufacturer. But surely the technology to achieve this would be simplistic compared to FBW and all the transmitted systems data, and the manufacturers invested zquillions in that.

[pattern_is_full]

That's been the argument throughout aviation history - right up until there is a big body count, and then "tombstone engineering" figures out that, oh - yes - well, maybe it wasn't as prohibitive as we thought.

"Radar coverage over the entire US??!! That's prohibitive!" "CVRs/FDRs on all commercial airliners??!! That's prohibitive!" etc.

[BluSdUp]

Interesting .
Some of you want us to be continuously filmed and taped just because a AirCanada crew did not go to SpecSaver.
You have to be joking.
Donate a GPS to AirCanada, that is money better spent!

The day there is a camera in my flight-deck is the the day I resign!

[evansb]

I am post #111_ on this incident. We all pretty well know what happened. The pilots were qualified on type, high-time hours wise, had flown to KSFO before, and had a varied experience operating in and out of airports globally.

Clearly a new debate on a different topic has evolved, Nothing new is being added on the topic of this thread. Enough already. Perhaps a new thread about mandatory installation of cameras in the cockpit and on the nose cone of airliners? No more visual approaches to complex high traffic airliner-only airports? A mere suggestion.

BluSdUp : Many jobs now have cameras monitoring full-time what the employee does. Recently in Canada, a heavy-haul (semi) truck (articulated lorry) allegedly blew through a STOP sign, colliding with a chartered motor coach (bus), killing 16 people, mostly youths. Proof is lacking. No video evidence. Should interior security video cameras and forward facing security video cameras be mandatory on all heavy (10-tonne) trucks and commercial buses (motor coaches)? Remember that even routine telephone calls of an air traffic control staffer are recorded and retained for at least one month unless otherwise specified. It has been such for decades.

The driver's compartment (cab) of many school buses are required to be video recorded. Not audio. No forward facing (dash cam) is presently required in most states/provinces.

Do you want the cameras on school bus drivers removed?

Bank tellers have continuous camera on them.

Is the job of an airline pilot less critical to public safety than a school bus driver?

Do you want the cameras on bank tellers removed?

What about cameras on police officers and their patrol cars?

Perhaps these are topics of a new thread.

[BluSdUp]

Evansb
Read George Orwells 1984.
We are heading for a police state. Indeed another thread.

Back to the Incident:
How this is possible is incredible. And NO, it cant happen to anyone,
Tune and fly the ILS inside 4 miles,at night.
And AirCanada sounds like they need a reality check and need to review their whole operation!

[DingerX]

Look, I think it's fair to say that there are very few people who would be opposed to cockpit video being provided to accident investigations that do not apportion blame and cannot be cited in a court civil or criminal.

But what if those videos of the last terrifying minutes got made public?
What if they were used by court systems in populous countries as evidence in criminal proceedings to railroad foreign pilots?
What if they were cited in tort cases for massive civil awards?
What if the airline used them to bolster a league table of pro-airline actors on the flight deck, giving bonuses to the most management friendly?

These things (at least the first three) have already happened with CVRs. So, would it help here to be useful enough?

FWIW, one of the AC mgmt types said that, in a go around from a taxi, they would expect an immediate report and to pull the FDR/CVR.

[evansb]

I'll say it again,.. Do you want the school bus driver video monitor removed?

Would a simple video camera aid in the investigation of the recent tragic Canadian truck/bus collision? Certainly. As the crash site is in a somewhat remote location, a vehicle mounted camera is better than a government funded and maintained land-based camera. Make the commercial vehicle camera requirement a tax deduction.

I don't want government surveillance of my backyard BBQ. Who does?

Note that traumatic crash evidence doesn't have to made public, if only to a jury/public court. Jurisprudence applies. Some court evidence is never made open to the media. State sponsored executions don't have to made public.

I will vehemently ( ve·he·ment·ly
ˈvēəməntlē/
adverb

1. in a forceful, passionate, or intense manner; with great feeling.)

state that I don't want government surveillance of my backyard patio nor my front drive way. I will provide my own security devices, thank you. If I picnic in a public park? Go ahead, video away. Just notify me in advance that my actions are being monitored. Otherwise, I just don't care. I do care that Google (or other agencies, such as Big Government) already tracks (and monitors conversations and text messages on a coded basis) my mobile phone locale even when the phone is turned off! My private phone is NOT the same as vehicle license plates for private automobiles operated on public spaces.. I do NOT want locale history, nor do I knowingly pay for this type of surveillance. Who does? But when a cop pulls me over? Sure, I would like video and audio history.

Is it just me?

Will most airlines video and audio monitor the cabin in the future? You are probably right..

Curiously in post-totalitarianism Russia, nearly every car has a dash cam, although it is not required by the State.. Nearly all dash cams being purchased privately.

[West Coast]

Not to fault the controller, but had a second controller been working would the handling controller not feel as rushed leading to a more lengthy conversion and a preserved CVR?

Are inferring that the controller would have discussed preserving the CVR data?

If so, you’re confused as to the role/scope of a controller’s job.

[xetroV]

Originally Posted by fleigle

The AC crew were the only ones to get "confused" that night, it was severe clear weather.

No, they were not, as evidenced by the statement by the captain of the preceding Delta flight:

There was a lot of traffic that night and we were vectored off the DYAMD3 arrival and flew past the SFO
airport, then given a 180 degree turn to the East, then a turn near TRDOW to intercept the FMS Bridge Visual
28R. The weather was VFR and RWY 28L was under construction and NOTAM’d closed. Aircraft were lined up on
taxiway C for takeoff and this caused me to question if I was lining up on the correct runway.

The last time I had flown the bridge visual was several months prior and it was in the daytime. I
could see what I thought were two sets of parallel runway lights. Aircraft on taxiway C were stopped and had
their taxi lights off which helped to create this miss conception that taxiway C was RWY 28R. Had the runway
sequenced flashing lights been on it would have defined the landing runway or had we flown the ILS we would
have had precision course guidance which would have eliminated the illusion that we were not lined up on 28R.

Because we were flying a visual approach and not a precision approach, this also caused me to question
if I was lined up on 28R. We confirmed that we were lined up with 28R,cross checking it with the LNAV on final.
I was preparing to go-around if I could not confirm which runway I was landing on. It was confirmed
prior to crossing the threshold when I saw 28R painted on the runway.

And the First Officer of the Delta flight:

Once we turned on final, there was some confusion. We were lined up on a runway, to the left was an obvious
construction site and to the right was what appeared to be a taxiway. However, the lighting was different and I
did not know until after landing that was because there were aircraft lined up on it waiting to takeoff.

As noted earlier in this thread:

Originally Posted by AerocatS2A

It is interesting that the previous landing also questioned to themselves if they were lined up on the correct runway stating that the construction lights were very bright and made it impossible to see the closed runway, also that the lack of lights on the jets on the taxiway contributed to their confusion. Of course they sorted things out fine, but it certainly suggests that the visual environment was not good.

I think this will be a very important observation for the final NTSB report.

[RAT 5]

Because we were flying a visual approach and not a precision approach, this also caused me to question
if I was lined up on 28R. We confirmed that we were lined up with 28R,cross checking it with the LNAV on final.

I'm surprised by this. From what has been reported it would seem AC & Delta were flying a visual, slightly offset, at night to a runway which had an ILS transmitting, yet neither had the ILS tuned. Why would anyone not avail themselves of all the help they could, especially under these conditions? It's a combination of airmanship & SOP's. In my EU airlines it was SOP to tune all aids even if a visual was expected. Why would you not do so? You may not be flying down the ILS for the whole of finals, but you will for sure end up 'in the slot' below 1000'. Every little helps.

[Derfred]

Do any airlines have SOP's to turn off taxi lights if pointing towards landing aircraft?

My airline doesn't, but most pilots turn them off anyway.

Interesting that this common practice may have been one of the holes in the swiss cheese.

[Capn Bloggs]

Aterpster, I think I read somewhere that they didn't have GPS. Is the Airbus non-GPS RNAV system so accurate that it would be "perfectly aligned"? Further, I doubt their SOP would have allowed autoflight, in LNAV, down to 100ft, especially at night.