Near miss with 5 airliners waiting for T/O on taxiway "C" in SFO!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: oakland
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*sigh*
What breathless nonsense. In visual conditions there's no way anyone's landing on an occupied strip of pavement, night or not. ATC may have ordered a go-around but that doesn't mean the AC crew hadn't already noticed their error. If the aircraft on C were waiting to take off they would have been at the threshold end and clearly visible.
It certainly wasn't anything close to a disaster. An embarrassing, recoverable error if true, at most.
What breathless nonsense. In visual conditions there's no way anyone's landing on an occupied strip of pavement, night or not. ATC may have ordered a go-around but that doesn't mean the AC crew hadn't already noticed their error. If the aircraft on C were waiting to take off they would have been at the threshold end and clearly visible.
It certainly wasn't anything close to a disaster. An embarrassing, recoverable error if true, at most.
Adoption of Forward Looking IR (Enhanced Flight Visibility Systems, EFVS in FAA speak) and Synthetic Vision Systems (SVS) would go a long way to eliminating night visual problems. The EFVS view, especially in a HUD, would have shown the line up planes as four large signatures and the lighting clearer, assuming it hadn't been converted to LED. The SVS would have shown the runway off line-up to the left in a daylight view and the taxiway in front of them. SVS is good enough to show you taxiing across a runway and the view on the PFD or MFD is identical to the outside view.
Per Annex 13, it will be categorised as a Serious Incident: "An incident involving circumstances indicating that there was a high probability of an accident ..."
Annex 13 goes on to explain, rather chillingly, that "The difference between an accident and a serious incident lies only in the result".
Annex 13 goes on to explain, rather chillingly, that "The difference between an accident and a serious incident lies only in the result".
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adoption of Forward Looking IR (Enhanced Flight Visibility Systems, EFVS in FAA speak) and Synthetic Vision Systems (SVS) would go a long way to eliminating night visual problems.
Annex 13 goes on to explain, rather chillingly, that "The difference between an accident and a serious incident lies only in the result".
Time to stop making excuses for the airline, the ac, and the crew. Let DHS get the true story out of them.
The 320 in question did not have GPS but is that really an excuse for a VFR approach at night under good visual conditions?
Besides that, not having GPS, the FMS would have used DME/DME for updating which is extremely precise enough to get you to the threshold of a runway.
I totally agree...
What bothers me is the fact they allowed the CVR to be over written perhaps purposely to cover their mistake(s).
Then in there statement to the NTSB they claim they never saw any aircrafts on taxiway C, so why did the initiate a "GO Around" at 85 feet AGL if they absolutely thought they were landing on RWY 28R?
Sounds to me like they are covering up, in other words lying about the whole incident, if so they should to be fired.
Besides that, not having GPS, the FMS would have used DME/DME for updating which is extremely precise enough to get you to the threshold of a runway.
If what the report states, that the AC drivers did not even recognize the taxiway was full, there is enough intent in that statement alone to prevent those 2 from doing that again.
What bothers me is the fact they allowed the CVR to be over written perhaps purposely to cover their mistake(s).
Then in there statement to the NTSB they claim they never saw any aircrafts on taxiway C, so why did the initiate a "GO Around" at 85 feet AGL if they absolutely thought they were landing on RWY 28R?
Sounds to me like they are covering up, in other words lying about the whole incident, if so they should to be fired.
Last edited by Jet Jockey A4; 3rd Aug 2017 at 16:32.
Does AC have the authority to use the special "FMS RNAV Quiet Bridge" procedure? I've not seen anyone post that bit of info--maybe they don't.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it is clear in the audio, requested and cleared for FMS Bridge Visual. Some call it FMS Bridge visual, others call it RNAV bridge visual , some call it simply 28R visual in the ATC tape. Pretty loose given there is a Quiet Bridge Visual and Tipp Toe visual to 28R.
They would have to have DME/DME/IRU in lieu of GPS. They would have had to have it in the FMS to be approved to use it. Both the airline AND the crew have to be apprved. It is commonly used, so it is likely they were approved.
The response was to someone suggesting that Heads Up would be in order, hence my response that the ac does not appear to have GPS, so it is unlikely the airline would have the wherewithall to provide HU capabilites.
They would have to have DME/DME/IRU in lieu of GPS. They would have had to have it in the FMS to be approved to use it. Both the airline AND the crew have to be apprved. It is commonly used, so it is likely they were approved.
The 320 in question did not have GPS but is that really an excuse for a VFR approach at night under good visual conditions?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From an earlier post:
You can hear AC 759 cleared for the FMS Bridge Visual [to 28R] 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
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ks...2017-0630Z.mp3
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 839
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hold on a minute
Quote: various posters subsequent to the NTSB information release yesterday, professing various conclusions about crew acts or omissions, and consequences, relative to sanctions, and system component reforms, and even ... causation.
Forum 11th Commandment: Must Have investigation report and those odd, pesky things, known as facts.
There is just too much left to be uncovered by the investigation process, and then still too much needing to be done to integrate the various and several factual elements into a coherent whole picture of the incident, before many of the assertions being made here would be justified and warranted. True, compared to investigations a couple of decades or so ago, places like this forum provide lots of access to relevant information - all the more so with all the tech gizmos which can show position, time-stamp, and more. But the thread is not the investigation. And before ya'all throw FCOM books at me, just think for a minute: once the facts are indeed known and integrated into a coherent whole picture of the incident, there will be plenty, plenty of time and opportunity to discuss probably dozens of system and subsystem reforms and changes. Wasn't the point, or one of the points, of poster Ian W.'s tutorial on attentional tunneling, a/k/a target fixation, that this could happen to anyone manning the flight controls? But let's hang the crew on suppositions here, heck, it's just the internet.
Forum 11th Commandment: Must Have investigation report and those odd, pesky things, known as facts.
There is just too much left to be uncovered by the investigation process, and then still too much needing to be done to integrate the various and several factual elements into a coherent whole picture of the incident, before many of the assertions being made here would be justified and warranted. True, compared to investigations a couple of decades or so ago, places like this forum provide lots of access to relevant information - all the more so with all the tech gizmos which can show position, time-stamp, and more. But the thread is not the investigation. And before ya'all throw FCOM books at me, just think for a minute: once the facts are indeed known and integrated into a coherent whole picture of the incident, there will be plenty, plenty of time and opportunity to discuss probably dozens of system and subsystem reforms and changes. Wasn't the point, or one of the points, of poster Ian W.'s tutorial on attentional tunneling, a/k/a target fixation, that this could happen to anyone manning the flight controls? But let's hang the crew on suppositions here, heck, it's just the internet.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed 100% WillowRun 6-3.
Also, we know that post-incident/accident statements are often very inaccurate -- not necessarily because anyone is lying but due to natural characteristics of human memory. Hence the lack of the CVR recording in this case is a big loss for the safety investigators.
Perhaps it's time to mandate the 25-hr CVR rule worldwide.
Also, we know that post-incident/accident statements are often very inaccurate -- not necessarily because anyone is lying but due to natural characteristics of human memory. Hence the lack of the CVR recording in this case is a big loss for the safety investigators.
Perhaps it's time to mandate the 25-hr CVR rule worldwide.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Can you provide a cite that says otherwise?
Your earlier post claiming planes were 'requesting' the FMS Bridge Visual 28R from the tower controller is total nonsense in my opinion:
I listened to the recording, they specifically asked for FMS Bridge vsual 28R, and were cleared to land.
Interesting, when you listen (to the recording in post #4 of this thread) you hear different requests coming in.
at 1430 you have a delta request 28R visual;
at 1705 someone requests FMS 28R, bridge visual;
at 1942, a delta asks for RNAV bridge visual 28R;
at 2110, you have air canada 759 request FMS bridge visual 28R.
Interesting, when you listen (to the recording in post #4 of this thread) you hear different requests coming in.
at 1430 you have a delta request 28R visual;
at 1705 someone requests FMS 28R, bridge visual;
at 1942, a delta asks for RNAV bridge visual 28R;
at 2110, you have air canada 759 request FMS bridge visual 28R.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: various posters subsequent to the NTSB information release yesterday, professing various conclusions about crew acts or omissions, and consequences, relative to sanctions, and system component reforms, and even ... causation.
Forum 11th Commandment: Must Have investigation report and those odd, pesky things, known as facts.
There is just too much left to be uncovered by the investigation process, and then still too much needing to be done to integrate the various and several factual elements into a coherent whole picture of the incident, before many of the assertions being made here would be justified and warranted. True, compared to investigations a couple of decades or so ago, places like this forum provide lots of access to relevant information - all the more so with all the tech gizmos which can show position, time-stamp, and more. But the thread is not the investigation. And before ya'all throw FCOM books at me, just think for a minute: once the facts are indeed known and integrated into a coherent whole picture of the incident, there will be plenty, plenty of time and opportunity to discuss probably dozens of system and subsystem reforms and changes. Wasn't the point, or one of the points, of poster Ian W.'s tutorial on attentional tunneling, a/k/a target fixation, that this could happen to anyone manning the flight controls? But let's hang the crew on suppositions here, heck, it's just the internet.
Forum 11th Commandment: Must Have investigation report and those odd, pesky things, known as facts.
There is just too much left to be uncovered by the investigation process, and then still too much needing to be done to integrate the various and several factual elements into a coherent whole picture of the incident, before many of the assertions being made here would be justified and warranted. True, compared to investigations a couple of decades or so ago, places like this forum provide lots of access to relevant information - all the more so with all the tech gizmos which can show position, time-stamp, and more. But the thread is not the investigation. And before ya'all throw FCOM books at me, just think for a minute: once the facts are indeed known and integrated into a coherent whole picture of the incident, there will be plenty, plenty of time and opportunity to discuss probably dozens of system and subsystem reforms and changes. Wasn't the point, or one of the points, of poster Ian W.'s tutorial on attentional tunneling, a/k/a target fixation, that this could happen to anyone manning the flight controls? But let's hang the crew on suppositions here, heck, it's just the internet.
Routine. There is so little freedom of action, and the the long day is so overgrown with necessary actions performed almost as an automaton would, that given a certain hour of the day, condition of lighting, etc. the truth can hide in plain sight. That can't be a plane coming at me - planes don't line up on taxiways! They are for taxiing! And those runway lights sure look strange - shrug. Can't wait to get down and get some sleep.
So much of the visual stimulus at night is hard to make out, even if colored like a Christmas tree. It must seem a wash of pretty lights sometimes, moving with hypnotic slowness. Every pattern has a significance, but maybe there are too many of them to keep immediately in mind because you are tired or just bored after a long day being a part of the machine. There are numerous cases of "how on Earth did they not hear that alarm? Why didn't they set the flaps? How can you mistake a frequency for an altitude?"
I don't know what you can do other than to make life more interesting for pilots so that they remain engaged. Let them - no require them - to do some hand flying. That's a start.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, I don't believe AC 759 ever 'requested' this approach.
I guess you did not listen to the tape, or you would have understood what was meant....there you go....
The AC pilots are surely fine pilots and representative of their profession. The guys in the waiting planes, likewise. But literally everyone was asleep here. The entire system nodded off. Why?
How often do lawyers sue other lawyers?
Who were asleep, were the pilots in command of the AC jet.
As much as drivers want to claim they are solely responsible for the command of the aircraft, here is the chance to put blame exactly where it belongs.
Children of the magenta line make excuses for poor performance. As noted, there is enough intent shown by the circumstances to show that it was an accident. It should and likely will be treated as such, and the responsible ramifications should be followed through.
There are systems that warn, but the bottom line. no matter what the warnings, ATC instructions, or aircraft , it is the PIC that makes and takes the responsibility.
Bottom line, that crew drove the ac down the taxiway on a clear night. Bright and very adequate approach lights...and a big white 'X' on 28L.
"jeez, looks like there is something on the runway, but ATC says there is nothing, so I will land anyways. Oh , I forgot to turn off the CVR and it got erased...really, we dont remember seeing any aircraft on the runway, those bright lights shining at me, or hear the radio saying I was on the taxiway....we just remember seeing something odd, and decided to GA.... "
How did AC 624 A320 plow into the dirt 300m short of threshold?
FFS, make all the excuses you want...time to cull this herd, with good reason.
Last edited by underfire; 3rd Aug 2017 at 18:40.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
jeeezus...listen to the tape...they requested clearance to land for that approach...correct, just like all of the others on the tape...what, you want me to type out requests clearance to land for each line? I simply typed requests, not requested as you are stuck on.
I guess you did not listen to the tape, or you would have understood what was meant....there you go....
I guess you did not listen to the tape, or you would have understood what was meant....there you go....
Like I said...
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Orbit
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
de-Sitter,
I wont comment on the "probable" causes leading to this incident, lot of speculation as usual, except for that regarding the local time this happened and how long their workday/night had been so far tiredness might have played a factor. My experience(25yr ww) is that boredom usually doesn't show up on approach and landing(complacency maybe).
Maybe it makes you feel better knowing that plenty of pilots still hand-fly, usually at lower levels and the flight departments encourage it. This depends on the(expected) workload though, flying into a challenging airport, or just a lot of traffic, weather, tiredness etc or a combination of all, yes, it can get interesting..(SEQM eg)
I wont comment on the "probable" causes leading to this incident, lot of speculation as usual, except for that regarding the local time this happened and how long their workday/night had been so far tiredness might have played a factor. My experience(25yr ww) is that boredom usually doesn't show up on approach and landing(complacency maybe).
Maybe it makes you feel better knowing that plenty of pilots still hand-fly, usually at lower levels and the flight departments encourage it. This depends on the(expected) workload though, flying into a challenging airport, or just a lot of traffic, weather, tiredness etc or a combination of all, yes, it can get interesting..(SEQM eg)
Why I asked about AC's approval is their are TWO Quiet Bridge approaches--one public visual and one private, by specific approval FMS Quiet Bridge approach. Is AC approved for the approval required FMS Quiet Bridge or where the actually flying the public visual approach?
GF
GF
