Well, maybe they do it that way in England or wherever but I'm not rightly sure that's how it works here in America.

As aterpster says about that 30 day NTSB report:

Maybe Canada will issue a 30 day report, can you find an example of one issued by the NTSB?

To be clear on terms, if only for me, over shooting being the same as a go around and/or a missed approach?

Now that the NTSB has launched an investigation, the Canadian TSB's involvement will be as an accredited party to the investigation (as the domicile of the airline involved).

Protocol dictates that any further release of information will come from the NTSB.

Summing feueraxt's pictures (taxiway with no traffic) #131 and the mental imagery of hilliard's post #138 suggesting aircraft lights on the taxiway might make a difference, I think this is where the answer lies.

There has to be some reason that not one, but two experienced crew fell for this imagery. Some kind of visual psychological trap.

As I said,

No criticism from me either, but I do wonder whether "Go around" would have been a better response than "Yes you are still cleared" when the aircraft reported that they weren't seeing on the ground what the controller would expect them to see.

Could it have been a runway incursion?

"Maintain runway heading and climb X" would at least have allowed time to diagnose the discrepancy.

This controller, who isn't to blame, just failed an intuition test.

Is it at all possible they were just too darned busy to add any superior value, leaving them acting as nothing more than a slow computer?

Oh really now, Kal Niranjan. It would be easier just to say, when any particular "non Western" carrier you would care to name in particular, one which has in your view been subject to scorn, insinuations and so on (whether "thunderously deafening" or otherwise), compiles an overall safety record and a set of managerial and technical leadership qualities in the safety realm comparable to Air Canada, then maybe you could gripe. But that would be too easy; I like the challenge. When a "non Western" carrier fouls up, and it happens to be in a system, country or culture where substandard practices, lack of standard English, training and/or operational deficiencies, and other gross or significant deviations from SARPs are the norm, pointing these deviations out is not scornful or racism. If you think so, I certainly would enjoy learning about your educational background. Something clearly was missed. (I post this out of a sense of defending the forum, against your too-easily muttered bromides, which are nonsense - despite the stray or occasional off-point remark of a poster now or again.)

It would really do everyone a lot of good to read about visual perception and visual cognition.

I can understand PF becoming fixated on seeing what they wanted to see and not noticing 'the gorilla'. PM's brain is not so fixated and I'd expect more relaxed and neutral. PM is not being coached by PF into seeing the same thing. Therefore I'd expect PM to chirp up quite early on and challenge PF about where they were landing. But that brings the CVR back into the equation, and crew memory after the event.

There has to be some reason that not one, but two experienced crew fell for this imagery.

Indeed. That was also my curiosity, hence my comment above. There should have been 2 independent minds observing this event. I'm still curious whether they were in manual or autopilot flight down to e.g. 1000', and what guidance they were following. The report should discover that.

Now Captain Aimer says that AC 759 was 'less than a second from a disaster'. :eek:

The article linked below has a graphic showing UA 1 holding past the Cat I hold line :confused: and says 'the flight came within just 29 feet of one plane'.

Anyway, looks like this incident might not get swept under the rug with the media attention.

"Less than a second from disaster"; New details on near-collision at SFO - CBS News

Flew into KSFO last night. Taxiway C has really bright green centerline lights, they are probably LED, they can appear white from a distance. With 28L dark (no approach lights and no centerline lights) the visual illusion of 28R being 28L and C being the 28R is certainly possible as has been demonstrated.
I'm not saying that's what happened, just relating what it looks like.

Why was there no giant white flashing "X" at the threshold of 28L? I've seen these several times at various GA airports; do large international airports not use them?

From an earlier post on this thread, emphasis mine:

IAN W wrote a very good post # 167 about cognition experiment and Bergerie1 posted the video. Worth to see it, you’ll see the gorilla, but…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY

This incident must be related to visual perception and visual cognition.
The players start the passes:
altimeter set, speed brake armed, flaps position, lights on, so on…
They expect to see two runways, so from far they see two lines of lights as expected. Then oops!! PF see a gorilla, strobe lights stand out from the 28R runway. He talks to PM, but he sees three gorillas. They continue passing the ball: gear down, flaps full, but keep the eyes on the gorillas, the curtain color change from bright white light to green lights, the PAPI is leaving the scene but nobody notice. The gorillas are four now and the time of the game is running out fast: "Tower, just want to confirm [for you, because for us is pretty clear] This is Air Canada 759. We see lights on the runway there. Across the runway. Can you confirm are we cleared to land?” “Confirmed cleared to land. Runway 28 Right. There's no one on 2-8 Right but you." “OK, [if you insist, let’s buzz them a little], Air Canada 759”

Still?.... Eleven pages on this nearly non-incident.. Gawd! Get a life!!! Please move on train spotters...

Don't despair old boy, help is at hand. :O

http://www.avgen.com/Postsperpage.jpg

National Transportation Safety Board Aviation Incident Preliminary Report
Location:
Date & Time:
Aircraft:
Flight Conducted Under:
San Francisco, CA 07/07/2017, 2356 PDT AIRBUS 320
Part 129: Foreign
Incident Number: Registration: Injuries:
DCA17IA148 C-FKUK N/A
On July 7, 2017, about 2356 Pacific daylight time, Air Canada flight 759, an Airbus A-320, C- FKCK, was cleared to land on runway 28R at San Francisco International Airport (SFO), San Francisco, California, but instead lined up on parallel taxiway C, which had four air carrier airplanes on it awaiting takeoff clearance (a Boeing 787 that was first in line followed by an Airbus A340, another Boeing 787, and a Boeing 737). The flight descended below 100 feet above the ground and initiated a go-around after overflying the first airplane on the taxiway. The flight was operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 129 as an international scheduled passenger flight from Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International Airport, (YYZ), Toronto, Canada. Night visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the incident.
Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information
Aircraft Manufacturer: AIRBUS Registration: C-FKUK
Model/Series: 320 211 Aircraft Category: Airplane
Amateur Built: No
Operator: Air Canada Air Carrier Operating Foreign Air Carrier (129) Certificate:
Page 1 of 2 DCA17IA148
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
Meteorological Information and Flight Plan
Conditions at Accident Site: Condition of Light:
Observation Facility, Elevation: Observation Time:
Distance from Accident Site: Temperature/Dew Point:
Lowest Cloud Condition: Wind Speed/Gusts, Direction:
Lowest Ceiling: Visibility:
Altimeter Setting: Type of Flight Plan Filed: IFR
Departure Point: Toronto, FN (YYZ) Destination: San Francisco, CA (SFO)
Wreckage and Impact Information
Crew Injuries: N/A Aircraft Damage: None
Passenger Injuries: N/A Aircraft Fire: None
Ground Injuries: N/A Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: N/A Latitude, Longitude: 37.615278, -122.358056
Administrative Information
Investigator In Charge (IIC): John W Lovell
Additional Participating Persons:
Note: The NTSB traveled to the scene of this incident.
Page 2 of 2 DCA17IA148
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...okes-adult.jpg


As Ian W has enlightened us, we do not always see the reality that is in front of our nose.

This incident must be related to visual perception and visual cognition.
They expect to see two runways, so from far they see two lines of lights as expected. Then oops!!

The official report will shed the light.

NTSB Preliminary Report in a somewhat more readable format:

Attachment 2572

Then you will be reading a thread about how someone lined up on the wrong runway. It doesn't really matter whether the other runway lights are on or off, just make sure the crews know the status so they can get the right picture in their head. And I don't mean a NOTAM, put it on the ATIS.

two important clarifications in one little phrase.

at 0.6nm out, it still could have been only that... at below 100ft AGL, with 55ft tails sticking out in rather close proximity, another qualification might be more appropriate.

Regarding LED lighting, it's not just the same light with low power consumption. No idea how these greens look like at a distance, but don't underestimate the side effects of LEDs

NTSB preliminary report
 

NTSB wording sounds like AC759 overflew UA1 below 100ft while descending or floating above the taxiway. And once UA1 was behind them they applied go-around.

What I can't grasp is that UA1 saw AC:
"He's [litterally] on the taxiway !"
But, until flying past UA1, AC didn't noticed that the lights on the "runway" were those of the 4 taxiing A/C ??

Hopefully CVR and FDR were downloaded in time by the authorities.