|
Originally Posted by FlightDetent
(Post 9845079)
https://flightaware.com/resources/ai...SFO/procedures has parsed KSFO charts, FMS Bridge VIS not there.
The charting provider I have access to delivers to several large US airlines operating there, but no trace of FMS BRIDGE. So is it perhaps a Jeppesen only proc? |
Originally Posted by peekay4
(Post 9845074)
By the time the accept the approach, which may be well before any waypoint. Typically ATC will confirm that the pilot has the airport (or preceding aircraft) in sight before offering a visual approach.
BTW, I checked the geometry. The true bearing of 28R is 297.815. The true bearing of the 28R ILS is also 297.815. The true bearing from FD101 to 28R is 297.9 in my GIS software. The path angle from FD101D to the lead carrier's AER is exactly 3.0 degrees assuming the same TCH as the 28R ILS. |
Originally Posted by peekay4
(Post 9844932)
FAA 8260.55 explains why RVFPs exist and why they are NOT considered (special) instrument approach procedures.
a. Operator and Pilot. 3) Pilots must request the RVFP on initial contact with the controlling agency, unless previously coordinated. |
No trace of the procedure from FAA sources.
That airline designed the procedure in an FAA design tool called TARGETS. Those data were then given to Jeppesen for both coding the procedure into the airlines' FMS and publishing a chart to be included in all the airlines' tailored subscription. But surely the procedure would have to be FAA approved?? If it is a locally designed procedure would that limit it to US registered a/c and licensed operators? |
A question... Are the centerline green taxi lights always bidirectional or are they at some airports or in some instances unidirectional?
|
aterpster: that fills all the blanks, thanks. Sorry I missed it from your first posting, the idea that multiple airlines would team up for a shared tailored procedure escaped me. Thus I could not figure out how come it is not public yet at large at the same time.
|
Did the ATC recordings confirm/reveal that every crew cleared for the FMS Bridge visual had previously reported the airport in sight?
|
For sake of discussion let's say the weather is 3,000 and 10. Would NCT approve the procedure if the crew requested it on initial contact shortly after passing CEDES? Then when closer, ATC will confirm if the pilots have the airport environment / landmark / preceding aircraft in sight, before clearing them for the visual approach. But surely the procedure would have to be FAA approved?? If it is a locally designed procedure would that limit it to US registered a/c and licensed operators? After all, Air Canada is a foreign airline. :) I missed the part where the pilot requested this approach. I.e., if the airline is approved for the approach, then appropriate remarks may be included in the flight plan. |
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 9841107)
Predictably, the union paints the AC 759 pilots as heroes for doing a go-around when told to do so by the tower
|
That airline designed the procedure in an FAA design tool called TARGETS. the FMS Bridge Visual procedure was designed by a 3rd party in RNAV Pro. 8260.55 The design and implementation of RVFP differ from that of charted visual flight procedures (CVFP) in a number of regards. First, RVFP developed under this guidance are for use only by pilots of aircraft equipped with instrument flight rules (IFR)-approved RNAV systems. Second, these procedures are not “public” in nature, approved via a process similar to that of “special” instrument approach procedures (IAP). RVFP are not “special IAPs” by definition but rather are simply considered “special procedures”. 2) The operator, with the assistance of the regional All Weather Operations (AWO) and the RNAV and RNP Group personnel assigned to the OSG, must assess the capability of the local DME infrastructure to support all segments of the procedure. The operator should use “RNAV-Pro” for this assessment. We put the final design into TARGETS to use the FAA obastacle data and to generate those damn 8260 forms! Thus I could not figure out how come it is not public yet at large at the same time. The Lead operator owns and maintans the procedure, ie pays for its design and maintenence. Would you simply give it to everyone else for free? Same for the RNP AR procedures that have been developed. b. Approval Process for Other than the Lead Operator. 1) The operator must submit a written request to use an RVFP to the regional AWO, via their POI. 2) The regional AWO will provide the operator and the POI with all applicable procedure documentation. 3) The operator must ensure the required aircraft equipage, operating procedures, and training are in place. The operator must also validate flyability of the procedure in a simulator approved for each make, model and series of aircraft intended for use of the RVFP. 4) Once satisfied with the operator’s aircraft equipage, procedures, and training program, the POI will issue written approval to use the RVFP. Appendix D contains a sample letter of approval for other than a lead operator. 5) The operator should provide the applicable AWO and ATC facility with a copy of the signed letter approving use of the RVFP. FAA 8260.55 explains why RVFPs exist and why they are NOT considered (special) instrument approach procedures. Or you can just re-read my post above. FMS Bridge visual is considered a special procedure, (and it is an instrument approach) which the airline and pilots are required to be approved to use. This has been discussed at length in this thread. |
Flew it today, still in use. Not requested, rather assigned by SFO ATC, advertised on the ATIS.
|
Is this still rumours and news or the inevitable PPRuNE endless thread-without-end?
|
(and it is an instrument approach) |
THE MERCURY NEWS PUBLISHED: July 28, 2017 at 8:00 am Did brain phenomenon contribute to Air Canada pilot’s close-call at SFO? SAN FRANCISCO — Could the same brain phenomenon identified as contributing to today’s polarizing political climate have played a role in an Air Canada flight crew coming within seconds of landing on a row of jets awaiting takeoff at SFO? Absolutely, experts say. The condition, known as confirmation bias, occurs when people accept or seek out evidence that confirms their expectations and ignore or avoid facts that don’t align with their expectations. Just like when a Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton supporter tunes out an opposing viewpoint, or contrary facts. The same mental blind spot likely impacted the Air Canada flight crew on July 7 when it nearly triggered the worst aviation disaster in history by landing on four fully-loaded planes on the SFO taxiway, says Dr. Andrew Gilbey, a senior lecturer in aviation at Massey University in New Zealand. Sidebar: Fisher’s experiment in 1980 for NASA had pilots land on a simulator. During one landing she secretly placed an airplane in the middle of the runway. During one phase of experiment 2 of 8 pilots didn’t see the plane. [...] |
The Mercury News must be reading Prune?
|
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 9841107)
Predictably, the union paints the AC 759 pilots as heroes for doing a go-around when told to do so by the tower
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 9845193)
The union doesn't appear to have said that, and indeed the timeline established by the TSB soon after the event indicates that the crew were already going around at the point where ATC issued the GA instruction.
“It is a testament to the expertise and professionalism of the highly trained crew that they were able to ensure that the flight arrived safely at its destination.”
Originally Posted by BluSdUp
(Post 9831016)
There is no excuse whatsoever for what these two chaps did and they better have preserved the CVR.
We need it to understand how it was possible and prevent other incompetent crew doing the same. And for now : No more night visuals. It is rather simple. They could not do the basic task of identify the rwy. Give me a break. They were about to possible triple the standing world record of aviation fu..ups. Sorry for not being all cudely and understanding about this. There has to be limits. New data obtained exclusively by this news organization add to the picture, showing that the Air Canada plane was just flying over a second fully loaded Philippine Airlines jet at 106 feet in the air — still continuing its descent — when an SFO air traffic controller finally warned him to abort his landing. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada said in its initial report that the Air Canada pilot did not begin his “go-around” until the air traffic controller told the pilot to pull up. Either way, as I said here earlier:
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 9831663)
Whether AC 759 initiated the go around before or after the ATC call, 100 feet AGL is way too low to figure out they were over the taxiway. :=
|
Current ATIS (about 40 mins ago):
DATIS A2056 SFO ATIS INFO A 2056Z. 28024KT 10SM FEW010 19/11 A2992 (TWO NINER NINER TWO) RMK PK WND 29028/2052. SIMO FMS QUIET BRIDGE VISUAL RY 28R AND ILS OR RNAV RY 28L IN USE. LNDG RWYS 28L, 28R. DEPG RWYS 1L, 1R. NOTAMS... TWY J CLSD, TWY S1 CLSD. MULTIPLE CRANES NEAR THE AIRPORT. 448 FOOT CRANE 2 MILES WSW OF AIRPORT. RWY 28R AND RWY 28L HOLD SHORT LIGHTS OTS. ASSC IN USE ACTVT TRNSPNDR WITH MODE C ON ALL TYS AND RWYS. READBACK OF ALL RWY HOLDING INSTRUCTIONS IS REQUIRED. ALL ACFT ARE RQRD TO INCL ACFT CLSGN IN ALL RDBKS AND ACKMTS. ...ADVS YOU HAVE INFO A. |
Originally Posted by Zeffy
(Post 9845424)
Current ATIS (about 40 mins ago):
...FMS QUIET BRIDGE VISUAL RY 28R... Here we go again... :) |
1 Attachment(s)
Where are we going again? To the Land of Semantics? :)
Title strip from Jepp chart: |
there are two, BOTH in the FMS database
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:43. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.