FAA = Federal Airline Assistant

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.

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.

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.

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???

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?

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.

http://www.pprune.org/members/326184...at-clouds4.jpg

Gary Larsen of course..................

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?

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:

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.

Aha! Yes, of course, it was a Far Side cartoon. Thanks for finding it, HH.

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.

http://i.imgur.com/tcLZ32a.jpg

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.

underfire
 

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

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...

Brilliant!

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.

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.

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.

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?