Exclusive: SFO near miss might have triggered ‘greatest aviation disaster in history’
Jul 11, 2017, 11:01 pm
#151
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Northern Nevada
Programs: DL,EK
Posts: 1,652
I would assume that they thought 28R was 28L and never really saw 28L. I am a pilot myself (single engine pistons), and while I find it hard to imagine not seeing this correctly. I don't find it impossible.
Jul 12, 2017, 12:58 am
#152
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: where lions are led by donkeys...
Programs: Lifetime Gold, Global Entry, Hertz PC, and my wallet
Posts: 20,340
If this had happened in Africa or Asia the conversation would be a whole lot different.
Hopefully the pilot is grounded and probably the ATC need to review some procedures too. If UAL1 had not piped up then I fear the outcome would have been an utter catastrophe, although ATC could probably say "I was just about to say go around anyway".
And if this was not solely a human problem but an avionics problem is claimed, then AC planes of this type should be grounded until they can be checked out. They should not be waiting for an inquiry to establish what the factors were at play here for obvious reasons.
Hopefully the pilot is grounded and probably the ATC need to review some procedures too. If UAL1 had not piped up then I fear the outcome would have been an utter catastrophe, although ATC could probably say "I was just about to say go around anyway".
And if this was not solely a human problem but an avionics problem is claimed, then AC planes of this type should be grounded until they can be checked out. They should not be waiting for an inquiry to establish what the factors were at play here for obvious reasons.
Jul 12, 2017, 12:59 am
#153
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
Well maybe not a foam pit, but a run up to the runway would help. Before the OZ accident, the SFO run up was only 30 yard. If the airport followed international airport standards of 300m, the aircraft would have landed short, with min damage. Because of the accident, SFO is increasing the run up length, but not to international standards.
Note that some large airports (YVR for one) are in the process of installing 300m RESAs on the ends of some of their runways.
Originally Posted by Silver Fox
If UAL1 had not piped up then I fear the outcome would have been an utter catastrophe, although ATC could probably say "I was just about to say go around anyway".
Jul 12, 2017, 1:12 am
#155
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Programs: AAdvantage PLT
Posts: 516
The foam arrestors at the end of runways are designed to keep planes from overrunning the runway from the opposite direction. They have nothing to do, as far as I understand it, with aircraft approaching at the threshold. An aircraft that touched down in the arrestor area would be in a world of hurt.
At SFO 28R, there is a pier with approach lights described as "ALSF2: standard 2,400 foot high intensity approach lighting system with centerline sequenced flashers (category II or III)."
There is also one at 28L. The tail of the OZ flight crashed into it. If you land short, you land short.
The ILS beacon was out of service for an upgrade at the time of the OZ crash, but it was broad daylight under a clear blue sky.
Last edited by pdquick; Jul 12, 2017 at 1:48 am
Jul 12, 2017, 1:15 am
#156
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: where lions are led by donkeys...
Programs: Lifetime Gold, Global Entry, Hertz PC, and my wallet
Posts: 20,340
Except the ICAO standard for what you call a 'run up' - and is actually known as a RESA (runway end safety area) - is not 300m. The current standard is currently 300 FEET, (60m). FAA and other regulatory agencies recommend up to 300m, but these are not (yet) enforceable standards.
Note that some large airports (YVR for one) are in the process of installing 300m RESAs on the ends of some of their runways.
Again, the value of reviewing an entire thread is to glean such details as the fact that the UA1 pilot "piped up" AFTER the AC plane had overflown them, and AFTER the ATC go-around command.
Note that some large airports (YVR for one) are in the process of installing 300m RESAs on the ends of some of their runways.
Again, the value of reviewing an entire thread is to glean such details as the fact that the UA1 pilot "piped up" AFTER the AC plane had overflown them, and AFTER the ATC go-around command.
Jul 12, 2017, 1:16 am
#157
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: where lions are led by donkeys...
Programs: Lifetime Gold, Global Entry, Hertz PC, and my wallet
Posts: 20,340
Jul 12, 2017, 1:39 am
#160
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Programs: AAdvantage PLT
Posts: 516
Under normal weather conditions at SFO, all flights land on the 28s, and most flights depart on the 1s. The heavy jets, however, depart on the 28s, as the 28s are longer and face into prevailing winds.
United 1 was a 789 bound for Singapore. One of the planes was PAL 115, a 330-400 bound for Manila. The other two were United flights. I can't figure out which ones those were, but it's safe to assume they were two of United's heavy evening departures.
So not for nothing are people saying that this would have been a very, very major mishap if it had not been averted.
The latest update from the San Jose Mercury News reports that 28L was closed on the night of the incident. The pilots of AC759 should have been aware of this via a NOTAM, but if they weren't, it would have contributed to their confusion. They may have thought the 28R approach lights were the 28L approach lights, and therefore looked for something to the right of the approach lights they saw. The only thing to the right of the approach lights they saw was the Charlie taxiway.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/1...es-on-taxiway/
United 1 was a 789 bound for Singapore. One of the planes was PAL 115, a 330-400 bound for Manila. The other two were United flights. I can't figure out which ones those were, but it's safe to assume they were two of United's heavy evening departures.
So not for nothing are people saying that this would have been a very, very major mishap if it had not been averted.
The latest update from the San Jose Mercury News reports that 28L was closed on the night of the incident. The pilots of AC759 should have been aware of this via a NOTAM, but if they weren't, it would have contributed to their confusion. They may have thought the 28R approach lights were the 28L approach lights, and therefore looked for something to the right of the approach lights they saw. The only thing to the right of the approach lights they saw was the Charlie taxiway.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/1...es-on-taxiway/
Jul 12, 2017, 1:50 am
#161
Join Date: May 2013
Location: west coast best coast
Programs: TINDER GOLD, STARBUCKS GOLD, COSTCO EXECUTIVE!!
Posts: 3,989
If this had happened in Africa or Asia the conversation would be a whole lot different.
Hopefully the pilot is grounded and probably the ATC need to review some procedures too. If UAL1 had not piped up then I fear the outcome would have been an utter catastrophe, although ATC could probably say "I was just about to say go around anyway".
And if this was not solely a human problem but an avionics problem is claimed, then AC planes of this type should be grounded until they can be checked out. They should not be waiting for an inquiry to establish what the factors were at play here for obvious reasons.
Hopefully the pilot is grounded and probably the ATC need to review some procedures too. If UAL1 had not piped up then I fear the outcome would have been an utter catastrophe, although ATC could probably say "I was just about to say go around anyway".
And if this was not solely a human problem but an avionics problem is claimed, then AC planes of this type should be grounded until they can be checked out. They should not be waiting for an inquiry to establish what the factors were at play here for obvious reasons.
Jul 12, 2017, 1:59 am
#162
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: where lions are led by donkeys...
Programs: Lifetime Gold, Global Entry, Hertz PC, and my wallet
Posts: 20,340
Under normal weather conditions at SFO, all flights land on the 28s, and most flights depart on the 1s. The heavy jets, however, depart on the 28s, as the 28s are longer and face into prevailing winds.
United 1 was a 789 bound for Singapore. One of the planes was PAL 115, a 330-400 bound for Manila. The other two were United flights. I can't figure out which ones those were, but it's safe to assume they were two of United's heavy evening departures.
So not for nothing are people saying that this would have been a very, very major mishap if it had not been averted.
The latest update from the San Jose Mercury News reports that 28L was closed on the night of the incident. The pilots of AC759 should have been aware of this via a NOTAM, but if they weren't, it would have contributed to their confusion. They may have thought the 28R approach lights were the 28L approach lights, and therefore looked for something to the right of the approach lights they saw. The only thing to the right of the approach lights they saw was the Charlie taxiway.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/1...es-on-taxiway/
United 1 was a 789 bound for Singapore. One of the planes was PAL 115, a 330-400 bound for Manila. The other two were United flights. I can't figure out which ones those were, but it's safe to assume they were two of United's heavy evening departures.
So not for nothing are people saying that this would have been a very, very major mishap if it had not been averted.
The latest update from the San Jose Mercury News reports that 28L was closed on the night of the incident. The pilots of AC759 should have been aware of this via a NOTAM, but if they weren't, it would have contributed to their confusion. They may have thought the 28R approach lights were the 28L approach lights, and therefore looked for something to the right of the approach lights they saw. The only thing to the right of the approach lights they saw was the Charlie taxiway.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/1...es-on-taxiway/
- UAL1 B789 SFO-SIN
- PAL115 A343 SFO-MNL
- UAL863 B789 SFO-SYD
- UAL1118 B739 SFO-MCO
Jul 12, 2017, 3:15 am
#165
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 6,222
Do I have that right?