Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Air Canada | Aeroplan
Reload this Page >

Exclusive: SFO near miss might have triggered ‘greatest aviation disaster in history’

Exclusive: SFO near miss might have triggered ‘greatest aviation disaster in history’

Old Aug 9, 2017, 6:12 pm
  #676  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 56,887
Originally Posted by Bunyak
Here's Patrick Smith's take on it:
http://www.askthepilot.com/express-blog/
"...but the air Canada pilots, aided by the vigilance of air traffic control and startled pilots on the taxiway, realized in time that they were lined up incorrectly."

Aided?! The AC pilots were not merely aided by the UA1 pilot and the tower. There is every reason to believe the AC plane would have crashed into UA1 without this aid.

This pilot-blogger should update that post.
dhuey is offline  
Old Aug 9, 2017, 6:19 pm
  #677  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: AC
Posts: 2,167
Originally Posted by The Lev
Given that they were doing a visual approach and apparently not using their ILS, how do you think they would have landed the plane without looking out the window?

I'm not an expert in these matters but people seem to be assuming that "surely the pilots could not help but see four honking big aircraft sitting on the taxiway" - the problem is that in the dark from overhead, you don't see much - a few lights on the planes that could blend in with the plethora of other little lights on the runway/taxiway if you are not paying really close attention (like maybe you were trying to focus on landing the plane and using confirmation bias to tell you the runway is right in front of you).
I agree with parts of your argument here whereby there is an off chance that a pilot could have confused the lights from planes on the ground, but when looking at Left or Right runway, a big red X is a dead giveaway.

This is why I am honestly perplexed here. These are very seasoned pilots flying a night approach where the weather was clear. Something does not add up here.
longtimeflyin is offline  
Old Aug 9, 2017, 6:35 pm
  #678  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 56,887
Originally Posted by expert7700
Sully saved 100 some passengers. United and ATC saved ~1000
It's looking that way. It's hard to see how we don't have an epic disaster without UA1 pilot's urgent message to the tower, and the tower's quick "go around" order.
dhuey is offline  
Old Aug 9, 2017, 6:41 pm
  #679  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 56,887
Originally Posted by longtimeflyin
I agree with parts of your argument here whereby there is an off chance that a pilot could have confused the lights from planes on the ground, but when looking at Left or Right runway, a big red X is a dead giveaway.

This is why I am honestly perplexed here. These are very seasoned pilots flying a night approach where the weather was clear. Something does not add up here.
In so many situations, we humans discover to our horror that what we thought were safe, ordinary circumstances turned out to be very hazardous -- if we let our guard down. We're not expecting any difficulty. We were right about the ordinary circumstances (closure of SFO runway 28L isn't an extraordinary event). But we let our guard down too much. My guess (and it's only a guess) is that these were the circumstances in the AC cabin on its approach to SFO.
dhuey is offline  
Old Aug 9, 2017, 7:01 pm
  #680  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM
Posts: 16,578
Originally Posted by dhuey
It's looking that way. It's hard to see how we don't have an epic disaster without UA1 pilot's urgent message to the tower, and the tower's quick "go around" order.
Except according to the NTSB investigators the AC pilots initiated the go-around several seconds before being told to do so by the tower. Did they do that because they overheard UA1 or because they saw another plane (PAL?) turn on its landing lights or was it their spydey senses - TBD.
The Lev is offline  
Old Aug 9, 2017, 7:05 pm
  #681  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: AC
Posts: 2,167
Originally Posted by dhuey
My guess (and it's only a guess) is that these were the circumstances in the AC cabin on its approach to SFO.
Your guess is certainly a valid one. However, it's hard to see how any seasoned pilot (or 2 pilots in this case) can let their guard down so much to have been this close to cause a catastrophic event.

I suspect (as a professional watcher of the Mayday TV show and honorary PhD armchair critic) that there was more than one cause of this near-miss.
longtimeflyin is offline  
Old Aug 9, 2017, 7:12 pm
  #682  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SJC/YUL
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold
Posts: 3,868
Originally Posted by longtimeflyin
I suspect that there was more than one cause of this near-miss.
Agreed. The guy in the left seat, and the guy in the right seat
dtc and Silver Fox like this.
Mountain Explorer is offline  
Old Aug 9, 2017, 7:13 pm
  #683  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: AC
Posts: 2,167
Originally Posted by kjnangre
Agreed. The guy in the left seat, and the guy in the right seat
You got me.

Let's just automate flying. Boeing is reported to now be looking at pilotless planes. Sign me up? -not.

Humans will err. My opinion on this is let's find the root cause of this problem and work to ensure it never happens again. After all, it's how aviation has become this safe in today's day and age. Let's avoid the finger pointing and blaming as that does no good. (except for anyone looking to sue the airline, perhaps)
longtimeflyin is offline  
Old Aug 9, 2017, 7:17 pm
  #684  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SJC/YUL
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold
Posts: 3,868
Originally Posted by dhuey
It's hard to see how we don't have an epic disaster without UA1 pilot's urgent message
It's quite interesting cause, if my memory serves, at Tenerife there was another pilot who attempted to give an urgent warning, but the message didn't get thru cause someone else was talking on the radio channel. At San Francisco, was exactly the same, someone was talking on the channel but (presumably due to better technology), UA1's urgent warning did get thru. Without that, the result may very well have been the same.
Mountain Explorer is offline  
Old Aug 9, 2017, 8:12 pm
  #685  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM
Posts: 16,578
Originally Posted by longtimeflyin
I suspect (as a professional watcher of the Mayday TV show and honorary PhD armchair critic) that there was more than one cause of this near-miss.
That is pretty self-evident. Closure of 28L was one contributing factor, pilot error appears to be another and we'll see what else the investigation dredges up.
The Lev is offline  
Old Aug 9, 2017, 8:52 pm
  #686  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 56,887
Originally Posted by The Lev
That is pretty self-evident. Closure of 28L was one contributing factor, pilot error appears to be another and we'll see what else the investigation dredges up.
The initial NTSB report states that the giant, blinking "X" (i.e., runway closed) was right there for all pilots to see on 28L. Maybe that helps us understand the pilot's error, but I don't see how that could fairly be described as a contributing factor.
dhuey is offline  
Old Aug 9, 2017, 8:57 pm
  #687  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 6,220
Originally Posted by NordsFan
Your post was not irrelevant or non-sensical. Your reading of "(...) on land" and the questions you raised about "land vs sea" facilities and "noun vs verb" are absolutely pertinent to the interpretation of the section of text you were referring to.
It's about time you showed up.

Wrt seaplanes the instant they touch water they are considered vessels and subject to the aforementioned COLREGS.
KenHamer is offline  
Old Aug 9, 2017, 8:57 pm
  #688  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 56,887
Originally Posted by The Lev
Except according to the NTSB investigators the AC pilots initiated the go-around several seconds before being told to do so by the tower. Did they do that because they overheard UA1 or because they saw another plane (PAL?) turn on its landing lights or was it their spydey senses - TBD.
(my emphasis)

Are you sure about that? Here's the report: https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-rele...r20170802.aspx

I don't see anything to suggest that the pilot initiated a "go around" on his own.
dhuey is offline  
Old Aug 9, 2017, 8:59 pm
  #689  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM
Posts: 16,578
Originally Posted by dhuey
The initial NTSB report states that the giant, blinking "X" (i.e., runway closed) was right there for all pilots to see on 28L. Maybe that helps us understand the pilot's error, but I don't see how that could fairly be described as a contributing factor.
When interviewed, the pilots stated that they thought Taxiway C was 28R (presumably for whatever reason they did not see the big red lit X but did see two lit "runways" and knew they were supposed to land on the right hand side one. If 28L had been open and lit as was 28R, they almost certainly would have lined up correctly - hence the runway closure was a contributing factor to the pilots' (mis)perception.
The Lev is offline  
Old Aug 9, 2017, 9:04 pm
  #690  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 56,887
Originally Posted by The Lev
When interviewed, the pilots stated that they thought Taxiway C was 28R (presumably for whatever reason they did not see the big red lit X but did see two lit "runways" and knew they were supposed to land on the right hand side one. If 28L had been open and lit as was 28R, they almost certainly would have lined up correctly - hence the runway closure was a contributing factor to the pilots' (mis)perception.
I guess I don't know the appropriate terminology. I imagined that a "contributing factor" would be something completely separate from pilot error. Bad weather, for example. Or some mechanical failure. Not failing to notice and appreciate the giant, blinking "X" on 28L.
dhuey is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.