Exclusive: SFO near miss might have triggered ‘greatest aviation disaster in history’
#676
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 56,887
Here's Patrick Smith's take on it:
http://www.askthepilot.com/express-blog/
http://www.askthepilot.com/express-blog/
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.
#677
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: AC
Posts: 2,167
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'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).
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.
#678
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 56,887
#679
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 56,887
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.
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.
#680
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM
Posts: 16,578
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.
#681
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: AC
Posts: 2,167
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.
#683
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: AC
Posts: 2,167
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)
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)
#684
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SJC/YUL
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold
Posts: 3,868
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.
#685
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM
Posts: 16,578
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.
#686
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 56,887
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.
#687
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 6,220
Wrt seaplanes the instant they touch water they are considered vessels and subject to the aforementioned COLREGS.
#688
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 56,887
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.
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.
#689
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC*SE 2MM
Posts: 16,578
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.
#690
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 56,887
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.