Exclusive: SFO near miss might have triggered ‘greatest aviation disaster in history’
#706
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: YEG
Programs: AC Lifetime SE100K, 3MM, SPG Lifetime Plat, Hertz PC, National Executive Elite
Posts: 2,901
So, are you saying that you know better than the NTSB official who stated that this was not a reportable event?
#707
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,078
I do not have such evidence. If they did say it, though, it seems like the NTSB should have put that in the report. That would be at least as significant as the AC pilots' comments that "they believed the lighted runway on their left was 28L and that they were lined up for 28R" and that "they did not recall seeing aircraft on taxiway C but that something did not look right to them."
#708
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: YEG
Programs: AC Lifetime SE100K, 3MM, SPG Lifetime Plat, Hertz PC, National Executive Elite
Posts: 2,901
I do not have such evidence. If they did say it, though, it seems like the NTSB should have put that in the report. That would be at least as significant as the AC pilots' comments that "they believed the lighted runway on their left was 28L and that they were lined up for 28R" and that "they did not recall seeing aircraft on taxiway C but that something did not look right to them."
The NTSB official did report, to the press, that this was not a reportable event.
They may not have recalled seeing aircraft on the taxiway, but, based on the radio transmission, you can't deny that they saw lights. Who knows, that may have contributed to their feeling that something was wrong.
Last edited by YEG_SE4Life; Aug 10, 2017 at 5:43 pm Reason: merge posts
#709
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,449
Does that not seem like a problem to you? Even if this is old equipment, designed to write over data and voice recordings from 30 minutes prior, wouldn't it make sense in a situation like this to essentially "unplug" both recorders right after the first approach? The tower and other pilots knew right there and then that something very serious happened. It's quite unlikely that data and recordings from the second approach will be of similar interest.
#710
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,078
Why does the report need to indicate whether the event was reportable or not? How is that even close to being as significant as identifying what may have prevented this horrible close call? Are you suggesting that if it was reportable, then the pilots would not have made this error? Knowing whether it was reportable or not is so significant that it was a contributing factor to this close call? They are suggesting that if things were lit the way they believe they were lit, they would not have made this error. The NTSB official did report it to the press.
#711
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: YVR, HNL
Programs: AS 75k, UA peon, BA Bronze, AC E50k, Marriott Plat, HH Diamond, Fairmont Plat (RIP)
Posts: 7,833
Does that not seem like a problem to you? Even if this is old equipment, designed to write over data and voice recordings from 30 minutes prior, wouldn't it make sense in a situation like this to essentially "unplug" both recorders right after the first approach? The tower and other pilots knew right there and then that something very serious happened. It's quite unlikely that data and recordings from the second approach will be of similar interest.
And if that second landing attempt goes horribly wrong, even worse than the first attempt? God forbid there was a crash - there would be zero data on the second attempt/crash as the pilots had 'unplugged' the CVR after the first go around. Isn't the entire flight data, until landing, critical or should they just be able to 'unplug' it when they feel like it?
Not debating that 30 minutes is way too short. But to give the ability to/require pilots to decide when to 'unplug' the CVR? Yeah, no.
#712
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,347
Does that not seem like a problem to you? Even if this is old equipment, designed to write over data and voice recordings from 30 minutes prior, wouldn't it make sense in a situation like this to essentially "unplug" both recorders right after the first approach? The tower and other pilots knew right there and then that something very serious happened. It's quite unlikely that data and recordings from the second approach will be of similar interest.
Surely you can't be serious about this ()? Unplug the cockpit voice recorders immediately following the first approach? Do you not think the pilots might be a bit busy flying the plane and preparing for another landing attempt? Or should one of them just drop everything and somehow figure out where and how to 'unplug' the CVR? And what is the criteria/whose judgment is it that something is serious enough to stop flying the plane at this critical flight phase to 'unplug' it?
And if that second landing attempt goes horribly wrong, even worse than the first attempt? God forbid there was a crash - there would be zero data on the second attempt/crash as the pilots had 'unplugged' the CVR after the first go around. Isn't the entire flight data, until landing, critical or should they just be able to 'unplug' it when they feel like it?
Not debating that 30 minutes is way too short. But to give the ability to/require pilots to decide when to 'unplug' the CVR? Yeah, no.
And if that second landing attempt goes horribly wrong, even worse than the first attempt? God forbid there was a crash - there would be zero data on the second attempt/crash as the pilots had 'unplugged' the CVR after the first go around. Isn't the entire flight data, until landing, critical or should they just be able to 'unplug' it when they feel like it?
Not debating that 30 minutes is way too short. But to give the ability to/require pilots to decide when to 'unplug' the CVR? Yeah, no.
Debating whether or not the pilots should have taken explicit action to preserve the CVR is focusing on the WRONG issue.
The RIGHT issue (with respect to the CVR) is why it still only holds 30 minutes after 50 years.
#713
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,078
Surely you can't be serious about this ()? Unplug the cockpit voice recorders immediately following the first approach? Do you not think the pilots might be a bit busy flying the plane and preparing for another landing attempt? Or should one of them just drop everything and somehow figure out where and how to 'unplug' the CVR? And what is the criteria/whose judgment is it that something is serious enough to stop flying the plane at this critical flight phase to 'unplug' it?
And if that second landing attempt goes horribly wrong, even worse than the first attempt? God forbid there was a crash - there would be zero data on the second attempt/crash as the pilots had 'unplugged' the CVR after the first go around. Isn't the entire flight data, until landing, critical or should they just be able to 'unplug' it when they feel like it?
Not debating that 30 minutes is way too short. But to give the ability to/require pilots to decide when to 'unplug' the CVR? Yeah, no.
And if that second landing attempt goes horribly wrong, even worse than the first attempt? God forbid there was a crash - there would be zero data on the second attempt/crash as the pilots had 'unplugged' the CVR after the first go around. Isn't the entire flight data, until landing, critical or should they just be able to 'unplug' it when they feel like it?
Not debating that 30 minutes is way too short. But to give the ability to/require pilots to decide when to 'unplug' the CVR? Yeah, no.
#714
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: YEG
Programs: AC Lifetime SE100K, 3MM, SPG Lifetime Plat, Hertz PC, National Executive Elite
Posts: 2,901
Do you think that how the AC pilots reportedly "believed the lighted runway on their left was 28L and that they were lined up for 28R" is reportable and significant? Or that they told investigators that "they did not recall seeing aircraft on taxiway C but that something did not look right to them."? Those AC pilots' comments made the initial report. If they made the editorial cut, I don't see why something like, "we initiated the go-around because we saw planes on taxiway Charlie" missed the cut.
As far as the report is concerned. I have not seen where the report quotes everything said by the pilots so I have no idea what made the cut and what was edited. It was reported that the pilots did say that they inititiated the GA because something didn't seem right. By your logic, they also did not emphatically state that they initiated the GA because of any radio transmission. I don't know if that means that it isn't so. My armchair only makes room for the facts (what has been reported). Conjecture (something doesn't exist because it wasn't reported) is harmful.
#715
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: OGG, YYC
Programs: AA, AC
Posts: 3,697
Surely you can't be serious about this ()? Unplug the cockpit voice recorders immediately following the first approach? Do you not think the pilots might be a bit busy flying the plane and preparing for another landing attempt? Or should one of them just drop everything and somehow figure out where and how to 'unplug' the CVR?
#716
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: YEG
Programs: AC Lifetime SE100K, 3MM, SPG Lifetime Plat, Hertz PC, National Executive Elite
Posts: 2,901
Gimmie a break. I'm talking about regulations and policies -- not how this AC crew might have figured out a way to "unplug" the recorders. I understand that there is a lot of old equipment out there (I said so). I'm contemplating a relatively simple adaptation for a situation like this: a kill switch for when a tower or other applicable authorities order it. With today's technology, the tower could probably flip that switch remotely, with no crew involvement. Regardless, once this AC went around, there was no emergency, and plenty of time to execute a simple command that they turn off the recorders to preserve evidence (if the equipment were adapted to permit that).
#717
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,078
Have you ever been a passenger into SFO at night?
There's often a last minute bank to the left and then to the right to line up with the runway. I suppose that's what happens with many VFR approaches onto 28R.
I'd never considered it before, but I would not be at all surprised to hear that the approach perfectly lines up with the taxiway.
There's often a last minute bank to the left and then to the right to line up with the runway. I suppose that's what happens with many VFR approaches onto 28R.
I'd never considered it before, but I would not be at all surprised to hear that the approach perfectly lines up with the taxiway.
#718
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,078
This happened at 11:45 pm on Friday, July 9. It was reported to the NTSB on Sunday, July 11. You find much significance in that long delay?
#719
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: OGG, YYC
Programs: AA, AC
Posts: 3,697
Nobody said there was a 2 day delay in reporting the occurrence. It wasn't until July 11 that the FAA reported it to the NTSB. I didn't see it reported that the FAA wasn't notified immediately.
#720
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,078
Could there really have been any serious doubt in the tower, immediately after the incident, that this was a reportable event? It would be scandalous if this didn't trigger all of the serious incident procedures (drug testing, pilot interviews, etc.).