Exclusive: SFO near miss might have triggered ‘greatest aviation disaster in history’
Aug 10, 2017, 6:43 pm
#721
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: OGG, YYC
Programs: AA, AC
Posts: 3,697
Also, you can be sure that the controller working the tower very much did NOT want there to be an investigation.
Aug 10, 2017, 6:48 pm
#722
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K-1MM, NH, DL, AA, BA, Global Entry/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 18,877
Also discussion of newer technology for streaming recording etc.
(posts 340, 344 and 345)
PPRuNeThread
"Near miss with 5 airliners waiting for T/O on taxiway "C" in SFO!"
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...way-c-sfo.html
.
Last edited by 24left; Aug 10, 2017 at 6:58 pm Reason: Add info
Aug 10, 2017, 6:52 pm
#723
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,078
b. Definition. A near midair collision is defined as an incident associated with the operation of an aircraft in which a possibility of collision occurs as a result of proximity of less than 500 feet to another aircraft, or a report is received from a pilot or a flight crew member stating that a collision hazard existed between two or more aircraft.
http://tfmlearning.fly.faa.gov/Publi...7/aim0706.html (my emphasis)Is this definition from the FAA inapplicable? Seems like we have both the proximity and the "report is received from a pilot" (UA1) here. Not to mention the Philippians Air pilot's desperate effort to alert the AC crew by illuminating landing lights on the taxiway.
Aug 10, 2017, 6:58 pm
#724
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: OGG, YYC
Programs: AA, AC
Posts: 3,697
b. Definition. A near midair collision is defined as an incident associated with the operation of an aircraft in which a possibility of collision occurs as a result of proximity of less than 500 feet to another aircraft, or a report is received from a pilot or a flight crew member stating that a collision hazard existed between two or more aircraft.
http://tfmlearning.fly.faa.gov/Publi...7/aim0706.html (my emphasis)Is this definition from the FAA inapplicable?
Aug 10, 2017, 6:59 pm
#725
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,078
Whatever speculation you might make with what the controller may have wanted, do you have any information on what he in fact did, right after the incident?
Aug 10, 2017, 7:03 pm
#726
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,078
Okay, so a landing plane misses a taxiing plane by two feet and there's no reporting obligation? There must be an obligation to report an incident like this.
Aug 10, 2017, 7:10 pm
#727
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: OGG, YYC
Programs: AA, AC
Posts: 3,697
My understanding was that there were supposed to have been two controllers in the cab. There was only one. This deviation could come under scrutiny.
Another aspect to this I personally found "interesting" was the response by the tower controller to AC759's transmission questioning what he was seeing on what he thought was the runway. He replied with " ... there's no one on 28R but you". Wouldn't this query by AC759 prompt the controller to glance down at his radar and confirm the aircraft's position? The controller's response could be taken as an implicit "you're ok, everything looks good".
Aug 10, 2017, 7:20 pm
#728
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,078
No involved parties ever want an investigation.
My understanding was that there were supposed to have been two controllers in the cab. There was only one. This deviation could come under scrutiny.
Another aspect to this I personally found "interesting" was the response by the tower controller to AC759's transmission questioning what he was seeing on what he thought was the runway. He replied with " ... there's no one on 28R but you". Wouldn't this query by AC759 prompt the controller to glance down at his radar and confirm the aircraft's position? The controller's response could be taken as an implicit "you're ok, everything looks good".
My understanding was that there were supposed to have been two controllers in the cab. There was only one. This deviation could come under scrutiny.
Another aspect to this I personally found "interesting" was the response by the tower controller to AC759's transmission questioning what he was seeing on what he thought was the runway. He replied with " ... there's no one on 28R but you". Wouldn't this query by AC759 prompt the controller to glance down at his radar and confirm the aircraft's position? The controller's response could be taken as an implicit "you're ok, everything looks good".
Runways 28L and 28R each have a long string of bright guide lights extending out into the bay. They run about 1/3 of the distance of the runways: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6137...!5m1!1e1?hl=en
I don't see how we can blame the controller for not contemplating how the AC pilot might be lining up with the dim lights of taxiway Charlie (with no lighted string in the bay), rather than very bright lights of 28R. I wonder if that's ever happened before in the history of SFO.
Aug 10, 2017, 7:37 pm
#729
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: OGG, YYC
Programs: AA, AC
Posts: 3,697
As someone who has flown into SFO more than 100x at night (and that's probably low by SFO-area FlyerTalker standards), it's very hard for me to understand how any licensed pilot, much less a pilot of a major airline, would mistake taxiway Charlie for 28R.
Runways 28L and 28R each have a long string of bright guide lights extending out into the bay. They run about 1/3 of the distance of the runways: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6137...!5m1!1e1?hl=en
I don't see how we can blame the controller for not contemplating how the AC pilot might be lining up with the dim lights of taxiway Charlie (with no lighted string in the bay), rather than very bright lights of 28R. I wonder if that's ever happened before in the history of SFO.
Runways 28L and 28R each have a long string of bright guide lights extending out into the bay. They run about 1/3 of the distance of the runways: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6137...!5m1!1e1?hl=en
I don't see how we can blame the controller for not contemplating how the AC pilot might be lining up with the dim lights of taxiway Charlie (with no lighted string in the bay), rather than very bright lights of 28R. I wonder if that's ever happened before in the history of SFO.
The controller cannot be blamed. On a visual approach it's 100% pilot responsibility. But controllers are another layer of defense. Had he noticed the aircraft being off track this could have been nothing more than an embarrassing event instead of a near catastrophe.
Aug 10, 2017, 7:37 pm
#730
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: NYC
Programs: AA 2MM, Bonvoy LTT, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 14,638
As someone who has flown into SFO more than 100x at night (and that's probably low by SFO-area FlyerTalker standards), it's very hard for me to understand how any licensed pilot, much less a pilot of a major airline, would mistake taxiway Charlie for 28R.
Runways 28L and 28R each have a long string of bright guide lights extending out into the bay. They run about 1/3 of the distance of the runways: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6137...!5m1!1e1?hl=en
I don't see how we can blame the controller for not contemplating how the AC pilot might be lining up with the dim lights of taxiway Charlie (with no lighted string in the bay), rather than very bright lights of 28R. I wonder if that's ever happened before in the history of SFO.
Runways 28L and 28R each have a long string of bright guide lights extending out into the bay. They run about 1/3 of the distance of the runways: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6137...!5m1!1e1?hl=en
I don't see how we can blame the controller for not contemplating how the AC pilot might be lining up with the dim lights of taxiway Charlie (with no lighted string in the bay), rather than very bright lights of 28R. I wonder if that's ever happened before in the history of SFO.
Aug 10, 2017, 8:34 pm
#731
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
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).
...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?
Aug 10, 2017, 9:06 pm
#732
Formerly known as newbie elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: YUL
Programs: IHG Diamond Ambassador, Accor Platinum, AC50K
Posts: 2,927
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.
Last edited by Admiral Ackbar; Aug 10, 2017 at 9:11 pm
Aug 10, 2017, 9:29 pm
#733
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,078
And what about the second part of my post?
If they flip that switch immediately on the first landing attempt to preserve the evidence, what happens if something worse happens on the next try? Or a near miss in the air as they are going around? Or they crash on landing? You have completely cut off any recording at that point and will have no record at all if something else happens.
If they flip that switch immediately on the first landing attempt to preserve the evidence, what happens if something worse happens on the next try? Or a near miss in the air as they are going around? Or they crash on landing? You have completely cut off any recording at that point and will have no record at all if something else happens.
Aug 10, 2017, 9:33 pm
#734
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
Yeah, I don't think that's the way it works, or even should work. The whole point of the data recorder is to have a record of an unexpected event after the fact. If you were playing by the odds that nothing is going to happen on the second landing attempt, why even bother to have it at all as the odds of anything, ever, happening are just as slim.
Aug 10, 2017, 9:39 pm
#735
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,078
Yeah, I don't think that's the way it works, or even should work. The whole point of the data recorder is to have a record of an unexpected event after the fact. If you were playing by the odds that nothing is going to happen on the second landing attempt, why even bother to have it at all as the odds of anything, ever, happening are just as slim.