That Air Canada near miss at SFO was SCARY close.

[ragedracer1977]

I knew it was close, but I didn't realize just how close.  NTSB just released some info and photos. 

To put in perspective just how close this was, the Air Canada A320's lowest altitude was 59' AGL.  It overflew a 787 which has a tail height of 55'6" and a A340 which has a tail height of 56'6".  Less than 3 feet from what might have been the worst air disaster of all time.  

Gives me goose bumps thinking about it.  Look at the pictures at the link...  

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA17IA148.aspx

[Raptor05121]

They were laterally offset as well. He was lined up on C, but the 787 was perpendicular to the runway at the 90 bend

[ragedracer1977]

Not the A340.  And his wing may have overflown the tail of the 787.  I didn't sketch it out, but it was mighty close.  A lot closer than I thought.

[carusoam]

Our favorite aviation rag (USAToday) covers it with GPS location data all over the photo...

Back to your first days of aviation training.... Do whatever it takes to not get in the news...

Know where the runways are on the Airport diagram.  Some taxiways look like runways... Ask our Starwars pilot... he's about to be skewered in the media again....

Best regards,

-a-

[Godfather]

5 minutes ago, carusoam said:

... Ask our Starwars pilot... he's about to be skewered in the media again....

Best regards,

-a-

It happened again?

[carusoam]

Un famous pilot in a big plane did a similar low approach to a taxiway... with a successful go around.

That won't be interesting enough for the rag... a comparison to a more famous pilot, landing on the taxiway is just expected for the rag newspaper....

• Check out this article from USA TODAY:
• Dramatic pictures show Air Canada flight nearly hitting planes in San Francisco
• https://usat.ly/2vu3djt
• https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/08/02/pictures-show-air-canada-flight-nearly-hitting-planes-san-francisco/534088001/

 

Best regards,

-a-

[bradp]

"Advanced his thrusters" says USA today. 

[yvesg]

This could be prevented if a visual approach would be monitored by approach gear saying "go around", "go around" if the aircraft is not properly alligned with the target runway when reaching DH. Anyone knows if the equipment allows this, a visual approach mode safety feature?

Yves

[Guest]

8 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said:

I knew it was close, but I didn't realize just how close.  NTSB just released some info and photos. 

To put in perspective just how close this was, the Air Canada A320's lowest altitude was 59' AGL.  It overflew a 787 which has a tail height of 55'6" and a A340 which has a tail height of 56'6".  Less than 3 feet from what might have been the worst air disaster of all time.  

Gives me goose bumps thinking about it.  Look at the pictures at the link...  

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA17IA148.aspx

It would difficult to make it worse than the KLM/ Pan Am in Tenerife crash in 1977.

Clarence

[ArtVandelay]

They didn't see the planes on the ground. This why I spent the $ to get superbrite LEDs. I do a lot of flying in poor lighted conditions.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, yvesg said:

This could be prevented if a visual approach would be monitored by approach gear saying "go around", "go around" if the aircraft is not properly alligned with the target runway when reaching DH. Anyone knows if the equipment allows this, a visual approach mode safety feature?

Yves

I'm sure they must have had the ILS frequency tuned in, or some other form of accurate approach loaded, failing that the colour of the taxiway lights and runway light might have offered a clue.

A career limiting mistake I'm guessing.

Clarence

[Godfather]

The surprising thing to me is the 30k hours of combined experience making the above mistake. 

[jetdriven]

SFO is a unique approach, I just flew in there last night and thought about this. it is very dark all around and the runways are very close together, in this case the approach lights for 28L were turned off so they are used to seeing two runways out there and they lined up on the right side. The FMS Brdge visual also has you make a 15 degree turn at about 4 miles to line up with he runway and join th ILS, sometimes there is a plane 500ft off your left wing as you do this. It can happen. I can't understand how experienced pilots run Mooney tanks out of gas and crash on short final with gas in the plane, or throw the gear handle up after landing,  but that happens too.  Let's learn from them.  

Edited August 4, 2017 by jetdriven

[Yetti]

Well that answered that question.... I was taught you keep landing and taxi lights off to not annoy the incoming pilots.  The first plane did not have his bright lights on, but that would have been the thing to do.  The second plane did flip them on or have them on.   Is the rabbit not on all the time?

[ArtVandelay]

Didn't the Korean plane have to do visual approach because the ILS was out? The lesson is be on guard if approach is not standard.

[Yetti]

I think I did complement one pilot after landing at SFO for not "Skipping it off the breakwater because not everyone can keep from doing that"   He thought for a second and then snickered.

 

[jaylw314]

9 hours ago, Yetti said:

I think I did complement one pilot after landing at SFO for not "Skipping it off the breakwater because not everyone can keep from doing that"   He thought for a second and then snickered.

 

Damn, that's cold! 

[Raptor05121]

On 8/3/2017 at 11:01 AM, teejayevans said:

They didn't see the planes on the ground. This why I spent the $ to get superbrite LEDs. I do a lot of flying in poor lighted conditions.

If he didn't see a 787, he won't see you.
 

 

 

[Piloto]

Wonder if these pilots had some temporary color blindness condition caused by food ingestion or air in the cockpit. I would also examine the taxiway lenses. On some materials the tinted blue color may fade at some angles with time due to lightbulb heat. To me it is inconceivable that two experienced pilots would make this mistake.

Back about 40 years ago on approach to TIST at night I almost landed on the lighted road parallel to the runway. 

José

Edited August 9, 2017 by Piloto

[Tommy]

Many factors in play

1) I believe the pilots were conducting a visual approach not ILS 

2) the parallel runway 28L was not lit, making it possible to mistake the taxiway as 28R and 28R as 28L. 

3) In this case, the bright lights from all the planes lining up on the taxiway actually gave the impression that it's an active runway!

4) the ATC didn't call for a go-around or call for further elaboration when the pilot questioned about flashing lights on the active runway. 

 

Personally, I found the last point disturbing. I would've thought if a pilot questioned about the runway - a go-around is almost a given especially considering it's flashing lights! 

[carusoam]

Great insight, Daver!

Thanks for sharing how this gets done in the pro world.

Best regards,

-a-

[cliffy]

Used to do the Quiet Bridge so many times I'd do it in my sleep!

At night with one runway's lights off could be confusing. The visual you see to what you expect to see, plays with the mind. As I was taught- always use all you have - tune up the ILS even on clear and 50 days. 

Midway's 31C could be confusing when you line up for T/O.  I've had new upgrades line up on what THEY thought was the Center Line Lights only to be told that they were on the right runway edge lights. Changes were made before the throttles went forward!  All due to the sight picture at that particular runway at night.   

Keep your shields up!

[flyboy0681]

On 8/11/2017 at 8:34 AM, daver328 said:

 

All these years later ... I've never seen SFO land on the "01s" since .... some people are just lucky I guess?

 

I lived in San Francisco for a decade back in the mid 80's and must have made well over 200 trips out of there, mostly for business. Not once had I ever landed  on the 01's, nor had I ever seen it done. Once, and only once, I remember landing on 19L.

[cliffy]

NO Potbellys? That was my favorite one there on a quick turn.

Even in my little town, politicians are all the same- pond scum. 

I'm going back more than 12 years now so maybe they changed things on 31C since I was there. Had it happen twice with new upgrades. It was something I watched for (only happened at night) just like a new F/O would always and I mean always land on the right side of the runway early in IOE and most all new upgrades landed left of center line on the first few landings. Something else I looked for and corrected. 

I landed once on the 01s in a Citation, never on the 10s, but a few times on the 19s

I used to bid the 2 turn days LAS SFO LAS so I went there a lot! I just liked the short legs with ups and downs but not many did. Even did LAS SFO LAS in 757 with no pressurization. Had to go down over PMD to stay below 10,000.