ragedracer1977 Posted August 3, 2017 Report Share Posted August 3, 2017 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor05121 Posted August 3, 2017 Report Share Posted August 3, 2017 They were laterally offset as well. He was lined up on C, but the 787 was perpendicular to the runway at the 90 bend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragedracer1977 Posted August 3, 2017 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted August 3, 2017 Report Share Posted August 3, 2017 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- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godfather Posted August 3, 2017 Report Share Posted August 3, 2017 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted August 3, 2017 Report Share Posted August 3, 2017 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- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradp Posted August 3, 2017 Report Share Posted August 3, 2017 "Advanced his thrusters" says USA today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yvesg Posted August 3, 2017 Report Share Posted August 3, 2017 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 3, 2017 Report Share Posted August 3, 2017 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtVandelay Posted August 3, 2017 Report Share Posted August 3, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 3, 2017 Report Share Posted August 3, 2017 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godfather Posted August 4, 2017 Report Share Posted August 4, 2017 The surprising thing to me is the 30k hours of combined experience making the above mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetdriven Posted August 4, 2017 Report Share Posted August 4, 2017 (edited) 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 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yetti Posted August 4, 2017 Report Share Posted August 4, 2017 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtVandelay Posted August 4, 2017 Report Share Posted August 4, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yetti Posted August 4, 2017 Report Share Posted August 4, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaylw314 Posted August 4, 2017 Report Share Posted August 4, 2017 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor05121 Posted August 5, 2017 Report Share Posted August 5, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piloto Posted August 8, 2017 Report Share Posted August 8, 2017 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Posted August 10, 2017 Report Share Posted August 10, 2017 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted August 11, 2017 Report Share Posted August 11, 2017 Great insight, Daver! Thanks for sharing how this gets done in the pro world. Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffy Posted August 22, 2017 Report Share Posted August 22, 2017 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyboy0681 Posted August 23, 2017 Report Share Posted August 23, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffy Posted August 23, 2017 Report Share Posted August 23, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.