Scudrunners

Hi Guys.
Just one thing of importance about that Flight. Having flown many, many times into SFO in all types of wx and time of day/night it is interesting to say the least.
Have a look at the LDA/DME approach to 28R. You will see it is a 3 degree offset to the right of the centerline and believe me when I say it gives the illusion you are not lined up and rightly so to the centerline of 28R. Until you get to minimums, which are high due to the close proximity of the runways you are definitely looking at the taxiway. Also the go around is an immediate right turn to 030 which close in will have you passing over the taxiway and because of that the reply from the aircraft on the taxiway. The call from the AC pilot was right and safe  due to the illusion of aircraft on the runway regardless of the approach lighting down the centerline. This is not a ILS approach.
SFO is not user friendly. I have had to go around several times because carriers from across the pond have not maintained their assigned speed, started catching up inside the FAF causing a separation conflict between the reduce spaced parallel runways. The tower guys know us  Canadian friends will do the go-around safely rather than have the language challenged other carriers from doing what is their fault. The arrival folks also love to dump you on a short downwind from the west and hold you up on the STAR from the east.
It would be nice if we cut those guys some slack until the official report comes out.
cheers
Don

[quote]This is not a ILS approach[/quote]

Asiana 218 had the same problem at SFO. 

ILS down, hit the seawall.


[quote]cut those guys some slack[/quote]

You're saying that Nark's advice was not insightful?

[quote]This sort of approach happens all the time at O’hare, with 3 parallel runways, and another 3 parallel taxiways. 
By simply looking at my PFD, I can immediately tell what I'm lined up with.
With respect to the Airbus specifically, you don't even need an approach to the runway to get lateral guidance. 
Drop a point/bearing from the threshold, and holy poop, you have a GPS tracked lateral guidance.[/quote]

Are Canadian pilots not permitted to do that?

It's too bad with all the technology in the world these
days, you are not allowed to synthesize an ILS approach
where there is none.  Like the "hard landing" at YHZ,
which I observed immediately afterwards, did not have
a GS.

Without an ILS, didn't Westjet nearly dump one in the
water the other day?

[img width=500 height=275]http://christinenegroni.com/wp-content/ ... 24x565.jpg[/img]

I wonder when someone will spot the pattern:

[b]Bad Things Happen To Four Bars Without An ILS[/b]

As I said, it's too bad you can't synthesize one
with technology  :o

It's sad that Four Bars are more interested in covering
up mistakes, instead of learning from them and not
repeating them.  A sick culture.

Air Canada tried to land at Montego Bay with the ILS
out, and drilled the landing gear into the runway with
a +3.8G full-stall landing.  They were extremely lucky
it didn't go much worse.  The TSB said:

[quote]Air Canada Rouge did not include autothrust-off approach scenarios in each recurrent simulator training module, and flight crews routinely fly with the automation on.

As a result, the occurrence flight crew was not fully proficient in autothrust-off approaches, including management of the automation.[/quote]

Do recall that four bars have been tearing me a new
one for years, when I dared to suggest that gosh,
maybe they should try a little hands-on flying every
now and then?  Rockie on AvCan told me I was a
fucking idiot for holding that opinion, but ...

Might some hand-flying skills come in handy when
the ILS is down?

[quote author=Aeron link=topic=6691.msg18168#msg18168 date=1500174388]
Hi Guys.
Just one thing of importance about that Flight. Having flown many, many times into SFO in all types of wx and time of day/night it is interesting to say the least.
Have a look at the LDA/DME approach to 28R. You will see it is a 3 degree offset to the right of the centerline and believe me when I say it gives the illusion you are not lined up and rightly so to the centerline of 28R. Until you get to minimums, which are high due to the close proximity of the runways you are definitely looking at the taxiway. Also the go around is an immediate right turn to 030 which close in will have you passing over the taxiway and because of that the reply from the aircraft on the taxiway. The call from the AC pilot was right and safe  due to the illusion of aircraft on the runway regardless of the approach lighting down the centerline. This is not a ILS approach.
SFO is not user friendly. I have had to go around several times because carriers from across the pond have not maintained their assigned speed, started catching up inside the FAF causing a separation conflict between the reduce spaced parallel runways. The tower guys know us  Canadian friends will do the go-around safely rather than have the language challenged other carriers from doing what is their fault. The arrival folks also love to dump you on a short downwind from the west and hold you up on the STAR from the east.
It would be nice if we cut those guys some slack until the official report comes out.
cheers
Don
[/quote]




Your comments are borderline racist.  Yeah. 


Call it what it is, snowflake. 


Funny I've recently flown Cathay Pacific. Fantastic service and professionalism. A major Airline from "across the pond" -- funny when I search I can't find any "hard landings" from them. 


Cut some slack? What an asinine comment.


Good ol Canadian boys can crash just as easily as anyone. And have done so. 

[u]Suggested Approach Rules For Four Bars[/u]

1) Only straight-in approaches to a runway.  No circling, unless an emergency is declared.
2) Only precision approaches.  Non-precision approaches are not approved unless an emergency is declared.
3) If an ILS cannot be dialed in (or synthesized) overshoot to a runway/airport that has an ILS

Look at all the recent accidents and incidents which
would have been avoided, if the four bars had
complied with this very simple rule: 

[b]No ILS, no approach[/b]

Given the deafening silence on this ongoing issue,
perhaps an article for the Wall St Journal might be
an idea, with extensive case references?

[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=6691.msg18175#msg18175 date=1500220859]
[u]Suggested Approach Rules For Four Bars[/u]

1) Only straight-in approaches to a runway.  No circling, unless an emergency is declared.
2) Only precision approaches.  Non-precision approaches are not approved unless an emergency is declared.
[/quote]
I know the point you're trying to make is that there are a lot of pros who suck at flying, but this honestly isn't such a bad idea.  With all of the ILS's in the world and the ability to stick an LNAV with vertical guidance anywhere you want this might actually be a reasonable target.



[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=6691.msg18175#msg18175 date=1500220859]
[font=Verdana]No ILS, no approach[/font][/quote][font=Verdana]
What would be so wrong about using some sort of vertical guidance for every single airline approach?  Surely the technology exists and [i]should[/i] be easy to implement.  Given what's at stake it seems like a no-brainer.[/font]

I'm not sure what the problem is.

Either people haven't heard of this "GPS" thing,
or they've never used an ILS.

Given history and obvious advantages, I do not
understand why part 121/705/whatever doesn't
require a functioning precision approach to all
runways regardless of wx.

No precision approach, that runway is unusable
except in case of declared (e.g. fuel) emergency.

Why doesn't 705 do night circling approaches?
I've done plenty of them, and I don't fly as well
as a four bar.

Didn't one of your kind just pile in a P-51 with a passenger on board in day VFR conditions less than ten miles from an airport?

I'd be more worried about that than this incident that didn't kill anyone.

[quote author=Rookie Pilot link=topic=6691.msg18173#msg18173 date=1500206539]
Your comments are borderline racist.  Yeah. 
Call it what it is, snowflake. 
Funny I've recently flown Cathay Pacific. Fantastic service and professionalism. A major Airline from "across the pond"
[/quote]


....staffed by a majority of expat pilots.  It's kind of like saying the Americans are good at hockey because they hired Canadian players.....

[quote]Didn't one of [b]your kind[/b] just pile in a P-51[/quote]

[quote]Lenoch was [b]employed at two major airlines[/b] flying the Boeing 727 and Douglas DC-9 aircraft[/quote]

Never met the dead guy you're shitting on, but he was actually
a four bars flying a 75 year old aircraft.  You fly a lot of aircraft
that were designed to last six months, but are three quarters
of a century old?

[quote author=mcrit link=topic=6691.msg18221#msg18221 date=1500428268]
[quote author=Rookie Pilot link=topic=6691.msg18173#msg18173 date=1500206539]
Your comments are borderline racist.  Yeah. 
Call it what it is, snowflake. 
Funny I've recently flown Cathay Pacific. Fantastic service and professionalism. A major Airline from "across the pond"
[/quote]


....staffed by a majority of expat pilots.  It's kind of like saying the Americans are good at hockey because they hired Canadian players.....
[/quote]




The Cathay flights I was recently on did not have Canadian pilots. They were from "across the pond", which is exactly the comment referenced.


Do you claim that AC has a better safety record than Cathay?