[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=9098.msg24957#msg24957 date=1538174070]
If they were a [i]half a second[/i] slower on the go-around there
would have been a terrible mess.
[/quote]
You can't know that. They were visual with the lights/plane/traffic. If they waited half a second longer, they might have pulled up a bit more aggressively, and maybe have cleared by 25 ft, or they could have deviated to the left or the right a bit. They obviously didn't know initially where they were, but they did see the traffic and were reacting to it.
If you land on the centerline, that doesn't mean that you would have missed the centerline if you turned to final a second earlier. You would have corrected for it. Just like they did.
[quote author=Nark]Digits:
I’m wondering if you have changed your thought process on why 13’ from another airplane on a taxiway is no big deal. [/quote]
Not really. I was trying to find some more info on the Terps you mentioned. I highly doubt there could be a 100 ft obstacle on a taxiway. There must be some rules.It's obviously not a normal occurence, and it should be avoided, but the whole "seconds away from disaster" is unfounded drama.
- They screwed up the approach- They were visual with the traffic- They performed a go-around
You haven't answered my question though: if there was "only" a 172 on the taxiway, or no traffic at all, and the same thing happened, would you react in the same way?
AC Near crash SFO - NOTAMS are a bunch of Garbage and pilot fatigue
-
Nark1
Digits:
Sorry I didn’t see your question earlier.
Yes. I absolutely would react the same way. Almost hitting a small or three large heavy’s is equally egregious. Both pilots failed to be pilots somewhere between Toronto and San Francisco. Maybe earlier.
Sorry I didn’t see your question earlier.
Yes. I absolutely would react the same way. Almost hitting a small or three large heavy’s is equally egregious. Both pilots failed to be pilots somewhere between Toronto and San Francisco. Maybe earlier.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
Digits, I am perplexed and concerned that you think that crew performed a safe approach.
[quote]
[font=verdana][size=0px]They were visual with the traffic- They performed a go-around[/size][/font]
[/quote]
They did not see the parked airplanes on the taxiway until they were a couple of seconds from hitting them.
[quote]They obviously didn't know initially where they were, but they did see the traffic and were reacting to it.[/quote]
So if they didn't know where they were on a simple visual approach until a couple of seconds before they would have hit them you think that is acceptable for the crew of an airline?
Have you ever flown a real airplane yourself?
[quote]
[font=verdana][size=0px]They were visual with the traffic- They performed a go-around[/size][/font]
[/quote]
They did not see the parked airplanes on the taxiway until they were a couple of seconds from hitting them.
[quote]They obviously didn't know initially where they were, but they did see the traffic and were reacting to it.[/quote]
So if they didn't know where they were on a simple visual approach until a couple of seconds before they would have hit them you think that is acceptable for the crew of an airline?
Have you ever flown a real airplane yourself?
-
digits
[quote author=Chuck Ellsworth link=topic=9098.msg24975#msg24975 date=1538255751]
Digits, I am perplexed and concerned that you think that crew performed a safe approach.
[...]
So if they didn't know where they were on a simple visual approach until a couple of seconds before they would have hit them you think that is acceptable for the crew of an airline?
[/quote]
What happend should not have happened, but it wasn't a "seconds away from disaster"-situation either. There is a whole spectrum between those 2 options.
If this happened in IMC on a cat III approach and they were flying full deflection all the way down, scraping the paint off planes or towers on the taxiway, then yes, I would react the same way.
However, they were VMC, they SAW the traffic and they went around. They visually assessed they were not where they were supposed to be, so off they went.
Digits, I am perplexed and concerned that you think that crew performed a safe approach.
[...]
So if they didn't know where they were on a simple visual approach until a couple of seconds before they would have hit them you think that is acceptable for the crew of an airline?
[/quote]
What happend should not have happened, but it wasn't a "seconds away from disaster"-situation either. There is a whole spectrum between those 2 options.
If this happened in IMC on a cat III approach and they were flying full deflection all the way down, scraping the paint off planes or towers on the taxiway, then yes, I would react the same way.
However, they were VMC, they SAW the traffic and they went around. They visually assessed they were not where they were supposed to be, so off they went.
-
digits
[quote author=Nark link=topic=9098.msg24974#msg24974 date=1538255584]
Digits:
Sorry I didn’t see your question earlier.
Yes. I absolutely would react the same way. Almost hitting a small or three large heavy’s is equally egregious. Both pilots failed to be pilots somewhere between Toronto and San Francisco. Maybe earlier.
[/quote]
Okay, good to know.
All that being said, I am pretty happy though that it is being thorougly investigated. The fatigue thing in this case might be a bit farfetched, but if that's what's needed to give the new regulations a bit of a push, so be it. If a medevac plane crashes in the north due to fatigue, nobody will every find out the reason, and newspapers won't care. Silver lining?
Digits:
Sorry I didn’t see your question earlier.
Yes. I absolutely would react the same way. Almost hitting a small or three large heavy’s is equally egregious. Both pilots failed to be pilots somewhere between Toronto and San Francisco. Maybe earlier.
[/quote]
Okay, good to know.
All that being said, I am pretty happy though that it is being thorougly investigated. The fatigue thing in this case might be a bit farfetched, but if that's what's needed to give the new regulations a bit of a push, so be it. If a medevac plane crashes in the north due to fatigue, nobody will every find out the reason, and newspapers won't care. Silver lining?
-
Salt
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 11:17 am
Digits:
The AC crew did not see the traffic -
In postincident interviews, both incident pilots stated that, during their first approach, they believed the lighted runway on their left was 28L and that they were lined up for 28R. They also stated that they did not recall seeing aircraft on taxiway C but that something did not look right to them.
This is from the NTSB Docket. The crew initiated the go around after they were already past the first aircraft on the taxiway. The initiation of the go around was because they had a feeling something wasn't right. They did not understand they were lined up with a taxiway, nor aircraft on said taxiway. What if that "feeling" hit the crew 1 second later. Would they have cleared?
The AC crew did not see the traffic -
In postincident interviews, both incident pilots stated that, during their first approach, they believed the lighted runway on their left was 28L and that they were lined up for 28R. They also stated that they did not recall seeing aircraft on taxiway C but that something did not look right to them.
This is from the NTSB Docket. The crew initiated the go around after they were already past the first aircraft on the taxiway. The initiation of the go around was because they had a feeling something wasn't right. They did not understand they were lined up with a taxiway, nor aircraft on said taxiway. What if that "feeling" hit the crew 1 second later. Would they have cleared?
-
Chuck Ellsworth
This is the problem with the internet, anyone can make up a name and get into these discussions and make incorrect comments about any subject, this particular subject is about one of the closest calls to what could have been aviation's worst disaster.
There are many people who read these forums and some of them have very little experience or knowledge about the subject.
Therefore it is up to those of us who understand the subject to make sure that we do not just let someone make comments that are just plain wrong and keep making these comments.
There could be many people who may think that that this poster may be correct.
It is my opinion that this is one of those instances when it would be wrong to not challenge a poster who is really wrong.
Chuck E.
There are many people who read these forums and some of them have very little experience or knowledge about the subject.
Therefore it is up to those of us who understand the subject to make sure that we do not just let someone make comments that are just plain wrong and keep making these comments.
There could be many people who may think that that this poster may be correct.
It is my opinion that this is one of those instances when it would be wrong to not challenge a poster who is really wrong.
Chuck E.
-
Rookie Pilot
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:44 am
[quote author=Salt link=topic=9098.msg24978#msg24978 date=1538259256]
Digits:
The AC crew did not see the traffic -
In postincident interviews, both incident pilots stated that, during their first approach, they believed the lighted runway on their left was 28L and that they were lined up for 28R. They also stated that they did not recall seeing aircraft on taxiway C but that something did not look right to them.
This is from the NTSB Docket. The crew initiated the go around after they were already past the first aircraft on the taxiway. The initiation of the go around was because they had a feeling something wasn't right. They did not understand they were lined up with a taxiway, nor aircraft on said taxiway. What if that "feeling" hit the crew 1 second later. Would they have cleared?
[/quote]
Exactly. Because they DID NOT BRIEF THE NOTAMS
Maybe they were fantasizing about the hot 22 year old FA in the back instead.
And MAYBE that is why "accidentally" the circuit breaker did not get pulled and the CVR overwritten.
They sure as hell KNEW that was a serious incident Digits.
You're a professional pilot! [font=Verdana][size=78%]You DO not wait for ATC to tell you to pull the CB to preserve data. [/size][/font]
You do it. You do it even if it costs you personally.
Otherwise you never should sit in the big chair with lives in your hands.
Digits:
The AC crew did not see the traffic -
In postincident interviews, both incident pilots stated that, during their first approach, they believed the lighted runway on their left was 28L and that they were lined up for 28R. They also stated that they did not recall seeing aircraft on taxiway C but that something did not look right to them.
This is from the NTSB Docket. The crew initiated the go around after they were already past the first aircraft on the taxiway. The initiation of the go around was because they had a feeling something wasn't right. They did not understand they were lined up with a taxiway, nor aircraft on said taxiway. What if that "feeling" hit the crew 1 second later. Would they have cleared?
[/quote]
Exactly. Because they DID NOT BRIEF THE NOTAMS
Maybe they were fantasizing about the hot 22 year old FA in the back instead.
And MAYBE that is why "accidentally" the circuit breaker did not get pulled and the CVR overwritten.
They sure as hell KNEW that was a serious incident Digits.
You're a professional pilot! [font=Verdana][size=78%]You DO not wait for ATC to tell you to pull the CB to preserve data. [/size][/font]
You do it. You do it even if it costs you personally.
Otherwise you never should sit in the big chair with lives in your hands.
-
digits
[quote author=Salt link=topic=9098.msg24978#msg24978 date=1538259256]
Digits:
The AC crew did not see the traffic -
In postincident interviews, both incident pilots stated that, during their first approach, they believed the lighted runway on their left was 28L and that they were lined up for 28R. They also stated that they did not recall seeing aircraft on taxiway C but that something did not look right to them.
This is from the NTSB Docket. The crew initiated the go around after they were already past the first aircraft on the taxiway. The initiation of the go around was because they had a feeling something wasn't right. They did not understand they were lined up with a taxiway, nor aircraft on said taxiway. What if that "feeling" hit the crew 1 second later. Would they have cleared?
[/quote]
My apologies, you are correct. I was wrong about the reason for the go-around. Confirmation bias while reading a report about an accident involving confirmation bias? Must be a first.
That does increase the gravity of the situation significantly...
Digits:
The AC crew did not see the traffic -
In postincident interviews, both incident pilots stated that, during their first approach, they believed the lighted runway on their left was 28L and that they were lined up for 28R. They also stated that they did not recall seeing aircraft on taxiway C but that something did not look right to them.
This is from the NTSB Docket. The crew initiated the go around after they were already past the first aircraft on the taxiway. The initiation of the go around was because they had a feeling something wasn't right. They did not understand they were lined up with a taxiway, nor aircraft on said taxiway. What if that "feeling" hit the crew 1 second later. Would they have cleared?
[/quote]
My apologies, you are correct. I was wrong about the reason for the go-around. Confirmation bias while reading a report about an accident involving confirmation bias? Must be a first.
That does increase the gravity of the situation significantly...
-
digits
[quote author=Rookie Pilot link=topic=9098.msg24981#msg24981 date=1538265225]
And MAYBE that is why "accidentally" the circuit breaker did not get pulled and the CVR overwritten.
They sure as hell KNEW that was a serious incident Digits.
You're a professional pilot! [font=verdana]You DO not wait for ATC to tell you to pull the CB to preserve data.[/font]
You do it. You do it even if it costs you personally.
Otherwise you never should sit in the big chair with lives in your hands.
[/quote]
Still not clear where this is coming from though. Assuming the information in the AC report is correct, the crew contacted ATC and the company duty pilot. If both of them deem it unnecessary to start an investigation at that point, why would the crew have to put their foot down and pull the CB? That probably meant the plane would have been grounded in SFO as well pending the investigation? An investigation that both ATC and the company didn't deem necessary?
And MAYBE that is why "accidentally" the circuit breaker did not get pulled and the CVR overwritten.
They sure as hell KNEW that was a serious incident Digits.
You're a professional pilot! [font=verdana]You DO not wait for ATC to tell you to pull the CB to preserve data.[/font]
You do it. You do it even if it costs you personally.
Otherwise you never should sit in the big chair with lives in your hands.
[/quote]
Still not clear where this is coming from though. Assuming the information in the AC report is correct, the crew contacted ATC and the company duty pilot. If both of them deem it unnecessary to start an investigation at that point, why would the crew have to put their foot down and pull the CB? That probably meant the plane would have been grounded in SFO as well pending the investigation? An investigation that both ATC and the company didn't deem necessary?
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 0 Replies
- 897 Views
-
Last post by Colonel
-
- 7 Replies
- 13692 Views
-
Last post by David MacRay
-
- 0 Replies
- 5950 Views
-
Last post by Scudrunner
