So, what do those two pilots got in store for them? Any chance they will be able to pilot a commercial plane again, or is it "one strike and you're out" in the aviation business?
I was arguing with my dad about this and he things they are toast.
Here are some reasons why they wouldn't be.
- AC pilots are union and unless these pilot have a record of infractions that warrant a dismissal with cause the union would protect the pilots. They would get re-trained accordingly
- If they were dismissed and AC does in fact push pilots to the limit there is nothing to stop the pilots from going to the media with that and giving AC a PR disaster. The crew does sound tired on the recording (this is a what if)
- As far as we know the pilots executed the go-around correctly
- the practices at SFO will be looked at also as to why this happened such as if 28L was lit and were all the lights of 28R in good working order.
Well some new info from NTSB and the AC jet passed over PAL115 at 106ft. (PAL115 is an A343 with 55ft height). That gives he closest point of contact to 51ft. Then it continued to descend to 81ft above ground in between the 2nd and 3rd aircraft and then proceeded to go around. That is much closer than previously thought.
Here is the article if it hasn't been posted.http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/17/n ... g-landing/
I don't understand how the pilot wouldn't see the planes on the taxiway before getting this low.
That's why puzzles me. How can you be landing at 100ft and still not see the four aircraft. They would have all their lights on too. They are not exactly small aircraft either. B789, A343, another B789 and a B739.
They did see that something was off and asked if the runway was clear and then the other pilots realized they were lined up for Cahrlie as well as the AC crew that they were not lined of with 28R and with taxiway Charlie.
I don't know how powerful landing lights are but at night it would be very hard to see any object from 100ft vertical and lets say 1000-200 ft away laterally. You can see the lights which the AC crew did and asked if they were clear. The UA crew say that they were lined up for Charlie and they went around and I think the AC crew would have gone around anyways they seemed uneasy on the ATC recording.
Does someone who is familiar with SFO know whey they were using Charlie and not Foxtrot? From where the passenger terminals are wouldn't taxiway F be used to be the most efficient? Was it closed for maintenance?