According to major news outlets, AC flight 759 was inadvertently preparing to land on a taxiway instead of 28R:

Source: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/10/e ... n-history/

ATC audio recording of incident: https://soundcloud.com/user-66001055/au ... liveatcnet

“If it is true, what happened probably came close to the greatest aviation disaster in history,” said retired United Airlines Capt. Ross Aimer, CEO of Aero Consulting Experts. He said he’s been contacted by pilots from across the country about the incident.

Source: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

Air Canada pilot: Tower Air Canada 759 I can see lights on the runway there. Can you confirm we’re clear to land?

Control tower: Air Canada 759 confirmed cleared to land on 28-right. There is no one on 28-right but you.

Air Canada pilot: OK, Air Canada 759

Unknown: Where is this guy going? He’s on the taxiway!

Control tower: Air Canada, go around.

The FAA said the air traffic controller told the Air Canada jet to circle around and make another approach.

Air Canada pilot: Going around. Air Canada 759.

Control tower: Air Canada, it looks like you were lined up for Charlie there. Fly heading 280. Climb maintain 3,000.

Air Canada pilot: Heading 2-8-0. 3,000. Air Canada 759.

United pilot: United One, Air Canada flew directly over us.

Control tower: Yeah, I saw that guys.

Source: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/10/e ... n-history/

I imagine the tower had a phone number for the captain after they landed. Pretty serious mix up especially with aircraft lined up.

We've obviously heard of commercial airliners landing on taxiways before but this seems curious. One would think the AC crew would have been able to see the taxi lights and anti-collision beacons of the other aircraft on the taxiway. UA1 is operated by a 789 which have very bright LED beacons.

SFO no longer has taxiway edge lights along most of the taxiways parallel to the 28's. Could this have been a contributing factor ?

77H

Was Harrison Ford the pilot? Haha.

According to WebTrak, the incident happens on July 7 at 11:56 pm. AC 759 was at 200 ft when it reached the end of the runway and initiated the go-around.

77H wrote:

I imagine the tower had a phone number for the captain after they landed. Pretty serious mix up especially with aircraft lined up.

We've obviously heard of commercial airliners landing on taxiways before but this seems curious. One would think the AC crew would have been able to see the taxi lights and anti-collision beacons of the other aircraft on the taxiway. UA1 is operated by a 789 which have very bright LED beacons.

77H

As noted in the original post: "Air Canada pilot: Tower Air Canada 759 I can see lights on the runway there. Can you confirm we’re clear to land?"

SFO 28R is equipped with a pretty beefy approach lighting system as well as TDZLs. Were all those systems on and functioning? I'm the kind of person that can understand mistaking long and wide stretches of pavement for runways in the daytime under the right conditions, so believe me when I say this is an honest question: how do you mistake a taxiway for a runway at night with those kind of lighting systems? I mean, they even presumably saw and questioned the flashing beacon lights ahead of them. And even in the absence of blue TELs doesn't SFO still employ green centerline lights on their taxiways?

So what then did they rhink the long stretch with white lights was? Since it adjacent to what they were aiming for, I assume it was clearly visible. Lame.

Asking about disturbing lights at the end of a 5 h flight in dusk and darkness sounds like a fatigue issue. Maybe we should look onto their duty times.

http://www.jacdec.de/2017/07/11/2017-07 ... francicso/

Visibility couldn't have been that bad if they could see the other aircraft and well the other aircraft could clearly see them.

Very lucky there was some visibility, as could have been a remake of TFN.

Most likely that's the end of the two pilots' careers.

77H wrote:

SFO no longer has taxiway edge lights along most of the taxiways parallel to the 28's.

77H

Why not and how is that even possible?

twincessna340a wrote:

77H wrote:

SFO no longer has taxiway edge lights along most of the taxiways parallel to the 28's.

77H

Why not and how is that even possible?

Blue reflectors can be used in lieu of edge lights when there is a centerline lighting system installed.

viewtopic.php?t=1351669

I wonder if this will change the lighting guidance, should it be listed as a contributing factor.

mtnwest1979 wrote:

So what then did they rhink the long stretch with white lights was? Since it adjacent to what they were aiming for, I assume it was clearly visible. Lame.

The parallel runway?
Everyone landing on a taxiway is an idiot until it happens to yourself.

Taxiway landings keep happening and no one does anything about it.

In pitch dark night vision, ie a dark cockpit, the eyes can lose a lot of color perception. In addition, contaminants in the air and clouds can change the preception of a color.
Time to look for a more clear system than light colors.

Illuminating the runway numbers could help.

Waterbomber wrote:

The parallel runway?
Everyone landing on a taxiway is an idiot until it happens to yourself.

Taxiway landings keep happening and no one does anything about it.

In pitch dark night vision, ie a dark cockpit, the eyes can lose a lot of color perception. In addition, contaminants in the air and clouds can change the preception of a color.
Time to look for a more clear system than light colors.

Illumi nating the runway numbers could help.

Would something like a more robust system of sequenced lights help? Or would that be too distracting for normal ops?

Maybe this is worth its own thread...

blackbox67 wrote:

Asking about disturbing lights at the end of a 5 h flight in dusk and darkness sounds like a fatigue issue. Maybe we should look onto their duty times.

http://www.jacdec.de/2017/07/11/2017-07 ... francicso/

I think he was asking about plane lights lined up on the taxiway. The crew is at least aware something is not right.

UA pilot may be the hero, saved the day.

What happened to ILS??

I shudder at the thought of what could've happened had the 320 continued its approach. I look forward to the report.

wn676 wrote:

Waterbomber wrote:

The parallel runway?
Everyone landing on a taxiway is an idiot until it happens to yourself.

Taxiway landings keep happening and no one does anything about it.

In pitch dark night vision, ie a dark cockpit, the eyes can lose a lot of color perception. In addition, contaminants in the air and clouds can change the preception of a color.
Time to look for a more clear system than light colors.

Illumi nating the runway numbers could help.

Would something like a more robust system of sequenced lights help? Or would that be too distracting for normal ops?

Maybe this is worth its own thread...

.
.
Were the REIL's not in use?
.
.

Scary situation. Is there ATC audio available?

AirlineCritic wrote:

Scary situation. Is there ATC audio available?

It's the SoundCloud link in the first post.

Sounds terrifying. Besides UA 1, do we know what other three planes waiting for takeoff? The retired captain in the Mercury News article said they were all widebodies.

The audio from the incident is edited which leaves the impression the events were much closer than they actually may have been. The call for go around due to misaligned approach 30 seconds after initial contact with tower was made is not normal and is unsafe. We don't know if the pilot was maneuvering to avoid a collision or was performing a standard go around because he could not correct a deviation.

As wrong airport landings happen from time to time, it's typically on a clear night with pilots executing a visual approach and landing on a runway with the same alignment as one they have been cleared on. I have never heard of a taxiway landing attempted this way though.

runway23 wrote:

Visibility couldn't have been that bad if they could see the other aircraft and well the other aircraft could clearly see them.

Very lucky there was some visibility, as could have been a remake of TFN.

Most likely that's the end of the two pilots' careers.

Hang on now Sparky lets think about things for a couple seconds. Pilot is lined up with wrong runway conducting a visual approach. Lower visibility and same pilot is flying an instrument approach hooked up to an ILS likely.

If the visibility is bad, this doesn't happen as they wouldn't be flying by visual reference.

And these two pilots will most certainly fly again, after a thorough debriefing, investigation and possible retraining. Calm down on the theatrics.

Thanks for the comment about the theatrics......90% of the non pilots love the theater in their posts. Oh the drama........

Sightseer wrote:

Sounds terrifying. Besides UA 1, do we know what other three planes waiting for takeoff? The retired captain in the Mercury News article said they were all widebodies.

According to http://www.jacdec.de/2017/07/11/2017-07 ... francicso/ referenced above, we have PAL 115 (343 headed to MNL), UAL 863 (789 headed to SYD) and UA 118 (seems to be an error; 118 shows up as a 752 to Edinburgh from ORD).

So...at the very least, it seems like two UA 789s and one PR 343 with that 4th jet to be determined. Assuming full loads in all 4 jets, that's north of 1,000 people, not counting those on the AC 320.

Well, if you are expecting to see 2 rwys and are cleared for 28R and 28L is dark, twy c might be an obvious mistake.....

[quote="tjwgrr"][/quote]

Point of clarification that isn't 28R at SFO.

I found a YouTube video of a night landing on 28R: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNMtMYUGjnQ

It is from back in 2012 but it appears that there are no edge lights on C (either not on or not there).

The runway becomes clear at :40 into the video. The green center line light of C is by far the most prominent light source by brightness compounded by how straight it is. By comparison apart from the approach lights and PAPI the runway lights almost seem nonexistent.

From a human factors point of view, practically since birth we are conditioned that 'green is good' and are naturally drawn to bright lights; combine that with how straight the lights are and a fatigue factor it is easy to understand how human instinct can overcome training. It is the same principle on why police/firefighters/EMTs get struck by passing vehicles at traffic stops/accident scenes.

IIRC green center line lights in taxiways were originally implemented to use during low visibility conditions (they lighted charted low vis taxi routes)?

IMHO with how reliable and efficient LED lights are there should be no reason not to have edge lights everywhere and green centerline lights should only used in low visibility conditions or in good visibility only as runway lead in/exit lights. For the snow clearing argument, ATL has LED taxi edge lights installed in the pavement.

Bavd wrote:

28L is dark

28L was dark? Why?

http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r ... 3p0259.asp

Rare, but this has occurred before after a long flight.

Western727 wrote:

Bavd wrote:

28L is dark

28L was dark? Why?

I meant, If rwy 28L was dark....
It could not be in use at the time?

Lost in the drama is the fact that the AC pilot had the presence of mind to ask the tower why there were lights on the "runway." He was clearly aware that something wasn't right and inquired. Now, would he have recognized the misalignment in time and initiated a go-around on his own, or for the tower to order one? That only Providence knows, but at least he was heads-up enough to ask a question. Also, kudos to the other pilot for saying, "Where is this guy going? He’s on the taxiway!" In other words, another alert pilot being observant about his surroundings.

I am not trying to minimize this incident. It could have ended tragically for so many. There will be an investigation and is discipline is warranted, it will certainly be meted out. What I am saying is that alert people asked questions and/or made statements that helped to avert a tragedy and in the midst of everything else, we should remember that.

Bavd wrote:

Western727 wrote:

Bavd wrote:

28L is dark

28L was dark? Why?

I meant, If rwy 28L was dark....
It could not be in use at the time?

Perhaps, though I doubt it was, given the time of the day (11:00p local time), and the likelihood of multiple arriving aircraft at the time.

Western727 wrote:

Perhaps, though I doubt it was, given the time of the day (11:00p local time), and the likelihood of multiple arriving aircraft at the time.

Why would you doubt it was? Seems like 28R was handling both arrivals and departures by that point in the evening. There is even a video linked in reply #27 that illustrates 28L approach and runway lights turned off.

flyPIT wrote:

Western727 wrote:

Perhaps, though I doubt it was, given the time of the day (11:00p local time), and the likelihood of multiple arriving aircraft at the time.

Why would you doubt it was? Seems like 28R was handling both arrivals and departures by that point in the evening. There is even a video linked in reply #27 that illustrates 28L approach and runway lights turned off.

Good question; I could certainly be wrong here. My speculation is that the video referenced in #27 was shot after midnight when arrivals have diminished significantly. At 11:00p I'm thinking there is still a substantial volume of arrivals, with SFO being a west coast airport.

tjwgrr wrote:

wn676 wrote:

Waterbomber wrote:

The parallel runway?
Everyone landing on a taxiway is an idiot until it happens to yourself.

Taxiway landings keep happening and no one does anything about it.

In pitch dark night vision, ie a dark cockpit, the eyes can lose a lot of color perception. In addition, contaminants in the air and clouds can change the preception of a color.
Time to look for a more clear system than light colors.

Illumi nating the runway numbers could help.

Would something like a more robust system of sequenced lights help? Or would that be too distracting for normal ops?

Maybe this is worth its own thread...

.
.
Were the REIL's not in use?
.
.

What you've shown is a MALS/MALSF system; REILs are just the strobes that identify a runway end (more or less in line with the runway threshold). IINM the two can't be combined.

I flew out of SFO on July 7th on an 23:55 flight. With regards to the speculation regarding low ceilings at SFO, the weather was clear that night, we didn't even have fog coming in through the Golden Gate much less the gap in the hills between Daly City and Brisbane, which is relatively rare for July in the Bay.

I'm also pretty sure 28L was open as of midnight when we departed. SFO has been closing runways on the weekend for resurfacing as of late, but 1R/19L was closed on Friday night (we departed 1L) and I didn't notice the lighted X's or those temporary "runway/taxiway closed" lights on 28L as we roared by. I'd be surprised if SFO had 2 runways closed at the time in question, particularly as the 10pm-12am period is busy with TPAC and transcon departures.

Ummm .... maybe this is where we NON-pilots (I'm an auto mechanic) can suggest simple solutions to repeated potentially deadly problems like landing on taxiways///////

WHY CAN'T EVERY AIRPORT UNIFORMLY JUST PUT A BIG FREAKING BRILLIANT EYE-PIERCING KING-KONG SIZED RED "X" THAT LIGHTS UP AT THE APPROACH END OF EVERY TAXIWAY AND EVERY RUNWAY NOT IN USE?? (And a giant green smiley face for the ones that are in use, to make it kindergarten-simple.)

And no typical aviation excuse allowed for how "the X lights aren't working tonight." I'm talking a big hammer to force international compliance like a $1-million fine levied on the airport for each aircraft allowed to land while the X is not functioning. It's amazing how aircraft are designed with multiple system redundancy, whereas airports and their lighting systems seem to be held to the same level of compliance as a children's lemonade stand.

Not having something this low-tech seems to me as brilliant as not putting stop signs at intersections........ Am I being too simplistic? What am I missing here?

Was the ILS active? Sounds like he was making a visual approach. Shades of Asiana 214 on 28L.

Hold on... based on the edited transcript, the AC pilot called to identify lights on the runway. Isn't that a good reason to initiate a missed approach then and there? (Especially when the tower confirm there is no one on the runway), which your own eyes are telling you isn't true).

if not, at what point does traffic on the runway lead to a missed approach?

(From a non-pilot who wants to know)

Most likely they were flying the FMS Bridge Visual to 28R which isn't aligned with the runway at all. If the lights were not on 28L and the Air Canada is trying to align with the runway, they most likely align with lights on the right. It's not as common to have multiple aircraft lined up on twy C so it might have easily presented the illusion of runway lights.

reltney wrote:

Thanks for the comment about the theatrics......90% of the non pilots love the theater in their posts. Oh the drama........

Nice downplay by AC:

Air Canada issued a statement Monday saying, "Air Canada flight AC759 from Toronto was preparing to land at SFO Friday night when the aircraft initiated a go-around. The aircraft landed normally without incident. We are still investigating the circumstances."


Interpretation: Our pilot's mistake could have killed a thousand people but didn't. Please move on. Didn't Trump tweet something about Hillary?

28L was closed after 11:00pm local, so all arrivals and departures were using Runway 28R.

Western727 wrote:

Sightseer wrote:

Sounds terrifying. Besides UA 1, do we know what other three planes waiting for takeoff? The retired captain in the Mercury News article said they were all widebodies.

According to http://www.jacdec.de/2017/07/11/2017-07 ... francicso/ referenced above, we have PAL 115 (343 headed to MNL), UAL 863 (789 headed to SYD) and UA 118 (seems to be an error; 118 shows up as a 752 to Edinburgh from ORD).

So...at the very least, it seems like two UA 789s and one PR 343 with that 4th jet to be determined. Assuming full loads in all 4 jets, that's north of 1,000 people, not counting those on the AC 320.

The flight was a United 737-900 flying UA 1118, SFO-MCO.

I'm not a pilot, but I do notice things about communication.

Quote: Air Canada pilot: Tower Air Canada 759 I can see lights on the runway there. Can you confirm we’re clear to land?

This is somewhat ambiguous.

"Lights on the runway" can be interpreted as "runway lights".

or

"Lights on the runway" can be interpreted as simply "lights" which could be the landing lights and nav lights of the aircraft lined up on the taxiway.

The fact that he said, "Can you confirm we're clear to land" might indicate that he had some concern that things looked out of the ordinary. He could have/should have been more specific in what he meant by "Lights on the runway".

runway23 wrote:

Visibility couldn't have been that bad if they could see the other aircraft and well the other aircraft could clearly see them.

Very lucky there was some visibility, as could have been a remake of TFN.

Most likely that's the end of the two pilots' careers.

That's quite the wildly blind assertion that you make about these Air Canada pilots, don't you think?

Former NWA Capt. Lyle Prouse got a second chance at flying, with NWA no less, after piloting a 727 while legally intoxicated, back in 1990. He was brought up on federal charges, stood trial and was convicted, serving a 16 month prison sentence. After his release, he worked his ass off to rebuild his reputation and career, retiring from NWA in 1998 as a 747 captain. He was pardoned by Pres. Bill Clinton.

I would hazard a guess that the AC pilots will probably have to go through mandatory training and instruction, perhaps face a fine from their employer and then once again get back to flying. I see no reason to punish this crew, everyone deserves a second chance.....no one is perfect.

surprized the media hasnt latched onto a united pilot saying they were lined up on the taxiway causing a go around and delaying a flight... you know, cause everything is United's fault. ;~)

Just put up some damned lighted X's at the ends of these taxiways and call it good. Taxiway landings are a serious issue and yet they keep happening. Happened at SEA a few years ago, Harrison Ford had a close call at SNA a few months ago, and now this incident at SFO could have ended horrifically.

Put up some lighted X's and end this problem.

Yeah that comment above about "most likely be the end of their career" is pretty ridiculous IMO. I'm not denying the fact that there is an issue here that seems to be all on the pilots, but remember it was the pilot that spoke up and questioned the landing clearance. As mentioned, they knew something wasn't right. I don't know for sure what would have happened if United 1 didn't speak up or if the controller didn't tell them to go around, but I would like to think they would have done the go around on their own.

Didn't a Delta 767 actually land on a taxiway in ATL some years ago?

CO953 wrote:

Ummm .... maybe this is where we NON-pilots (I'm an auto mechanic) can suggest simple solutions to repeated potentially deadly problems like landing on taxiways///////

WHY CAN'T EVERY AIRPORT UNIFORMLY JUST PUT A BIG FREAKING BRILLIANT EYE-PIERCING KING-KONG SIZED RED "X" THAT LIGHTS UP AT THE APPROACH END OF EVERY TAXIWAY AND EVERY RUNWAY NOT IN USE?? (And a giant green smiley face for the ones that are in use, to make it kindergarten-simple.)

And no typical aviation excuse allowed for how "the X lights aren't working tonight." I'm talking a big hammer to force international compliance like a $1-million fine levied on the airport for each aircraft allowed to land while the X is not functioning. It's amazing how aircraft are designed with multiple system redundancy, whereas airports and their lighting systems seem to be held to the same level of compliance as a children's lemonade stand.

Not having something this low-tech seems to me as brilliant as not putting stop signs at intersections........ Am I being too simplistic? What am I missing here?

As a pilot, I would absolutely hate a "big freaking brilliant eye-piercing king-kong sized red "X," since I want to actually be able to see.

The reality is, it's pretty hard to confuse a runway for a taxiway, but under the right circumstances, not impossible. I don't know what portions of the lighting system were up at the time, but 28R at KSFO has an ALSF-2 system, which is a "metric shitload" of lights leading to the runway.

If it was visual conditions, as it sounds like it was, then it's likely some components of it were turned off or turned down, as they're considered wholly unnecessary in VMC (visual meteorological conditions). I've asked a tower to turn up the ALSF at KAUS so I could show a student what they look like, and they're really freaking bright at "fog" intensity. As in, "turn them down so we can see and land" kind of bright.

wn676 wrote:

twincessna340a wrote:

77H wrote:

SFO no longer has taxiway edge lights along most of the taxiways parallel to the 28's.

77H

Why not and how is that even possible?

Blue reflectors can be used in lieu of edge lights when there is a centerline lighting system installed.

viewtopic.php?t=1351669

I wonder if this will change the lighting guidance, should it be listed as a contributing factor.

While blue reflectors are nice for the aircraft on the taxiway it does not do much for approaching aircraft at night. Mind you the fact that all the aircraft were flashing should have been seen sooner.