CriticalPoint
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:53 pm

fallap wrote:
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?


They went around so they may not get any additional training. If the company so desires they will give them retraining. But they are most likely already out on another trip by now.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:01 pm

bmacleod wrote:
Doesn't the A320's automated ILS landing systems prevent this sort of thing from occurring? (unless the pilot switched them off)


Yes it would but usually auto lands are only used when the ceiling is to low for a manual landing.

Iv only done an auto land in good weather when Iv been overly tired. It's up to the pilots to determine the need. If the AC pilots were overly fatigued it may have been a good idea to request the ILS to the auto land. They would not have been able to fly the FMS bridge visual.
 
HappyPassenger
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:34 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:21 pm

This is marvelous website! When I read the news reporting on this incident I needed details, details, details. You all have supplied them. I just have something to add on the aspect of runway lighting requirements.

CO953 wrote:
kaminari wrote:
D L X wrote:
Couple non-pilot questions:

1) Is it normal to turn off the runway lights of a closed runway?


To answer this question, yes.
While the X is recommended at night, it is not required if runway lights are shut off during a night closure. If there is a need to leave the lights on, then a lighted X is required. Lighted Xs are also required during daytime closures. This is detailed in the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-2F.


As a non-pilot, I am still dumbfounded at how something so simple can be treated as so complicated by the industry. Why on Earth would the industry want to complicate things by allowing "X"es to be shut on or off in various conditions? It seems obvious to me that having an airport have many different "looks," especially at night, depending upon which lights are on or off at the time adds complexity and INVITES landing on the wrong runway or taxiway!

The airport runway/taxiway lighting schema should appear EXACTLY THE SAME to each approaching pilot, EVERY SINGLE TIME, identifying each and every runway and taxiway, until it is so thoroughly drummed into the pilot's head by repetition that he/she knows exactly the number and layout of runways and taxiways, even with no lights at all. This business of having two runways, 28R and 28L, plus a parallel taxiway, then shutting off the lights on one of them and shutting off the X at night, forcing pilots to decide whether he's looking at 28L and 28R, or 28R and a taxiway, seems an insane and unnecessary shell game that repeatedly endangers lives.

I wonder if force of habit has created a blindness at the FAA over such a serious issue.


Well no, not exactly. Here is a quote from the Circular in question:

Temporarily Closed Runways. If available, use a lighted X, both at night and during the
day, placed at each end of the runway facing the approach. The use of a lighted X is required if night
work requires runway lighting to be on.


This is pretty unambiguous advice that normal common sense would translate to "use the lighted X." The FAA can not just mandate one lighting scheme for all airports in their jurisdiction, since the vast majority of them are not high-volume international hubs. I believe the onus is on the management of SFO realize that they cannot use wiggle room that was left there for a small regional airport that closes at 10 PM and shuts off ALL their lights!
 
MaxTrimm
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 2:43 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:34 pm

I was able to recap all of the events and some research behind the potential cause (fatigue). Here's the link: http://layoverhub.net/air-canada-759-a- ... r-averted/
 
djxxa
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:43 am

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:57 pm

Makes me think of KLM taking off of a TW in 2010. whoops
 
User avatar
iahcsr
Posts: 4088
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 2:59 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:28 pm

bmacleod wrote:
Doesn't the A320's automated ILS landing systems prevent this sort of thing from occurring? (unless the pilot switched them off)

They were in fact switched off... pilots were landing visually/ manually.
Working Hard, Flying Right Friendly....
 
User avatar
iahcsr
Posts: 4088
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 2:59 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:40 pm

MaxTrimm wrote:
I was able to recap all of the events and some research behind the potential cause (fatigue). Here's the link: http://layoverhub.net/air-canada-759-a- ... r-averted/

That is a well written sum up of the event and one well researched possible cause. :bigthumbsup:
Working Hard, Flying Right Friendly....
 
Beatyair
Posts: 752
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:09 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:34 am

I don't get this. There is a massive amount of approach lights in front of the runways and green lights indicating the edge of the runway.
 
DaufuskieGuy
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:34 pm

Occams Razor would tell us that the body clock of the pilots was 3AM hence they're tired, and not knowing that 28L was dark, they assumed C was 28R and 28R was 28L.

Is something so simple as illuminated signage (eg "28R") a possible remedy?
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 2023
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:34 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
I believe it was in the Michael Creighton book, Airframe, where a plane either lost control or lined up on a taxiway (I believe the former) and the pilot of the plane holding short saw it coming and tried to spool up his engines and move the plane but it took too long and the landing aircraft struck the holding aircraft. I can't imagine how helpless it would feel to be the UA1 guy watching this unfold.


Heck, you don't have to delve into fiction. that's basically what happened at Tenerife, except it was a takeoff, not landing.

One airplane frantically trying to get off the ground, with another trying to get out of the way. Neither was successful.
 
BlueberryWheats
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:46 am

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:29 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
I believe it was in the Michael Creighton book, Airframe, where a plane either lost control or lined up on a taxiway (I believe the former) and the pilot of the plane holding short saw it coming and tried to spool up his engines and move the plane but it took too long and the landing aircraft struck the holding aircraft. I can't imagine how helpless it would feel to be the UA1 guy watching this unfold.


I don't think it was Airframe. I've read it twice and don't remember that bit. I'm interested to know what book it was though.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7182
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:26 pm

BlueberryWheats wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
I believe it was in the Michael Creighton book, Airframe, where a plane either lost control or lined up on a taxiway (I believe the former) and the pilot of the plane holding short saw it coming and tried to spool up his engines and move the plane but it took too long and the landing aircraft struck the holding aircraft. I can't imagine how helpless it would feel to be the UA1 guy watching this unfold.


I don't think it was Airframe. I've read it twice and don't remember that bit. I'm interested to know what book it was though.


Ya, now I'm wondering too. lol
-Dave
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 12423
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:51 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
BlueberryWheats wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
I believe it was in the Michael Creighton book, Airframe, where a plane either lost control or lined up on a taxiway (I believe the former) and the pilot of the plane holding short saw it coming and tried to spool up his engines and move the plane but it took too long and the landing aircraft struck the holding aircraft. I can't imagine how helpless it would feel to be the UA1 guy watching this unfold.


I don't think it was Airframe. I've read it twice and don't remember that bit. I'm interested to know what book it was though.


Ya, now I'm wondering too. lol


Not Airframe. Airframe involves an inflight upset.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7182
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:11 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
BlueberryWheats wrote:

I don't think it was Airframe. I've read it twice and don't remember that bit. I'm interested to know what book it was though.


Ya, now I'm wondering too. lol


Not Airframe. Airframe involves an inflight upset.


Ya, I remember that but ..... I wish I could remember what book it was from. I think it had to do with being able to control aircraft from a remote site, basically taking control in the event of a hijack or something.

Anyhow, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
-Dave
 
george77300
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 8:33 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:20 pm

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.
A306 A313 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A388

B712 B733 B734 B735 B738 B742 B744 B752 B763 B772 B77E B773 B77W
 
Jshank83
Posts: 667
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:23 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:31 pm

george77300 wrote:
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.
 
george77300
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 8:33 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:02 am

Jshank83 wrote:
george77300 wrote:
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.
A306 A313 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A388

B712 B733 B734 B735 B738 B742 B744 B752 B763 B772 B77E B773 B77W
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 1120
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:11 am

Absolutely terrifying how close this was to being an absolute disaster, what in the world was going on in that Cockpit? How do you not see strobe lights of 4 aircraft in front of you!
 
Lindegaard
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:03 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:19 am

ikolkyo wrote:
Absolutely terrifying how close this was to being an absolute disaster, what in the world was going on in that Cockpit? How do you not see strobe lights of 4 aircraft in front of you!


I don't think they would have strobe lights on, as they are usually turned on when entering a runway. Well the AC-crew did see the 4 aircraft, they even asked ATC about them...
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 2658
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:29 am

ikolkyo wrote:
Absolutely terrifying how close this was to being an absolute disaster [...]

Agreed, when this thread was started I thought someone is exagerrating... didn't know how close this was.
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1220
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Tue Jul 18, 2017 1:27 pm

Wow that was close. 51 feet, or about 17 meters.

I also wonder how you can not see waiting aircraft. I'd like to understand something though. Is it correct that the waiting aircraft were nose to the direction of the landing aircraft? Which lights would they have had on? Not their main (landing?) lights I think. Not their strobes. What lights would they have had on?
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 1689
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Tue Jul 18, 2017 1:48 pm

Be very curious to see the CVR transcript on this flight.
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
Airplanes don't have isles, they have aisles.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 4622
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Tue Jul 18, 2017 1:53 pm

AirlineCritic wrote:
Wow that was close. 51 feet, or about 17 meters.

I also wonder how you can not see waiting aircraft. I'd like to understand something though. Is it correct that the waiting aircraft were nose to the direction of the landing aircraft? Which lights would they have had on? Not their main (landing?) lights I think. Not their strobes. What lights would they have had on?


AC759 crew did see waiting aircraft, hence the call to confirm runway was clear, not realizing it was taxiway.

I guess this is one of those threads will go on forever. Glad nothing happened on one end, OMG, would have been worst on the other end.

I am surprised not many kudos to the alert UA pilot, who saved the day.
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3445
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:58 pm

fallap wrote:
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.

george77300 wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:
george77300 wrote:
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?
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:14 pm

AirlineCritic wrote:
Which lights would they have had on? Not their main (landing?) lights I think. Not their strobes. What lights would they have had on?


Unless you are moving on the surface the only lights that will be on are the NAV lights and logo light. If aircraft were still moving up to the runway you would see the nose taxi light which is noticeable but purposefully not bright and it is angled downward.

Landing lights and Strobes come on once crossing the hold short line. With that said if I saw a plane about to land on top of me I would have turned on every light on the airplane.
 
Whiteguy
Posts: 1162
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:11 am

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:14 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
Absolutely terrifying how close this was to being an absolute disaster, what in the world was going on in that Cockpit? How do you not see strobe lights of 4 aircraft in front of you!


Try and pick out the anti collision and nav lights of an aircraft amongst the thousands of other red, green, blue, white, yellow lights with inbthe airport environment....not always the easiest thing to do. Combine that with the crew flying and monitoring the speed, attitude and configurations changes during the approach....

I wonder how many comment here are actually airline flight crew and have flown into SFO or any major airport late at night...
 
User avatar
iahcsr
Posts: 4088
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 2:59 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:33 pm

From the visual depictions I've seen UA1 was at the threshold hold short line, perpendicular to the runway. The captain would have had a clear view of AC out his left side window. If no GA, then AC would likely have cleared the PR aircraft and made contact with the 3rd and 4th in line. Passengers in the first two planes would have avoided certain death/serious injury... but only just.
Working Hard, Flying Right Friendly....
 
mm320cap
Posts: 181
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:35 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Tue Jul 18, 2017 5:07 pm

StarAC17 wrote:
fallap wrote:
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.

george77300 wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:

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?


Taxiway F has been closed intermittently for awhile now. It could have been that, or since Runway 28L was closed, they may have been doing work on the threshold area meaning 28R would need to be accessed from C.

The aircraft on C would not have their taxi lights on if they were stationary in line. We only turn on taxi lights when we are moving. Not sure which aircraft were stationary or moving on the taxiway. Also, the taillight from the 737 is WEAK, so could very easily be mistaken for a runway centerline line. It's VERY difficult to pick up a rotating beacon and red/green nav lights when aircraft are on the ground.
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 2023
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Tue Jul 18, 2017 5:52 pm

george77300 wrote:
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.


That is well low enough, and close enough, that there is probably no question those aircraft felt, and heard the passage of the AC jetliner.

Had to have shook 'em up pretty good.
 
hivue
Posts: 1658
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:11 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
I am surprised not many kudos to the alert UA pilot, who saved the day.


What alert UA pilot would that be? The ATC recording sounds like some controller in the background figured out that AC was lined up with the taxiway. Even the controller handling the plane apparently didn't notice that.

(EDIT: Just re-listened to the recording and it does sound like it's one of the UA or PAL pilots who saw what was happening.)
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 4416
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:45 pm

bmacleod wrote:
Doesn't the A320's automated ILS landing systems prevent this sort of thing from occurring? (unless the pilot switched them off)


Have you not followed the thread? They were doing a manual landing.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7182
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:01 pm

hivue wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
I am surprised not many kudos to the alert UA pilot, who saved the day.


What alert UA pilot would that be? The ATC recording sounds like some controller in the background figured out that AC was lined up with the taxiway. Even the controller handling the plane apparently didn't notice that.

(EDIT: Just re-listened to the recording and it does sound like it's one of the UA or PAL pilots who saw what was happening.)


I believe it was in most of the news stories that the UA pilot was the first to verbalize it. Scary to think about.
-Dave
 
george77300
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 8:33 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:44 pm

hivue wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
I am surprised not many kudos to the alert UA pilot, who saved the day.


What alert UA pilot would that be? The ATC recording sounds like some controller in the background figured out that AC was lined up with the taxiway. Even the controller handling the plane apparently didn't notice that.

(EDIT: Just re-listened to the recording and it does sound like it's one of the UA or PAL pilots who saw what was happening.)


Yes the first aircraft in the queue, UAL1 (B789) was at 90 degrees to others about to head onto runway after AC landing. This means it was a clear view out the captain side window as they were watching it to line up and takeoff after it landed. Therefore they told ATC something along the lines of "he's heading for us/he's on the taxiway". This printed the ATC to call for a go around. 5 seconds later or if UA1 hadn't seen Air Canada it would have been a disaster.
A306 A313 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A388

B712 B733 B734 B735 B738 B742 B744 B752 B763 B772 B77E B773 B77W
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1254
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Tue Jul 18, 2017 10:05 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
BlueberryWheats wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
I believe it was in the Michael Creighton book, Airframe, where a plane either lost control or lined up on a taxiway (I believe the former) and the pilot of the plane holding short saw it coming and tried to spool up his engines and move the plane but it took too long and the landing aircraft struck the holding aircraft. I can't imagine how helpless it would feel to be the UA1 guy watching this unfold.


I don't think it was Airframe. I've read it twice and don't remember that bit. I'm interested to know what book it was though.


Ya, now I'm wondering too. lol


That wasn't a book, that was Tenerife. Granted the Pan Am plane was on the runway and the KLM plane was under control but Pan Am spooled their engines and got the nose off the runway.

[edit.] Ah yeah, litz said the same thing.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7182
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Tue Jul 18, 2017 10:39 pm

Yes, I know about Tenerife. lol This was a book. But let's just let it go, as I don't want to hijack this thread.
-Dave
 
dash88
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:23 am

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:32 pm

They were doing a manual landing.

why were they doing a manual? especially if fatigued.
 
CO953
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 am

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:28 am

N14AZ wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
Absolutely terrifying how close this was to being an absolute disaster [...]

Agreed, when this thread was started I thought someone is exagerrating... didn't know how close this was.


I'll say it again. This was almost the worst disaster in the history of manned flight.

All agencies should be in 24/7 emergency mode, almost literally without sleep, and all egos put aside, until this cheese-hole line-up is permanently plugged.

Horrifying.
 
Whiteguy
Posts: 1162
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:11 am

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:35 am

dash88 wrote:
They were doing a manual landing.

why were they doing a manual? especially if fatigued.


Every landing is a manual landing.....
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:40 am

CO953 wrote:
N14AZ wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
Absolutely terrifying how close this was to being an absolute disaster [...]

Agreed, when this thread was started I thought someone is exagerrating... didn't know how close this was.


I'll say it again. This was almost the worst disaster in the history of manned flight.

All agencies should be in 24/7 emergency mode, almost literally without sleep, and all egos put aside, until this cheese-hole line-up is permanently plugged.

Horrifying.


Every day is almost the worst disaster in the history of manned flight.........you are a little over the top in this thread. There is no "emergency mode" to be put under. This is humans being humans you will never regulate, train or breed out human error, all we can do is the best we can to mitigate it, and in this instance the other flights on the ground and the tower made AC go around and the crew safely executed that go around.

You may not think it is true but the system worked and everyones life was saved due to quick thinking on everyones part including the pilots of Air Canada.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:43 am

dash88 wrote:
They were doing a manual landing.

why were they doing a manual? especially if fatigued.


How do you know they were fatigued? Just because it was late at night doesn't mean they were fatigued. I take a nice late afternoon nap before I fly a red eye and am usually in pretty good shape by the time I have to land the aircraft.
 
CO953
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 am

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:03 am

CriticalPoint wrote:
CO953 wrote:
N14AZ wrote:
Agreed, when this thread was started I thought someone is exagerrating... didn't know how close this was.


I'll say it again. This was almost the worst disaster in the history of manned flight.

All agencies should be in 24/7 emergency mode, almost literally without sleep, and all egos put aside, until this cheese-hole line-up is permanently plugged.

Horrifying.


Every day is almost the worst disaster in the history of manned flight.........you are a little over the top in this thread. There is no "emergency mode" to be put under. This is humans being humans you will never regulate, train or breed out human error, all we can do is the best we can to mitigate it, and in this instance the other flights on the ground and the tower made AC go around and the crew safely executed that go around.

You may not think it is true but the system worked and everyones life was saved due to quick thinking on everyones part including the pilots of Air Canada.


Good thing that the slowest-thinking AC pilot wasn't at the controls then. Because if there are 1,000 pilots in an airline, someone does have to be #1,000 in skills.

Seriously - if a light a can flip on on my porch when someone walks up at night, how hard is it to affiirmatively warn a pilot that he's lined up with a taxiway? I maintain my alarm bells. This problem is so simple and yet so potentially deadly that not learning from this is beneath the proudly self-professed dedication to excellence in the aviation industry.
 
JBirdAV8r
Posts: 3455
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 4:44 am

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:24 am

I can't believe I'm responding to this mind-numbingly embarrassing thread, but...

I'm fairly sure the book you're thinking of is "Final Approach" by John Nance.
I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:29 am

CO953 wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
CO953 wrote:

I'll say it again. This was almost the worst disaster in the history of manned flight.

All agencies should be in 24/7 emergency mode, almost literally without sleep, and all egos put aside, until this cheese-hole line-up is permanently plugged.

Horrifying.


Every day is almost the worst disaster in the history of manned flight.........you are a little over the top in this thread. There is no "emergency mode" to be put under. This is humans being humans you will never regulate, train or breed out human error, all we can do is the best we can to mitigate it, and in this instance the other flights on the ground and the tower made AC go around and the crew safely executed that go around.

You may not think it is true but the system worked and everyones life was saved due to quick thinking on everyones part including the pilots of Air Canada.


Good thing that the slowest-thinking AC pilot wasn't at the controls then. Because if there are 1,000 pilots in an airline, someone does have to be #1,000 in skills.

Seriously - if a light a can flip on on my porch when someone walks up at night, how hard is it to affiirmatively warn a pilot that he's lined up with a taxiway? I maintain my alarm bells. This problem is so simple and yet so potentially deadly that not learning from this is beneath the proudly self-professed dedication to excellence in the aviation industry.


See that's the problem there IS something that tells the pilots they are not lined up with the runway.....
.runway centerline lights are white, touchdown zone lights are white, runway edge lights are white (until you get to the end then they are amber and red), REILs are green, ALS is white and red

Taxiways have a green centerline and blue edge lighting.......

You can't fix every problem, especially with regulation, all we can do is try to mitigate human error through training. As I said before if it wasn't for human error the aviation industry world wide would be almost perfect. In this instance a human made an error and several humans corrected the error and the system worked as it should.
Last edited by CriticalPoint on Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Posts: 687
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:35 am

Remind me not fly through SFO...
Smoothest Ride so far ~ AA A300B4-600R ~~ Favorite Aviation Author ~ Robert J. Serling
 
DaufuskieGuy
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:54 am

CriticalPoint wrote:
dash88 wrote:
They were doing a manual landing.

why were they doing a manual? especially if fatigued.


How do you know they were fatigued? Just because it was late at night doesn't mean they were fatigued. I take a nice late afternoon nap before I fly a red eye and am usually in pretty good shape by the time I have to land the aircraft.


their body clocks were at 3AM I'll be very surprised if fatigue is not a contributing factor. I wonder too if the nighttime formation of planes on C and 28L dark was something they'd ever experienced.
 
Topguncanada
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 6:44 am

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:06 am

There sure is a lot of speculation and interesting theories on this thread thus far. I think it would be best for everyone to be patient and wait for the investigation to be concluded and the report to be released. Though we have no idea whether or not the crew was fatigued; I can say for certain that this was the crews first and only operating leg of the day. Noteworthy however is that this arrival was at approximately 0200 for their body clocks as they are Toronto based.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7182
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:21 am

JBirdAV8r wrote:
I can't believe I'm responding to this mind-numbingly embarrassing thread, but...

I'm fairly sure the book you're thinking of is "Final Approach" by John Nance.


Well.....thank you.....I think. lol
-Dave
 
DaufuskieGuy
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:46 pm

Topguncanada wrote:
There sure is a lot of speculation and interesting theories on this thread thus far. I think it would be best for everyone to be patient and wait for the investigation to be concluded and the report to be released. Though we have no idea whether or not the crew was fatigued; I can say for certain that this was the crews first and only operating leg of the day. Noteworthy however is that this arrival was at approximately 0200 for their body clocks as they are Toronto based.



actually it was 3am this flight came in at midnight local, anyone who has taken a late arriving west coast transcon even as a pax knows how tired you are.
 
D L X
Posts: 11894
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:37 pm

The NTSB said it has security-camera video of the late-night incident and will release it in the coming months.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/investigator ... 54239.html
 
802flyguy
Posts: 254
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 1:56 pm

Re: Potential accident involving AC 759 prevented at SFO.

Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:11 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
BlueberryWheats wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
I believe it was in the Michael Creighton book, Airframe, where a plane either lost control or lined up on a taxiway (I believe the former) and the pilot of the plane holding short saw it coming and tried to spool up his engines and move the plane but it took too long and the landing aircraft struck the holding aircraft. I can't imagine how helpless it would feel to be the UA1 guy watching this unfold.


I don't think it was Airframe. I've read it twice and don't remember that bit. I'm interested to know what book it was though.


Ya, now I'm wondering too. lol


One of the early (and less implausable) John Nance novels had that as a plot line. IIRC the landing aircraft was an A320 (still fairly new) and there thought that the avionics went haywire. His first book, non fiction, about the collapse of (orginal) Braniff was great. His novels, while fun for avgeeks, tend to stretch the believable.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos