Sign in to follow this  
UpperDeck

SFO Incident

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, mo32a said:

I disagree. A go around because somebody was slow clearing or spacing was compromised is one thing. If in this case the aircraft had continued to land there would have been a very serious incident. Any controller would report this to his supervisor and a report would be generated.

mo32a..... 

We know that the NTSB is conducting an investigation. It is my understanding that NTSB field operations have access to a lot of information regarding airport operations. It is possible that the NTSB " self-initiated" the investigation. It is possible that it was reported voluntarily by the operator or an investigation was requested by the FAA.

The relevance of a mandatory report is that it is made FORTHWITH and the CVR must be preserved together with all other potential evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any one, or more of the four aircraft waiting to go could have initiated the reporting process through their own operations centers?

I don't have the rules handy, but my gut tells me that common sense says the incident was serious enough to be reported and apparently someone else did too. It's only an opinion, but to suggest an incident like this is just a business as usual excursion from the norm because it doesn't exactly fit with the list of those incidents that must be reported is disingenuous at best.

The discussion above regarding the various techniques employed to get the aircraft to the threshold tells me there's a big problem with automation dependency. Just think; had a single $300 round faced cross hair ILS indicator been installed, the pilots would have known PRECISELY where the aircraft was in relation to the runway landing zone throughout the entire fancy FMS directed RNAV piggybacked GPS guided blah blah blah VFR approach and thereby avoided the entire event.

.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much of the information that would allow an objective look at this event is lost or otherwise unavailable to us.  That said, it seems to be that perception is a common element in all of the unanswered questions.  Why did the crew believe their approach was correct for so long? When did the ground traffic perceive the threat?  What did the tower controller see and when?  What level of threat was perceived at the time of the event, when was the current level of concern reached and how? (this last question speaks directly to the timing of the report)

We can debate the various technical limitations of the navigation systems, but this was supposed to be a visual approach.  While it is easy to say, it is helpful to me to keep in mind that, at one time, ALL approaches were visual, until we as an industry learned that visual cues were sometimes absent,  insufficient or misleading.  Misleading visual cues have been biting us a lot lately.

Bottom line, this crew perceived their approach as safe for quite a while.  Why was that, and what ultimately changed their mind?  Was it the call from the ground traffic, or did they see something on their own?  Understanding what they saw and processed is going to be the key to mitigating a future occurrence.

 

FWIW

Vs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Vsplat said:

Bottom line, this crew perceived their approach as safe for quite a while.  Why was that, and what ultimately changed their mind?  Was it the call from the ground traffic, or did they see something on their own?  Understanding what they saw and processed is going to be the key to mitigating a future occurrence.

FWIW

Vs

The Captain & FO on this flight told the NTSB investigators they thought 28R was 28L The NOTAMS clearly stated the runway and approach lights for 28L were out of service. So they either didn't read them or forgot what they would see on the visual segment of this approach. Fatigue or just poor planning and execution of the approach?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, blues deville said:

The Captain & FO on this flight told the NTSB investigators they thought 28R was 28L The NOTAMS clearly stated the runway and approach lights for 28L were out of service. So they either didn't read them or forgot what they would see on the visual segment of this approach. Fatigue or just poor planning and execution of the approach?

 

 I can understand confusion amongst parallel runways, particularly if cleared for a visual approach without straight in approach back up (although one could set up an extended runway centre line on the moving map using the FMS).

However, I am not aware of a single taxiway that has approach lead in lighting associated. One would have to think that would be the best clue as to what you were perceiving as a runway. Same consideration for the YMM incident listed above.

Edited by rudder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, DEFCON said:

Is the taxi way parallelling 28R usable if the ILS is in use during IFR ops? 

 

 

Not 100% sure but the G/S antennas for 28L/R are located between both runways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Blues.

A some locations ILS approaches are prohibited when objects like aircraft are positioned too close to an active runway; the layout at this airfield looks like it may have this sort of restriction in place, at least when IFR ops are underway?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2017 at 1:02 AM, DEFCON said:

 

I don't have the rules handy, but my gut tells me that common sense says the incident was serious enough to be reported and apparently someone else did too. It's only an opinion, but to suggest an incident like this is just a business as usual excursion from the norm because it doesn't exactly fit with the list of those incidents that must be reported is disingenuous at best.

 

.

 

 

 

I posted the " rules" above. I think that post is on page 7. In any event, according to a recent news report, both the FAA and Air Canada asserted that the event was not a " reportable incident" and hence, the NTSB was not notified until almost 24 hours later. If the event had in fact been " reportable", the CRV would have been preserved and available for review.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Vsplat

I would recommend to stop feeding the troll. That's all he is. He has no connection to the incident. He gets his facts from newspapers and internet bulletin boards and starts making accusations and innuendo...I have no idea why he cares so much, the investigation is in good hands and the NTSB will produce a report which should give the best accounting of the incident and include all the facts and timings and we will know what happened and maybe some ideas as to why. Until then some people should take up other hobbies.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, anonymous said:

Hi Vsplat

I would recommend to stop feeding the troll. That's all he is. He has no connection to the incident. He gets his facts from newspapers and internet bulletin boards and starts making accusations and innuendo...I have no idea why he cares so much, the investigation is in good hands and the NTSB will produce a report which should give the best accounting of the incident and include all the facts and timings and we will know what happened and maybe some ideas as to why. Until then some people should take up other hobbies.

Anonymous...

 

I don't know whether you are referring to me in your post. If so, I regret your apparent need to belittle and diminish. It is not the first time you questioned my motives and on the last occasion, it seemed you had an ulterior motive.

My interest in aviation and aviation-related issues arises primarily because of my association and friendship with flight crew and cabin crew over a period of more than 30 years. 

I travel extensively. I very frequently do so in the company of my wife who has worked as a flight attendant for 36 years. Every time my wife boards an aircraft she is placing her trust ( and life) in the hands of pilots. Cradled within those hands are in fact many lives.

You have " no idea why he cares so much...." Does that assist?

I get my facts " from newspapers and internet bulletin boards"? No sir....I do not. I do not frequent any aviation-related forums other than the AEF. The news article I most recently referenced was in fact accessed on this forum under News Feeds. I did read about the incident in a news release accessed on Flipboard but I thereafter spoke by phone and communicated by email with pilots known to me and whom I consider friends. I relied far more upon their input than on anything read in internet news accounts.

Most of the pilots that i associate with I met through boating. They include pilots at American, Southwest, and Delta.

To suggest that everyone with an interest in this incident should sit aside quietly and await the report of the NTSB is to deny the legitimacy of well-intenioned, sincere and legitimate dialogue. And the purpose of this forum is to facilitate and indeed encourage such dialogue.

Labelling a contributor as a " troll" without reason implies an intent to silence and is disrespectful and contrary to the guidelines enunciated by the Administrator.

Edited by UpperDeck
Change word
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tem 'internet troll' is very confusing, so I looked up the definition.

From Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtrl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement."

By strict definition, no one could be faulted for feeling that your post was a form of trolling too Anonymous.

Any discussion can be deemed to be 'trolling' by any individual that has a touchy perspective for a particular subject.

No matter the carrier, if employees of same are present on this board when an incident occurs they can be expected to be sensitive and downright defensive when it comes to frank speculation /  debate regarding the circumstances etc.of the event. It's in our nature to circle the wagons when the team is perceived to be under fire.

In the present case I have to vouch for Upper Deck; I've known him professionally and personally for close to thirty five years now and I can assure you that he's anything but a troll.

 

 

  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this