SFO Incident

[blues deville]

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?

 

[rudder]

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.

[DEFCON]

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

 

 

[blues deville]

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. 

[DEFCON]

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?

 

 

[UpperDeck]

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.

[AAS]

SFO has apparently made some changes to their procedures. 

 

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/faa-changes-san-francisco-landing-procedures-after-a-440380/

 

 

[anonymous]

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.

[Vsplat]

Good advice anonymous.  Thanks

Vs

[blues deville]

This topic is over 900 posts and 46 pages long on another aviation forum with no end in sight. That's a lot of future hobbiests.

[UpperDeck]

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.

[DEFCON]

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 (/ˈtroʊl/, /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.