Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It means no chit chat. The only talking should be that which is necessary to fly and land the aircraft. Talk about wives, girlfriends, beer, etc needs to wait until you are at the gate and the engines have been shut down. It's SOP for every airline and the military.
I've flown my plane into SFO more times than I can count, even at their busiest times, and have never come close to landing on a taxiway.
I don't get it either. I was on final into MCAS El Toro many years ago when I saw an aero club C-172 taking off from the taxiway. He wasn't a factor for me so I just kept my mouth shut. Tower never said anything about it either.
It probably helps that your car is on a road. You know, not operating in three dimensions...
Yes, but this wasn't a 3D problem. It would seem that even a cheap $100 one-dimensional road GPS unit could be programed to prevent this type of thing.
GPS voice: Turn left for SFO Runway 28R. Turn left for SFO Runway 28R. Turn left for SFO Runway 28R. Taxiway, recalculating... Go-around.
I heard the lights were turned off on 28L, so that probably shifted the pilot's orientation.
Thanks for that explanation, it makes some degree of sense. But still it's hard for me to understand how the pilot could not have seen that he was not aligned with the lights for 28R.
If the lights for 28L being turned off, turns out to be the cause of this incident, it should serve as a wake-up call. Maybe the FAA needs to make a requirement that closed runways always be illuminated in all red lights, or something, rather than just turning them off. Just like the red reflectors a driver sees if they try to drive the wrong direction on a highway.
I don't get it either. I was on final into MCAS El Toro many years ago when I saw an aero club C-172 taking off from the taxiway. He wasn't a factor for me so I just kept my mouth shut. Tower never said anything about it either.
That may have been intentional. I have done that when I was in the Aero Club at Barksdale in a PA-28-200 Arrow (was stationed two hours south at England). There are arresting cables on the runway that are a significant hazard to a light aircraft. They stick up just enough to snag a GA tire but not enough to affect anything else; we were prohibited from flying to NAS New Orleans or ANG F-4 bases when I was in the T-37 in UPT for that same reason.
Thanks for that explanation, it makes some degree of sense. But still it's hard for me to understand how the pilot could not have seen that he was not aligned with the lights for 28R.
If the lights for 28L being turned off, turns out to be the cause of this incident, it should serve as a wake-up call. Maybe the FAA needs to make a requirement that closed runways always be illuminated in all red lights, or something, rather than just turning them off. Just like the red reflectors a driver sees if they try to drive the wrong direction on a highway.
I was down in the Fort Worth area this weekend and was staying near Fort Worth Alliance (the airport the Ross built) and as I drove past on I-35W I noticed that 16L / 34R was closed. No lights except for a really big lighted "X" at each approach end and some red lights nearby, plus a bright flashing light near the X that alternated between each approach end; I've never seen that alternating light before. That's supposed to identify the closed runway.
Last edited by SluggoF16; 07-13-2017 at 07:04 AM..
I'm glad that disaster was averted, but greatest disaster in aviation history? The Air Canada flight was an A-320, while the United flight was a 787-9. Not quite the same as two 747s (Tenerife), but it certainly would have been the worst disaster in recent history (as bad as Tenerife was, consider that there were actually 61 people who survived (all from the Pan Am 747), else the fatality count with have surpassed 600).
Depending on the configuration, the A-320 may have had at most 170-180 pax, plus crew, no more than 190 souls on board. Not sure what the UA 789 holds, but definitely less than 390, which is what it would take to get to Tenerife standards. Guess a little hyperbole was involved in that story
It's my understanding there were 4 planes waiting to take off, not 1.
At this point after listening to the ATC the AC crew had to be ignoring their NAV display which would have plainly shown the way to the runway, it is not possible to put a taxiway in as a destination. The AC crew has some "splaining" to do and I suspect will be sidelined for a while.........28L/28R and taxiway C are all right together at SFo so in the wrong conditions could be a bit dicey, but they have zero excuse on a clear night.........so back in the box for some refresher stuff...........
I've flown my plane into SFO more times than I can count, even at their busiest times, and have never come close to landing on a taxiway.
Maybe the pilots on this Air Canada flight had not been in there countless times, maybe never.
--------
As for the claim that if they had been relying on their navigation systems, they wouldn't have made this mistake: Pilots transition from instrument indications to visual indications a few hundred feet above the runway. By that point, if the runway and taxiway are close together, it is possible to line yourself up with the wrong one, especially if there is a crosswind causing you to crab. There have been countless times when I have been on a parallel taxiway and the plane on final is pointed directly at us due to it being crabbed into a crosswind.
"This was very close to a catastrophic event," said John Cox, a safety consultant and retired airline pilot.
There are several cases in the United States when landing planes either hit another aircraft on the ground or barely cleared one. In the instances that safety consultant Cox recalled, including several at Los Angeles International Airport, the pilots of the landing plane could not see the other airplane.
"What is so unusual about this one is the airplanes could see each other and they still got this close," Cox said. "These guys really did intend to land on this taxiway."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
