Near miss at SFO involving Air Canada A320 and four other aircraft
Back to Forum- This topic has 21 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 8 Aug 2017
at 07:51 by FDOS_UK.
-
- Author
- Posts
- Skip to last reply Create Topic
-
Craig BrightModeratorAn Air Canada A320 was involved in a near miss at San Francisco Airport. The pilot apparently lined up with the taxiway rather than the landing runway, where four other aircraft were located, though fortunately it was able to pull up and land successfully on a second approach.
12 Jul 2017
at 07:06
FDOS_UKParticipantTo be fair to AC, they did report seeing ‘lights on the runway’ to the tower and clarified that they were clear to land, at which stage it seems one of the pilots in the queue on the taxiway made a comment that got the controller’s attention and he ordered a go around, which AC immediately did – another pilot reported that the AC aircraft flew overhead their aircraft on the go around.
Will be interesting to see what the subsequent report says, my moeny would be on a technical problem rather than human error, since the AC guys seemed situationally aware.
12 Jul 2017
at 09:55
canuckladParticipantSurely, it would only have ended in disaster if the aircraft was in auto-land mode and the pilots weren’t paying attention.
But it seems that it was a clear night and the aircraft was being flown on a manual approach.
I wonder if atmospheric conditions, aligned with the aircrafts angle of descent lead to the flying equivalent of “railroad blindness” .
The phenomenon occurs when for no explicable reason people stand frozen on the wrong train track not being able to judge correctly the safe track.12 Jul 2017
at 11:22
FDOS_UKParticipantSurely, it would only have ended in disaster if the aircraft was in auto-land mode and the pilots weren’t paying attention.
I wouldn’t be so confident – even with a ‘go around’ instruction and instant compliance, I believe that the separation with the first queueing aircraft was 29′ laterally and 100′ above the ground – very close.
12 Jul 2017
at 11:41
canuckladParticipantFDOS, reading your numbers, my gut reaction was “holy S**t”..
And assuming your figures are accurate , it’s not a near miss, better to call it what it really is….a near hit !!Transfer your distance numbers into a timeline , and it is very alarming indeed.
Having experienced my own mid-air near miss in an Air Canada DC-9 over the suburbs of Chicago, I can state that it’s not something I’d want to do again. Very scary at the time and as I said, translate miss distance into time, and it really became my closest brush with death!!
12 Jul 2017
at 12:02
MartynSinclairParticipant“Surely, it would only have ended in disaster if the aircraft was in auto-land mode and the pilots weren’t paying attention.”
Far less likely to happen in auto land as the computers fly the aircraft with more accuracy than the pilots. The clear night could explain why the pilots may have been looking outside, if one pilot had been looking inside they should have noticed the primary flight display showing an unacceptable deflection on the localiser… if lined up to land on the taxiway.
As usual in these situations, I am sure all will be revealed in the subsequent investigation.
12 Jul 2017
at 12:28
FDOS_UKParticipant[quote quote=818585]“Surely, it would only have ended in disaster if the aircraft was in auto-land mode and the pilots weren’t paying attention.”
Far less likely to happen in auto land as the computers fly the aircraft with more accuracy than the pilots. The clear night could explain why the pilots may have been looking outside, if one pilot had been looking inside they should have noticed the primary flight display showing an unacceptable deflection on the localiser… if lined up to land on the taxiway.
As usual in these situations, I am sure all will be revealed in the subsequent investigation.
[/quote]
Map shift and confirmation bias?
12 Jul 2017
at 12:31
MartynSinclairParticipantThe worrying part for me is that whatevet wad the cause…2 pairs of experienced eyes thought they were lined up correctly for landing.
12 Jul 2017
at 14:12
MartynSinclairParticipantIs it possible for these 2 threads about the same subject to be merged..
https://www.businesstraveller.com/forums/topic/ac-missed-landing-at-sfo/
17 Jul 2017
at 00:58
FlightlevelParticipantThanks MartynS was surprised it wasn’t on list so added. AC flight crews should still monitor the ILS instruments and aircraft computer exactly to check their visuals were correct that’s one reason for two pilots.
Its not infrequent,and remember the old BA 747 that lined up on parallel road at LHR (many years ago) and last year the american airliner (SW A/L?) that landed at the wrong airfield.It only takes one!17 Jul 2017
at 10:54
FlightlevelParticipantATW reports Canadian Govt. states near’hits’at 29’and 100′,200’and 300′.Gets more interesting by the day!
17 Jul 2017
at 12:03
AlanOrton1Participant@Flightlevel – good memory re: BA 747 – I’m trying to remember the details of this, but I think it was late ’80’s or early ’90’s and it almost landed on the roof of the Penta (now Renaissance) hotel. I think the BA skipper lost his job over the incident.
17 Jul 2017
at 13:31
AMcWhirterParticipantHere’s a report of the BA incident at LHR. But it’s a sad ending.
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=147119
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/pilot-in-near-miss-found-dead-in-car-1561147.html
17 Jul 2017
at 14:10 -
AuthorPosts