Air Canada Plane Nearly Lands on Crowded Taxiway

[GameBoy27]

Remember the shitstorm that erupted when Harrison Ford almost landed his little plane on a taxiway? People were saying HF should never fly again for such a mistake. Well, this one could have been a hell of a lot worse!

What do you think should happen to this pilot?

"If it is true, what happened probably came close to the greatest aviation disaster in history," retired United Airlines Capt Ross Aimer, CEO of Aero Consulting Experts, told the Mercury News.

"If you could imagine an Airbus colliding with four passenger aircraft wide bodies, full of fuel and passengers, then you can imagine how horrific this could have been," he said.

(CNN)An Air Canada flight attempting to land at San Francisco International Airport nearly touched down on a taxiway crowded with planes on Friday night, the FAA said in a statement.

Air Canada Flight 759, a 146-seat Airbus A320, was cleared to land on Runway 28R, but the pilot "inadvertently" lined up for Taxiway C, which runs parallel to the runway, according to the FAA. There were four aircraft lined up on Taxiway C at the time.
An air traffic controller ordered the pilots to abort their landing. The flight from Toronto landed successfully without incident on its second approach.

In audio of the incident, the Air Canada pilot spoke to the control tower to double-check its assigned landing runway.

"Just want to confirm, this is Air Canada 759 we see some lights on the runway there. Confirming good to land?" the pilot said, seemingly referring to the aircraft lined up on the taxiway waiting to depart.
"Air Canada 759 confirmed cleared to land runway 28 right," the control tower responded. "There is no one on 28-Right but you."

Shortly after, an unidentified voice can be heard questioning the flight landing: "Where is this guy going? He's on the taxiway."
The air traffic controller told the plane to "go around" and make another attempt at landing.

The Air Canada plane was estimated to have overflown the first two jets on the taxiway by as little as 100 feet, and the third by 200 feet and the fourth by 300 feet as it was climbing, according to CNN partner CTV, citing a preliminary report from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. The A320 got within 29 feet laterally of the other aircraft.

"Air Canada 759, it looks like you were lined up for Charlie there," the controller said, an apparent reference to Taxiway C.
A United pilot readying to depart for Singapore on the taxiway then messaged to air traffic control: "Air Canada flew directly over us."

"Yeah, I saw that guys," the control tower responded.

A spokesman for Air Canada said it is still investigating the circumstances of the incident. A spokesman for the airport said there would be no further comment.

"We are aware of this incident and are in close contact with the FAA on this," San Francisco International Airport spokesman Doug Yakel said. "As the investigation is still ongoing, we will not be making any additional statements on the incident at this time."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/us/air-canada-flight-runway-trnd/index.html

 

[GameBoy27]

Here's a visual.

 

[unassuming]

The 40th anniversary of the greatest airline disaster in history just passed -March 27, 1977

2-747s collided on runway at Tenerife airport in Canary islands- 583 fatalities

If the Air Canada plane had collided with the taxiing planes it may very well have been worst than the 1977 incident.

 

[FAST]

The 40th anniversary of the greatest airline disaster in history just passed -March 27, 1977

2-747s collided on runway at Tenerife airport in Canary islands- 583 fatalities

If the Air Canada plane had collided with the taxiing planes it may very well have been worst than the 1977 incident.

The difference here is,...the Swiss air line pilot ignored orders not to advance to the runway from the taxi way.

 

[Indiana]

Air Canada

 

[rhuarc29]

The 40th anniversary of the greatest airline disaster in history just passed -March 27, 1977

2-747s collided on runway at Tenerife airport in Canary islands- 583 fatalities

If the Air Canada plane had collided with the taxiing planes it may very well have been worst than the 1977 incident.

Yeah, I think I watched something on that a few years ago. If I recall correctly, it was a series of unfortunate events. The planes were diverted because of a bomb threat. The conditions were poor where they were diverted. The one pilot made an unnecessary decision to refuel, rather than let the second jet by. A missed exit by the one pilot, and a miscommunication by the other. All this leading to the biggest aviation disaster in history.

 

[OnTheWayOut]

Can imagine being the pilots in the first plane seeing that aircraft coming at you while your stuck
on that runway with no way out?

Yep, that was my thoughts when I saw this. Thankfully a real tragedy avoided. What wonders me is how common it is to mistake the taxiway for 28R? I would think not very common or they would reconfigure the taxiway and/or runway. This pilot most likely made his last commercial flight.

 

[OnTheWayOut]

I watch too many episodes of Mayday. Seems to me that there are several electronic guidance systems to help guide the plane and assist with landing. Sometimes some of them are under maintenance and that has factored into accidents. But if my thinking is correct, when the air traffic controller tells a pilot to use 28R they plug this into their guidance system and beacons on the runway will help guide the plane to the proper runway. Not sure how they could drift off course unless they made an input mistake.

I think the usual cockpit crew is 3 or more .... pilot, copilot, engineer. I actually found a document that says Airbus requires 4 in the cockpit, not sure what the 4th crew member's job is.

 

[fuji]

How many people are in the cockpit of this type of airplane?
Why didn't the co-pilot say anything?
How could two pilots make such a bad decision?
I'll be very interested in hearing what an inquiry into this near disaster tells us.

The media story was overblown. When they got closer they would have seen the planes on the runway and aborted the landing. ATC noticed the problem while the AC flight was still far enough out not to have a clear view of the runway. The pilots would eventually have seen the problem too.

 

[bigshot]

How many people are in the cockpit of this type of airplane?
Why didn't the co-pilot say anything?
How could two pilots make such a bad decision?

My thoughts exactly. I've flown into SFO many times, and the approach runway actually begins out in the Bay, and the two parallel runways look like causeways that extend into the water area on approach. Not to mention that at night, the landing runway is lighted up far more than the taxiway. How two (presumably) experienced pilots can make this error without either one noticing is beyond belief. Apparently, they were down to 100 feet when they flew over the first of those 4 planes on the ground. If they would have clipped that first one, the chain reaction would likely have destroyed all 5 aircraft (4 on the ground and the idiot from AC). This is too scary to contemplate.

And sorry, fuji, this incident is not "overblown". It was a tragedy waiting to happen...

 

[Aardvark154]

In mitigation to the Air Canada pilots they saw the landing lights of the aircraft on the taxiway and called the tower about it. Seemingly neither the tower nor the pilots cottoned onto the fact that they were lined up for Taxiway C, rather than Runway 28R, until one of the pilots on the taxiway broke into the traffic with "Where is this guy going? He's on the taxiway." and the tower immediately told Air Canada 759 to "go around."

 

[Aardvark154]

The 40th anniversary of the greatest airline disaster in history just passed -March 27, 1977

2-747s collided on runway at Tenerife airport in Canary islands- 583 fatalities

The crash which is largely responsible for Cockpit Resource Management (CRM).

 

[GameBoy27]

The media story was overblown. When they got closer they would have seen the planes on the runway and aborted the landing. ATC noticed the problem while the AC flight was still far enough out not to have a clear view of the runway. The pilots would eventually have seen the problem too.

Yeah, you're right fuji. Narrowly missing four planes full of passengers and fuel by 100 ft. potentially causing the single largest air disaster is totally overblown.

When it was determined the plane was on approach to the taxiway, the pilot had to be told by ATC to go around. Only then was the landing aborted. How long do you think the pilot was going to wait before he determined he should abort? Factoring in he only missed the planes on the ground by 100 ft. I would hazard a guess it was mere seconds from disaster.

Transcript shows the AC pilot was the first to question the situation. He did make the mistake, but was also the first to realize something wasnt right.

Tower controller told him that the runway was clear an he was cleared to land still.

The other pilot waiting on the taxiway spoke up, United i believe, and the go-around to AC was issued.

All in all, a very scary situation, but it is hard to put the blame on one person. Like swiss cheese - sometimes all the holes in a plan line up and mistakes slip through. Obviously, these types of mistakes cannot happen, and that is why serious investigations and consequences will happen, to make sure 100% that shit wont happen again.

Technologies have long been in place to prevent runway collisions. Electronic devices send radio signals up to the airplane for vertical and lateral alignment. Question is, why those were not being followed. In addition, runways are illuminated by clear or amber-hued lights while the taxiway is lined with blue lights. Still, they managed to screw up. It will be interesting to find out why.

 

[Zoot Allures]

Transcript shows the AC pilot was the first to question the situation. He did make the mistake, but was also the first to realize something wasnt right.

Tower controller told him that the runway was clear an he was cleared to land still.

The other pilot waiting on the taxiway spoke up, United i believe, and the go-around to AC was issued.

All in all, a very scary situation, but it is hard to put the blame on one person. Like swiss cheese - sometimes all the holes in a plan line up and mistakes slip through. Obviously, these types of mistakes cannot happen, and that is why serious investigations and consequences will happen, to make sure 100% that shit wont happen again.

Listen to those guys talk. No panic what so ever. just a casual conversation. Must be part of their training

 

[fuji]

Yeah, you're right fuji. Narrowly missing four planes full of passengers and fuel by 100 ft. potentially causing the single largest air disaster is totally overblown.

When it was determined the plane was on approach to the taxiway, the pilot had to be told by ATC to go around. Only then was the landing aborted. How long do you think the pilot was going to wait before he determined he should abort? Factoring in he only missed the planes on the ground by 100 ft. I would hazard a guess it was mere seconds from disaster.




Technologies have long been in place to prevent runway collisions. Electronic devices send radio signals up to the airplane for vertical and lateral alignment. Question is, why those were not being followed. In addition, runways are illuminated by clear or amber-hued lights while the taxiway is lined with blue lights. Still, they managed to screw up. It will be interesting to find out why.

Pilots train to abort from as low as 20 feet and do it all the time so they still had lots of time.

My point is that even had ATC not told them to go around, they would have seen the planes and aborted. No pilot is going to think, "hey I think I'll just plow into those aircraft" and they certainly would see them once close enough, they were already trying to figure out what the suspicious lights on the runway were.

Pilots actually can see the runway and look at it as they land you know.

 

[james t kirk]

Pilots train to abort from as low as 20 feet and do it all the time so they still had lots of time.

My point is that even had ATC not told them to go around, they would have seen the planes and aborted. No pilot is going to think, "hey I think I'll just plow into those aircraft" and they certainly would see them once close enough, they were already trying to figure out what the suspicious lights on the runway were.

Pilots actually can see the runway and look at it as they land you know.

You don't know shit when it comes to whether or not those pilots would or would not have seen the planes on the taxi way.

The fact is that it was midnight in SF at the time of their arrival and they got down to 100 feet above the pavement of the runway and still didn't see anything. Only when they were told to go around did they abort the landing.

I'm not saying that these guys are guilty, but there will be a very in depth investigation on this one.

There may be mitigating factors, but it's definitely not over blown. I would not want to be those 2 pilots right now.

 

[fuji]

You don't know shit when it comes to whether or not those pilots would or would not have seen the planes on the taxi way.

The fact is that it was midnight in SF at the time of their arrival and they got down to 100 feet above the pavement of the runway and still didn't see anything. Only when they were told to go around did they abort the landing.

I'm not saying that these guys are guilty, but there will be a very in depth investigation on this one.

There may be mitigating factors, but it's definitely not over blown. I would not want to be those 2 pilots right now.

So in you expert opinion how far from critical distance is 100 feet, because by my reckoning that's still quite far from the strip, over the water, with lots of time left to abort. They could descend to one fifth that height, be over the pavement, see the planes, and STILL perform a standard go around safely.

It's certainly something to be investigated but it wasn't the near miss people think.

Multiple things have to go wrong for there to be an accident. In this case two things went wrong, but still more things would have to go wrong for there to be a crash.

The pilots would have to still not see the planes on the taxiway by the time they descended to twenty feet, which is highly unlikely, and the planes forward collision detection systems would ALSO have to fail (otherwise "collision imminent" alarms start blaring in the cockpit and the pilots abort until they figure out why).

So several more things still have to go wrong to have a crash.

But obviously if you want a high safety standard you do investigate why the first few things went wrong, you don't wait until they all go wrong. The FAA never wants a plane to be just one more failure away from a crash.

 

[FAST]

Pilots actually can see the runway and look at it as they land you know.

You haven't actually landed in, or even been in a passenger plane,...have you fuji,...

 

[GameBoy27]

So in you expert opinion how far from critical distance is 100 feet, because by my reckoning that's still quite far from the strip, over the water, with lots of time left to abort. They could descend to one fifth that height, be over the pavement, see the planes, and STILL perform a standard go around safely.

Wow, you don't know much about flying do you. The AC flight skimmed over the first plane with just 100 ft. to spare. As far as aviation goes, that's about as close as it gets to a crash and therefore was an extremely close call. Passenger jets don't instantly climb (gain altitude) when you hit the throttle like a small aerobatic plane.

An Airbus A320 travels at approximately 250 km/h on approach. At that speed, they probably flew over the entire row of planes just a few seconds. I suspect the difference between aborting the landing and descending into the planes on the taxiway about the same.

I've got over 50 hours flying experience in small planes, having flown many circuits (takeoff and landing) at Billy Bishop airport. Although that's not a lot of experience and by no means makes me an expert on jets, it does give me a grasp of the situation here. How much time have you spent flying planes fuji?

Perhaps some of the other pilots on this board can chime in...

 

[fuji]

Wow, you don't know much about flying do you. The AC flight skimmed over the first plane with just 100 ft. to spare. As far as aviation goes, that's about as close as it gets to a crash and therefore was an extremely close call. Passenger jets don't instantly climb (gain altitude) when you hit the throttle like a small aerobatic plane.

An Airbus A320 travels at approximately 250 km/h on approach. At that speed, they probably flew over the entire row of planes just a few seconds. I suspect the difference between aborting the landing and descending into the planes on the taxiway about the same.

I've got over 50 hours flying experience in small planes, having flown many circuits (takeoff and landing) at Billy Bishop airport. Although that's not a lot of experience and by no means makes me an expert on jets, it does give me a grasp of the situation here. How much time have you spent flying planes fuji?

Perhaps some of the other pilots on this board can chime in...

Let's see what the real experts say:


Investigators will focus on "how did this series of errors occur, and why didn't safeguards kick in earlier than they did?" said John Cox, a safety consultant and retired airline pilot.

Cox said it was likely that even if the air traffic controllers didn't order the Air Canada plane to pull up and make another approach, the crew would have seen planes on the taxiway in time to avoid landing on them.

He said pilots practice low-altitude go-arounds and can perform them even 20 or 30 feet above the ground.

...

Chris Manno, an American Airlines pilot for 32 years who regularly lands in San Francisco, agreed that a crash was unlikely even without a command to go around.

The pilot "is not just blindly going to say, 'I'm going to land on these aircraft,'" Manno said.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/abort-airliner-lands-san-francisco-planes-48578093

I guess I'm right and you, FAST, and James are wrong and talking out of your asses.