Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Canada pulls a Hans Solo

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    I wonder if the VASI, approach lighting and touch-down zone lights were working...

    [shortened]
    Hm. You better don't ask me about the LH experience at SFO, this does no longer concern "my a/c type",
    although it is my avatar: LH-B744 at the Bay Intercontinental airport.
    But today, the Bay is not a LH 747 topic... ..

    In general, the SF Bay Intercontinenal airport is not a bad airport. But I use semipro Boeing simulators for California since almost a decade... The procedures are definitely different from JFK, but not so very different from LAX, keyword nose dive ...

    Where did I read that SFO regularly turns off all IFR frequencies? Must've been a source with jetphotos in its name. Yes. And then a jet pilot with four engines can show what he's able to do. Good that we have airports like the SF bay, they are the spice in aviation!
    That's what airlines are good for, amongst others,
    The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
    And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
    Aviation enthusiast, since more than 35 years with home airport EDDL.

    Comment


    • #17
      Report when SFO is visual.

      SFO is DUS minus...

      Local time, thats the topic where I always stop to write.. But let me try the world clock.
      DUS 0736 local.
      JFK 0136 local.
      and SFO is JFK minus 3 ? .. the date changes, damn!

      JFK minus 1 .. 0041 -- minus 2 2341 and -- minus 3 2241 (Tue July 11th).

      SFO then should be 2241 (July 11th) at this very moment.

      Thus, SFO is DUS minus .. 9? So, DUS 2155 is .. daylight in the bay. Yes, schedules do not change that much.

      And why did I do that calculation? Not for photos of a LH-B744..

      For Gabe. You can assume that LH 454 pilots have daylight. But with a four engined jet, it remains interesting enough, with all instrument frequencies turned off:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fr...rport_2010.jpg
      That's what airlines are good for, amongst others,
      The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
      And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
      Aviation enthusiast, since more than 35 years with home airport EDDL.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        Yes. IF they were using it (they were in a visual approach). Anyway, since the plane is intact, you will also have the QAR which has much more and much better info (but is not crash/fire worthy).
        I think what it recorded is deviation from the localizer, so if the localizer is distorted, it would just show zero deviation. Anyway, I realize that this was visual (the crew saw and inquired about the aircraft on the taxiway) but an erroneous ILS approach could have led them to an erroneous visual assessment on final.

        There are two areas of concern in preventing dynamic multipath interference with ILS:
        Critical Area: The ILS critical area is an area of defined dimensions about the localizer or glide path antenna, such that aircraft and other vehicles within the area cause out-of-tolerance disturbances to the ILS signals-in-space from the limit of the coverage to a distance of 3.7 km (2NM) from the landing threshold.

        Sensitive Area: The ILS sensitive area is an area of defined dimensions about the localizer or glide path antenna, such that aircraft and other vehicles within the area cause out-of-tolerance disturbances to the ILS signals-in-space from a distance of 3.7 km (2NM) from the landing threshold to the point at which the ILS signal is no longer required for the intended operation.

        I just can't imagine how they could ignore the approach lighting on final, unless I consider Vnav's theory...

        Anyway, you might find this interesting:

        http://www.icasc.co/sites/faa/uploads/documents/resources/15th_int_flight_inspection_symposium/ils_critical_sensitive.pdf

        Attached Files

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Vnav View Post
          Just something to think about...relatively dark...assume that 28R was the left parallel and TXY C was the right parallel...
          A few months ago, I was trying to explain runway 13 at Flyover international airport to Gabriel...The taxiway north of 12L-30R was declared a runway and used for regional turboprops in the TWA heyday.

          The ATIS almost always said for folks to use caution to avoid mixing up 12L and 13. The tower would ask aircraft if they were familiar with 13.

          Bottom line- it's something of a challenge and we seem to have these recurring incidents...lots of fodder for parlour talk, BUT conversely, I imagine this has been studied and beaten to death by true experts.

          Since you have us "thinking", I will restate my one genuine thought- it seems to me that "we" dim the runaway lights too much. I know there's valid reasons for the dimness, but given that you occasionally land into severe sunrises and sunsets, it shouldn't kill you to deal with brighter runway lights.

          That and a simple cross check of a magenta line or something...
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #20
            Click image for larger version

Name:	TELEMMGLPICT000136420364-xlarge_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqfXuY_8nebhUJG9r9oJajFIb2EhQgCX6EcP2ANX2DM5E.jpeg
Views:	1
Size:	8.0 KB
ID:	1016200

            From:https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-rele...r20170802.aspx

            Runway 28L was closed to accommodate construction; its approach and runway lights were turned off, and a 20.5-ft-wide lighted flashing X (runway closure marker) was placed at the threshold. Runway and approach lighting for runway 28R were on and set to default settings, which included a 2,400-foot approach lighting system, a precision approach path indicator, touchdown zone lights (white), runway centerline lights (white at the approach end), runway threshold lights (green), and runway edge lights (white at the approach end).

            Quite inexplicable.

            edit:
            • Automatic Terminal Information Service Q was current and included an advisory that runway 28L was closed and that its approach lighting system was out of service.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Quench View Post
              [ATTACH=CONFIG]8161[/ATTACH]

              Quite inexplicable.
              I don't think so. When humans are trained in routine, the brain will strongly gravitate to strive for the same conditions even when there are warnings that something is different. There is a much higher gap/difference required to snap the brain out of an habitual pattern. In this case, it sounds to me like there was enough deviations from the norm they picked up themselves combined with the radio warning that they snapped out of the trap and aborted at the last minute. 59 feet is pretty low... how tall is the tail of a large plane?

              I can give so many examples where habit and routine + a belief in what I expect to be a certain way, completely blind me to problems staring me straight in the face. The brain has a lot of processing designed to save us from having to apply active energy to think all the time.

              Comment


              • #22
                More info from the same link:
                • The incident pilots advanced the thrust levers when the airplane was about 85 feet above ground level. Flight data recorder data indicate the airplane was over the taxiway at this time. About 2.5 seconds after advancing the thrust levers, the minimum altitude recorded on the FDR was 59 feet above ground level.
                • Both pilots said, in post-incident interviews, they believed the lighted runway on their left was 28L and that they were lined up for 28R. They also stated that they did not recall seeing aircraft on taxiway C but that something did not look right to them.


                As a reference, the tail of a 787-9 is 55.5 ft high (UA001, the 1st airplane in the line on the taxiway, is normally done with a 787-9)

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #23
                  I'll steal a comment from AVHerald: "We'll never come close to understanding and preventing occurences [sic] like this if we simply write it off as "stupid"."

                  It is pretty clear their confirmation bias overrode all of the other indicators like lights on the runway, the wrong colour landing lights etc.

                  Several interesting notes:
                  - they decided to around on their own prior to the tower coming to the party.
                  - they passed just behind the first plane, and were right in front of the second plane when that plane turned on their lights after the first plane gave warning on the radio (so either the lights, or the radio warning triggered the go-around)
                  - from the description, diagram, and photos they advanced the thrust levers right in front of the second plane so they would have been lowest awfully close to the tail of the second plane.

                  This was a LOT closer than was implied early on.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Schwartz View Post
                    I don't think so. When humans are trained in routine, the brain will strongly gravitate to strive for the same conditions even when there are warnings that something is different. There is a much higher gap/difference required to snap the brain out of an habitual pattern. In this case, it sounds to me like there was enough deviations from the norm they picked up themselves combined with the radio warning that they snapped out of the trap and aborted at the last minute. 59 feet is pretty low... how tall is the tail of a large plane?

                    I can give so many examples where habit and routine + a belief in what I expect to be a certain way, completely blind me to problems staring me straight in the face. The brain has a lot of processing designed to save us from having to apply active energy to think all the time.
                    Good point; confirmation bias, I am sure, will come up as a factor.
                    The pilot sounded tired on the radio to me.
                    Having only one controller doing 3 jobs also a factor, that one has come up before. The controller had equipment to verify the landing aircrafts alignment.

                    I like the "where is this guy going" that should be added to GPWS verbatim.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Quench View Post
                      I like the "where is this guy going" that should be added to GPWS verbatim.
                      I do wonder why lateral deviations are not part of it. Ground Proximity Warning is really Non-Runway Proximity Warning.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Evan View Post
                        I do wonder why lateral deviations are not part of it. Ground Proximity Warning is really Non-Runway Proximity Warning.
                        Strikes me as complicated and I have seen MANY airliner approaches where you may not be lined up until VERY late.

                        Besides, what's that special thingie that works much like a VOR?

                        Or that crazy histogram-adjusted pink line depiction...

                        Do we need any MORE things distracting pilots, WHEN IN FACT they had TOTALLY ADEQUATE situational awareness?
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                          Strikes me as complicated and I have seen MANY airliner approaches where you may not be lined up until VERY late.

                          Besides, what's that special thingie that works much like a VOR?

                          Or that crazy histogram-adjusted pink line depiction...

                          Do we need any MORE things distracting pilots, WHEN IN FACT they had TOTALLY ADEQUATE situational awareness?
                          You're joking right?

                          What's that crazy dial/tape thing called altimeter? Why do we need GPWS again? Oh right, human factors...

                          I think a runway track deviation warning using EGWPS that gives a warning in ground proximity wouldn't be a bad idea.

                          It would have prevented this almost total disaster.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Evan View Post
                            You're joking right?
                            No...AND I forgot the low-silica 700-900 nm passive radio distance and ranging system...(which ACTUALLY DID prevent this near-total disaster).

                            And descending in the clouds towards something that is ALWAYS hard is a different level of risk than miss identifying really dim blue lights from really dim white lights.

                            And, let me restate two things: Bobbies objection to a potentially distracting TOPMS

                            and

                            Evan wants one MORE system when magenta lines are available.
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              You guys are really funny. I finally retired last month so I don't have to deal with it anymore. I will be very content to fly my cub with NO RADIO, NO STARTER, and still manage to get her up and down in one piece.Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCN0025.JPG
Views:	2
Size:	1.53 MB
ID:	1016219
                              Last edited by BoeingBobby; 2017-08-06, 19:28. Reason: Spellin

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Congratulations, BB. I always enjoy your contributions and hope you will remain here.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X