Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
dr1980
Topic Author
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:55 pm

Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:18 pm

Is this as significant as the article makes it out to be?

https://m.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/ ... calls.html
Dave/CYHZ
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21861
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:10 pm

dr1980 wrote:
Is this as significant as the article makes it out to be?

https://m.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/ ... calls.html


I know the October incident was very nearly worse than Tenerife. The AC A320 tried to land on the taxiway adjacent to 28L (IIRC) where there were like 3-4 aircraft lined up. It's estimated that the undercarriage of the A320 came within 20 feet of the tail of a UA 787 that was in line on the taxiway. And this after *multiple* calls from the tower to go around unacknowledged. A friend of mine was aboard a 737 on that same taxiway and he says that the sound was so loud that just about everyone by a window whipped their heads around to see what was going on.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:20 pm

DocLightning wrote:
dr1980 wrote:
I know the October incident was very nearly worse than Tenerife. The AC A320 tried to land on the taxiway adjacent to 28L (IIRC) where there were like 3-4 aircraft lined up. It's estimated that the undercarriage of the A320 came within 20 feet of the tail of a UA 787 that was in line on the taxiway. And this after *multiple* calls from the tower to go around unacknowledged. A friend of mine was aboard a 737 on that same taxiway and he says that the sound was so loud that just about everyone by a window whipped their heads around to see what was going on.

I know this is what the press said and this is what sells newspapers and online subscriptions. It would make a great movie, but it it not even remotely true. (The aircraft was already going around when tower made its first call).

As a result of this incident, the Ops Specs of SFO approach, which had they been followed, would have eliminated this occurrence ... are now being enforced.

Within hours of the incident, Air Canada conducted its own review and procedures have been changed. Transport Canada is satisfied with both the (already completed) review and SOP changes.

Yeah, the "almost worst than Tenerife" is a great story. ;)
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
mcdu
Posts: 1644
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:41 pm

longhauler wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
dr1980 wrote:
I know the October incident was very nearly worse than Tenerife. The AC A320 tried to land on the taxiway adjacent to 28L (IIRC) where there were like 3-4 aircraft lined up. It's estimated that the undercarriage of the A320 came within 20 feet of the tail of a UA 787 that was in line on the taxiway. And this after *multiple* calls from the tower to go around unacknowledged. A friend of mine was aboard a 737 on that same taxiway and he says that the sound was so loud that just about everyone by a window whipped their heads around to see what was going on.

I know this is what the press said and this is what sells newspapers and online subscriptions. It would make a great movie, but it it not even remotely true. (The aircraft was already going around when tower made its first call).

As a result of this incident, the Ops Specs of SFO approach, which had they been followed, would have eliminated this occurrence ... are now being enforced.

Within hours of the incident, Air Canada conducted its own review and procedures have been changed. Transport Canada is satisfied with both the (already completed) review and SOP changes.

Yeah, the "almost worst than Tenerife" is a great story. ;)


If it was textbook then why did they not save the CVR/FDR data? Reports are the crew did not report the incident. Also the UA calling out the misalignment to the taxiway centerline went unheaded. They were extremely close to those aircraft on the taxiway.

The non go around being another event separate from the taxiway incident adds to the ding in the AC image.

I don’t think the best image is to make light of these issues.
 
ST165
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2016 4:37 pm

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:44 pm

longhauler wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
dr1980 wrote:
I know the October incident was very nearly worse than Tenerife. The AC A320 tried to land on the taxiway adjacent to 28L (IIRC) where there were like 3-4 aircraft lined up. It's estimated that the undercarriage of the A320 came within 20 feet of the tail of a UA 787 that was in line on the taxiway. And this after *multiple* calls from the tower to go around unacknowledged. A friend of mine was aboard a 737 on that same taxiway and he says that the sound was so loud that just about everyone by a window whipped their heads around to see what was going on.

I know this is what the press said and this is what sells newspapers and online subscriptions. It would make a great movie, but it it not even remotely true. (The aircraft was already going around when tower made its first call).

As a result of this incident, the Ops Specs of SFO approach, which had they been followed, would have eliminated this occurrence ... are now being enforced.

Within hours of the incident, Air Canada conducted its own review and procedures have been changed. Transport Canada is satisfied with both the (already completed) review and SOP changes.

Yeah, the "almost worst than Tenerife" is a great story. ;)


OK but the pilot still almost landed on the taxiway! And that Halifax incident is probably just as bone chilling, really...
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:48 pm

mcdu wrote:
If it was textbook then why did they not save the CVR/FDR data? Reports are the crew did not report the incident. Also the UA calling out the misalignment to the taxiway centerline went unheaded. They were extremely close to those aircraft on the taxiway.

The non go around being another event separate from the taxiway incident adds to the ding in the AC image.

I don’t think the best image is to make light of these issues.

The crew did report the incident and as required, filed an Air Safety Report (to Transport Canada) and filed a Voyage Report (internally at AC).

Yes, the "non go-around" was another incident. But I was answering the point above that intimated that SFO tower told AC to go around multiple times on the "mis-alignment" incident and that was not the case. When the tower first told them to go around, they already were.

Trust me, no one at Air Canada is "making light" of these two incidents. A lot of changes have already been made and Transport Canada is satisfied.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14567
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:53 pm

longhauler wrote:
Trust me, no one at Air Canada is "making light" of these two incidents. A lot of changes have already been made and Transport Canada is satisfied.


You work for AC (and are thus a person "at Air Canada"), no?

longhauler wrote:
Yeah, the "almost worst than Tenerife" is a great story. ;)


Your argument seems to be that the crew didn't follow the OpsSpecs (for whatever reason - laziness, fatigue, distraction, something else altogether, or a combination), that AC wasn't "enforcing" its OpsSpecs (whatever that means), and that AC is now "enforcing" them so everything is okay.

It's hardly better than "trust me, I'm with the government."
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
User avatar
FredrikHAD
Posts: 451
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:57 pm

But they were like 20 feet from hitting another plane, weren’t they?
 
flydude380
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:43 pm

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:26 am

longhauler wrote:
mcdu wrote:
If it was textbook then why did they not save the CVR/FDR data? Reports are the crew did not report the incident. Also the UA calling out the misalignment to the taxiway centerline went unheaded. They were extremely close to those aircraft on the taxiway.

The non go around being another event separate from the taxiway incident adds to the ding in the AC image.

I don’t think the best image is to make light of these issues.

The crew did report the incident and as required, filed an Air Safety Report (to Transport Canada) and filed a Voyage Report (internally at AC).

Yes, the "non go-around" was another incident. But I was answering the point above that intimated that SFO tower told AC to go around multiple times on the "mis-alignment" incident and that was not the case. When the tower first told them to go around, they already were.

Trust me, no one at Air Canada is "making light" of these two incidents. A lot of changes have already been made and Transport Canada is satisfied.



What happens to the pilots in such incidents? Were they disciplined?
 
TheOldDude
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 8:02 pm

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:49 am

longhauler wrote:
Within hours of the incident, Air Canada conducted its own review and procedures have been changed. Transport Canada is satisfied with both the (already completed) review and SOP changes.


And yet the linked article, dated January 18, says "Air Canada has agreed to an immediate safety review of its entire operations, including increased pilot training and a closer look at the airline’s arrivals and departures at SFO."

Why would Air Canada agree to an immediate safety review if, as you said, Transport Canada is satisfied?
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21861
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:01 am

longhauler wrote:
I know this is what the press said and this is what sells newspapers and online subscriptions. It would make a great movie, but it it not even remotely true. (The aircraft was already going around when tower made its first call).


I misspoke. It was the July incident that was nearly worse than Tenerife. Here's the NTSB report.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pag ... IA148.aspx
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4324
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:02 am

flydude380 wrote:
longhauler wrote:
mcdu wrote:
If it was textbook then why did they not save the CVR/FDR data? Reports are the crew did not report the incident. Also the UA calling out the misalignment to the taxiway centerline went unheaded. They were extremely close to those aircraft on the taxiway.

The non go around being another event separate from the taxiway incident adds to the ding in the AC image.

I don’t think the best image is to make light of these issues.

The crew did report the incident and as required, filed an Air Safety Report (to Transport Canada) and filed a Voyage Report (internally at AC).

Yes, the "non go-around" was another incident. But I was answering the point above that intimated that SFO tower told AC to go around multiple times on the "mis-alignment" incident and that was not the case. When the tower first told them to go around, they already were.

Trust me, no one at Air Canada is "making light" of these two incidents. A lot of changes have already been made and Transport Canada is satisfied.



What happens to the pilots in such incidents? Were they disciplined?


I doubt it. One of the major reasons we have improved safety is the ability to self-report issues without fear of being punished. People are less likely to self-incriminate themselves, and thus will not report safety issues if they think it will end their career. I am sure they had some mental evaluations and a tough meeting with the chief pilot and safety board. But I don't think they would face punishment.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:44 am

The Ops Specs I referred to were not Air Canada's, but the Ops Specs of Norcal Approach when doing night visual approaches onto 28R. They were not being followed that night, but apparently they are now being enforced.

I can't say anything about the individual crew and discipline. Only to say that Safety Management Systems of most countries do not assume that "one pilot" made a mistake. They assume that if a mistake was made, it can happen again by anyone. It is far better to address the mistake than to fire the pilot thinking the mistake will go away.

The events that led up to that incident have been carefully investigated by the FAA, Transport Canada and Air Canada.

While they were not as horrific or as "close to death" as the press would wish you to believe, ... it in no way was taken lightly by any of the three investigative bodies.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14567
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:57 am

longhauler wrote:
The Ops Specs I referred to were not Air Canada's, but the Ops Specs of Norcal Approach when doing night visual approaches onto 28R. They were not being followed that night, but apparently they are now being enforced.


I understand and admire your motivation to defend your coworkers but this seems like something of a cop out. Ultimately, it is the commander’s responsibility to fly the approach correctly and to turn down an approach offered by ATC if he or she believes that the crew cannot execute it safely.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:08 am

Cubsrule wrote:

I understand and admire your motivation to defend your coworkers but this seems like something of a cop out. Ultimately, it is the commander’s responsibility to fly the approach correctly and to turn down an approach offered by ATC if he or she believes that the crew cannot execute it safely.

You are 100% correct.

Right now, a lot of the fine points are not in the public domain. When they are, I will discuss them further. What is in the public domain is that when the crew were aware that they were not only where they should have been, but also where they thought they were, they did a missed approach. During that missed approach SFO tower too saw the error and issued a missed approach instruction.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
flylonghaul
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:31 pm

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:52 am

Thanks for sharing the NTSB report DocLightning.
The details and images paint a pretty clear picture of the event.
Must have been a pretty intimidating view for the crew of UA1 and PR105
Flying for Pleasure
 
NichCage
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:54 am

If it was possible, an even better solution would be to build a new parallel runway at SFO that is way farther away from the other so that they aren't as close together. But that would never happen. If it did, no more incidents like this would ever happen again.
 
WN732
Posts: 815
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:49 am

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:40 am

According to the NTSB report, the flight's lowest altitude AGL over Taxiway C was 59'. The 787's tail is 55' tall. Ouch.
 
stratosphere
Posts: 1865
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:45 pm

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:45 am

DocLightning wrote:
dr1980 wrote:
Is this as significant as the article makes it out to be?

https://m.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/ ... calls.html


I know the October incident was very nearly worse than Tenerife. The AC A320 tried to land on the taxiway adjacent to 28L (IIRC) where there were like 3-4 aircraft lined up. It's estimated that the undercarriage of the A320 came within 20 feet of the tail of a UA 787 that was in line on the taxiway. And this after *multiple* calls from the tower to go around unacknowledged. A friend of mine was aboard a 737 on that same taxiway and he says that the sound was so loud that just about everyone by a window whipped their heads around to see what was going on.


I don't know how anything can be too much worse than two fully loaded 747's colliding
Last edited by stratosphere on Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
PixelPilot
Posts: 563
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:19 am

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:51 am

WN732 wrote:
According to the NTSB report, the flight's lowest altitude AGL over Taxiway C was 59'. The 787's tail is 55' tall. Ouch.


That’s crazy.
 
IPFreely
Posts: 2623
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:22 am

longhauler wrote:
I know this is what the press said and this is what sells newspapers and online subscriptions. It would make a great movie, but it it not even remotely true. (The aircraft was already going around when tower made its first call).

As a result of this incident, the Ops Specs of SFO approach, which had they been followed, would have eliminated this occurrence ... are now being enforced.

Within hours of the incident, Air Canada conducted its own review and procedures have been changed. Transport Canada is satisfied with both the (already completed) review and SOP changes.

Yeah, the "almost worst than Tenerife" is a great story. ;)


Thank you for the rational explanation. While it appears the majority of the board prefers high drama over facts, I appreciate facts.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21861
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:33 am

stratosphere wrote:
I don't know how anything can be too much worse than two fully loaded 747's colliding


An A320 into two 787s, an A340, and a 739. I think that beats two 747s.

And Longhauler, AC 759's minimum altitude was four feet above the 787 tails. Four feet. That's not CNN or some sensational media, that's the NTSB.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:36 pm

DocLightning wrote:
stratosphere wrote:
And Longhauler, AC 759's minimum altitude was four feet above the 787 tails. Four feet. That's not CNN or some sensational media, that's the NTSB.

That is a correct vertical distance, lateral distance is a little bit nebulous. Much like when a near collision is reported by two aircraft at (gasp) the same altitude ... the fact that they were two miles apart is overlooked.

Also, the FDA chip showed different information.

Again, no one, neither myself, the FAA, Transport Canada nor Air Canada is making light of this incident. A lot of changes both at Air Canada and at Norcal Approach have been actioned.

But ... the point of this string is not the incident, but the "immediate safety review" that the Toronto Star incorrectly reported. The only reason I joined this string as opposed to the other ongoing one chock full of rumour and hearsay, is that I chuckled when it sound like it was "about to happen". The safety review started within hours of the incident almost a year ago.

Some very capable investigative bodies have gone through this incident and are satisfied with the results. With the final NTSB report published, for all intents and purposes, the matter is closed.

However, the Toronto Star decided to make it sound like it was recently demanded and about to happen. Why? Because that attracts readers ... a la CNN. I was not commenting on the actual incident, but the allegedly looming investgation. (I am still hobbled on what I personally can say on a public forum, restricted to what is only in the public domain).
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8413
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:01 pm

longhauler wrote:
...
But ... the point of this string is not the incident, but the "immediate safety review" that the Toronto Star incorrectly reported. The only reason I joined this string as opposed to the other ongoing one chock full of rumour and hearsay, is that I chuckled when it sound like it was "about to happen". The safety review started within hours of the incident almost a year ago. ...


Thanks for clarifying that. I was thinking it took six months for TSB to convince AC to start the review.
All posts are just opinions.
 
dr1980
Topic Author
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:55 pm

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:57 pm

I appreciate you sharing your insights longhauler. Thank you.
Dave/CYHZ
 
DaufuskieGuy
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:46 pm

longhauler wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

I understand and admire your motivation to defend your coworkers but this seems like something of a cop out. Ultimately, it is the commander’s responsibility to fly the approach correctly and to turn down an approach offered by ATC if he or she believes that the crew cannot execute it safely.

You are 100% correct.

Right now, a lot of the fine points are not in the public domain. When they are, I will discuss them further. What is in the public domain is that when the crew were aware that they were not only where they should have been, but also where they thought they were, they did a missed approach. During that missed approach SFO tower too saw the error and issued a missed approach instruction.


as I read it the tower was too far and at the wrong angle to discern their approach and it was only because UA1, which was #1 for departure, informed the tower that AC looked misaligned. So absent UA1's attentiveness it appears this could have been a terrible tragedy.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 5:18 pm

DaufuskieGuy wrote:
as I read it the tower was too far and at the wrong angle to discern their approach and it was only because UA1, which was #1 for departure, informed the tower that AC looked misaligned. So absent UA1's attentiveness it appears this could have been a terrible tragedy.

Except that the aircraft was already in a missed approach before any external direction was given. In my opinion, and only my opinion, I think the best action performed by any of the aircraft on the taxiway was the first in line that illuminated his landing lights.

The reaction in the cockpit was the PM's call "unstabilized" followed by the PF's call, "go-around, (TOGA thrust), flaps".

It is AC SOP, that there is no extraneous talk below 1000'. The PM merely calls "unstabilized" followed by the PF's missed approach. No wondering, no conjecture, just "unstablized". Even if the PM was incorrect, it doesn't matter, it means the two pilots were not in agreement and the only course of action is a missed approach ... as performed.

I do not know what equipment the tower has at their disposal. I fly into SFO a lot and more than once I have heard them query an aircraft's position when doing dual 28R/28L approaches. I was under the impression that they were also using radar and that they were watching it closely.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
IPFreely
Posts: 2623
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:33 pm

longhauler wrote:
That is a correct vertical distance, lateral distance is a little bit nebulous. Much like when a near collision is reported by two aircraft at (gasp) the same altitude ... the fact that they were two miles apart is overlooked.


longhauler wrote:
Except that the aircraft was already in a missed approach before any external direction was given.


Again,I appreciate the facts. But it might be a lost cause -- it appears some board members prefer their own more dramatic facts. As the opening credits in some movies say "this film is based on a true story"....not "this film is a true story". The "based on" story is always more entertaining.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6313
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:41 pm

longhauler wrote:
DaufuskieGuy wrote:
as I read it the tower was too far and at the wrong angle to discern their approach and it was only because UA1, which was #1 for departure, informed the tower that AC looked misaligned. So absent UA1's attentiveness it appears this could have been a terrible tragedy.

Except that the aircraft was already in a missed approach before any external direction was given. In my opinion, and only my opinion, I think the best action performed by any of the aircraft on the taxiway was the first in line that illuminated his landing lights.

The reaction in the cockpit was the PM's call "unstabilized" followed by the PF's call, "go-around, (TOGA thrust), flaps".

It is AC SOP, that there is no extraneous talk below 1000'. The PM merely calls "unstabilized" followed by the PF's missed approach. No wondering, no conjecture, just "unstablized". Even if the PM was incorrect, it doesn't matter, it means the two pilots were not in agreement and the only course of action is a missed approach ... as performed.

I do not know what equipment the tower has at their disposal. I fly into SFO a lot and more than once I have heard them query an aircraft's position when doing dual 28R/28L approaches. I was under the impression that they were also using radar and that they were watching it closely.


Are able to State what the SFO SOPs are that you referred to earlier?

I thought there was no extraneous talk below 10,000’ not 1000’ as you stated. What is the difference in criteria?
Last edited by BoeingGuy on Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
CFM565A1
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:19 pm

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:42 pm

longhauler wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
stratosphere wrote:
And Longhauler, AC 759's minimum altitude was four feet above the 787 tails. Four feet. That's not CNN or some sensational media, that's the NTSB.

That is a correct vertical distance, lateral distance is a little bit nebulous. Much like when a near collision is reported by two aircraft at (gasp) the same altitude ... the fact that they were two miles apart is overlooked.

Also, the FDA chip showed different information.

Again, no one, neither myself, the FAA, Transport Canada nor Air Canada is making light of this incident. A lot of changes both at Air Canada and at Norcal Approach have been actioned.

But ... the point of this string is not the incident, but the "immediate safety review" that the Toronto Star incorrectly reported. The only reason I joined this string as opposed to the other ongoing one chock full of rumour and hearsay, is that I chuckled when it sound like it was "about to happen". The safety review started within hours of the incident almost a year ago.

Some very capable investigative bodies have gone through this incident and are satisfied with the results. With the final NTSB report published, for all intents and purposes, the matter is closed.

However, the Toronto Star decided to make it sound like it was recently demanded and about to happen. Why? Because that attracts readers ... a la CNN. I was not commenting on the actual incident, but the allegedly looming investgation. (I am still hobbled on what I personally can say on a public forum, restricted to what is only in the public domain).


When doesn’t the Toronto star make something colourful? It’s why I never source them and this is no exception as you’ve pointed out LongHauler. Just go look how they reported the Sunwing/WestJet incident a couple weeks ago.

People on here do not have the inside information about how AC does safety reviews but I can assure you they’re done quickly after incidents like this. The one that comes to mind is the results from Halifax and the changes implemented after that.
C172-M/N/P/R/S , PA-28-180, P2006T, PA-34-200T, B1900D, DH8A/C ERJ-145, CRJ-100/200, DH8D, CRJ-700/705/900, E-175/190, A319/320/321, 737-200/300/400/600/700/800/900ER/M8, MD-82/83, 757-200/300, 767-300, A330-300, 787-9, 777-300ER, F28-4000.
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2841
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:13 pm

longhauler wrote:
The Ops Specs I referred to were not Air Canada's, but the Ops Specs of Norcal Approach when doing night visual approaches onto 28R. They were not being followed that night, but apparently they are now being enforced.

I can't say anything about the individual crew and discipline. Only to say that Safety Management Systems of most countries do not assume that "one pilot" made a mistake. They assume that if a mistake was made, it can happen again by anyone. It is far better to address the mistake than to fire the pilot thinking the mistake will go away.

The events that led up to that incident have been carefully investigated by the FAA, Transport Canada and Air Canada.

While they were not as horrific or as "close to death" as the press would wish you to believe, ... it in no way was taken lightly by any of the three investigative bodies.


Maybe I'm bragging a bit here as a Canadian, but Transport Canada was a pioneering leader in SMS' development/implementation. Obviously last year's SFO incidents were close calls, but at the end of the day they were just that. It's kinda like any accident-free car driver. Very few accident-free drivers will ever go close call-free.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4324
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:15 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
longhauler wrote:
DaufuskieGuy wrote:
as I read it the tower was too far and at the wrong angle to discern their approach and it was only because UA1, which was #1 for departure, informed the tower that AC looked misaligned. So absent UA1's attentiveness it appears this could have been a terrible tragedy.

Except that the aircraft was already in a missed approach before any external direction was given. In my opinion, and only my opinion, I think the best action performed by any of the aircraft on the taxiway was the first in line that illuminated his landing lights.

The reaction in the cockpit was the PM's call "unstabilized" followed by the PF's call, "go-around, (TOGA thrust), flaps".

It is AC SOP, that there is no extraneous talk below 1000'. The PM merely calls "unstabilized" followed by the PF's missed approach. No wondering, no conjecture, just "unstablized". Even if the PM was incorrect, it doesn't matter, it means the two pilots were not in agreement and the only course of action is a missed approach ... as performed.

I do not know what equipment the tower has at their disposal. I fly into SFO a lot and more than once I have heard them query an aircraft's position when doing dual 28R/28L approaches. I was under the impression that they were also using radar and that they were watching it closely.


Are able to State what the SFO SOPs are that you referred to earlier?

I thought there was no extraneous talk below 10,000’ not 1000’ as you stated. What is the difference in criteria?


You are thinking of sterile cockpit, which does not permit any discussions unrelated to the operation or navigation of the aircraft. I'm guessing it's company policy for them to restrict that further at 1,000 feet to limit dialogue to only critical issues related to that phase of flight and simplified verbiage for commands and feedback.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21861
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:30 pm

I have a question. In an A320, once TOGA is selected, how long (typically) until the aircraft starts to climb?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
questions
Posts: 2337
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:46 pm

At night, from the cockpit of an approaching aircraft, how do Taxiway F, 28L, 28R and Taxiway C appear? What designates/differentiates them visually?
 
User avatar
Acey
Posts: 1125
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:06 pm

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:55 pm

questions wrote:
At night, from the cockpit of an approaching aircraft, how do Taxiway F, 28L, 28R and Taxiway C appear? What designates/differentiates them visually?

Taxiways have blue side lighting and a green centerline; 28R has high quality, high intensity approach lighting and white lights.
If a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1726
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:23 pm

DocLightning wrote:
I have a question. In an A320, once TOGA is selected, how long (typically) until the aircraft starts to climb?
From the Report you linked, it looks like it took this plane about 2.5 seconds.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3627
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:47 pm

longhauler wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
stratosphere wrote:
And Longhauler, AC 759's minimum altitude was four feet above the 787 tails. Four feet. That's not CNN or some sensational media, that's the NTSB.

That is a correct vertical distance, lateral distance is a little bit nebulous. Much like when a near collision is reported by two aircraft at (gasp) the same altitude ... the fact that they were two miles apart is overlooked.

Also, the FDA chip showed different information.

Again, no one, neither myself, the FAA, Transport Canada nor Air Canada is making light of this incident. A lot of changes both at Air Canada and at Norcal Approach have been actioned.

But ... the point of this string is not the incident, but the "immediate safety review" that the Toronto Star incorrectly reported. The only reason I joined this string as opposed to the other ongoing one chock full of rumour and hearsay, is that I chuckled when it sound like it was "about to happen". The safety review started within hours of the incident almost a year ago.

Some very capable investigative bodies have gone through this incident and are satisfied with the results. With the final NTSB report published, for all intents and purposes, the matter is closed.

However, the Toronto Star decided to make it sound like it was recently demanded and about to happen. Why? Because that attracts readers ... a la CNN. I was not commenting on the actual incident, but the allegedly looming investgation. (I am still hobbled on what I personally can say on a public forum, restricted to what is only in the public domain).





"Some very capable investigative bodies have gone through this incident and are satisfied with the results. With the final NTSB report published, for all intents and purposes, the matter is closed."
Same thing with my doctors before they started treating the cancer they were "satisfied" and after finished treating "the matter was closed." When you have a medical incident that is listed as "Medically Stable" all it means is your not getting worse & not getting better. The problem still needs treated.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3627
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:50 pm

IPFreely wrote:
longhauler wrote:
That is a correct vertical distance, lateral distance is a little bit nebulous. Much like when a near collision is reported by two aircraft at (gasp) the same altitude ... the fact that they were two miles apart is overlooked.


longhauler wrote:
Except that the aircraft was already in a missed approach before any external direction was given.


Again,I appreciate the facts. But it might be a lost cause -- it appears some board members prefer their own more dramatic facts. As the opening credits in some movies say "this film is based on a true story"....not "this film is a true story". The "based on" story is always more entertaining.


They say "based on" because when some characters die in it there is no way to verify the back story with them and they want to avoid lawsuits.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3333
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:57 pm

DocLightning wrote:
longhauler wrote:
I know this is what the press said and this is what sells newspapers and online subscriptions. It would make a great movie, but it it not even remotely true. (The aircraft was already going around when tower made its first call).


I misspoke. It was the July incident that was nearly worse than Tenerife. Here's the NTSB report.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pag ... IA148.aspx


Wow, the pics in the report are chilling. What was going through the UA crew minds.
 
Whywhyjay
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:37 pm

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:10 pm

Thanks for your input Longhauler.
Whywhyjay?
Vickers Viscount. DHC-3, 6, 7, 8, Q-400 CRJ. 720-B, 727, 732, 738, 739, 742, 744, 762, 773, 788. DC-3, 9,10, MD-81.
A-310, 319, 320, 333. E-190. L-1011. BAE-ATP.
 
downdata
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:38 am

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:47 pm

Given those accidents happened over 3 months ago, thru sure took a while to decide what requires “immediate” attention or not
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Air Canada to conduct ‘immediate safety review’ following San Francisco close calls

Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:58 pm

downdata wrote:
Given those accidents happened over 3 months ago, thru sure took a while to decide what requires “immediate” attention or not

This incident occurred almost a year ago.

Within 24 hours, Air Canada had already started an internal investigation. The Toronto Star article noted above, fishing for readers, was in no way accurate with regard to the timeline.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos