|Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 68):|
"More than likely" he would not have landed had he seen an aircraft ahead. Having said that, we don't know if another aircraft was present and potentially cleared to taxi onto the taxiway just ahead of him. More could have gone wrong of course.
Linate 2001 was not a taxiway landing, but sort of a parallell to what could have happened if another aircraft (or vehicle for that matter) was cleared to taxi on Tango at the time of the landing. Incidents are just incidents and not accidents because "nothing happened" - at that point in time. Often it just takes an inch here or there to turn an incident into a brutal accident.
|Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 71):|
But please do not minimise the concern that some of us express on this thread about these incidents, by hiding behind the "you are not professionals, you do not understand" argument.
So, all pilots that loath us "wannabees", just go create your own exclusive, pilots-only forum and see how hillarious that turns out. I think that (almost) everyone on this forum has something to contribute with, pilot or not. Lots of valuable comments are made by non-aviation employees. That said, we all appreciate the insight shared by those with first-hand experience like FAs, MX
personnell, pilots and others in the aviation business.
Then again, some post do have a little too much of "how hard can it be, I can do that in Flight Sim anytime" with little real contribution to the discussion.
While I'm at it, as a stupid foreigner in this very much US centric forum, I don't get some idioms (like Joe Montana above), and I can live with that. Just don't exepect the entire world to know what you mean when you use them.
Now that "those" pilots have stopped reading my post, I feel confident enough to continue the discussion at hand. Mistakes happen, like it or not. I know two persons that have shorted live 10 kV high tension lines. How stupid can you get? you ask, with all rights! Both were 100 % sure the lines were powered off. They KNEW they were. You don't question things that you know for a fact, do you? Same here. The pilots obviously KNEW they were lined up on the appropriate runway. As previously mentioned, surely lots of things played a role here, producing this result, and one ingredient was trust/faith (or whatever word is appropriate here) in something that was later discovered to be false.
I often hear people say "you really shouldn't have to point that out, it's so obvious!". Well, I hear this after something happens that really shouldn't happen (some "bozo" messes up big time) and the person saying this thinks that yet another warnign sign or yet another security measure shouldn't be needed (It's on the map! Why can't people read the map?). Relating to the taxiway landing, there is (apparently) an explicit warning on the charts, pilots are supposed to know what a RWY looks like, bla, bla, bla... Sure! I bet my life on that every time I fly! Then something odd happens, and I'm not even going to speculate on what did happen in this case, but it did and it will happen again. Next time it may be an "innocent" taxiway landing that turns nasty, "Linate style". Adding an X, T or whatever on taxiways that may be confused for a runway sounds like a failry cheap investment in safety to me. Why not hook up some red/blue/whatever lights in the same shape while you're at it!
|Quoting Toni_ (Reply 53):|
The landing occurred at 8:31am. Since the sunrise for Seattle on december 19th was at 7:53am (2 days away from the shortest day of the year), they probably didn't land in bright and sunny conditions.
Ok, now for the armchair piloting session (WARNING, DO
NOT READ BELOW IF
ARMCHAIR PILOTING NOT CONSENTED):
Sunrise at 07:54, bearing 125°
Sun should have moved ~9° in the 37 minutes from sunrise to landing, sun at ~134°
Landing on RWY 16C (is this correct? Indicated above)
Angle to sun is ~29° (using RWY 16C magnetic heading 163° as it suits my case better than the true heading of 180°
The sun is very low (just rising) and at ~29° angle of the heading of the aircraft. There is probably no apparent glaring in the runway surfaces, but I can certainly imagine that it may cause some problems while on visual approach.
Let's look at Google maps (armchair warning still in effect!) (map rotated to simulate the pilot's view):
|SEA RWY 16 L/C/R threshold from Google maps|
As mentioned, 16C looks pretty new, and the markings are white and shiny! Markings on 16L on the other hand, are pretty worn. Also, please note that the distances between 16L, C and R are more or less a scale factor of the distance between 16C, Tango and 16R! If you are at some distance, you may perceive it as 16C and Tango are in fact 16L and 16C, and then you have 16R a bit further away to the right (not equal spacing).
The distance between 16L and 16C is 32% of the distance between 16L and 16R.
The distance between 16C and Tango is 36% of the distance between 16C and 16R. Close enough!
On final approach, the glare from the sun was closer to the 16L threshold than any other threshold, making it harder to see, especially with the worn markings. 16C was easier to spot, with brand new markings, and right in between that leftmost RWY (16C mistaken for 16L) and 16R, at the usual spacing(!), was something very similar to the middle RWY, and that just HAD
to be 16C! The lack of the usual Tango taxiway was easily disregarded by the two brains in the cockpit. (Ever played that game where you have to figure out who's gone from the room?)
Sorry for the elaborate armchairing (and I just had to sit in my favourite armchair writing this until the battery went low just for the sake of it).
Happy new year to all! Time to Tango