Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Air Canada pilot nearly averts making a drastic error at SFO
Air Canada pilot nearly averts making a drastic error at SFO
2017-07-11, 2:53 AM #1


:eek:

So it seems that a pilot was approaching the taxiway rather than the runway parallel to it. Had he not aborted the approach, this could have caused a collision between the Air Canada flight and as many as four stationary flights that were fully boarded and waiting to taxi.

Yikes!

Quote:
SAN FRANCISCO — In what one aviation expert called a near-miss of what could have been the largest aviation disaster ever, an Air Canada pilot on Friday narrowly avoided a tragic mistake: landing on the San Francisco International Airport taxiway instead of the appropriate runway.

Sitting on Taxiway C shortly before midnight were four fully-loaded airplanes full of passengers and gas awaiting permission to take-off, according to the Federal Aviation Administration, which is investigating the “rare” incident. An air traffic controller sent the Air Canada Airbus 320 on a “go-around” — an unusual event where pilots must pull-up and circle around to try again — before landing safely, according to the federal agency.

FAA investigators are still trying to determine how close the Air Canada aircraft came to landing and potentially crashing into the four aircraft below, but the apparent pilot error already has the aviation industry buzzing.

“If it is true, what happened probably came close to the greatest aviation disaster in history,” said retired United Airlines Capt. Ross Aimer, CEO of Aero Consulting Experts. He said he’s been contacted by pilots from across the country about the incident.

“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.

Peter Fitzpatrick, an Air Canada spokesman, said Flight AC759 from Toronto “landed normally without incident” after it initiated a “go-around.”

“We are still investigating the circumstances and therefore have no additional information to offer,” he said.

The SFO spokesman referred inquiries to the FAA, saying the airport had no comment on the event.

The aircraft had been cleared to land on Runway 28R, which runs parallel with that taxiway, according to the FAA. The pilot was flying the plane manually on a clear night when he lined up wrong, the federal agency said.

Audio from the air traffic controller communication archived by a user on LiveATC.net and reviewed by this newspaper organization showed how a the confused Air Canada pilot asks if he’s clear to land on 28R because he sees lights on the runway.

“There’s no one on 28R but you,” the air controller responds.

An unidentified voice, presumably another pilot, then chimes in: “Where’s this guy going. He’s on the taxiway.”

The air controller quickly tells the Air Canada pilot to “go around.” telling the pilot “it looks like you were lined up for Charlie (Taxiway C) there.”

A United Airlines pilot radios in: “United One, Air Canada flew directly over us.”

“Yeah, I saw that guys,” the control tower responds.

The event has launched a discussion among airline circles, Aimer said.

“This is pretty huge. My buddies called and asked if I knew about it,” the former pilot said. “They’re a sitting duck on the taxiway. They can’t go anywhere.”


http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/10/exclusive-sfo-near-miss-might-have-triggered-greatest-aviation-disaster-in-history/
2017-07-11, 3:18 AM #2
Oh. I sure hope we privatize American aviation soon!!
former entrepreneur
2017-07-11, 3:33 AM #3
On the hacker news thread about this, a guy was complaining that airplanes shouldn't use AM radio. Presumably he would be in favor of a 'disruptive' startup that could 'fix aviation'.

As for the thread topic, from comments I am seeing, this kind of stuff is somewhat commonplace. The copilot saw the problem and the control tower issued a simple 'go around'.
2017-07-11, 4:23 AM #4
Yeah, this isn't a new thing, I've seen this reported several times. Last time I heard about this the pilot landed on the taxiway (without incident).
$do || ! $do ; try
try: command not found
Ye Olde Galactic Empire Mission Editor (X-wing, TIE, XvT/BoP, XWA)
2017-07-11, 5:04 AM #5
I guess this was a wrong week to quit sniffing glue.
SnailIracing:n(500tpostshpereline)pants
-----------------------------@%
2017-07-11, 7:49 AM #6
I'm sorry to be that guy, but the topic says the disaster occurred.

I have now educated myself and concede that the topic doesn't say what I just said it does. I do find it to be ambiguous, though, and kind of amusing in that ambiguity.
Looks like we're not going down after all, so nevermind.
2017-07-11, 10:28 AM #7
I'm still trying to figure out how to read it such that it doesn't mean the disaster occurred. Argh.
2017-07-11, 10:37 AM #8
I guess we can sort of read it as such if we re-adjust the sentence to match the definitions presented on dictionary.com http://www.dictionary.com/browse/nearly?s=t

"Air Canada pilot nearly averts making a drastic error at SFO"

"Air Canada pilot all but averts making a drastic error at SFO"

"Air Canada pilot almost averts making a drastic error at SFO"

"Air Canada pilot, with close approximation or resemblance [to failure?], averts making a drastic error at SFO"

"Air Canada pilot averts making a drastic error at SFO with close kinship, interest, or connection; intimately [to failure/NEO-TODOA?]"
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2017-07-11, 11:17 AM #9
Guys I should have said "narrowly" rather than "nearly". As written you guys are right that it means the opposite. Or not. Ambiguous?
2017-07-11, 5:49 PM #10
I mean after I had posted that, I looked the word up on dictionary.com just to be sure, and one of their definitions was that it's also a synonym for "closely". That's why I edited the concession of ambiguity into my post instead of leaving it to say that the topic of this thread absolutely says the disaster happened!
Looks like we're not going down after all, so nevermind.
2017-07-11, 5:59 PM #11
Originally posted by Krokodile:
I mean after I had posted that, I looked the word up on dictionary.com just to be sure, and one of their definitions was that it's also a synonym for "closely". That's why I edited the concession of ambiguity into my post instead of leaving it to say that the topic of this thread absolutely says the disaster happened!


Ah, I see how the original can be thought to be correct now.

Good thing we have developed other ways to unambiguously communicate in situations like talking to air traffic controllers that don't require this kind of creativity just to be understood! :P
2017-07-11, 7:36 PM #12
And to think there wasn't even air traffic control for almost half of the lifetime of flight.
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2017-07-11, 7:38 PM #13
I really like putting multiplayer ATC sim troll videos on in the background

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPNN8w2XlwY
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2017-07-11, 8:12 PM #14
I... think you just redeemed this thread. That was some good stuff.

Probably too strong to listen to in the foreground though, I had to turn it off after three minutes, since I felt myself going full retard.
2017-07-11, 8:34 PM #15
I thought you were going to stop misusing that!
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2017-07-11, 8:55 PM #16
Don't blame me, I heard it from Robert Downey jr.

Also, before I was taking about autism.

Sooooo are you calling autistic people retarded?? ಠ_ಠ
2017-07-12, 8:11 AM #17
that was super gay jonesie
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2017-07-12, 11:59 AM #18
Hella.
2017-07-12, 6:01 PM #19
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
On the hacker news thread about this, a guy was complaining that airplanes shouldn't use AM radio. Presumably he would be in favor of a 'disruptive' startup that could 'fix aviation'.


Or maybe any number of existing modern digital modulation schemes would be a vastly better use of bandwidth and provide far better clarity and noise rejection.

Startups aren't really a thing in aerospace. Hell, fuel injection is hardly a thing yet.
2017-07-13, 9:17 AM #20
And thank goodness.
2017-07-13, 9:17 AM #21
I'm tired of having my life disrupted by ****ty **** that's ****tier than the previous ****.
2017-07-13, 10:46 AM #22
hi Brian
former entrepreneur
2017-07-13, 11:39 AM #23
Blame Peter Thiel.
2017-07-13, 11:41 AM #24
Before being outed as a gay Republican vampire, Peter Thiel was best known for "disrupting" the financial industry with non-FDIC insured deposits.

↑ Up to the top!