# Air Canada Near-Miss at SFO



## Blackwolf

This one is making quite the (understandable) buzz in the transportation and aviation world:

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/10/exclusive-sfo-near-miss-might-have-triggered-greatest-aviation-disaster-in-history/

The FAA is absolutely investigating this one. So far it appears AC759 was on a manual visual approach, at night, to Runway 28R (which is just to the right of the runway that Asiana Airlines 214 crashed on, almost exactly four years ago to the day). I have to wonder if the Air Canada flight crew would have just augured in (as the media would have you believe) or have eventually initiated a go-around on their own once it became glaring they were in the wrong place, but its pretty amazing to think about this happening.

And AC759 happens to be the flight that me and Mrs. Blackwolf frequent when returning from the Great White North, so it struck me a little more intensely on a personal level!


----------



## jis

There were four flights lined up on Taxiway C. One of them was a flight I normally take back home from SFO.

The four flights were:

PAL 115 343 SFO-MNL

UAL 863 789 SFO-SYD

UAL 1118 739 SFO-MCO <-- the flight I normally take

UAL 1 789 SFO-SIN

The pilot of UAL 1 raised the alarm as heard in the ATC recording.

All in all close to a thousand people were potentially in harm's way.

Here is an Aviation Herald article.

Here is the Discussion thread on Airliners.net.


----------



## railiner

Amazing....I've heard of commercial pilots sometimes mistaken the Left or Right parallel runways, but a parallel taxiway? Whew, that was just too close! Thank goodness no crash resulted....other than perhaps that pilot's career......


----------



## Devil's Advocate

It's shocking to think that a long list of irregular events and missteps that eventually resulted in the Tenerife disaster forty years ago could be outdone by a simple lack of situational awareness today.


----------



## jis

The more I read about this, the more chilling it gets. It was literally at almost the last possible moment that the go around was initiated after ATC instructed them following the question from what seems like someone in the cockpit of UA 1, who again comes on moments later saying "He flew right over us" and identifies as UA 1 this time! As it turns out just 100' over a 787-9 which has its tailplane about 55'-60' high!

Chilling! Really chilling!

No wonder NTSB is on it even though nothing really crashed into anything by just extreme good fortune and at least one pilot paying close attention to what was going on, it would seem.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jis said:


> The more I read about this, the more chilling it gets. It was literally at almost the last possible moment that the go around was initiated after ATC instructed them following the question from what seems like someone in the cockpit of UA 1, who again comes on moments later saying "He flew right over us" and identifies as UA 1 this time! As it turns out just 100' over a 787-9 which has its tailplane about 55'-60' high!


If you listen carefully you can hear the 100ft readout for a nighttime approach to 28R...



...It's crazy to think they got this close to disaster.


----------



## jis

Indeed DA! After seeing the video I realized how close it was! According to some of the discussion in airliners.net, the Airbus was a quarter of a nautical mile down the runway er... taxiway before the go around was initiated!


----------



## SarahZ

I watched the animation last night, and it gave me chills. I can't even imagine being a pilot in one of those planes on the taxiway, watching another plane coming straight for my face.

As a passenger facing sideways out the window, I probably wouldn't have realized anything (thank goodness). I'm not sure I would have slept well after that.


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> Amazing....I've heard of commercial pilots sometimes mistaken the Left or Right parallel runways, but a parallel taxiway? Whew, that was just too close! Thank goodness no crash resulted....other than perhaps that pilot's career......


Mistaking a parallel taxiway for a runway unfortunately is not as uncommon as one imagines, though usually it happens more often during daylight hours apparently. I can think of two right off the top of my head. One was at Atlanta, a Delta 767, and the other one in Newark, an United 737., that too on a taxiway parallel to the short 29 on a sidestep from 22L to 29.


----------



## railiner

I suspect that at the conclusion of the NTSB investigation of this incident, it will result in some strong new rulemaking, that may eliminate manual visual approaches by commercial flights, perhaps....

I would like to hear some of our professional pilot members opinion's on this....


----------



## saxman

This has happened a couple times during the day, into the sun, etc. But this was at night! You can see from DA's video the landing on 28R. Taxiway Charlie is to the right of that with green centerline lights and blue edge lights. Although you can see taxiways from the air, the dim blue and green is just meant to see the taxiway from the ground. The runway as you can see is bright white edge lights with white touchdown zone lights in the first 1500 feet either side of the centerline lights. You also see the approach lighting system that leads to the runway. Perhaps they were thinking those white lights were for 28L? I think fatigue has a huge factor in this. I called in "fatigued" a couple times in the last few months. Walking past the passengers that had been waiting for hours until 2 AM didn't seem happy, but little did they know, I was doing them a big favor!


----------



## Bob Dylan

Thanks Chris! Its a tough job, glad you're one of the pros, hope you get some R&R!


----------



## BCL

One thing to think about is that 28L wasn't being used. I heard maybe undergoing maintenance at night and the runway lights were off. Some of the discussion was that the pilots might have been fixating on the lights, thinking that they needed to see one set of lights to the right of another set of lights.


----------



## jis

Chris can give us the best opinion based on first hand knowledge since he is the only one among us who has actually landed a plane on 28R as PIC.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

BCL said:


> One thing to think about is that 28L wasn't being used. I heard maybe undergoing maintenance at night and the runway lights were off. Some of the discussion was that the pilots might have been fixating on the lights, thinking that they needed to see one set of lights to the right of another set of lights.


Which is why it's important for large commercial airports to use runway outage lights (big flashing "X" at each end in FAA territory) during major maintenance periods and for pilots to fully familiarize themselves with any active NOTAM's.


----------



## railiner

Devil's Advocate said:


> BCL said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing to think about is that 28L wasn't being used. I heard maybe undergoing maintenance at night and the runway lights were off. Some of the discussion was that the pilots might have been fixating on the lights, thinking that they needed to see one set of lights to the right of another set of lights.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why it's important for large commercial airports to use runway outage lights (big flashing "X" at each end in FAA territory) during major maintenance periods and for pilots to fully familiarize themselves with any active NOTAM's.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the automated ATIS announcement from the airport also mention the runway closure? Usually, when a pilot contacts a tower for permission to land, he or she confirms that they have listened to the latest recording identifed by a phonetic letter...


----------



## PRR 60

railiner said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BCL said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing to think about is that 28L wasn't being used. I heard maybe undergoing maintenance at night and the runway lights were off. Some of the discussion was that the pilots might have been fixating on the lights, thinking that they needed to see one set of lights to the right of another set of lights.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why it's important for large commercial airports to use runway outage lights (big flashing "X" at each end in FAA territory) during major maintenance periods and for pilots to fully familiarize themselves with any active NOTAM's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wouldn't the automated ATIS announcement from the airport also mention the runway closure? Usually, when a pilot contacts a tower for permission to land, he or she confirms that they have listened to the latest recording identifed by a phonetic letter...
Click to expand...

Yes. In addition to weather, ATIS identifies any abnormal operational issues such as runway closures.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Why does a tricky airport like San Francisco not have all the safety system working?

Sorry not a pilot, but after the last crash one think we would learn a important lesson.


----------



## ehbowen

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Why does a tricky airport like San Francisco not have all the safety system working?
> 
> Sorry not a pilot, but after the last crash one think we would learn a important lesson.


If it's not all working, for whatever the reason, are they supposed to shut the entire airport down until it's all working again?


----------



## jis

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Why does a tricky airport like San Francisco not have all the safety system working?
> 
> Sorry not a pilot, but after the last crash one think we would learn a important lesson.


What exactly was not working? I have no clue what you are talking about.

SFO does visual whenever possible to increase throughput. This is similar in spirit to what is done at Penn Station approach from the east where routinely trains proceed on restricting speed visually crawling upto the tail of the train ahead.

Are you suggesting that they should stop doing so? That will reduce the throughput capacity of SFO by more than 50%, and is not going to happen.

They still have PAPI to guide them to the landing spot. When someone loses situational awareness, all bets are off, unfortunately.

It is possible that if they had the Rabbit on it would have reduced the possibility of this particular mistake, and that might indeed be a recommendation that comes out of this. Saxman and I had an interesting discussion about this at the AU Gathering.

BTW, in a preliminary NTSB review, a representative of the SFO ATC said that the big red "X" was lighted at the end of the out of service runway 28L at the time of the incident.

Incidentally also, because of the displaced threshold of 28R, most fortuitously, the landing craft overflew the first two planes awaiting takeoff on Taxiway Charlie, instead of crashing into the first one in line. That gave ATC the time to react and command the go around just in time- some say within five seconds of disaster involving the landing plane and the third and fourth plane in queue on Charlie.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Why does a tricky airport like San Francisco not have all the safety system working? Sorry not a pilot, but after the last crash one think we would learn a important lesson.


What do you feel makes San Francisco airport especially tricky? What lesson do you feel should have been learned by the last crash?


----------



## Bob Dylan

Saxman= One of our Airline Pilot Members!


----------



## jis

Bob Dylan said:


> Saxman= One of our Airline Pilot Members!


Not only that. He has actually landed a plane on Runway 28R at SFO!


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

It seem to maximize the airport capacity we are making trades. Safety vs Profit. By using the visual approach we can land more planes. The lost of one or two out of the hundreds of thousands is worth it.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Devil said:


> What do you feel makes San Francisco airport especially tricky? What lesson do you feel should have been learned by the last crash?


My understand is the airport approach is over water which of course has a lack of landmarks. One of the factors in the crash of 214. The water approach is why it's tricky.

Asiana Airlines 214 that crash. One of the factors was the aircraft was on visual. Several other issues also helped in that crash.

The recurring issues is the aircraft is on visual. If we invented a radio beacon, a radar, or a guy on the ground providing a signal that could tell the pilot that there approached is good. Well then this mess would not of happened.

Oh wait we have said systems we just don't use them.

Profits above safety. A winning combination.

.


----------



## Ryan

Landmarks don’t do a bit of good if you’re not paying attention, which was the real cause of QZ214.


----------



## jis

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you feel makes San Francisco airport especially tricky? What lesson do you feel should have been learned by the last crash?
> 
> 
> 
> My understand is the airport approach is over water which of course has a lack of landmarks. One of the factors in the crash of 214. The water approach is why it's tricky.
> 
> Asiana Airlines 214 that crash. One of the factors was the aircraft was on visual. Several other issues also helped in that crash.
> 
> The recurring issues is the aircraft is on visual. If we invented a radio beacon, a radar, or a guy on the ground providing a signal that could tell the pilot that there approached is good. Well then this mess would not happen nor would of Asiana Airline.
> 
> Oh wait we have said systems we just don't use them.
> 
> Profits above safety. A winning combination.
Click to expand...

maybe you should provide your expert services to FAA. You might save so many lives  
In terms of profit before safety, the safest system would be if no one flew anything of course. There is no absolutely safe system. It is always a case of finding the right balance between profit and safety. The reason they use VFR is because that allows them to get better throughput and arguably there is little to suggest that VFR alone has caused any of the problems. SFO just has a few difficult approaches because of various factors, and usuall bigger problems occur when people truly need to fly IFR because of fog and such. Just because they are on VFR does not mean they cannot use glide slopes and other guidance systems. It is just that they don't have to maintain IFR separations. Whether they use such or not is a choice the pilots get to make. The Asiana flight did not have glide slope because, as saxman explained to me, at that point the equipment was being moved to put in place the displaced threshold for the two 28s to reduce the likelihood of an undershooting aircraft falling into the water. All pilots had gotten NOTAMs to that effect and it was also notified as part of the final approach airport condition notification. Incidentally, the displaced threshold probably saved the lives of everyone on those five planes potentially involved this time around, since that caused the 320 to fly over the two planes at the head of the queue on Charlie instead of into them.

There has been some criticism of not just SFO but most Western airports that they turn some aids off, like the Rabbit (allegedly), which IMHO is a silly thing to do, specially when all Eastern airports always keep them on apparently.



Ryan said:


> Landmarks don’t do a bit of good if you’re not paying attention, which was the real cause of QZ214.


Well, very often, fatigue is a much bigger factor than almost anything else.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Devil said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you feel makes San Francisco airport especially tricky? What lesson do you feel should have been learned by the last crash?
> 
> 
> 
> My understand is the airport approach is over water which of course has a lack of landmarks. One of the factors in the crash of 214. The water approach is why it's tricky. Asiana Airlines 214 that crash. One of the factors was the aircraft was on visual. Several other issues also helped in that crash. The recurring issues is the aircraft is on visual. If we invented a radio beacon, a radar, or a guy on the ground providing a signal that could tell the pilot that there approached is good. Well then this mess would not of happened. Oh wait we have said systems we just don't use them. Profits above safety. A winning combination.
Click to expand...

Any competent commercial pilot should be able to manage a visual approach to a major airport with massive lighted runways, a visual glide slope, and active instrument landing system. Yes you're approaching over water, but it's not over the open ocean. There are visual cues all around you night and day. Heavy fog is possible but in that case you'd be following instrument flight rules anyway. The two primary lessons I learned from the OZ 214 crash are that some pilots need better training on how autopilots respond to unusual and contradictory command inputs and that some emergency ground services need to be taught to avoid blindly driving large commercial vehicles into firefighting foam. Watching the footage of the ground services blindly running over the bodies like clueless morons was extremely aggravating to me. If you want SFO to always activate the ALS/LDIN during low light conditions I'd support that proposal.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato

The argument of profits vs. safety might be one of those emotion-jerkers that doesn't stand up to the logic test.

Flying is (even if the Air Canada flight had ended in tragedy) arguably the safest mode of transportation out there. If the "safety" argument is taken too far in too narrow of a window of focus (meaning, just thinking of SFO operations), that reduces capacity at the airport by 50%.

Do the folks on the other half of the flights simply disappear/not travel? Probably not. What happens then is flights into/out of SFO become more scarce, meaning fares rise. Especially likely to be sacrificed are the shorter/regional flights, where the alternative is often driving (for most, rail travel isn't a realistic option yet, and may not be for who knows how many years to come). Now, what's one of the least safe modes of transportation? (Hint, it's the alternative mentioned in the previous sentence.)

For those that do still fly, it means going into alternate airports such as San Jose and Oakland. However, if their destination is San Francisco, it means additional travel to get there, most likely to be done by road.

So, if we reduce the capacity of SFO in the name of "safety," we'd actually be making travel around the area less safe.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Time for a white paper. If we going to design a air transport system for the ground up. Pretty sure we get something better, and safer.

To be risking people's lives, just for a dollar or two.

Once we used Freon in our refrigerators, then we discovered the damage it cause. The industry fought tooth and nail to keep using it. The government outlawed it. Industry found a cheaper and non-damaging solution to replace it.


----------



## SarahZ

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> It seem to maximize the airport capacity we are making trades. Safety vs Profit. By using the visual approach we can land more planes. *The lost of one or two out of the hundreds of thousands is worth it.*


We do not lose 1-2 planes out of every 100,000.

The U.S. averages 26,527 passenger flights every day**. By your math, we'd "lose" 1-2 planes every four days. If we increase the number to 900,000, that's still 1-2 planes every 33 days. That's not happening. At all. Anywhere.

** Source: Federal Aviation Administration, 2017 - https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/


----------



## Ryan

He didn’t say how many hundreds of thousands he was talking about.

Maybe he meant “one or two out of the thousands of hundreds of thousands”.

Or he’s just making stuff up.


----------



## jis

OK. I think he is off bringing in all kinds of irrelevant stuff to this incident. So at least I am done responding to that sub thread. I will continue with anyone interested in discussing the specifics of this incident.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

SarahZ said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seem to maximize the airport capacity we are making trades. Safety vs Profit. By using the visual approach we can land more planes. *The lost of one or two out of the hundreds of thousands is worth it.*
> 
> 
> 
> We do not lose 1-2 planes out of every 100,000.
> 
> The U.S. averages 26,527 passenger flights every day**. By your math, we'd "lose" 1-2 planes every four days. If we increase the number to 900,000, that's still 1-2 planes every 33 days. That's not happening. At all. Anywhere.
> 
> ** Source: Federal Aviation Administration, 2017 - https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/
Click to expand...

Was not try to use a exact number just point out that a safety system was not in use. Someone is make a business decision to maximize the aircraft per hour. At some point you have a failure. If the cost worth it?

Not to me.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seem to maximize the airport capacity we are making trades. Safety vs Profit. By using the visual approach we can land more planes. *The lost of one or two out of the hundreds of thousands is worth it.*
> 
> 
> 
> We do not lose 1-2 planes out of every 100,000.
> 
> The U.S. averages 26,527 passenger flights every day**. By your math, we'd "lose" 1-2 planes every four days. If we increase the number to 900,000, that's still 1-2 planes every 33 days. That's not happening. At all. Anywhere.
> 
> ** Source: Federal Aviation Administration, 2017 - https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was not try to use a exact number just point out that a safety system was not in use. Someone is make a business decision to maximize the aircraft per hour. At some point you have a failure. If the cost worth it?
> 
> Not to me.
Click to expand...

Then drive, where you're significantly more likely to die in an accident. But as I pointed out above, reducing the capacity of the safest mode of transportation, in the name of safety, just puts more people onto a less-safe mode of transportation.


----------



## saxman

This incident had nothing to do with safety vs. profit whatsoever. It happen to be a clear night which is the norm for 90% of time just about anywhere. Within the last 12 months, I've flown 454 approaches but only shot 28 instrument approaches. Of those 28, very few were with ceilings below 1000 feet.

All the normal safety systems were in place and available. My airline requires use of backup navaids during a visual approach at night and briefing it as an instrument approach. We can still shoot a visual approach at night. We just have to have a backup in place, which is usually an ILS. It really doesn't change much anyway other than being slightly closer to the guy in front, but thats not what caused this incident.

I'm assuming the AC guys had the ILS and approach loaded into the aircraft. I've never seen or heard of someone not doing this, day or night, clear or foggy. I'm not on an Airbus but being about 300 feet off to the side, the needle would be offset a little bit but not a huge about to cause concern. As they approached the taxiway, the needle would move slightly farther away, but by this time they are short final, and the runway/taxiway is easily in view and the pilots are simply fixated on it, probably not noticing how far the needle is off. You might be thinking that how could they not notice the needle being off?! Well it's hard to explain but it's super easy for even the most experienced. 28R does have a PAPI, but it is on the left side of the runway. PAPI's can be on either side of the runway, so perhaps they were thinking that was for 28L.

It's pretty obvious fatigue was a major factor in this. They were coming from Toronto and landing at midnight. Assuming they were based there, it was 3 AM body clock time. Who knows what their day had been earlier? Ever try driving when tired? I did a 4 day trip a couple months that was all West Coast flying, even though I'm ORD based. It was the same trip twice in a row and it was all late afternoon shows. Weather was bad in Seattle so were delayed from the get go. On leg 3 of 4, PDX-SEA, we had to divert back to PDX because of low visibility and not enough fuel. We left PDX again with lots of fuel and again had to wait for the visibility to come up just enough to attempt an approach into SEA. We needed 1200 feet of visibility. We got in at 2 AM. We were starting to feel the fatigue. It was quitting time. We were still schedule to go to YVR (Vancouver). We had to say no, and the flight cancelled and we had to deplane passed 70 pissed off passenger that had been waiting for hours. (Sorry folks) Got to bed at 3 AM, which was 5 AM, my body clock time. The point is that fatigue is dangerous and has been a factor any many accidents. Luckily, now a-days we are allowed to call in "fatigued" without punitive measures. But it's difficult to assess.

For those keeping track, I have 81 takeoffs and 77 landing from SFO.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Thanks Chris! Good Info from one who knows!


----------



## jis

I was hoping Chris would chime in with informed opinions based on his personal experience. Thanks Chris.


----------



## SarahZ

saxman said:


> As they approached the taxiway, the needle would move slightly farther away, but by this time they are short final, and the runway/taxiway is easily in view and the pilots are simply fixated on it, probably not noticing how far the needle is off. You might be thinking that how could they not notice the needle being off?! Well it's hard to explain but it's super easy for even the most experienced.


I'm not sure where the needle is located, but the way you described it makes me think of driving on a local interstate late at night.

You've driven down this road countless times, and since the exit is only a mile away, you're not fixating on your speedometer.

Therefore, it's hard to tell if you're going 70 mph or 80 mph, as everything seems fairly normal and the needle isn't so far off that you'd notice it in your peripheral.

Is my analogy even close?


----------



## jis

Preliminary report from the NTSB providing an accurate timeline with photographic evidence to back it up.

https://ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA17IA148.aspx

Additional facts - the closed runway was marked with a flashing red X at its threshold which for some reason the AC crew missed completely. Perhaps a case of ignoring all evidence contrary to the theory that you have come to believe, and carry on regardless.

Looks like UA 1 was already on the taxiway connecting Taxiway C to 28R, but its tail was still sticking out onto Taxiway C. As surmised before it was the UA 1 crew that commented about the AC being lined up with the taxiway. By the time that comment ended AC was already voerflying UA 1.

The second plane in queue on Taxiway C - PAL 115 - turned on its landing lights.

AC crew initiated a go around while overflying PAL 115, the second plane in queue for takeoff, before being commanded to do so by ATC.

An additional tidbit: "[SIZE=9pt]As ACA759 approached SFO, at 2355:52 PDT, the airplane flew too far right of course to be observed by the local controller’s ASDE-X/ASSC and was not visible on the ASDE-X/ASSC display for about 12 seconds. "[/SIZE]


----------



## XHRTSP

I fly my 74 into SFO pretty regularily, almost always at night, and I can assure you it's nothing especially hard or tricky.

I'd go more detail but I'm on layover at HNL (poor me) with just my iPad and it's a pain to do long post, so I'll just second what Saxman said.

Sarah,

Not a good anology. Imagine a car had two drivers and two steering wheels and two dashboards, and one od the drivers had to monitor what the other was doing when they were steering, including specifically the speedomoter. And nit only that, the speedometer needle changed colors and flashed at you when you were even slighhtly off parameters.


----------



## jis

Thanks for the additional info. Very helpful for filling in a few gaps in our understanding.


----------



## SarahZ

XHRTSP said:


> Sarah,
> 
> Not a good anology. Imagine a car had two drivers and two steering wheels and two dashboards, and one od the drivers had to monitor what the other was doing when they were steering, including specifically the speedomoter. And nit only that, the speedometer needle changed colors and flashed at you when you were even slighhtly off parameters.


Thank you! That does help.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Here's an update from the NTSB via the Mercury News for those who were interested.



Mercury News said:


> Federal aviation investigators released stunning video footage and data Wednesday showing the near-disastrous landing of an Air Canada flight at San Francisco International Airport *came as close as 5 feet from striking a Philippine Airlines jet* lined up on a taxiway last July. The National Transportation Safety Board found the crew felt fatigued during the flight, that the first officer was twice rejected in his application for promotion, and that another pilot landing at SFO that night complained about too-bright construction lights that made it difficult to find the proper runway. Aviation experts have said the close call could have led to one of the worst aviation disasters in history with the* fully loaded planes carrying upward of 1,000 passengers and crew.*






Media Link: https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/02/video-new-shocking-sfo-footage-shows-just-how-close-air-canada-plane-came-to-landing-on-four-aircraft/

NTSB Docket: https://go.usa.gov/xQ8Mp


----------



## Bob Dylan

As terrible as this would have been, really it's just an everyday occurrence @ the overcrowded skies around the Major Airports!

I'm a "Retired" Million Mile Flyer, but I can remember many scarey incidents through the years, both as an Airline Passenger and as the Pilot of Small Planes using Major Airports including your own San Antonio International!


----------



## jis

Bob Dylan said:


> As terrible as this would have been, really it's just an everyday occurrence @ the overcrowded skies around the Major Airports!


I don't think attempted landing on a taxiway that has three planes on it is a common occurrence at all.


----------



## Bob Dylan

jis said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As terrible as this would have been, really it's just an everyday occurrence @ the overcrowded skies around the Major Airports!
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think attempted landing on a taxiway that has three planes on it is a common occurrence at all.
Click to expand...

Not an every day occurence, but more common than you might think jis,especially among Private Aircraft!
I know of instances where Airliners landed @ the wrong Airport, and even on Highways ( Houston Bush was involved in this when first opened since it was known as "The Black Hole of Calcuta" when planes landed on I45 several times!( my Uncle, the Retired TWA Captain, can tell some real Hair curling stories!)


----------



## the_traveler

I was on a DL flight in 94 from IAH to SLC, flying at 30K. My flight went DIRECTLY thru another jet contrail! They jet was crossing 90° from us.

It was so close that I could see the heat glowing at the back of the other engines!


----------



## jis

Bob Dylan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As terrible as this would have been, really it's just an everyday occurrence @ the overcrowded skies around the Major Airports!
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think attempted landing on a taxiway that has three planes on it is a common occurrence at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not an every day occurence, but more common than you might think jis,especially among Private Aircraft!
> I know of instances where Airliners landed @ the wrong Airport, and even on Highways ( Houston Bush was involved in this when first opened since it was known as "The Black Hole of Calcuta" when planes landed on I45 several times!( my Uncle, the Retired TWA Captain, can tell some real Hair curling stories!)
Click to expand...

I did not say they don't happen. But they are quite uncommon. Probably more people get injured falling off a ladder by a wide margin than two planes come close enough for it to become a reportable incident. I have a good friend who worked for several years at the Newark Airport Tower. Stories, sure, there are many. But reportable incidents according to him are far fewer than hair raising stories. He claims that it is so because the system works most of the time. when a pilot forgets to deploy his landing gear before landing someone else notices and gets him straightened out before anything bad happens, and similar stuff.


----------



## cpotisch

jis said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As terrible as this would have been, really it's just an everyday occurrence @ the overcrowded skies around the Major Airports!
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think attempted landing on a taxiway that has three planes on it is a common occurrence at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not an every day occurence, but more common than you might think jis,especially among Private Aircraft!I know of instances where Airliners landed @ the wrong Airport, and even on Highways ( Houston Bush was involved in this when first opened since it was known as "The Black Hole of Calcuta" when planes landed on I45 several times!( my Uncle, the Retired TWA Captain, can tell some real Hair curling stories!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He claims that it is so because the system works most of the time. when a pilot forgets to deploy his landing gear before landing someone else notices and gets him straightened out before anything bad happens, and similar stuff.
Click to expand...

As someone who has about 8,000 flight hours on a consumer grade but very realistic flight simulator, I will say that if you get too low with gear up, the cockpit gives you a multitude of warnings and alerts that are pretty much impossible to miss. On older retractable gear aircraft, the alerts were often pretty ambiguous and often didnt effectively communicate or specify that the gear was still up. Therefore, it was not uncommon for pilots to misunderstand the alerts, fail to address the problem, and crash land with their landing gear up. So now, airliners have clearer and more specific alerts to make it very clear to pilots that the issue is that landing gear, and from that gear up landings have become for the most part a thing of the past.


----------



## jis

Notwithstanding all that an Air India 777 almost landed at Newark without deploying its landing gear. The Tower shooed him off on a go around. [emoji57] This according to the guy who was the controller on duty in the tower at the time of the event.


----------



## cpotisch

Oh I believe that. Air India isn’t exactly known for great piloting

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.timesofindia.com/india/Plane-overshoots-Mumbai-as-both-pilots-go-to-sleep/amp_articleshow/3165569.cms


----------

