Air Canada flight nearly lands on taxiway at San Francisco International Airport ✈ FlightAware

← Back to Squawk list

Air Canada flight nearly lands on taxiway at San Francisco International Airport

Soumis il y a environ 2 mois

Details are emerging about what could have been a serious incident at San Francisco International Airport last Friday night when an Air Canada plane from Toronto nearly landed on the taxiway. With ATC text (abc7news.com) Plus d'info...

83 commentaires des membres

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

James Carlson il y a environ 2 mois 12

Great catch by the UAL crew waiting to go who called out that ACA was lined up on the taxiway. They're the real heroes here!

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Warren Craycroft il y a environ 2 mois 4

Absolutely The scariest comment I've heard on this incident is that "the checks and balances worked as designed" so nothing really to see here. It appears to me that the checks and balances were running low, and that the UAL's radio call was an important contributing factor in averting a "Canary Islands times 4" catastrophe.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Dave Fisher il y a environ 2 mois 5

I heard former NTSB Chairman, Mark Rosenker, commenting on the recent SFO event. This type of mistake is not that uncommon and the FAA needs to improve runway markings at certain problem airports.
(From a report in 2005)
Pilots mistake taxiway for runway at Sea-Tac
At least eight times in five years, experienced pilots from five airlines have mistaken Taxiway Tango for Runway 16R.
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/pilots-mistake-taxiway-for-runway-at-sea-tac/

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

bellczar il y a environ 2 mois 12

The inbound flight was AC 879, an A320 from YYZ. Sitting on the taxiway C were (in order) UAL 1, a B787-900 bound for Singapore; PAL 115; an A340-300 bound for Manila; UAL 863, a B787-900 bound for Sydney; and UAL 1118, a B737-900 bound for Cancun. If all five planes had been involved, it could easily have been the greatest aviation disaster in history.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Tony Perez il y a environ 2 mois 6

How close did AC get before a go-around was ordered? The pilots were clearly concerned about lights across the runway and were probably getting ready to go around anyway (they should have been trained "When In Doubt - Go Around"). If they were close enough, they would've noticed the lights were blue instead of white.
Also, they would've noticed their CDI (course deviation needle) or localizer diamond drift further to the left.

No, I'm not an ATP but I DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. (hehe) So the above are just my thoughts from my freshman year of training.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Jad Khoriaty il y a environ 2 mois 3

Preliminary reports say it passed 100 feet above the first 2 aircrafts lined up on the taxiway, 200 feet above the 3rd aircraft and 400 feet across the last one.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Ken McIntyre il y a environ 2 mois 1

400 feet

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Tony Perez il y a environ 2 mois 1

What was the Minimums?

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Ken McIntyre il y a environ 2 mois 1

Situation was VFR at the time

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Ken McIntyre il y a environ 2 mois 1

I should say 400 MSL.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Dave Fisher il y a environ 2 mois 1

yes, and all those taxiing aircraft brimming with fuel... :0

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

1BabyGirl il y a environ 2 mois 4

With two flight crew members making the approach at least one of them should have noticed the error and corrected before it became a serious safety factor. If I were flying one of those aircraft waiting for departure on Charlie I would be yelling long and loud to find out why my life was put in such danger.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Colin Seftel il y a environ 2 mois 4

This news bulletin https://t.co/7FQ5651XIa mentions that 28L was out of service and unlit, so the Air Canada pilot might have mistaken 28R for 28L and therefore lined up with the taxiway on the right.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

patrick baker il y a environ 2 mois 4

makes the case for using a localizer approach set up even in visual clearances.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

panam1971 il y a environ 2 mois 4

Pilots and controllers are human. Errors are bound to happen.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

jangle1 il y a environ 2 mois 7

Atis would undoubtedly have revealed one of the parallel runways was closed. That may have been overlooked by one or both in the cockpit. Since the closed runway lights were off, the sight picture was not what was expected and a lazy brain simply lined up on the right side lights. Very unprofessional and inexcusable, yes, and something you might expect from an inexperienced private pilot.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

ken young il y a environ 2 mois 2

Ok...Why would the instructions clear to land on a runway that was closed?

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Michael Osmers il y a environ 2 mois 5

28R was the active runway and the clearance to land was on 28R. The issue here is that 28L was closed with 28R used for takeoff and landing. Usually at SFO on approach you can clearly see the two closely spaced parallel runways illuminated. In this case, with the lights off on 28L jangle1 above speculates that the visual illusion might lead the crew to think 28R (illuminated) was mistaken for 28L (unilluminted) and line up on taxiway C (thinking it was 28R!) which was also illuminated but of course in blue and green which indicate a taxiway… without access to the NOTAMS, I also wonder if the ILS was on, which it almost always is...

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

ken young il y a environ 2 mois 3

I have read about issues with KSFO's ILS . In fact in the Chinese air carrier crash, the ILS was down that day.
I see your point. Howevwer, unless there were issues with visibility, I cannot fathom how the AC pilot mistook green/blue for the normal colors marking a runway.
From my view this pilot simply had a brain fart.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

waldo kitty il y a environ 2 mois 1

at least one article stated that 28L had its threshold lights (??) configured to a huge 'X' to additionally indicate that 28L was closed... that should have also been a clue to the A320 pilot that they were lined up wrong...

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Chris B il y a environ 2 mois 3

Video of landing on 28R at night here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNMtMYUGjnQ

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

joel wiley il y a environ 2 mois 1

Nice video. Can't see Taxiway Charlie tho.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Jad Khoriaty il y a environ 2 mois 1

The taxiway's green light are more bright than the lights on the runway but it's they're very clearly green!

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Bryan Jensen il y a environ 2 mois 0

Wrong, taxiway lights are blue.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Michael Osmers il y a environ 2 mois 3

taxiway centerline lights are green, SFO has LEDs and they are in fact very bright… but as already noted, they are clearly green!

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

alex hidveghy il y a environ 2 mois 1

yes, the EDGE lights are blue, but the center line lights are green for a TWY!

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

daniel sorrell il y a environ 2 mois 3

Stay on the instrument approach especially at night

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Bryan Jensen il y a environ 2 mois 0

There is the solution. Listen up everybody, yes you to prima donnas.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

cyberjet il y a environ 2 mois 4

They were flying an offset visual approach. How exactly were they supposed to follow the ILS?

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

bettiem il y a environ 2 mois 1

I think that what Daniel and Brian mean is that a visual approach should not have been an option unless instruments defective / off. i.e. that instrument / ILS/ localizer mandate reduces error possibility, like it or lump it. In other words, that statistics must rule without allowance for human unnecessary choice. (That said, human control intervention must remain a vital part of supervised, planned and controlled training and evaluating.)

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

alex hidveghy il y a environ 2 mois 2

when I was still flying, our briefing for visual approaches were ".....backed up by the ILS....". there was a reason for that. And yes, I have flown in to SFO, was actually based there for a while. The visual approach is offset but you can pick up the localizer from about 5 miles straight-in - if it's working!

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Michael Osmers il y a environ 2 mois 1

Additionally, modern aircraft have the runways and approaches in the Flight Management Computer (FMC) so even if the ILS is off line, at the very least the runway and its center line are clearly visible as well as navigatable in LNAV. Caviot, I've never flown an Airbus, only Boeings so I guess I'm speaking to that, any Airbus folks out there care to comment on the VNAV state of the navigation system in regard to a raw approach?

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Scott Campbell il y a environ 2 mois 6

Hey if Harrison Ford can do it why not Air Canada

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

joel wiley il y a environ 2 mois 3

SNA Taxi A was empty, KSFO Taxi C wasn't. And the jury is still out on whether he got away with it, unless I missed the FAA final report.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Tony Perez il y a environ 2 mois 2

He got away with it.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

RECOR10 il y a environ 2 mois 1

Yeah, but he is Indiana Jones AND Han Solo!!!! Man flew the Millennium Falcon...who are we to judge????

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Forensics1 il y a environ 2 mois 1

He, or she, got away with it...

In any event I am very happy that after it was all said and done, whoever it was, 'got away with it' in terms of the worst possible accident.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Roch Comeau il y a environ 2 mois 7

Seems that the whole "Greatest aviation disaster in history" line a bit overblown? Any missed approach or runway incursion could cause a serious disaster, but "could", "might" mean it did not happen. How many layers of checks and protection were left? No one would blindly land into a row of airplanes so this is a story of how a plane got uncomfortably close to a big mistake but still not imminent. Worthy of investigation and corrective action no doubt, but to harp on the worst case scenario that never happened is not terribly helpful.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Jad Khoriaty il y a environ 2 mois -1

The problem was that they noticed "lights on the runway" and still went for it.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

cyberjet il y a environ 2 mois 5

That's a little unfair. They enquired with the tower and were given the all clear. That response would introduce some doubt that would take a little time to sort through. Unlike forum commenters who can play Monday morning quarterback, they have to assess and make decisions in real time. We still don't know if they were already in the process of going around when the order came from the tower. Once the investigation is complete, we will have a better idea of all the factors that contributed to the incident.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Forensics1 il y a environ 2 mois 1

Well said.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Mike Duralia il y a environ 2 mois 2

ATC Recording

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW-ETmZU0u8

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Scott Campbell il y a environ 2 mois 2

Better

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/air-canada-plane-near-miss-crash-four-aircraft-runway/

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

James Wilson Jr il y a environ 2 mois 2

87% of all chashes and accidents in aircraft are caused by Crew Error. Get your head out flight crew .

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Highflyer1950 il y a environ 2 mois 2

Harrison Ford was the PIC? Seriously, I don't think AC would have landed but at 3 or 4 miles out they may have lined up with the taxiway, It wouldn't be the first time an air carrier has done that or even landed at the wrong airport. Kinda makes you wonder what navaids were tuned and who was looking at them, if anyone?

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Tony Perez il y a environ 2 mois 3

Let's see...the runway is the one with the approach lights extending out into the bay. Now I think KSFO has a weird staggered offset ILS approach alternating between 28L and 28R, so if the PIC was trying to do an offset approach to 28R but using the wrong ILS (I'm not sure exactly how that works), that would be my guess of what happened.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Highflyer1950 il y a environ 2 mois 1

Maybe, at that time of night they might have been flying the "Quiet Bridge Visual" 28R, which is slightly offset until you reach the San Mateo bridge. Who knows?

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

joel wiley il y a environ 2 mois -1

http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KSFO/IAP/ILS+OR+LOC+RWY+28L

http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KSFO/IAP/ILS+OR+LOC+RWY+28L

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

planecrazy707b il y a environ 2 mois 2

I don't think it comes close as the Teneriffe disaster back in 1977 involving two 747-100 jets PAN AM KLM

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Jeff Lawson ♦ il y a environ 2 mois 2

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

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Tony Perez il y a environ 2 mois 2

Sounds like Harrison Ford was the PF; not to resurrect that joke, but it sounds very similar - trying to land on Taxiway C and flew over a commercial jet.
Is this a "thing" now?

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

sharon bias il y a environ 2 mois 1

I thought the same thing.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Kristin2555 il y a environ 2 mois 1

Is anyone concerned that only one pilot noticed Air Canada's misalignment? I would hope that general situational awareness should have meant all of the pilots lined up should have noticed the Air Canada plane was coming directly at them and not the runway. Are both the PF and PM too busy with other tasks at this point in time and not expected to be generally aware of the macro situation around them? (I'm only a passenger with an interest in ATC so forgive me if this is an obvious question.)

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

PLANESOLUTIONS ★ il y a environ 2 mois 1

There have been times that I've experienced runway lights dimmed down so low that they are no more bright than taxiway lighting. I hope they will investigate this as a possible contributing factor. Additionally, if anyone has NOTAMS for SFO if might be interesting to see is any lighting was out of service, REIL's for instance.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Bryan Jensen il y a environ 2 mois 1

Could color blindness have been a factor?

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Bob Myers il y a environ 2 mois 1

Very, very unlikely. The most common form of color blindness by far results in the inability to distinguish certain shades of red and green, so this would not result in confusion between runway and taxiway lighting on the basis of color. The most extreme (and VERY uncommon) form of color blindness, the complete inability to see in color, would disqualify a prospective pilot in the first place.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Andrea De Biase il y a environ 2 mois 1

I'm not a pilot nor an expert and yet i wonder, how do you not see that you are aligned with a piece of asphalt that has no landing markings, no PAPI (or whatever you call it) and has planes on it??? even without the tower eventually the pilot would have gone around i like to believe

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Mary McElyea il y a environ 2 mois 1

Phew.....First time into SFO? Thank goodness everyone safely traveled that night.....

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Steve Gibson il y a environ 2 mois 1

I'm not a pilot, but occasionally play one in front of the computer, so feel free to disregard my blatherings... but aren't there super bright white approach lights that point DIRECTLY to the runway? Like, "here's where you land, dude". Not to the left, not to the right, but RIGHT HERE. Unless those lights were malfunctioning I don't understand how this can happen.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Tony Perez il y a environ 2 mois 2

Yes, they extend out into the bay.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Allen Lalor il y a environ 2 mois 1

Harrison Ford's birthday was 7/13. Maybe this was a subconscious early celebration of his prior near mishap. Seriously, I am glad nobody got hurt.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Don Sitter il y a environ 2 mois 1

Reading through all the threads/comments, this thought sticks with me: is possible to get lined up on TW C without the CDI's and command bars being way out? If one ILS is down, can you actually offset a good one to the Runway with the inop ILS? Nothing I've flown ever had that ability--but that is what I seem to see inferred here. Thx

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Richard Loven il y a environ 2 mois 1

It takes some of the heat off Harrison. I doubt Air Canada would have landed on another airplane. Also they would notice the misalignment and abort on their own. I imagine United was glad to point out a mistake instead of being on the Doo Doo end of the stick like they have been lately.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Steve Geraci il y a environ 2 mois 1

Would a simple strobe light at the end of the runway be a good visual aid for approach?

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

James Carlson il y a environ 2 mois 3

Sure. I vote we call it a "REIL."

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Tony Perez il y a environ 2 mois 2

No because the planes have strobes.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

bwalko il y a environ 2 mois 1

If you remove flight deck error, the root cause is SFO will not expand its runways into the bay. SFO has/is spending billions on runway repaving, new ATC tower, major terminal renovations, a hotel and long-term parking garage. But this will not resolve the congestion as traffic increases and IFR conditions are becoming the norm. Maybe they should take some lessons from Beijing's new South China Sea islands.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

joel wiley il y a environ 2 mois 1

Someone radioed he was lining up on the taxiway, and ATC ordered go around. As the saying goes, it takes a village ...
http://avherald.com/h?article=4ab79f58&opt=0

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Casey McGinty il y a environ 2 mois 0

(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

SFO near miss might have triggered ‘greatest aviation disaster in history’

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.

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

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Cade foster il y a environ 2 mois -1

Hey remember its an Airbus aircraft so actually the computer needs to be blamed since it does the flying.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Tony Perez il y a environ 2 mois 1

Maybe the joystick got unplugged from the joystick port!

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

patrick baker il y a environ 2 mois 0

blue lights are taxiways. Yellowish ones, which also have red and green light patterns at their tips, are where we generally aim the airplane to contact the runway. It also has a number, in big white blocks from 1 to 36. That is another clue. seriously, someone ought to look down the runway after dark to see if there is extraneous light emmissions, otherwise use the runway.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Tom Pera il y a environ 2 mois 0

blue lights...white lights??? what was he looking at? was he looking? auto land lined up on taxiway??huh?

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Highflyer1950 il y a environ 2 mois 4

Again, if on the QB Visual 28R, the approach course is offset to the right, so to anyone on " charlie" the ac would appear right of course. The other puzzling thing is what setting were the runway lights set to and whether all the planes on "charlie" had their taxi lights on because from 3-4 miles out, it would be hard to distinguish one from the other. Just an opinion.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Chinabound il y a environ 2 mois 1

Finally an opinion that is correct! Of course it was the taxi lights that caused the pilots to question their approach.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

scott8733 il y a environ 2 mois -1

Could be that Geico was filming a follow up commercial on 28R when the 320 was just a few hundred feet off the deck, and the PIC was the only one who noticed.

It's possible, people.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Jeff Phipps il y a environ 2 mois -1

They just wanted to save time for their passengers and go straight for the taxi lanes. They apparently wanted the terminal landing but the pattern was full.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Eric Schmaltz il y a environ 2 mois -2

Boy, when I fly I'd like to think the pilot has done this landing thing 1000 times before at the airport I'm flying to! Night,day,fog,rain or snow. Makes you wonder how often this happens and doesn't get reported to the media.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

cyberjet il y a environ 2 mois 2

That's ludicrous. How do they get to 1000 landings if they never get the chance to do the other 999?

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Mike Williams il y a environ 2 mois -2

Maybe the pilots are Newfies. There is an old joke heard in Canada about the Newfie who found the airport run way was very wide and short!

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

joel wiley il y a environ 2 mois 1

That is about the 6th or 7th identifiable group to which I have heard that attributed.
It's right up there with " Group <A> just bought 5000 septic tanks. As soon as they learn to drive them they are going to invade country <B>".

Neither adds to the idle discussion while we await the FAA/NTSB report.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Lucio DiLoreto il y a environ 2 mois -9

Morons in the cockpit.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Larry Coleman il y a environ 2 mois 3

Moron at the keyboard.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Se connecter