Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NTSB Issues Investigative Update on San Francisco Airport Near Miss

ntsb.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 123 posts

Re: NTSB Issues Investigative Update on San Francisco Airport Near Miss

#111

Post by Animats »

laydn wrote: post #79
Animats wrote: post #4

This was a very close call. Initial reports indicated it was like an ordinary go-around. No. "The incident pilots advanced the thrust levers when the airplane was about 85 feet above ground level. Flight data recorder data indicate the airplane was over the taxiway at this time. About 2.5 seconds after advancing the thrust levers, the minimum altitude recorded on the FDR was 59 feet above ground level." They overflew…

Watch the first few seconds of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnzNvhQxu90 The pilots should not have mistaken the taxiway for the runway. There simply are too many differentiating features between the runway and the taxiway. This isn't acceptable piloting.

Both pilots have said they thought the lit runway was 28L, and thus the taxiway, without visible approach lights, was 28R. If the pilots thought the approach lights for the desired runway were obscured by ground fog, which is possible at SFO, they might have made that assumption.

Wait for the NTSB report. This one will be closely analyzed for years.

Re: NTSB Issues Investigative Update on San Francisco Airport Near Miss

#112

Post by bfjdhedfidndb »

Animats wrote: post #111
laydn wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watch the first few seconds of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnzNvhQxu90 The pilots should not have mistaken the taxiway for the runway. There simply are too many differentiating features between the runway and the taxiway. This isn't acceptable piloting.

Both pilots have said they thought the lit runway was 28L, and thus the taxiway, without visible approach lights, was 28R. If the pilots thought the approach lights for the desired runway were obscured by ground fog, which is possible at SFO, they might have made that assumption. Wait for the NTSB report. This one will be closely analyzed for years.

Something is deeply wrong somewhere if ground fog can make an airplane land on a taxiway. Either airport design, or pilot training, etc... But this should not be an understandable mistake.

Re: NTSB Issues Investigative Update on San Francisco Airport Near Miss

#113

Post by tolien »

TrickyRick wrote: post #107
tolien wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course the FDR/CVR might be newer but the airframe is 25 years old: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/c-fkck

30 was just a number I pulled out of the air because I have flown aircraft that were about that old. Of course, like you say, equipment could have been retrofitted so it's hard to know.

I didn't mean to post that to correct you! If anything it confirms your point, really.

Re: NTSB Issues Investigative Update on San Francisco Airport Near Miss

#114

Post by [deleted] »

TrickyRick wrote: post #107
tolien wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course the FDR/CVR might be newer but the airframe is 25 years old: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/c-fkck

30 was just a number I pulled out of the air because I have flown aircraft that were about that old. Of course, like you say, equipment could have been retrofitted so it's hard to know.

[deleted]

Re: NTSB Issues Investigative Update on San Francisco Airport Near Miss

#115

Post by kpil »

greenhouse_gas wrote: post #59
kpil wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main reason is that computers aren't very smart although I know that even some developers think that. Actually they can autoland but not everywhere and then you still need to tell them where, basically tune them in on the right glide path. Then you really need to be prepared to take over any second, which is a dangerous position on its own. (Just like all self driving cars right now.) It's still possible to selec…

>Actually they can autoland but not everywhere and then you still need to tell them where, basically tune them in on the right glide path. Why can't the ATC or Pilot guide the computers to the right glidepath? And most importantly, if you're not going in that glidepath, you should get a major alarm, with ATC warned (so they can manually tell the pilot to abort).

They do and they did? But it's primarily a manual process.

There are automated warning systems such as ACAS and separation warnings, but I don't think it would be possible to program something that could understand what's going on with all the traffic all the time and just generally warn if it's not looking right...

Re: NTSB Issues Investigative Update on San Francisco Airport Near Miss

#116

Post by mirimir »

newman8r wrote: post #72
mosheroperandi wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wouldn't be the first person to confuse R for L.

recently harrison ford screwed up and landed on the taxiway at KSNA in southern california. he didn't even do a go around, just landed on the taxiway - and he gets to keep his certificate apparently http://www.ocregister.com/2017/04/04/harrison-ford-will-keep...

Well, he didn't hit anything ;)

But apparently he didn't file the requisite NASA report.[0]

The last time this story was on HN, I vaguely recall links to several such landings.

0) https://generalaviationnews.com/2017/03/22/taxiway-landings/

Re: NTSB Issues Investigative Update on San Francisco Airport Near Miss

#117

Post by mirimir »

mirimir wrote: post #8
Animats wrote: post #4

This was a very close call. Initial reports indicated it was like an ordinary go-around. No. "The incident pilots advanced the thrust levers when the airplane was about 85 feet above ground level. Flight data recorder data indicate the airplane was over the taxiway at this time. About 2.5 seconds after advancing the thrust levers, the minimum altitude recorded on the FDR was 59 feet above ground level." They overflew…

Wow. A few feet lower, and they might have clipped a tail. I wonder what would have happened.

My point, by the way, was that tails are relatively speaking, breakaway structures. So maybe not much would have happened.

I've had three accidents where my vehicle was hit from the side by another, moving at ~100 km/h. In two of them, the other vehicle hit crumple zone stuff, and I hardly felt the impact. In the third, there was frame-frame contact, and I experienced extreme angular acceleration. It almost ripped my head off.

Re: NTSB Issues Investigative Update on San Francisco Airport Near Miss

#118

Post by Doxin »

phkahler wrote: post #104

I'm think I'm getting it now. Look here at the map: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6265932,-122.3812022,15z?hl=... 28L is longer than 28R. Similar to how 28R (or at least its lighting) is longer than taxiway C. The general geometric appearance of the lighting was probably similar enough to what they were used to that it looked mostly correct. As for the X, it was 20 feet wide and about 1000 feet away from where they…

Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but 28L is most definitely shorter than 28R. Unless they marked the runways wrong of course but somehow I doubt that.

Re: NTSB Issues Investigative Update on San Francisco Airport Near Miss

#119

Post by phkahler »

Doxin wrote: post #118
phkahler wrote: post #104

I'm think I'm getting it now. Look here at the map: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6265932,-122.3812022,15z?hl=... 28L is longer than 28R. Similar to how 28R (or at least its lighting) is longer than taxiway C. The general geometric appearance of the lighting was probably similar enough to what they were used to that it looked mostly correct. As for the X, it was 20 feet wide and about 1000 feet away from where they…

Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but 28L is most definitely shorter than 28R. Unless they marked the runways wrong of course but somehow I doubt that.

>> Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but 28L is most definitely shorter than 28R.

You are looking at it wrong. 280 degrees from north would be approaching from the upper right heading down and to the left on the map. From the pilot point of view 28L would be to the east and extends further out into the bay.

Re: NTSB Issues Investigative Update on San Francisco Airport Near Miss

#120

Post by asclepi »

phkahler wrote: post #103
pmikesell wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I a am a pilot. At night, after a long flight to a place you don't live at, you are desperately looking to orient yourself. They looked at the charts, saw 2 runways, and found them. It can be extremely disoritening, especially at a place like sfo where there are two parallel sets of runways. What we need is better computer guidance. The tech is available, our legislature is not. Look at the incredible "taking out fre…

Isn't ADS-B already on these planes? Shouldn't they have gotten some indication they were about to hit several other planes?

Only ADS-B Out (which refers to an aircraft broadcasting its position and other information) will be required in the near future. ADS-B In (which refers to an aircraft receiving the broadcasts and messages) remains optional.

Also, due to the common airport design of runways and parallel taxiways, it isn't uncommon to fly either near or over waiting planes on final approach, so this may not have been cause for alarm even if they were equipped with ADS-B In.

Post reply on HN