NTSB Issues Investigative Update on San Francisco Airport Near Miss • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by asclepi » Fri, Aug 04, 2017, 7:13 PM UTC

joezydeco wrote: post #98

mseebach wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they were off by one in adjusting the length of their internal model of the dataset (two runways) with the currently active model (one) and thus suffered a buffer overflow. Anyway, score one (more) for the robots, who would have picked up the correct ILS localizer.

So this flight had no ILS, or ILS was turned off?

The crew flew a visual approach (guided by human eyes) instead of an ILS approach.

In the words of the investigation: "At 2346:30 PDT, Northern California TRACON cleared ACA759 for the FMS bridge visual runway 28R approach."

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

#122

Post by phkahler » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 3:38 PM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #119

Doxin wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well that's just a big oops on my part. It's 19L and 19R I was looking at, not 28L & R

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

#123

Post by TrickyRick » Tue, Aug 08, 2017, 9:27 PM UTC

tolien wrote: post #113

TrickyRick wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, sorry. You never know, some people are such nitpicks when it comes to numbers :)