There is really no good reason for them not to see the airplanes on the taxiway. In fact they apparently did and questioned tower, but then quite inexplicably continued the approach.
As far as the view, I will say that at times it can look like a sea of lights on the ground. There are a bunch of white, blue, yellow and green lights, and the lights on the aircraft may not particularly stand out. As well, often planes will turn off their taxi lights while holding short, in order not to distract the approaching A/C.
Not to defend the actions of the crew, just to try to give some insight into some ways that the crew may have missed things.
Thanks. That is helpful. Videos I have seen of approaches and landings have looked very confusing to me and I have often wondered how they do it. Like everything I am sure it is easier when you know what you are doing and have done it thousands of times. All the more reason this is so baffling.
Will we ever hear what happens to the pilots? I would hate to throw away a career over one mistake but this seems pretty serious.
Other thing I'd point out is that from straight on, either ahead or behind, there isn't a lot of lighting with the landing/taxi lights off. There are a few position lights and the flashing beacon, but for such big machines they can be surprisingly hard to see at times. I have noticed this when taxiing behind, and getting a little closer than I intend. From the side, and with the logo lights on the tail, that they are far more visible.
As for the pilots, it is unlikely they would be fired. One of the great things about the industry in the western world is the lack of a punitive mentality in the safety system. It recognizes errors occur, and the goal is to try to find ways to mitigate and trap the opportunity for errors to create an incident.
But of course it depends on the individuals performance history, as well if there was any actual negligence involved. One possible factor may be fatigue, and while I hate to overuse that as an excuse, it is a constant challenge in this business. But as more facts emerge, it may be an explanation why they didn't react appropriately sooner.
But if the pilots involved have a good history, do well in training, don't have a history of incidents, it likely would be counterproductive to fire them for a one off unusual situation. The reality is humans make mistakes, and we have all had those moments where we can't believe we made the error we did. The goal in safety investigations is to try to figure out why it occurred, and ways to try to prevent it from occurring again. Just firing people when they make a mistake really doesn't accomplish much from the standpoint of trying to improve safety.
Last edited by Ryan Coke; 08-05-2017 at 08:32 AM.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Ryan Coke For This Useful Post:
I also wanted to ask but does ATC have precise radar to show the direction of a plane or more general radar that shows the location of planes but a more general "heading"? I mean, could they not tell he was lined up at the wrong point? That also seems surprising.
Thanks for the replies by the way.
I also wanted to ask but does ATC have precise radar to show the direction of a plane or more general radar that shows the location of planes but a more general "heading"? I mean, could they not tell he was lined up at the wrong point? That also seems surprising.
Thanks for the replies by the way.
Yes they can tell on the radar, but it would require them to be closely monitoring it. For tower controllers on a clear night the primary method of controlling is with your eyes by looking out the window, and it would therefore be far less apparent that he is not correctly aligned with the runway. This is why I suggested earlier that the process of identified misaligned airplanes should be automated and audibly advise the controllers.
I also wanted to ask but does ATC have precise radar to show the direction of a plane or more general radar that shows the location of planes but a more general "heading"? I mean, could they not tell he was lined up at the wrong point? That also seems surprising.
Thanks for the replies by the way.
No problem, happy to answer as best as I can.
Acey has more knowledge on the ATC end of things. I would add that I believe they were flying the Quiet Bridge visual approach, where they are following an offset path which doesn't bring them to the landing runway. After they pass the San Mateo bridge on about a 6 mile final, they visually maneuver over to get on final for the landing runway. So compared to an aircraft that was setup on a straight in final 10 miles out, an aircraft on this approach is coming in misaligned with the landing runway and is expected to be maneuvering, so it may not stand out as much to the controller.
It may also play a part in the crew lining up with the taxiway, since on the offset approach they are actually closer to being lined up with the north taxiway than the with the runway.
Last edited by Ryan Coke; 08-05-2017 at 07:26 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ryan Coke For This Useful Post:
- Now uses Flightbeam Manager. Couatl and Addon Manager support has been dropped.
- Enhanced performance. Most systems see 10-40% performance increase
- Stutters on approach have been resolved.
- Dynamic Lighting feature has been added for P3D v4 (be sure to turn it on in the Manager first)
- SODE jetways added: This means you can now operate dual jetways as well.
- Realistic Water puddles added
- Enhanced ground textures throughout airport
- New lamp floodlights
- Several gate revisions
- Fixed issue with objects popping into sight - Added new runway: Taxiway C (Air Canada only)
- many more smaller items, too many to list.
The Following User Says Thank You to KelVarnsen For This Useful Post:
Now this may not be the right way to go about things, but I feel like an airline mis-representing non-stop and direct (which to the average consumer should be the same thing) is wrong and should not be done.
Quote:
A B.C. woman has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against Air Transat alleging the airline ruined her wedding last month by misrepresenting flights as non-stop.
The airline, operated by Montreal-based tour company Transat A.T., fraudulently misrepresented efforts designed to increase ticket prices and reduce costs by using "sub-standard aircraft," Vancouver law firm Rosenberg Kosakoski LLP said Wednesday.
The law firm said Air Transat advertised direct flights that typically garner higher prices. However, the aircraft ultimately made stops that were not disclosed to passengers until the plane was airborne, it alleged.
WestJet 1 YYC-LGW yesterday evening turned back shortly after departure, held and dumped fuel due to a unreliable airspeed indicator.
Would they have to dump fuel due to an unreliable airspeed indicator? I understand it's likely a procedural requirement but isn't that usually for when there is a concern about landing? I guess a bad airspeed would fit that bill the more I think about it ....