Bu web site tanımlama bilgileri kullanmaktadır. Bu web siteyi kullanarak ve bu sitede gezinerek, bunu kabul etmiş olursunuz.
FlightAware uçuş takibinin reklamlarla desteklendiğini biliyor muydunuz?
FlightAware.com'dan gelen reklamlara izin vererek FlightAware'in ücretsiz kalmasını sağlamamıza yardım edebilirsiniz. harika bir deneyim sunmak adına reklamlarımızı anlamlı ve öne çıkmayacak şekilde tutmak için yoğun şekilde çalışıyoruz. FlightAware'deki whitelist adsreklamları güvenilir olarak görmek hızlı ve kolaydır, veya lütfen premium hesaplarımıza geçmeyi düşünün.
Back to Squawk list
  • 46

Here we go again: FAA investigating another SFO landing mishap

SAN FRANCISCO — In the latest pilot landing incident at San Francisco International Airport, federal investigators Tuesday launched an investigation after an Aeromexico passenger jet was ordered to abort a landing when it lined up on the wrong runway which was occupied by another commercial jet. (www.mercurynews.com) Daha Fazlası...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Brian James 2
Many incidences increases the change for a major disaster.
john doe 2
Well, one or more grave errors were made, clearly. But I'm glad the tower was heads-up enough to see things going wrong, and that the aircrew immediately and competently complied with the tower's corrective instructions. Mistakes were made and there will be consequences, but everyone went home alive that day.
Cade foster 2
Two pilots both making the same critical mistakes. Totally unacceptable.
Is the ILS still not functioning at SFO?
And the FAA wants to do away with controllers and let pilots separate themselves with the ADS transceivers in the cockpit. Bye bye General Aviation small planes!
Greg Zelna 1
"The Aeromexico jet was approaching the airport using its instrument landing system, " Please one of you commercial pilots explain what that even means...... "instrument landing system" ? Whatever that means or the article's author intended, at this point who was flying the AC, the pilot(s) or some automated system ? I'm leading up to how are they lined up on RWY L, instead of R- who is responsible for that happening ? Incorrect data entered into whatever 'automated system' is doing the flying, or the pilot(s) simply pointing the AC at the wrong RWY...?
Bob Myers 3

Not a commercial pilot here, but - ILS doesn't mean that an automated system is flying the aircraft. It just means that certain systems, relying on signals provided by ground-based sources, are giving information to the pilot in order to help him or her keep the aircraft on the proper approach path. In an approach using this system, however, there is generally a minimum altitude at which the pilot must switch to using visual reference to the runway, or abort the landing attempt if unable to do so.
Doesn't an ILS "squawk" the ID of the runway?
Actually it squawks a morse code ID unique to that runway. Does the FMS not see this ID?

Most airline nav equipment these days require only to enter the approach type to the active runway in use on the FMS (flight management system) However, If the wrong approach procedure is selected the airborne system will follow what the crew inputed. This was supposed to supercede the crew from “dialing
up” an incorrect frequency, prior to that the crew would have to identify the approach using morse id’s. One should also note that to help prevent incorrect selection of approach procedures, each pilot would program their own (FMS) side of the cockpit so any error would be noticed early in the approach. Nowadays, a lazy crew could just input approach on either FMS and just crossfill to the other FMS therefby transferring the wrong approach procedure to the other side!
Jay Collett 1
Never flew Airbus, but on the Boeing if the ILS freq dialed was different than the runway entered into the FMS, you would get an error message. And at United, we were supposed to listen to the "ident" to verify that the nav radio's were set correctly. Even after 20,000 hours of flight time, I always needed all the help I could get, and dialed up the approach freq for the planned runway even if it was a visual approach. In fact, we were required to do that!
Now, I will admit, that at times, if rushed by a last minute runway change, which didn't seem to be the case here, that rather than dial up the freq, or insert the new runway into the FMS, we would simply do what pilots do ... look out the window, and use the VASI if available, or our judgement to continue and land on the newly assigned runway.
ABSOLUTELY. My company mandated the same procedure. As ALPA Safety Chairman, I encouraged our pilots to comply. At SFO, with two parallel runways, one is left and the other is right----Duh. line up and land on the one you were cleared to by tower. Again-----Duh. PIT, CLT, PDX, CVG, PHL, IND, CLE just to name a few, all have parallel runways. Some have L, C, R.
selby50c 1
So does YYZ have parallel runways x 2. Issues at SFO seem to me ( a simple passenger non pilot, etc) beyond pilot error. IMTS different airlines same problem ?????
>One should also note that to help prevent incorrect selection of approach procedures, each pilot would program their own (FMS) side of the cockpit so any error would be noticed early in the approach. Nowadays, a lazy crew could just input approach on either FMS and just crossfill to the other FMS therefby transferring the wrong approach procedure to the other side!

This is not true at all. The FMC for the left and right (sometimes center) ARE NOT independent systems. They access the same data for all three displays from the same system. You could be entering the INIT REF data on one screen while on the other screens you could be entering data into the RTE page or adjusting VNAV performance data in another. They most certainly do not take in separate data entries without overwriting an entry already put in by a different pilot. If a route change is made it is either the first entry or it will overwrite an existing entry.
Actually you could be not be more wrong. In dual or triple FMS installations you can run them in either modes, independent, dual or initiated transfer. Info typed into one that is running independent just uses that info, FMS’s in dual mode, inputs into one automatically goes into the other. In a triple FMS such as the system I used, all three were run independent however, in Cat 11 ops we selected the HUD info to Number 2 FMS for outside info so the PNF could monitor and ran 1&3 in nav. One main reason for running the PF FMS in initiated transfer is to prevent some incorrect info be inputed by the PNF and then the autopilot takes the aircraft on a merry ride......hence forth the “saying...what’s it doing now”? I believe you actually meant to say that all three use the same data base.
Yes, there's only one database. Each side can manipulate this database and display what the pilot wants. The PF will have control if coupled to that side.
Maybe is was squawked in English. :)
both 28R and 28L have ILS approaches but they have different frequencies, if they inadvertently entered the wrong frequency for their approach then the computer would take them down the wrong pathway.
SorenTwin 1
Both the PIC and the copilot would have had to been in agreement on 28L. Strange that the aircraft was able to continue so far into the approach without either noticing the issue.
Tom Pera 1
11:45 AM? daylight....weather?
Always set up and monitor the ILS even in VMC. No excuse. Is there an RNAV approach?
Even a Garmin-1000 has two separate computers that can both be used. I teach in a flight school with a G-1000 with two PFD's. I also flew with a Honeywell PRIMUS 2000 for 8 years. They can display separate information. The PF has the main info coupled to his side. The PNF can set up anything else. PF=NAV 1. PNF=NAV 2. Now you are using two distinct computers. PNF can also set up a bearing pointer. Nothing on the PNF affects the PF information. Concerning the IDENT on ANY NAVAID, the frequency will be white until it detects a signal, hears the code and then the frequency will change to green in the box. The two computers also talk to each other and if there is a miscompare will send a caution to the EICAS. At SFO, they may still have a problem with their ILS.
Bob Myers 1
At some point, though, don't you look straight ahead, see the big "L" under the "28," and say, "Hey, didn't they say 'right'...?" Not to mention the small matter of an A320 on the runway...Oh, wait, that's it. The Airbus was probably covering up the runway number...:-)
All I can say is WOW. to many lives at stake for such mistakes.
Is that a Casa Bonita down there ????
TWA55 1
Seems to be a lot of these lately, you have to wonder why some folks seem to just get it wrong, and not just one but two pilots, come on.
On another note, I was listening to an ATC recording and controller keep telling a Korean crew to turn south out of an airport here in the USA, sorry not being a controller, but why was this flight KAL not given same instructions as other acrft departing, "turn right to 180"? why continue with a turn right and head south, what the hell does that mean. And as for the clearity of instruction, too much of the time I cannot even understand the instructions being given to a flight, sounds like mumbo jumbo.
I have never heard a controller use such a means of instruction.
This industry as a whole needs to be examined, this is not a third rate means of transporting people and no doubt to be a pilot etc. requires much but one thing seems to be obvious to me, a lack of concentration as with so much these days.
Leon Artac -5
Incompetent people all around....in the tower and the cockpit!
LanaDirdsyil -2
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Aeroméxico plane nearly lands on wrong runway in third close call for SFO in six months

The Federal Aviation Administration is looking into another close call at one of the nation's busiest airports. The pilots of an Aeroméxico flight lined up for landing Tuesday on the wrong runway at San Francisco International Airport.


[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

WeatherWise 13
We know nothing happened, that's not the point. So had they landed on top of the aircraft on 28L, after being cleared to land on 28R, would that have still been "another day at the office"? "GO AROUND" means there was a conflict, one that could have been a disastrous one. You left a dumb ass comment considering this is the third near collision of late at SFO.
We keep going around and around the same subject. Is the lack of training to blame, too long a duty day leading to poor decision making or a lazy attitude towards visual approaches at night. it’s almost uncanny to think that flying a visual or precision approach these days and the PNF just sits there and watches you fly the thing right into the ground or worse?
Pa Thomas 1
Not a dumbass comment.


Hesabınız yok mu? Kişiselleştirilmiş özellikler, uçuş uyarıları ve daha fazlası için şimdi (ücretsiz) üye olun!