SFO Near Miss 28R
07-26-2017, 10:31 AM
#31
New boss = Old boss
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: Ca B737
Posts: 2,762
After watching the videos and listening to the ATC tapes, I fail to believe that the Air Canada crew would have continued to flare right into the line of aircraft waiting on the taxiway. There has to be something missing from this story.
07-26-2017, 01:44 PM
#32
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,041
On a CAT-II you might bounce off the runway when doing a missed...they didn't have the luxury of getting anywhere near that low.
Something to think about...with another AC on the runway, you need his tail height + your alt lost while executing the GA + how far down your tail rotates when you pitch up. This one didn't seem that scary until you see how close they came.
07-26-2017, 02:03 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2016
Posts: 131
The audio seems to verify that from one of the pilots.
07-27-2017, 07:10 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,244
Believe it. They were only a few heartbeats away from being inside a wave off window that wouldn't result in contact. UA1 saved the day.
08-02-2017, 12:38 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: B777 Captain
Posts: 566
Here is an article on the topic in which I was quoted:
Did mental bias play a role in Air Canada's SFO near-miss?
Did mental bias play a role in Air Canada's SFO near-miss?
08-03-2017, 08:34 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Position: C-172 PPL
Posts: 176
Closer than we thought.
... the minimum altitude recorded on the FDR was 59 ft agl.
And that does not even account for the landing gear!
Its likely the landing gear actually passed below the top of the tail of the United flight.
08-04-2017, 08:27 AM
#39
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,041
Yes! They used to assign a leader and a follower, which was way more comfortable than how they do it now, with airplanes passing you from behind, setting off RA's, etc. It's not really a great idea to fly airliners in close formation, we're not trained for that.
08-07-2017, 08:51 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Posts: 923
From NTSB Report
I found the 787 tail height is 55' 6" (source), meaning vertical distance may have been 3.5 feet.
And that does not even account for the landing gear!
Its likely the landing gear actually passed below the top of the tail of the United flight.
I found the 787 tail height is 55' 6" (source), meaning vertical distance may have been 3.5 feet.
And that does not even account for the landing gear!
Its likely the landing gear actually passed below the top of the tail of the United flight.
wat
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
