Page 2 of 2

Re: Air canada 759 July 2017

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:24 pm
by Royal
"One talk claiming to expose "critical flaws" in airline navigational aids, radar, and the Traffic Collision Avoidance System was mysteriously canceled at the last minute. The (unconfirmed) rumor going around was that the government hit the speaker, Sebastian Westerhold, with a cease-and-desist. Neither Def Con nor Westerhold responded to an email for comment."

http://www.businessinsider.com/defcon-2 ... aughter-25

Re: Air canada 759 July 2017

Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:18 pm
by Pigeon
59 feet

Image

Re: Air canada 759 July 2017

Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:21 am
by Pigeon

By the time the ATC controller issued the “Go Around” command the plane was already climbing. The pilots applied thrust after passing over UA 1, the first 787, around 85 feet above the taxiway. Roughly 2.5 seconds later the plane began to climb, having reached a minimum altitude of 59 feet over the taxiway, positioned between the A340 and the second 787 lined up for departure. The top of the A340 tail sits 59 feet above the ground; the 787 is about 3.5 feet shorter.

http://blog.wandr.me/2017/08/ac759-faa- ... -incident/


Re: Air canada 759 July 2017

Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:27 am
by Pigeon

Re: Air canada 759 July 2017

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:29 pm
by Royal
Negligence by SFO.
I landed on runway 28R two nights ago, right about at dusk. Runway lighting and taxiway lighting are very different, and this, among other things, should have been a huge clue For Air Canada. They should have broken off the approach a lot sooner. But as we descended toward the threshold, I couldn’t help thinking: taxiway C does indeed resemble a runway!
...
They should not have gotten as close as they did, but it can be very difficult to see other aircraft on the ground at night, even when those aircraft have all of their appropriate lighting on. Just ask the USAir crew than ;landed on top of that plane at LAX.


http://www.businessinsider.com/pilot-ex ... ter-2017-8
According to initial interviews with the flight crew, both pilots appear to have been confused by the absence of lighting on Runway 28L, which had been closed for construction. Its lights were turned off at the time of the incident, and a 20.5-foot wide flashing X had been placed near the threshold. The Air Canada pilots reporting believing that Runway 28R was actually 28L and they therefore believed that Taxiway C was Runway 28R.
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/A ... 456-1.html

Re: Air canada 759 July 2017

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:53 pm
by Pigeon
Given the layout of the airfield, that big X should have made it clear that the left runway was closed.

Difficult to see aircraft lights? That is why they asked about aircraft on the runway and went around.

They figured it out but almost to late.

Re: Air canada 759 July 2017 taxiway

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2022 9:58 pm
by Pigeon


Recommendations after this incident.