Worst accident in aviation history narrowly averted

[vorlon13]

Air Canada Airbus came close to landing on a taxiway with 4 aircraft parked on it, all loaded with fuel and passengers, instead of the adjacent runway.

ATC seemed to not pickup on clue in query from the Air Canada pilot who asked if his runway was clear, as he was seeing lights on it.  A pilot(s) came on, presumably one of the 4 aircraft waiting to take off with a pithy comment: "Where's he going?"  "He's on the taxiway!" 

Then ATC orders a go round.

He cleared the parked craft by 400 feet, passing directly over them. Potentially 1000 people on all 5 aircraft.

Read all the details:

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2017/07/11...story.html

[vorlon13]

Incident can make your skin crawl. Worst accident so far was Tenerife, late 70s, and under 600 killed. It was believed to be a worst case scenario, 2 loaded 747s colliding. Looks like we have a failure of imagination, landing a plane on a taxiway with 4 other aircraft on it would have been significantly worse.

[The Grand Nudger]

Expect the price of an airline ticket to increase on the back of an insurance risk adjustment.  

[The Valkyrie]

So now I have to be on the lookout for crazy Cannucks when I fly to Auckland on Monday?

Wonderful!

[johan]

Wow. Can't wait to see how similar scenarios will play out when Trump privatizes air traffic control and towers become staffed by the lowest bidder.

[c172]

Hope this wasn't a 380 involved. Seems like they've not incurred any hull losses yet, but that day could come soon.

Relatedly, I wonder if one of them could ever be converted to a firefighting plane. We have DC-10s and 747's now.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Incident can make your skin crawl.  Worst accident so far was Tenerife, late 70s, and under 600 killed.  It was believed to be a worst case scenario, 2 loaded 747s colliding.  Looks like we have a failure of imagination, landing a plane on a taxiway with 4 other aircraft on it would have been significantly worse.

There's no fixing what elephants do ... or pilot errors.

[johan]

Anecdotal true story time. Back in my pilot days, I did a lot of flying out of Atlantic City International. The Atlantic City Race Track, a thoroughbred horse track, sits about 2 miles from the airport. More than one pilot has approached the airport at night, reported having the runway lights in sight and then discontinued the approach on short final because they saw horses on what they thought was the runway.

Right at the end of my pilot days, I was a participant in a research study conducted at the aforementioned Atlantic City International. Study participants would pilot a light twin on multiple approaches to the runway at night. The pilot was briefed before the flight that several approaches to the runway would be flown, but under no circumstances would they land. A go-around was pre-planned for every approach. However on each approach, the pilot would visually access the runway and say out loud either I feel the runway is clear and safe to land on or I feel the runway is not clear and unsafe to land on.

That was the test. The plane we flew was equipped with tons of cameras and sensors which recorded the view ahead, the pilot flying. Also I wore a device which recorded exactly where my eyes where looking at every moment. A couple guys in the back of the plane monitored these cameras and sensors.

Like I said, all I had to do was fly the approach and say out loud whether or not I would feel safe continuing the approach and then we'd go around and fly another approach. If I recall correctly, on all but one of the approaches, I said I would have landed.

What I didn't know until after the test was that every time I flew the approach there was a 727 sitting on the end of the runway ready for takeoff. On some approaches, they had their landing lights on, on other approaches, they had their landing lights off (it was a study to determine whether landing lights should be required to be on when planes were positioned on the runway).

I would have continued all but one of the approaches. But here's the interesting thing. After the flight I was talking with the scientist who was monitoring the cameras and sensors in the back of the plane. He said that he was shocked because on every single approach we flew, he could clearly see the 727 sitting on the runway in his camera monitors and yet there I was saying I see nothing and I would continue the approach. He said he was beginning to think that I was just being an asshole and purposely trying to fuck up their test. Then on next approach he's sitting there clearly seeing the 727 in his camera monitor just as I said that I saw nothing and would continue the approach so he decided to look up over my shoulder. He said it was amazing because when he looked out the windshield, the 727 wasn't there and runway looked completely clear. He looked back at the camera feed he could still see it plain as day. Look out
the windshield and it's gone, look back at the screen and there it is just like always. Light and glare can do funky things in the windshield of an airplane.

So these AirCanada guys lined up on the taxiway instead of the runway and then started wondering about the strange lights there were seeing. I'm not shocked. They questioned ATC about it and ATC said there aren't any lights, you're crazy go ahead and land asshole. Then a pilot in one of the other planes said not for nothing but this asshole is going to land on us and then and only then did ATC say ok go around. Like I said earlier, I can't wait to see how this plays out when those towers are staffed by the lowest bidder.

[vorlon13]

Am I correct a localizer would have been in use and if so, why didn't it line up the plane with the runway ? And if that isn't what a localizer is for, maybe planes waiting to take off shouldn't be on a taxiway.

Or the pilot had it switched off, or the copilot saw what was wrong but didn't want to fuck his career by saying something . . . . .

[Anomalocaris]

how good was the visibility? If a pilot coming in to land on. Taxi way fail to see a runway number indicating the heading of the runway, it ought to be a pretty good indication he is not lined up on a real runway.

---

Am I correct a localizer would have been in use and if so, why didn't it line up the plane with the runway ?  And if that isn't what a localizer is for, maybe planes waiting to take off shouldn't be on a taxiway.

Or the pilot had it switched off, or the copilot saw what was wrong but didn't want to fuck his career by saying something . . . . .

There ought to be specific runway lights which indicates to the pilot whether he is on the correct glide slope. It would either be on the wrong side or nor there at all next to any taxiway mistaken for runway. I suspect while the incident sounds hair raising and is far too close to an actual occurrance of this kind of diseased than one might think ought to be possible under the current system, it was still not really close to a plane actually landing on an active taxiway full of planes.