Worst accident in aviation history narrowly averted

[Brian37]

I recently watched this movie that contained a near two plane collision where one was taking off and another was landing.

As I mentioned in a prior post, that did unfortunately happen in 1977 in the Canary Islands between a KLM jet and a Pan Am jet, both planes were loaded with people. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster

583 fatalities between both jets. 

[Dropship]

The Helios Airlines Flight 522 crash  in 2005 that killed all 121 on board reads like the script of a horror movie.
The pilots forgot to hit the pressurisation seal switch during the takeoff checks, resulting in the air leaking out as the aircraft climbed.
Everybody on board (including the pilots) blacked out except for a male flight attendant who used a spare oxygen cylinder.
The plane continued on autopilot and he found himself alone in a plane full of dead people.
It eventually crashed when the fuel ran out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522

[johan]

This incident merited barely a paragraph in AW&ST.  I'm kinda scratching my head over the disparity in reactions to this . . . .

Because its a miss. Ultimately, nothing happened. The only real story is how/why the crew lined up on the taxiway and that information won't be know for months.

[vorlon13]

Miss distance is apparently down to 36 inches now, you all let me know what the number needs to be before it's brown trousers time.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Miss distance is apparently down to 36 inches now, you all let me know what the number needs to be before it's brown trousers time.

If it's true, I'd be ready for a colonoscopy. Where'd you read that?

[johan]

Miss distance is apparently down to 36 inches now, you all let me know what the number needs to be before it's brown trousers time.

Source?

[vorlon13]

NBC News has the plane at 59 feet:

[i]
Newly released data and photos show how shockingly low an Air Canada jet was when it pulled up to avoid crashing into planes waiting on a San Francisco International Airport taxiway last month.
The Air Canada pilots mistook the taxiway for the runway next to it and flew their jet to just 59 feet above ground before pulling up to attempt another landing, according to National Transportation Safety Board information released Wednesday.

Air Canada flight 759 (ACA 759) flies just above a United Airlines flight waiting on the taxiway at the San Francisco International Airport on July 7 in this image released by the National Transportation Safety Board. NTSB via AP
That's barely taller than the four planes that were on the taxiway when the incident occurred late at night on July 7.

[/i]


CNN reports:



[i]The incident represents one of the most serious in recent memory and could have caused one of the worst air disasters in aviation history, according to air safety experts.





As Flight 759 passed over the first airliner, a United Airlines Boeing 787, the Air Canada crew aborted its landing. The crew commanded full power from the engines. At that point, it was just 85 feet above the ground.
Two and a half seconds later, the A320 dipped as low as 59 feet before climbing, according to NTSB data. For comparison, the height of the tail of a 787 is just shy of 56 feet.

Read More
The second airliner on the taxiway -- a Philippine Airlines Airbus 340 -- had switched on its landing lights, apparently to make itself visible to the inbound jet, the NTSB said.
Two other aircraft, another United Boeing 787 and a 737-900ER were also on the taxiway as the Air Canada jet climbed away.[/i]

[Fireball]

Keep your head down, as a supersonic slug traveling past makes a nasty buzz. If you recall the buzz, you are still alive.

[vorlon13]

Looks like next issue of AW&ST is going into more detail. Their teaser on it:

The pilots of a landing Air Canada Airbus A320 that nearly plowed into several aircraft on a taxiway waiting to depart the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) around midnight July 7 were visually confused by the runway lighting at the airport, according to an NTSB investigative update on the incident. Air Canada Flight 759, cleared for a visual approach to land on Runway 28R at the airport, was lined up on the parallel taxiway to the right of the runway and descended . . .


And a comment from one of the great unwashed masses:


Uh...the tail of a 787 is 55', and the A320 got down as low as 59'? Yikes!



And:


I wish I could share twenty years' worth of letters and e-mails to the FAA about airport lighting and signage. It is confusing, often using the same color lighting, markings and lines or many different ever changing versions of them. It is not intuitive and makes for confusion.
When I have complained I get sometimes an arrogant response from the guy who has been in charge way too long.
He keeps defending his markings and lighting and we keep getting runway incursions and near disasters like this. The FAA refuses to admit when it's wrong and even after a potential catastrophe it will likely just add another layer of confusion.
Not excusing the failure to use the localizer as a runway guide if so, but this pilot isn't the first and won't be the last to make such a mistake.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Aren't runway lights white and taxiway lights blue?