 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Widebody transport flight crew misidentifies traffic when cleared for visual approach to the 28's at sfo. Feels traffic conflict occurred, and that current procedures for visual approachs at sfo are unsafe.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 129563 |
| Time | |
| Date | 198911 |
| Day | Wed |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : sfo |
| State Reference | CA |
| Altitude | msl bound lower : 4000 msl bound upper : 4000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | tracon : o |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Widebody, Low Wing, 3 Turbojet Eng |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach |
| Route In Use | approach : visual |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Aircraft 2 | |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng |
| Flight Phase | descent : approach |
| Route In Use | approach : visual |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : flight engineer pilot : commercial pilot : cfi pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 16000 flight time type : 2000 |
| ASRS Report | 129563 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : commercial pilot : instrument |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | non adherence : clearance non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | other |
| Consequence | Other |
| Miss Distance | horizontal : 3000 |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation |
Narrative:
We were inbound on the modesto 1. Over cedes, we were cleared to turn to 240 degrees and intercept the sfo 095 degree right. Before reaching the 095 degree right, we were cleared to maintain 240 degrees heading and intercept the sfo 8L localizer; cleared for a visibility approach to 28L. We were then issued traffic at 12 O'clock, making a visibility to 28R. We reported that we saw the traffic (actually we didn't--all 3 of us picked out the wrong traffic). We were then cleared to maintain visibility sep from that traffic. We soon lost visibility contact with that traffic and reported such to the controller. The controller pointed out traffic at 2 O'clock. We had been maintaining visibility on traffic that was on a final--this 'other' traffic was on a base. We said we had the T fc. Again we were issued a clearance to maintain visibility sep from that traffic, cleared for a visibility to 28L and maintain 180 KTS to the bridge. We said we were unable to maintain 180 KTS. We got no response. We slowed and allowed the aircraft we were flying formation with to pull ahead of us--and even though he was supposed to be maintaining visibility sep from us, he did not report losing visibility sep when we were at his 7 O'clock position. Summary: 1) we were maintaining visibility sep with the wrong aircraft for a time. 2) frequency congestion, workload, and confusion obstructed vital communications. 3) the aircraft did not report losing visibility sep. Observation: the current sfo visibility approach procedure is a midair collision waiting to happen. Suggestions: there is a dire need for a standard criteria for aircraft making simultaneous visibility approachs to closely spaced parallel runways.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: WDB FLT CREW MISIDENTIFIES TRAFFIC WHEN CLEARED FOR VISUAL APCH TO THE 28'S AT SFO. FEELS TRAFFIC CONFLICT OCCURRED, AND THAT CURRENT PROCS FOR VISUAL APCHS AT SFO ARE UNSAFE.
Narrative: WE WERE INBND ON THE MODESTO 1. OVER CEDES, WE WERE CLRED TO TURN TO 240 DEGS AND INTERCEPT THE SFO 095 DEG R. BEFORE REACHING THE 095 DEG R, WE WERE CLRED TO MAINTAIN 240 DEGS HDG AND INTERCEPT THE SFO 8L LOC; CLRED FOR A VIS APCH TO 28L. WE WERE THEN ISSUED TFC AT 12 O'CLOCK, MAKING A VIS TO 28R. WE RPTED THAT WE SAW THE TFC (ACTUALLY WE DIDN'T--ALL 3 OF US PICKED OUT THE WRONG TFC). WE WERE THEN CLRED TO MAINTAIN VIS SEP FROM THAT TFC. WE SOON LOST VIS CONTACT WITH THAT TFC AND RPTED SUCH TO THE CTLR. THE CTLR POINTED OUT TFC AT 2 O'CLOCK. WE HAD BEEN MAINTAINING VIS ON TFC THAT WAS ON A FINAL--THIS 'OTHER' TFC WAS ON A BASE. WE SAID WE HAD THE T FC. AGAIN WE WERE ISSUED A CLRNC TO MAINTAIN VIS SEP FROM THAT TFC, CLRED FOR A VIS TO 28L AND MAINTAIN 180 KTS TO THE BRIDGE. WE SAID WE WERE UNABLE TO MAINTAIN 180 KTS. WE GOT NO RESPONSE. WE SLOWED AND ALLOWED THE ACFT WE WERE FLYING FORMATION WITH TO PULL AHEAD OF US--AND EVEN THOUGH HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE MAINTAINING VIS SEP FROM US, HE DID NOT RPT LOSING VIS SEP WHEN WE WERE AT HIS 7 O'CLOCK POS. SUMMARY: 1) WE WERE MAINTAINING VIS SEP WITH THE WRONG ACFT FOR A TIME. 2) FREQ CONGESTION, WORKLOAD, AND CONFUSION OBSTRUCTED VITAL COMS. 3) THE ACFT DID NOT RPT LOSING VIS SEP. OBSERVATION: THE CURRENT SFO VIS APCH PROC IS A MIDAIR COLLISION WAITING TO HAPPEN. SUGGESTIONS: THERE IS A DIRE NEED FOR A STANDARD CRITERIA FOR ACFT MAKING SIMULTANEOUS VIS APCHS TO CLOSELY SPACED PARALLEL RWYS.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.