Anyone ever gotten a "Brasher Warning"?  What happened after?

I've been an ATC in tower and radar for a long time now, and have only had to issue a handful of these.  

When I got in all of my instructors and supes were oldtimers that started back in the 70s or 80s.  I was trained with the premise that I was kind of like a cop pulling over a speeder in that I had discretion to issue a citation or not depending on my own judgement.  If someone made an honest mistake and there was no real safety issue we could offer a suggestion for improvement and a "be more careful next time" kind of warning.  

I never wanted to be a cop, so in my experience if someone did something wrong and they were receptive and humble about the mistake it ended there.  If they were argumentative or arrogant, or if a real safety threat occurred they received the warning.  FYI, once the warning is made and the MOR is filed, it goes outside of the control facility and nobody there has anything to do with the investigation.  As far as I know FSDO handles everything at that point but I've never been called back to explain more than I wrote in the report.  I have no clue how ANY incident has resolved after a Brasher Warning from me.

Now, some argue that when there are "no harm, no foul" incidents that go unreported that it creates a culture of un-safety.  This makes sense to me but I hate to gig someone when a mistake doesn't cause any problems.  This can happen between controllers in different sectors too, not just between ATC/pilots.  I want to provide good service to pilots and be a team player with fellow ATC but the FAA is making it harder.

The current push is to Brasher ANY "possible" deviations.  We issue "possible" because that's just what it is.  Sometimes the pilot didn't do anything wrong and the controller is just unsure because the situation SEEMED a little iffy.  Sometimes it's pretty obvious but we still give the benefit of the doubt and let the other department investigate.  However, the current position of the agency is to issue the warning for anything that could or is a deviation.  Controllers often have supes right behind them and must issue these warnings for what may seem very minor occurrences.  Even if a supe isn't in the operating areas at the time, if QC happens to listen to a tape and something went down without a Brasher, that controller is now going to get reamed.  

We once had an oldtimer land on a taxiway instead of the runway (lining up to a taxiway happens way more often that one would think).  Now, on final it often appears that a pilot lined up for a taxiway appears lined up to the runway which is only separated by a few hundred feet.  A scan of the final may look fine, then the controller turns away to record an ATIS, or talk to some vehicles, or answer a coordination line or telephone call, and on short, short final the old guy in the Skyhawk/Skylane/Cherokee lands on a taxiway.  I've seen this happen when there isn't A SINGLE PLANE on the entire airport and the controller gave a heads-up to be more careful in the future, but the airport who was monitoring the frequency turned it in, getting the controller in trouble.  

In this day and age a lot of ATC rules and culture are dictated by lawyers, not people who actually work and separate aircraft.  It's also getting woke.  "Notice to Air Missions", anybody?  Sorry, I've said "Notice to Airmen" too long to change now.

We're now being pushed to Brasher anything close to a deviation.  On frequency if we even think to say anything that might indicate the pilot made a mistake and don't Brasher we open ourselves up to much scrutiny and/or discipline.  The days of controller discretion I was trained in appear to be gone.  Viva la Lawyers!

I've only had to issue them when notified they did something on a previous frequency.  I did have someone who departed vfr  into ifr conditions right in the face of an ifr arrival I had cleared in to an uncontrolled airport.  I'm pretty sure that guy was tracked down.  My pilot on approach was PISSED and rightly so.

I do have an addition to your info about lawyers. We (the center) are being told we need to read all notams to visual approach aircraft, and pertinent notams to the specific approach when aircraft are on an ifr clearance. We are told we can't ask if they have the notams because they may have changed.  Well  guess what FAA we can see if they've changed recently.  How come we can ask if the pilot has the weather? Also, 95% of controllers don't know a damn thing about flying an airplane or what those notams even mean.  Most of all we don't have time to read all those notams in the first place!

I had a pilot ask what not serviceable meant after I read him the notam. I had no idea

That’s okay, neither do we!  

1. Record ATIS (30ish seconds recording), flip transmit switch
2. Literally TWO seconds later pilot calls to taxi with the current ATIS
3. I got on tape that they had the ATIS
4. If they heard 30 seconds in 2 seconds, I'll never know
5. If there is pertinent info, I'll still issue before departure
6. Some pilots really seem to not care less about certain WX or other factors

I became a part 119 employee last July and I’m amazed at how much of my time is spent counseling pilots along with defending them from the FAA/EASA.  My understanding was the system had gone automated, that if an aircraft commits a “violation” the controllers don’t have any discretion in reporting because a computer initiated the process automatically.

If y’all think it’s bad here, try dealing with the French or the Germans.

Thanks for the "heads up" on this.

Controllers must realize pilots, especially air carrier pilots, accept a lot to make ATC life easier. When ATC is a dick, and gives no slack,  these are the things that happen. It's a 2 way street.

No more seeing the traffic ahead and calling it, fix your fucking spacing, I will not do it for you anymore.

Not accepting a visual approach anymore, make it fucking work. I don't care if I get sent around because of it, I get paid by the minute and I am not missing my next flight, because it doesn't leave without me.

I will not be jumping through my ass just because the airport turned around.

when you give me a radio clearance with 3-5 parameters in it, I may not hear all of because I am busy, so I may have you read those parameters 1 or 2 at a time, so a I don't miss hear any of it.

"cleared for immediate takeoff expedite, take it on the roll", sorry unable, we will be stopping in position for 15 secs, operational necessity.

I will not be expediting the climb because you fucked up, too heavy to climb that fast, make it work.

When you fuck up, expect me to fill out a report too.

No I am not taking that short cut routing because it is going to take me 15 minutes to clear it with dispatch, got to check the winds don't you know.

Nope, not getting that close to that thunderstorm, deal with it we are deviating, you fix the conflicts due to weather.

nope, don't see the traffic, sorry

you just caused an RA, report incoming

nope not doing an approach to that runway that had wind shear reported 10 minutes ago, get me a report that says no wind shear or give me a different runway. I don't care if I hold, I'll divert in 10 minutes and fill out a report outlining how you refused to give me a safe approach.

No we can’t accept a clearance at a wrong way altitude, sorry.

Nope we can’t climb for traffic, too heavy


you get the idea.

You most places we get ATIS via acars right?

Perhaps this also explains why things have changed for us itty bitty VFR helicopter types as well.

Prior to a year or so ago (and this goes back years, not COVID related), it was common practice for our local Class C regional airport to happily let helicopters transition the core of the Class C. You'd get traffic callouts for jets lining up, and you'd get restrictions like stay N/E/S/W of runway XX, but we'd be happily buzzing through there no fuss, no muss.

Now for transitions we get vectored around the core nearly 100% of the time, although they do have a double secret probation floor of 3000 so if you pop up to that they'll let you cross, but it's not like it was a year or two ago.

IFR Magazine had a couple of really good articles on this in 2020.

https://www.ifr-magazine.com/avionics/pilot-deviations/

I'm a subscriber so the link works for me.  Apologies if it's behind a paywall.

It is sad that we (aviation professionals) have let this slide into the situation that we find ourselves in.

I was hired as a controller in Jan 1988 and retired in Sep 2020.

During this period, I saw/experienced the transition from steam gauge cockpits (and VOR navigation), from vectoring aircraft 'by hand'
for STARs and SIDs, the birth of TCAS, GPS, and FMS systems in aircraft.

I have also seen the incremental creep of the FAA putting itself more and more 'in the cockpit,' so to speak. This is illustrated by the above reference about
having to read all of the NOTAMS, irrespective of the pilot stating that he has the info.

Another issue is the amount of digitizing of ATC equipment. It used to be that shit was on audio for 15 days (reel-to-reel tapes), after that, it never happened.
Now, it is all digitally recorded, audio and radar (both air and ground) and kept for a significantly longer period (I believe a minimum of 45 days). This data is also no longer locally stored and is audited on a regular basis.

In the old days, I had a lot discretion of whether or not to 'burn' someone for an infraction. My personal ROE was simply that if it was an honest mistake (and the individual owned it) and there was not dent in the aircraft involved, I would simply make sure the pilot in question would endeavor to not make that mistake again. I knew that the last thing a guy needed was some shit from GADO (I am really showing my age) or FSDO on his record. It could impact their ability to work.

It truly was a two-way street...

There were times when I made small errors (that resulted in a technical loss of separation) that the aircrew(s) involved were like "hey, no worries...we saw 'em and were good." They knew I was trying to provide quality service, but I got painted into a corner. They would say they got the guy in sight, etc and help me out. Back in the day, more than two deals (separation errors) within a 30 month time period would result in possible termination.

At my first facility (a VFR tower), every year, the local EAA chapter held a 'Controller Appreciation Day.' It was not something held in conjunction with something else, it was just to say thanx to us. A huge BBQ with T-Bone steaks with all the trimming, kegs of beer, rides on aircraft, etc. Bring your family and so forth.

Why did they do it? Because we busted our ass for them and this was how they showed appreciation. It was the best of times...

Now, as I see it, the 'Golden Age' of Aviation is over.

Today, there are a lot folks on both sides of the mic don't wanna work (and act like asses about it). A lot of controllers dont want to do any work/vectoring outside of what is minimally necessary. If a pilot makes a small error, they get all hissy and notify the supe. If there is wx, they simply shut off the sector/scope and wait til the wx passes, even though they could put in the work and vector the planes around the stuff. But, that means doing work. So what if 25 departures sit unnecessarily at the end of the rwy waiting to go.

On the other hand, we have aircrews that simply don't want to get their plane wet and request huge deviations around stuff (when multiple other crews are not being so radical). Won't show patience during a SWAP event and harass ground or clearance about when are they gonna get out of there.

I could go on and on....

Its a downward spiral and all of this plays into the hands of those that want to replace ALL of US with the complete automation of the flight deck (and ATC).

Be a pro.

Help each other out. It is good for yourself, your peers, and the profession that is aviation.

I feel like you think my post was bashing pilots or that I like to issue Brashers...

On the contrary I don't like the push by the agency to limit our discretion.  I much prefer the "Hey I said this but you did this, so just keep that in mind for next time" kind of communication.  In 15 years I've only had to give a few real warnings.  We're being monitored a lot more and pushed to issue these, so when a supe is over your shoulder we are beginning to have to issue them for some really little things in my opinion or we risk getting in trouble.  I'm saying it sucks for us and the pilots and it's all lawyers doing.  This was an informational post.  

We only have an old school atis that we have to record manually and add notams and pireps, etc.  When a pilot states they have it so soon after recording I know they haven't heard everything.  Some seem to not care if they know about pertinent pireps or other info.  *shrug

With all due respect to the good and kind controllers, and my experience is that most are good and kind, even as the black sheep of the aviation world (VFR helicopter stuff), then you've got this joker looking to rile people up, and succeeding:

https://www.newsweek.com/air-traffic-controller-shocks-flyers-claim-about-night-flights-viral-tiktok-1712748



P.S. the better half used to work for the FAA in training. You all hated her because she made you train I used to travel commercial 2 or 3 times a month for work. Can't tell you how many times she hooked me up with an ATC release on my otherwise flow-controlled aircraft

Thank God my career is behind me, I was lucky to fly in the time when sex and flying were both safe at the same time.

Where is the “lawyering “ coming in vs just fjb using 3 letter agencies to mess with folks?

In the modern era all the orders that define the rules are designed and written by people who don't really do these jobs in real life.  "Lawyer" is mostly used figuratively; some are probably real lawyers, but we could probably label them all as bureaucrats at a minimum.  The same as "bean counters" who decide staffing levels and when and where someone can ERR (relocate) with no regard to experience or skills.

Much of what you posed doesnt apply to center environment.  That being said QA tells us if we clear you for a visual we are supposed to read you ALL notams. Yep that includes every tower light outage within 10 miles of the airport. If you ever fly into an uncontrolled airport and are cleared for the ILS or something and then report the airport in sight and dont get cleared for the visual after the controller isnt being a dick, hes saving you from listening to five minutes of bullshit.

No ATIS  available for uncontrolled airports. We are told we cant send pilots to flight service for notams either. Our instruction from QA is ridiculous for the center environment especially if you're actually working traffic at the time as well.

I've heard the dreaded: "do you have a pen and paper to copy a phone number"
over the years, luckily not directed to me (yet) for an infraction. The last time I heard it
was 2 years ago or so, issued to a Lear crew, Denver Center, they climbed when given a
descent.

I'm cashing in and retiring next year, if I make it that long.

The Euro-fication of Aviation in the USA has ended what was once a great career field.


As mo4040 detailed in his post, the "Golden Age" of Aviation in the USA is over.

Crews make mistakes, ATC make their mistakes, but in the past, we were all on the same page,
a certain camaraderie was shared between us. For the most part, that's over...
Except when flying in/out of our home base where the ATC folks know our tail #'s. We both have
a tit-for-tat symbiotic relationship, favors work both ways, and we are always happy to help out,
and vice-versa.

But in the big World, it's become a gotcha game of sorts, and it's not fun anymore.

Fini

That "controller" is an idiot

It's funny cuz most of that stuff is to get you there faster, and if you don't want it, you get there slower.

Only time I brasher is if there was a loss of separation, or the supe makes me.

I didn't realize that.  The other day, I was flying into GSP and we heard a controller give an approach clearance into some nearby airport.  After he gave the clearance, he followed up with a radio call telling the pilot that there are no notams that will affect his approach/arrival into XX airport.  The radios were garbled and clearly the pilot was confused by the call (so were we).  There was an unnecessary back and forth while both tried to figure out what the other was saying.  My FO and myself thought it was a weird radio call and not something we'd ever heard.  It just unnecessarily clogged up a busy radio frequency.






But was the "golden age," really so golden?  





I fly part-time for the military, full-time for the airlines and I fly GA...save one particular asshole in ATL ground (he's now retired), I don't think feel it's all that bad.  A vast majority of the time, it's just professionals getting it done.  Then there are the guard meowers

While I agree with this sentence, everything else I read in your post made me glad to not be sharing the cockpit.  
Hopefully I'm reading into your post wrong, but man... a long day would get a whole lot longer if I did all of that stuff just to jack with ATC.



Okay, so we have a datalink that gives us up-to-date Wx from the AWOS/ASOS directly into the cockpit (at most, a few minutes old at most airports).  It automatically populates our box that does our takeoff performance planning.  We also have some weather data that comes directly from the aircraft (very accurate temperature with a decimal point, for instance).  That Wx data gets used for TO perf planning, unless it's old enough that conditions have rapidly changed and the ATIS is giving us less favorable data.  Most of the time if the ATIS is 30 mins to almost an hour old, we have more up-to-date Wx already, but we still listen to the whole thing.

At least once per day on a multileg trip, we check the ATIS just prior to start, fire up engines (so now we're burning fuel) and get ready to taxi and as soon as we call for taxi a new one pops out.  At some airports with a lot of NOTAMs, it takes forever to listen to the whole thing.
If we've received our taxi clearance, the FO/PNF will go get the new ATIS during the Taxi.  If you ask if we have the new ATIS, I might report that we have it while he's listening to it.  If it's only 30 seconds old, I'm sorry, but believe me, one of us is listening to and writing down the new weather.  We do care about all of that stuff (except dozens of tower light outages; come on?!), but we also want to get rolling instead of sitting burning fuel for another 3 minutes.

ETA:


That's the most retarded thing I've every heard.  For goodness sakes, warn me if there's a new runway closure that's popped up since I took off, but not about the unlit towers or taxiway that's been closed for six months.
Thankfully we haven't been seeing that at most places yet.  What a deal...

The thing ATC doesn't realize is that when we do a visual, we're still set up in the box with an RNAV Track/GP that matches the glideslope/VASI angle of the runway we're landing on, and has LPV level of precision and a constant descent rate.  We're not diving and driving: a visual in a modern flight deck is just as 'safe' as far as obstacle clearance as the associated approach with exceptions being few and far between.  If there are obstacles or terrain considerations, we're still going to stay on the instrument approach, even if cleared for the visual.



Agreed.  Unfortunately it seems that the FAA is driving a lot more top-down decision making on the ATC side, which is tying the hands of the controllers.

ATC does know a lot of 121 and 135 aircraft are using an approach as a back up. To the point some controllers are depending on it. Vectoring for the visual, then turning someone on a localizer, just assuming the pilot has it set up. Then they try it with a GA aircraft and don't understand why the pilot can't take the turn and capture. You maybe surprised at how many drive the visual outside the parameters of a RNAV approach.

The NOTAM thing is dumb. And it is a top down drive, probably due to a lawsuit where the pilot didn't have the NOTAMs and something happened.

We get told to join the localizer on a visual approach all the time, whether we're set up for the ILS or not.  Or to proceed to a fix on an approach for the visual.  No big deal.
What I'm saying is our aircraft can generate a psuedo-LPV visual approach for any runway, with appropriate GP matching either the instrument or PAPI/VASI slope.  Works great and makes a visual very safe and precise.



What do you mean specifically by that?  As in unstable approach?  Our company SOP dictates stable approach criteria regardless of visual or instrument.

I thought you meant ATC doesn't know you load back up approaches to the visual.

The bias of expecting all pilots to have a back up approach programmed can be an issue if the controller isn't ready for an "unable". Not every aircraft has a company or SOP.

Short approaches, descending to pattern altitude early, unstable approaches etc happen all the time. Swinging a C750 in on a 3 mile base is going to be outside the parameters of a RNAV approach.

What I don't understand is when ATC gives you a vector that is seriously just a mile or so inside the FAF and clears you for the visual.  At that point, just give me that extra mile or so, so I can let the aircraft do its thing on the ILS without a ton of intervention as we're about to configure.  I usually just slow my roll on swinging in the new heading so it will capture outside the FAF, or I just click off the A/P and A/T and just hand fly it, which I generally enjoy anyway.  However, it often causes some issues when I'm flying with a fairly new FO that is still getting comfortable with the jet.  Seems unnecessary.

Since we have a controller here, I'll ask this as well.  The other day I was on about a 3 mile final when the tower controller starts up a conversation with a dude calling for a clearance (on another freq).  There was a bunch of back and forth about the clearance, then the clearance was read.  It finally finished about the time I was exiting the runway and was rather distracting.  Doesn't seem like good practice to have a controller multi-casting on tower like that, especially with an aircraft on short final.

Without seeing the specific scenario, I couldn't tell you. There are a bunch of factors or thought processes that could go into making that decision. By chance were parallel runways involved, and did the turn give you a 30 degree intercept to the runway centerline.

That controller was probably the only one working. Not that uncommon at small towers. Even a lot of the "big" towers go to 1 person working all the positions during the mid shift.

Did you ask for the visual or the ILS?  If you want to intercept outside the FAF and fly the ILS, then ask for it.  If you ask for the visual, then I don't see why you'd expect vectors for intercepting the ILS.

Mike

Ya, parallel runways (DTW) and 30 degrees or less of intercept.  I guess it's just the fact that the vectors always seem to be less than a mile inside of the FAF.  Seems like at a big airport where they do ILS almost all the time, why not keep it consistent and just outside the FAF, not just inside the FAF.  Again, not really a big issue, just wondering.





Understandable.  This was at RDU and I had never had that happen while on final approach.  I just wrote it off as forgetting that they're multicasting, we're all humans, and right now all overworked...shit happens.  





Valid.  We generally never ask for a particular approach, just fly what's on the ATIS or what we're told to expect when checking in with approach.  I just assume they know we (airliners) are always doing and underlying approach (99% of the time, an ILS), so if it's the difference of a mile or less (almost every time), why not just add a mile and put us outside the FAF?  It's minor, but as someone who flies a lot of legs in/out of DTW, it's just something I've noticed and wondered why...it's not like it's saving us any time.

No I did not think you were bashing pilots or anything like that.

I was just commenting that many things have changed in ATC, supervisors looking for violations reviewing recordings for a long time after the fact.

I was relating personal experience, ATC as a whole ( not individual controllers ) have been pushing for violations and looking for minor discrepancies for years now, trying to cause certificate action.

I was giving examples of things I stopped doing to help out for years. It isn't that I don't want to help out, it is that all those things add to the responsibility I have that if I screw up will lead to a violation. It is protection for me, my FO, and the company. Example. Spacing is too tight on final, ATC wants visuals if they can get them, but there is weather. It probably is good enough, but I can't measure any of that, all I have is my eyeballs.  ATC wants me to call the traffic ahead of us and the runway so that the separation and cloud clearance is now my problem instead of his with the added benefit that if I accept that in an attempt to get more traffic into the airport per period of time, I get violated if I fuck it up. So the answer is no, I don't have the runway or the traffic, the visibility is marginal, even if I do see both I don't call it because i may not see both  shortly.  And when we all do that 'favor' it gets counted on. So I don't. Clear in a million, sure, wx could be a factor, I no longer call it.

I get paid by the minute. If I use to much gas I divert.
I am not intentionally being a dick, the rational is in a post above this one.


ETA: I don't do those things just because, only when it is marginal for some reason, fatigue, weather, etc.

ETA2: I just re-read what I wrote. I must have been in a shitty mood to write that. No I don't do that shit except very rarely ussually for marginal conditions.

How do you like the IFR magazine subscription? Worth the price of admission?

It’s ok.  I appreciate what they do.  Like most web based publishers these days,  there was a transition gap between the old school publication and the new system.  I have saved many articles that were hard to find over the years but now that I have access to the archives and have saved what I want, I am not sure that I will renew my subscription.  

I’m a military helicopter guy and, while I fly and instruct a lot of IFR qualification, after 35 years there is a limit to how much the newer stuff really useful for me beyond the occasional “Ok, I can’t believe that I did not know that.” piece.

I say give them a shot for a year and see if it’s worth it to you.

We’ve all been there and had days like that.  

Dude, its cool...

In this profession, everyone is allowed at least one blown fuse.

I blew one (on the freq...really bad day) and it earned me a week on the beach.

It’s definitely a very different world than when I started in 2007.

The ATO is so risk averse and what would have been a minor thing 10 years ago will now get the NTSB in our building.  The new snitch program seems to be catching a lot more stuff and we don’t get the notice until much later than we used to.

Add to that the younger controllers…. We’ve got some good ones but most don’t care about anything but doing the bare minimum and going home.  The skill set and desire to work is way down than when I started.

Finally, my facility is very short staffed. Constant six day work weeks in a busy facility take a toll.

I’ve had to call a number quite a few times. Almost every time it was a controller fuckup, or combination thereof, but shit rolls downhill. A couple times it wasn’t any violation of regulation, but a controller was pissed that I was doing 195kts under the bravo, not talking to anyone, and causing an airliner to go out of their way.

You're good good my man!!!

If I'm working and need you to bail me out, you will get a thank you on freq from me.

There can be a culture of not wanting to admit to mistakes or bad technique in ATC. I try to be the counter to that idea. It doesn't do anybody any good to not try to get better.

Sounds like the FAA becoming the BATF by attempting to regulate the lowest common denominator.  

Even as a GA pilot I have seen and heard a few things.  I had a good friend that was a controller at the same airport I learned to fly at.  The reality being, it is like they are playing a video game version of you playing the game in real life.

I learned at a class C airport with GA student, .mil student, controller students and a lot of traffic.  At times it was a little chaotic and confusing.  Some times common sense and grace were the best tools you could have in the cockpit.

I had a controller get really pissy with me in class C (in the ADIZ), while I was a student.  I assumed an FAA call was going to be inbound, but it never occurred.  IIRC the last I heard was something along the lines of "Since you can't maintain heading or altitude, radar following terminated.  Have a nice day."  I was in a C172 getting bounced around really good between thunderheads, attempting to get out of the area.  

Had another controller, different airport.  EVERY DAMN TIME you came in he would tell you to land on one runway.  It was 4,000 feet, but completely beat to hell and barely serviceable.  Every time, ask if we could use the nice 10,000 runway instead.  Every time approved. Why, except to be a dick?

On the flipside, overheard a conversation with approach about a heavy that was unhappy about being in line behind a bunch of other traffic.  A bit of an exchange occurred with approach *suggesting* it if took too long the pilot might have a fuel issue.  After being prodded by ATC a couple of times the pilot deferred they just wanted an expedite "but delays were confirming".  ATC finally had enough, declared an emergency, started clearing traffic, advised heavy the were cleared to land and a let them know when they were ready to copy a phone number.  It was pretty amusing.

Even my lowly 40+ year old twin piston bug smasher can do that.  ?? and the 30 something year old George will fly it right to the numbers

The golden age of everything is over. Everything now is complete shit, every industry and profession, it's not just you guys.

I can go to lower GPS mins in the old, beat up, club 172 than I can in my airliner.  172 = LPV, Airliner = LNAV only mins...crazy!

Here's one that just happened in the last week or so:



One of the comments has the some info on what happened:



I think they've been working on 28R because for the last month or so every flight I've had has taken off from 32C and we've landed on 32 or 28L.

At FOLOX (3 miles out) for 28C at 2100’, this is the view. If it was a clear day at 10am, that whole write up seems like a pretty poor excuse.

Not sure how you’d decide the furthest left piece of pavement in view for miles is the center runway.

Yeah, I'm waiting to see what is said about this although I doubt it will be all that public but I may be wrong.

If you weren't familiar with the airport diagram, i.e. know that 28R is offset way the hell over to the right, it would be all too easy to line up on the taxiway thinking it was 28C.

If they landed on the taxiway, I might feel differently, but they landed on literally the furthest left piece of pavement for miles and miles…

Agreed!