Air Canada non go-around at SFO
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 58
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the way I took chesty's comment was we get many requests.
Such as expedite this expedite that and we have to just ignore you.
On the roll out if we put the power up even slightly after landing and the ground speed is above 30 knts (or some other value) it triggers a FDR SOP bust. ATC told us to go faster is no excuse. Being on the runway is no different to being on the taxiway or apron.
Only way round it is being told to roll to the end before landing then not using flight idle and leaving the power setting reduction until further down the runway.
Brake hard to try and make a intersection and still to fast to make it but over 30 kts we can't put the power up. Once at 30knts we can increase power again but can't go over 30kts. You can scream expedite all you like tell us aircraft at 2 miles final, not going to change a thing. It will be 30knts until we get to the next exit.
Such as expedite this expedite that and we have to just ignore you.
On the roll out if we put the power up even slightly after landing and the ground speed is above 30 knts (or some other value) it triggers a FDR SOP bust. ATC told us to go faster is no excuse. Being on the runway is no different to being on the taxiway or apron.
Only way round it is being told to roll to the end before landing then not using flight idle and leaving the power setting reduction until further down the runway.
Brake hard to try and make a intersection and still to fast to make it but over 30 kts we can't put the power up. Once at 30knts we can increase power again but can't go over 30kts. You can scream expedite all you like tell us aircraft at 2 miles final, not going to change a thing. It will be 30knts until we get to the next exit.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 58
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because I will be sacked for not complying with SOP's the airline when it comes to expediting.
I will as a matter of course get off a live runway as safely and quickly as I can inside company SOP's.
Apart from anything else going faster than 30knts on back track is counted as a low speed aborted departure. 10 mins for brake cooling in theory.
I agree its airline policy and obviously doesn't apply to Ryanair.
I will as a matter of course get off a live runway as safely and quickly as I can inside company SOP's.
Apart from anything else going faster than 30knts on back track is counted as a low speed aborted departure. 10 mins for brake cooling in theory.
I agree its airline policy and obviously doesn't apply to Ryanair.
Suprised no-one commenting about the visual (directed red light) cue not picked up by the crew.
Fairly unusual procedure I guess but still something the PF shouldn't miss (hopefully not confused with a laser attack...)
Fairly unusual procedure I guess but still something the PF shouldn't miss (hopefully not confused with a laser attack...)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m not Ryanair.
Sounds like you are flying i China or ME.
If I need 40 kts on the runway, I will do so. If it raises questions, by ATC request will do.
It does explain why I get stuck behind some airlines taxiing at very low speeds. Madrid behind EZY is a nightmare.
Anyway, you have my sympathy. It must be stressful to be scared of loosing your job for a minor issue like a few kts.
Sounds like you are flying i China or ME.
If I need 40 kts on the runway, I will do so. If it raises questions, by ATC request will do.
It does explain why I get stuck behind some airlines taxiing at very low speeds. Madrid behind EZY is a nightmare.
Anyway, you have my sympathy. It must be stressful to be scared of loosing your job for a minor issue like a few kts.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because it’s not a laser? You have to look the tower to see it. If you are in a lost comm situation and trying to resolve it at the same time as you are looking for other traffic, that may be the last thing you are thinking of.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The tower controller subsequently instructed the Air Canada crew multiple times to execute a go-around because he was not certain that a preceding arrival would be completely clear of the runway before the Air Canada jet reached the runway threshold," Gregor said,
Is it still the common use e.g. LGW, where ATC would say, "XYZ continue approach, expect late landing clearance, One to vacate."? It certainly was common in the rush hour of a single runway op, and it would have reduced capacity hugely if not used. Equally, the, "XYZ continue approach, expect late landing clearance, one to depart." Squeezing a landing followed by a departure and another landing into 2 minutes was a great demonstration of teamwork and needed respect by the crews and strict adherence to speed, situational awareness and to vacate PDQ. There were far more successful late landings than GA's.
I remember decades ago, at LHR, where "cleared to land, one about to vacate." was the call. Is it not the case that the commander can land if visual with the preceding traffic and can be certain that they can stop well before the turnoff being used by the preceding? Or has that allowance be rescinded?
The debate about ATC instructions v requests is an interesting one. In USA you can be cleared to land No.5. I'm not sure if you have to be VMC. There you are sliding down the glide with the squadron ahead of you. I assume the philosophy is you are cleared to land if you consider it safe to do below whatever height you choose. EASA & FAA ATC hand-books will tell us. Other regions might have more draconian attitudes.
I remember a medium jet at LGW being given takeoff clearance behind a heavy. The captain was most critical of ATC that the clearance was given <2mins after the heavy. ATC replied that "they could take as long as they wanted; there was no traffic on finals. It was not an order, just a clearance." Similar "cleared to land" is not an order; however a GA is somewhat different. ATC might get a little trigger happy at some places, i.e. the opposite of LGW in rush hour, but I reckon your defence needs to be solid not to comply. If you think you are going to be able to land OK then a couple of "say again's" might delay the call and even reverse it. Ha!
Is it still the common use e.g. LGW, where ATC would say, "XYZ continue approach, expect late landing clearance, One to vacate."? It certainly was common in the rush hour of a single runway op, and it would have reduced capacity hugely if not used. Equally, the, "XYZ continue approach, expect late landing clearance, one to depart." Squeezing a landing followed by a departure and another landing into 2 minutes was a great demonstration of teamwork and needed respect by the crews and strict adherence to speed, situational awareness and to vacate PDQ. There were far more successful late landings than GA's.
I remember decades ago, at LHR, where "cleared to land, one about to vacate." was the call. Is it not the case that the commander can land if visual with the preceding traffic and can be certain that they can stop well before the turnoff being used by the preceding? Or has that allowance be rescinded?
The debate about ATC instructions v requests is an interesting one. In USA you can be cleared to land No.5. I'm not sure if you have to be VMC. There you are sliding down the glide with the squadron ahead of you. I assume the philosophy is you are cleared to land if you consider it safe to do below whatever height you choose. EASA & FAA ATC hand-books will tell us. Other regions might have more draconian attitudes.
I remember a medium jet at LGW being given takeoff clearance behind a heavy. The captain was most critical of ATC that the clearance was given <2mins after the heavy. ATC replied that "they could take as long as they wanted; there was no traffic on finals. It was not an order, just a clearance." Similar "cleared to land" is not an order; however a GA is somewhat different. ATC might get a little trigger happy at some places, i.e. the opposite of LGW in rush hour, but I reckon your defence needs to be solid not to comply. If you think you are going to be able to land OK then a couple of "say again's" might delay the call and even reverse it. Ha!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 58
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It must be stressful to be scared of loosing your job for a minor issue like a few kts.
There is also maintence reasons as well. You go through less tyres and the steering maintence cost has dropped significantly.
Since they brought the SOP in they haven't had a single off road event. Its a medium sized EU operator. I believe it was due to an incident where it was a major factor.
After the initial getting used to it frustration its actually pretty sensible. The number of times I had my arse twitch with wondering if we were going to stay on the black stuff in previous jobs while trying to expedite to help out mostly in the RHS. I am quite happy to comply with the SOP. Its already saved my bacon once when the steering system decided to go on strike and give me a hard full right turn.
Managed to keep on the black stuff any faster, and I would have been reading about myself on pprune with a nose wheel in the muck at AMS.
Just thinking about the regular airports I operate into and if I know where the tower is....
Suprised no-one commenting about the visual (directed red light) cue not picked up by the crew.
Might have worked in the old days of signal squares, grass strips, Verey Pistols and two-storey towers next to them but with multiple miles-long runways and huge buildings, towers can be way off where you’re looking when on short finals.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be interesting to work out how many steady red lights there are within the airport perimeter.
AC had radio when they aknowledged landing clearance.
Aside from that, AC had no idea why tower was saying go around.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO Annex 2, Rule of the Air.
Ch. 3.6.5.2.1, pag. 3-8.
3.6.5.2
Communication failure. If a communication failure
precludes compliance with 3.6.5.1, the aircraft shall comply
with the voice communication failure procedures of Annex 10,
Volume II, and with such of the following procedures as are
appropriate. The aircraft shall attempt to establish communications
with the appropriate air traffic control unit using all other
available means. In addition, the aircraft, when forming part of
the aerodrome traffic at a controlled aerodrome, shall keep a
watch for such instructions as may be issued by visual signals.
ICAO Annex 2, Rule of the Air.
Ch. 3.6.5.2.1, pag. 3-8.
http://www.pprune.org/4062811-post6.html
Ch. 3.6.5.2.1, pag. 3-8.
3.6.5.2
Communication failure. If a communication failure
precludes compliance with 3.6.5.1, the aircraft shall comply
with the voice communication failure procedures of Annex 10,
Volume II, and with such of the following procedures as are
appropriate. The aircraft shall attempt to establish communications
with the appropriate air traffic control unit using all other
available means. In addition, the aircraft, when forming part of
the aerodrome traffic at a controlled aerodrome, shall keep a
watch for such instructions as may be issued by visual signals.
ICAO Annex 2, Rule of the Air.
Ch. 3.6.5.2.1, pag. 3-8.
http://www.pprune.org/4062811-post6.html
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 58
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Found this on youtube while thinking about the comments about the red lights from the towers.
It has some outside video of what the crew will have seen.
Loads of red lights. Seems like 3 flashing lights perm, wouldn't surprise me if one of them was a flashing red on top of the tower.
And I don't have a clue where the tower is.
https://youtu.be/O3LTYeZrzH8
It has some outside video of what the crew will have seen.
Loads of red lights. Seems like 3 flashing lights perm, wouldn't surprise me if one of them was a flashing red on top of the tower.
And I don't have a clue where the tower is.
https://youtu.be/O3LTYeZrzH8
Gender Faculty Specialist
CHESTY trolling as usual. I recall, final approach into LHR, we were catching up the one ahead. Did all I could but still gaining, I prepared for a Go Around. ATC got in first and said "a/c call sign, Go Around, Go Around, I say again, Go Around". Didn't sound like a 'request' to me Chesty !
out of everyoneHmm: Landing clearance given, rather than "Air Canada, continue ..." then landing clearance revoked due to, it appears, the preceding traffic spending a bit longer on the runway than ATC anticipated.
That's my guess, would like to see how the decision chain in the cockpit went. Might be a good teaching tool in the future, and thankfully nobody got hurt. A chance to learn without tears, one hopes.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, subject to confirmation, it appears that the SWA 737-700 used the entire length of 28R before turning off at the far end.
Air Canada 781 also used taxiway tango and held behind the WN.
Yes a bad time to go NORDO, but of course this sort of thing could only happen in the States
I'd be interested to know how controllers in a digital tower such as that about to grace LCY would be able to give light signals in similar circumstances (I'm thinking of loss of comms, rather than occupied runway). Chap/chapess in a little chequered box by the rwy, perhaps? That's progress!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thing I would worry about most with commfail on final 28 SFO is a departure off the 01’s. If there’s traffic slow in vacating your own runway, you’ll see it; a departure off 01 is a surprise if you’re unaware.. (for those unfamiliar with SFO, most departures, except heavies, use 01 crossing between 2 landing aircraft on 28, an ATC challenge by itself ).
To be honest there is no real risk landing on a runway with preceding about to vacate, once you get there he is off the runway anyway. Now an encounter with somebody off 01 is something else (George Carlin used to call that “near miss” 😳 ).
BTW, I can’t believe someone with Atc is so naive to assume a pilot would see a red light signal at an International airport. Must be a desk-jockey.
To be honest there is no real risk landing on a runway with preceding about to vacate, once you get there he is off the runway anyway. Now an encounter with somebody off 01 is something else (George Carlin used to call that “near miss” 😳 ).
BTW, I can’t believe someone with Atc is so naive to assume a pilot would see a red light signal at an International airport. Must be a desk-jockey.
Last edited by golfyankeesierra; 24th Oct 2017 at 20:47.
On approach to CGN one night some years ago when it was very busy with night freight. We are using 14L, cloud base around 500 feet and sudenly the Tower Freq goes off the air (but we don't know that - why would we?).
Pop out of cloud, go visual and, lo and behold, there are the lights of an aircraft on the threshold waiting for take-off.
Go Around and contact Approach. Told that Tower had suffered an RT failure.
On subsequent contact with Tower, I am told that they had been flashing a red light at me from the Tower!
Red light from the Tower at 500 feet?
Get real!
For a start, where the hell is the Tower at CGN?
You will be astonished to learn that looking for a Red Light from the Tower was pretty low down in my list of priorities.
Incidentally, I actually saw Chesty Morgan in the Flyers Club in Gander in the 1970s. I can confirm that she was all "teeth and t+ts".
Pop out of cloud, go visual and, lo and behold, there are the lights of an aircraft on the threshold waiting for take-off.
Go Around and contact Approach. Told that Tower had suffered an RT failure.
On subsequent contact with Tower, I am told that they had been flashing a red light at me from the Tower!
Red light from the Tower at 500 feet?
Get real!
For a start, where the hell is the Tower at CGN?
You will be astonished to learn that looking for a Red Light from the Tower was pretty low down in my list of priorities.
Incidentally, I actually saw Chesty Morgan in the Flyers Club in Gander in the 1970s. I can confirm that she was all "teeth and t+ts".