Close Calls, SFO, SWA, Alaska, United, missing the date...28 R/L

[Concours77]

FlightAware posting a CF causing two go arounds....??
May19. Covered here on Pprune?

"On May 19, a United Airlines flight was forced to abort landing in order to avoid a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 on the runway. Then an Alaska Airlines jet aborted its landing, too. Air traffic control called out the Southwest pilot – “you shouldn’t be on the runway” – yet the FAA dismisses this in a statement to the San Francisco Chronicle saying that there was no runway incursion (because of the aborted landings!)"
........FlightAware

[bean]

https://youtu.be/E4cewwhcL5c
Not covered here before

[Concours77]

First, SW claims his call was blocked. Then he says he had received a clearance. I may be mistaken, but I think SW was on ground frequency when he claimed clearance was given...that is supported by the language he said he received...

"SW get in line and wait..." Tower would have said: "SW cleared to cross 28L, no delay. Hold short 28R..." imo....750 feet between L and R, I think SW was the only one trying to squeeze in....

"Controller issued SW takeoff clearance, but missed that SW never read it back. A clearance not read back is not a clearance received. SW and the controller shouldn’t have argued about it on the frequency, but responsibility for this whole situation is on the controller."
......Peter Fuller

[bean]

All the calls were on tower frequency. the controller was arrogant and incompetent but, safety was not compromised

[bean]

https://youtu.be/XZzBTZctiAg
Same controller.
In this video she is argumentativ with the Delta pilots..In the first video she says she doesnt want an argument on frequency
Talk about an attitude problem!!!!!

[FUMR]

"Previous two went around - unknown reasons". The reasons were plain to see. Furthermore, the SWA was definitely cleared to line up and wait 28R. From what I hear and what I see (only according to the visual presentation) she cut it fine to say the least. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, safety was not compromised.

[BFSGrad]

I think the local controller’s snarky comment to SWA about “you shouldn’t be on the runway” was based on her unreasonable expectation that SWA should have been departing as it was issued a takeoff clearance. However, because she never received a read back from SWA, her expectation was not consistent with approved procedures.

I do wonder what SWA was thinking when, in a line-up-and-wait status on 28R, it hears a takeoff clearance for an aircraft on 28R but missing the aircraft identifier. That takeoff clearance could only have been for SWA. While I don’t think SWA should have begun its takeoff roll based on the incomplete takeoff clearance, it should have immediately queried the local controller, especially given the known tight sequencing.

[Concours77]

"Previous two went around - unknown reasons". The reasons were plain to see. Furthermore, the SWA was definitely cleared to line up and wait 28R. From what I hear and what I see (only according to the visual presentation) she cut it fine to say the least. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, safety was not compromised.

Two words missing from the non clearance... "no delay..." SW slow rolled his cross....causing a go around....SW slow rolled a takeoff in front of FedEx at Austin. Even closer. SW caused Alaska to abort just after United had to abort.

Tower: "You shouldn't be on the runway..." Then ordered him off.

BFSGRad.... "That takeoff clearance could only have been for SWA"..... How's that? Alaska was on short final for 28R?
AIrCanada was on short final for TaxiWay Charley (thinking it was 28R) not long ago, and ignored several commands to go around...was that on CaptainAlaska's mind?


Landing a/c take priority? somebody (sic) thought it was too close....

(I enjoyed FAA's definition of "incursion")

Listen closely as ATC is commanding United "Go Around" (after captain tells her he IS going around) in the background is ASDE in that mechanical voice:

"GO AROUND..."

[fdr]

SFO has been a mess for years, but, Lordy, that is not a good look for what passes as "control".

[MPN11]

As a former ATCO I find some US ATC agencies embarrassing to listen to. Yes, I know they can be very busy, but their high-speed jabbering can't help clear understanding by the intended recipients.

[bean]

High speed jabbering = panic
This controller is worse than useless. She totally lost the plot and did not want to admit she cocked up. PATHETIC

[fdr]

As a firmer ATCO I find some US ATC agencies embarrassing to listen to. Yes, I know they can be very busy, but their high-speed jabbering can't help clear understanding by the intended recipients.


MPN, that has always been the surface portrayal, between say, JFK, LAX, ORD, SEA, SFO, DFW, compared to LHR. Seems that way. But, in the USA, you can usually start to get some level of awareness as to how the plot is slipping, whereas in the UK, ATC is so polite and measured that even after the near-miss there is still calm over the radio, might not be in the cockpit, as it comes out of nowhere, and disappears just as fast. Athens still sounds like they are sitting inside the ouzo barrel, SGP gets paid by the hour apparently, CDG, FCO, always fun, PEK? don't miss a taxi instruction, there is an instant fine for that nowadays. BKK, is as easy to understand as it is to read barbed wire. SEL/ICN, NRT/HND, outstanding ATC service. SYD was deemed to be #2 in the world by the departing UAL 812 on the PIC's last flight, which brought forth the query, "who was #1?", the response, "everyone else!". Still, most of my near miss events have been in the USA, and one in China, and actually touching other planes in flight only happened in NZL, but not an ATC matter, (weak planes).

[Equivocal]

One may need to be cautious when trying to analyse events using off-air recordings because not every party will hear the same thing. Back in my day, doing ATC in the UK, I had what we called the side-tone in my headset - this was essentially a feed from a receiver on the frequency. This made it very easy to spot when there were crossed transmissions and the like, and added greatly to understanding what communications were likely to have been received by pilots. It came as a bit of a shock to me when I found that this didn't happen everywhere and that simultaneous transmissions were often the cause of confusion and miscommunication. I suspect, in this instance the crossed transmissions were likely a significant contributing factor, along with the delivery of the ATC instructions.

[Concours77]

I've listened to the audio record. Ground movement of one aircraft was the direct cause of two landing aircraft initiating go around. SWA1179.
SW was directed to cross then enter two parallel runways in one transmission from Tower. That's alot of territory.
Would it have helped if this movement was divided into two separate transmissions?
"SW1179 cross 28L without delay, hold short of 28R" ...
Then, when necessary, "SW1179 cleared "for immediate takeoff"
Keeps 1179 off both runways.
ATC retains control over 1179 for both movements.

When was 1179 going to call tower: "Tower, 1179 BLOCKED..."

Believe it or not, the distance from holding short of 28L to lined up on 28R is a quarter of a mile...is that why ATC cleared an aircraft to land on 28R after issuing instructions to SWA to line up and wait on the same runway ?

That is a fair distance to allow 1179 to operate without further instructions... I wouldn't bring that up, but then there is that incident in Austin, when FedEx heavy had to go around due to a very leisurely takeoff roll by Southwest.

United 277 would have a clear take on 1179's crossing of 28L ?

[Equivocal]

I've listened to the audio record. Ground movement of one aircraft was the direct cause of two landing aircraft initiating go around.Whilst the timeline of events may be fairly straightforward to analyse, my point is that the 'audio record' on which you base it may not reflect what was heard by any of the parties involved and thus may significantly affect the perception of the situation by each or any of them.

In your latest post you appear to make some statements and ask a number of questions - I'm a little unclear if the former are factual and can be lied upon and whether the latter are rhetorical. Some of the statements in your earlier posts don't appear substantiated by the YouTube recording, so it's unclear, to me at least, what points you are trying to make......but you obviously have something that you want others to consider.

To take one of your statements a little further, it's difficult to say whether things are 'too close' because the US uses/issues landing clearance based on the expectation that the runway will be available when the aircraft reaches it. There will be many occasions when you or I believe that things are too close, but the aircraft land safely - we tend only to hear about the ones which result in a go-around.

Finally, you seem to query the FAA's view that there was no runway incursion. One can only assume that the FAA listened to recordings and used other data that are available and came to the conclusion that, as the controller had issued a line-up clearance to SWA 1179, irrespective of whether the take-off clearance was received or not, there was no question that the presence of the aircraft on the runway was correct.

[Concours77]

"there was no question that the presence of the aircraft on the runway was correct."
Correct? Initially. Safe? No. there was a trail of circumstances that caused Alaska to go around.

"United 277 go around..."
Correct? Certainly. Cause? SWA1179 lingering on 28L?
According to United Captain and Controller? Yes.

Ground movement of one aircraft caused two landing aircraft to go around. This is a correct statement. I've pointed out some reasons why correct directions became unsafe. One thing that is concerning? During the Controller's direction to United to Go Around, one hears ASDE X in the background: "GO AROUND".
United had already told Controller he was going around, then the alarm, then the controller.... arse about, imo.
SW1179, in position, heard the tower call, then evidently call was blocked. What does he do? Nothing. He waits for another call, asking him: "are you departing"? Then claims he was blocked. So, no call to request a take off clearance? Just wait on the runway. Then he claims victim status, and the controller kicks him out to Charley.

A fertile field of bad attitude, stubbornness, lazy radio, and safety takes a seat in economy.
just my opinion. I know the layout, and I know the challenges. SW was there, and knew exactly he needed to expedite. Childish. And unsafe...again, my opinion.

Thanks for a kind reasoned response Equivocal

[bean]

https://youtu.be/DrRGde5J8mo
Yet more problems at SFO listen to what a sympathetic Norcal say to United

[ATC Watcher]

This is in fact quite "normal" high density R/T in the US : i.e. disregarding standard phraseology,, using fast spoken slang, cutting things aboslutely to the limits, like issuing T/O clearance wiith an APP less that 2 miles out, so it is no surprising you get that many go arounds ..It is a choice : expedition goes above sticking to safety margins. The inteesting things is that ththey are pround of this claiming moving the most traffic in teheworld , and therefore implying they are better controllers. Been that way since the 70s..
That said in all 3 R/T examples here in this tread, no safety issues. Unhappy pilots,yes, but in fact you all kown the rule of the game. if you want no delays and max expedition , you'll have to go around sometimes.

Finally te little fights between TWR and APP are universal , they only amplified when they move Approach hundreds of KM from the actual airport and dual licences( TWR/APP) are abolished.

[bean]

This is in fact quite "normal" high density R/T in the US : i.e. disregarding standard phraseology,, using fast spoken slang, cutting things aboslutely to the limits, like issuing T/O clearance wiith an APP less that 2 miles out, so it is no surprising you get that many go arounds ..It is a choice : expedition goes above sticking to safety margins. The inteesting things is that ththey are pround of this claiming moving the most traffic in teheworld , and therefore implying they are better controllers. Been that way since the 70s..
That said in all 3 R/T examples here in this tread, no safety issues. Unhappy pilots,yes, but in fact you all kown the rule of the game. if you want no delays and max expedition , you'll have to go around sometimes.

Finally te little fights between TWR and APP are universal , they only amplified when they move Approach hundreds of KM from the actual airport and dual licences( TWR/APP) are abolished.
Rubbish. Two go arounds from two approaches for the same aircraft. Utterly disgraceful

[biscuit74]

https://youtu.be/XZzBTZctiAg
Same controller.
In this video she is argumentativ with the Delta pilots..In the first video she says she doesnt want an argument on frequency
Talk about an attitude problem!!!!!


I thought the controller was cheerful and did her best to be helpful & positive in pointing out the snags. I see/hear no attitude problem from her.

The pilots of the Delta flight were perhaps being hopeful with their time estimate, rather than actually dishonest. Maybe a wee apology form them would have helped smooth things over. Why can't they program for either runway then make an immediate change? Is this a system limitation, misunderstandng by the crews or laziness ? Why can't they just launch and adjust their computer BS enroute - surely its not going to change their track much, or are they required to follow exactly the 'supposed 'magenta line' programmed in before departure? Doesn't sound that difficult, though I agree betterto have it sorted beforehand if possible

[ATC Watcher]

Rubbish. Two go arounds from two approaches for the same aircraft. Utterly disgraceful
Funny remark., would it have been more "graceful" if it had been 2 different aircraft ?

[172_driver]

Why can't they program for either runway then make an immediate change? Is this a system limitation, misunderstandng by the crews or laziness ?

System limitation, and you do not want to get it wrong.

[FUMR]

It is an unfortunate fact of life that in the USA that they have to move a heck of lot of tin as expeditiously as possible. To a very large extent they achieve that remarkably well. Occasionally it doesn't work and a go around is the result. Two go arounds is very frustrating but also very rare. Tower have their problems and approach their's. ATC Watcher is correct about ATC problems being amplified when TWR and APP are no longer manned by dual rated ATCOs working at the same facility. By working both ATC positions, they understood the constraints concerning both aspects of the job. Now it's become the proverbial "them and us" division! Not a good situation!

[Concours77]

System limitation, and you do not want to get it wrong.

Difficult to see how a sidestep is not an unstabilized approach...Limit? 2mile? 1mile?

[172_driver]

My bad, I thought we were talking about programming the FMC for departure. Can’t do both runways.
Late sidestep is something else and many factors come into play. Ultimately a crew decision.

[biscuit74]

System limitation, and you do not want to get it wrong.


Thansk . What happens if you 'get it wrong'? This seems to have been an afternoon departure in reasonable weather. If an error in setting has been made (which must happen occasionally I suppose) presumably the pilots can simply ignore it and continue to fly sasfely manually until such time as they can correct that error - or what have I missed?

[172_driver]

Performance wise it can be a major difference and worst case you may be departing with not enough thrust from the engines. There are some spectacular examples of that, Emirates in Melbourne, Qatar in Miami. Departure wise you may be following the wrong SID which can be embarrasing at best. Doesn’t really matter if you fly manually or not if your navigation is set up for the wrong runway.

[biscuit74]

Thanks, 172 driver. That makes sense. Slightly surprised it takes so long to reprogram - presume time added for double checks.

[172_driver]

Without knowing what tools they had available to them or how familiar they were with SFO, I could also think 3-4 min is on the high side. We don’t know what other distractions were present, such as crossing an active runway. With any sort of modern EFB (Electronic Flight Bag) you can at least prepare the performance numbers on the Ipad (or equivalent) and be ready to enter them into the FMC.

[kap'n krunch]

I thought the controller was cheerful and did her best to be helpful & positive in pointing out the snags. I see/hear no attitude problem from her.

The pilots of the Delta flight were perhaps being hopeful with their time estimate, rather than actually dishonest. Maybe a wee apology form them would have helped smooth things over. Why can't they program for either runway then make an immediate change? Is this a system limitation, misunderstandng by the crews or laziness ? Why can't they just launch and adjust their computer BS enroute - surely its not going to change their track much, or are they required to follow exactly the 'supposed 'magenta line' programmed in before departure? Doesn't sound that difficult, though I agree betterto have it sorted beforehand if possible

My understanding is Delta SOP requires a re-reading of takeoff checklist in addition to programming FMC when departure runway changes.