CX SFO (main thread)
Higher likelihood is these guys did not understand what maintain visual separation meant and someone thought they were clear the visual approach, even worse thinking to follow united. These guys rarely hear a visual approach clearance, let alone brief it.
OZ Skipper probably yelling “ask him again” and making it all worse.
Probably complaining that the atc is at fault and not using OZ phraseology. Remember this is an A50, the 4th man cant see anything and the 3rd man is half asleep from flying all night.
really? Australian bashing again? Come up with something new and get that huge chip off your shoulder mate. All nationalities have their share of Astronauts and always will.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sector C
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Similar events have occurred in the past when aircraft cross parallel runways and change the propagation properties of the LOC, aircraft crossing 28L after landing on 28R can interfere with the LOC on 28L. If an aircraft is crossing it can lead to false capture and reverse sense indications.
Sorry for interrupting the anonymous character assassination without all the facts at hand, carry on.
Sorry for interrupting the anonymous character assassination without all the facts at hand, carry on.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Greener Pastures
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Similar events have occurred in the past when aircraft cross parallel runways and change the propagation properties of the LOC, aircraft crossing 28L after landing on 28R can interfere with the LOC on 28L. If an aircraft is crossing it can lead to false capture and reverse sense indications.
Sorry for interrupting the anonymous character assassination without all the facts at hand, carry on.
Sorry for interrupting the anonymous character assassination without all the facts at hand, carry on.
This incident reinforces advice given to me years ago by a wise old Captain: ‘Never report visual to ATC in the USA’. His reasoning was that: ‘If you report visual and they clear you for a visual approach, YOU are now responsible for separation.’ ‘Are you 100% sure the aircraft you see is the aircraft ATC are referring to?’ By not reporting visual, ATC maintains responsibility for separation.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the many issues that we face is the FDAP and the consequences of infringing any of the rules . I understand why management imposed them ,but sadly in doing so they have removed common sense and airmanship from the flightdeck . You can make a perfectly safe approach and landing but break one of the approach rules . These rules box you In with regard to what you can and cannot do . Understandably the guys are not going to risk pinging an FDAP during an approach especially in SFO is one of the easiest places to ping an FDAP event .its also a nightmare of an airport if you don’t operate in there regularity . Personally I will never accept a visual in the USA any more because as Bleve stated you never know which aircraft ATC are referring to
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: the land of chocolate
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This incident reinforces advice given to me years ago by a wise old Captain: ‘Never report visual to ATC in the USA’. His reasoning was that: ‘If you report visual and they clear you for a visual approach, YOU are now responsible for separation.’ ‘Are you 100% sure the aircraft you see is the aircraft ATC are referring to?’ By not reporting visual, ATC maintains responsibility for separation.
either way, even if they give it to you, you can always say, ‘negative, requests vectors for the Ils..’
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Rosterabuseland
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "visual" reference is in relation to being visual with the aircraft on approach - NOT with the runway.
I've had both 'report the runway in sight' and 'report the traffic in sight'. The motive of ATC in either case is to reduce their workload by shifting the burden of ensuring separation to you. But my job is to fly the aircraft, their job is to ensure separation. Why would I want to increase my workload and hence operational risk by doing their job for them (particularly when jetlagged after a long flight [into SFO!])? You could do the dance of reporting field/traffic in sight, then declining the visual approach clearance, but that just adds unnecessary R/T clutter to the airways. Much simpler to not report visual or field/traffic in sight in the first place (even if you are).
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this talk about visuals/not visual, disconnecting autopilot etc. misses the point. The pilots missed the call to turn left hence the turn was delayed until ATC noticed they weren't turning and their radius of turn meant they would blow through the loc AP on or not. LOC can capture and still blow through the LOC. There are 2 relevant points. What distraction caused the missed radio call and why were they put into a situation that a single missed call could lead to such compromised safety. The latter we know is the nature of SFO ATC. The former none of us knows and we owe the benefit of the doubt to the crew involved because it absolutely could be any of us on a given day. Maybe cabin crew called just at the moment. Maybe they got an ECAM message. Maybe they were discussing where to have dinner. WTF knows. The system worked because there was altitude separation and CX followed the RA and it seems United perhaps did not but that's not 100% clear. Nothing to do with fear of disconnecting the autopilot or about hand flying at all. If they disconnected and turned a steep bank away from UA they certainly would have lost visual contact. So CTFO back seat drivers.
All this talk about visuals/not visual, disconnecting autopilot etc. misses the point. The pilots missed the call to turn left hence the turn was delayed until ATC noticed they weren't turning and their radius of turn meant they would blow through the loc AP on or not. LOC can capture and still blow through the LOC. There are 2 relevant points. What distraction caused the missed radio call and why were they put into a situation that a single missed call could lead to such compromised safety. The latter we know is the nature of SFO ATC. The former none of us knows and we owe the benefit of the doubt to the crew involved because it absolutely could be any of us on a given day. Maybe cabin crew called just at the moment. Maybe they got an ECAM message. Maybe they were discussing where to have dinner. WTF knows. The system worked because there was altitude separation and CX followed the RA and it seems United perhaps did not but that's not 100% clear. Nothing to do with fear of disconnecting the autopilot or about hand flying at all. If they disconnected and turned a steep bank away from UA they certainly would have lost visual contact. So CTFO back seat drivers.
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: All over
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This wasn't United's fault. Whether or not he followed the RA or should have is not for us to say (he may well have seen safe visual deconfliction and I dare say we have NO idea what THEIR SOPs are--and cannot base another's decision on our frame outlook).
The bottom line I think is that we have a significant amount of crews who are unable to maintain visual separation and make visual approaches without the aid of the magic or relying on controllers to do pilots' jobs for them. I view this as a problem--the US ATC system is the most efficient in the world--bar none. It relies on a whole bunch of tricks including reduced separation AND on pilots being able to maintain visual separation and safely conduct visual approaches (as a sidenote a visual approach clearance can be issued with either the field AND/OR the preceding traffic to the field in sight). Relying on the controller as a crutch due to our lack of ability, skill, or knowledge is unacceptable in my opinion. In order to play in a particular sandbox one needs to adhere to the ROE OF that sandbox (and not the other way around). So if we buffoon things up we run a risk of being kicked out of the sandbox.
Anyone can make a mistake and any crew can make a mistake -- but when you have recurring issues is when you have a problem.
The bottom line I think is that we have a significant amount of crews who are unable to maintain visual separation and make visual approaches without the aid of the magic or relying on controllers to do pilots' jobs for them. I view this as a problem--the US ATC system is the most efficient in the world--bar none. It relies on a whole bunch of tricks including reduced separation AND on pilots being able to maintain visual separation and safely conduct visual approaches (as a sidenote a visual approach clearance can be issued with either the field AND/OR the preceding traffic to the field in sight). Relying on the controller as a crutch due to our lack of ability, skill, or knowledge is unacceptable in my opinion. In order to play in a particular sandbox one needs to adhere to the ROE OF that sandbox (and not the other way around). So if we buffoon things up we run a risk of being kicked out of the sandbox.
Anyone can make a mistake and any crew can make a mistake -- but when you have recurring issues is when you have a problem.
DIRECTOR
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reminds me as second Captain into SFO 28R from Seoul where he was given a heading to intercept 28R which he ignored going 30 degrees further left because he was too high! Very dangerous as 28L a lot closer than at most places. Spotted by ATC
I will admit doing a go around at SFO once due to being too high. Felt a little better when United also did a go around a few minutes later. Went out on the usual 130 Radial but got turned in too early and descent given too late
I will admit doing a go around at SFO once due to being too high. Felt a little better when United also did a go around a few minutes later. Went out on the usual 130 Radial but got turned in too early and descent given too late
Last edited by thegypsy; 11th Sep 2019 at 15:27. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: No where
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ummm, two questions? 1) is anyone really surprised, and 2) does anyone really not expect to hear more incidents like this in the future? The only ones who don't seem to see a problem at CX are the management who's bonuses are related to the continuation of our current trajectory. And we all know where that trajectory leads.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“The US ATC is the most efficient by none”
I’d rate US ATC services as similar to many 3rd world country ATC services. Their use of non-standard RT, lack of empathy with non-english speaking airline crew, ridiculously fast speaking and unnecessary visual approaches for long haul airliners causes unnecessary extra RT, go-arounds and incidents.
You obviously haven’t been to LHR. Now, that airport definitely has the best ATC services in the world. And guess what, it’s limited on real estate, maxed out capacity wise and doesn’t need the use of visual approaches to achieve that capacity.
You obviously haven’t been to LHR. Now, that airport definitely has the best ATC services in the world. And guess what, it’s limited on real estate, maxed out capacity wise and doesn’t need the use of visual approaches to achieve that capacity.
This wasn't United's fault. Whether or not he followed the RA or should have is not for us to say (he may well have seen safe visual deconfliction and I dare say we have NO idea what THEIR SOPs are--and cannot base another's decision on our frame outlook).
The bottom line I think is that we have a significant amount of crews who are unable to maintain visual separation and make visual approaches without the aid of the magic or relying on controllers to do pilots' jobs for them. I view this as a problem--the US ATC system is the most efficient in the world--bar none. It relies on a whole bunch of tricks including reduced separation AND on pilots being able to maintain visual separation and safely conduct visual approaches (as a sidenote a visual approach clearance can be issued with either the field AND/OR the preceding traffic to the field in sight). Relying on the controller as a crutch due to our lack of ability, skill, or knowledge is unacceptable in my opinion. In order to play in a particular sandbox one needs to adhere to the ROE OF that sandbox (and not the other way around). So if we buffoon things up we run a risk of being kicked out of the sandbox.
Anyone can make a mistake and any crew can make a mistake -- but when you have recurring issues is when you have a problem.
The bottom line I think is that we have a significant amount of crews who are unable to maintain visual separation and make visual approaches without the aid of the magic or relying on controllers to do pilots' jobs for them. I view this as a problem--the US ATC system is the most efficient in the world--bar none. It relies on a whole bunch of tricks including reduced separation AND on pilots being able to maintain visual separation and safely conduct visual approaches (as a sidenote a visual approach clearance can be issued with either the field AND/OR the preceding traffic to the field in sight). Relying on the controller as a crutch due to our lack of ability, skill, or knowledge is unacceptable in my opinion. In order to play in a particular sandbox one needs to adhere to the ROE OF that sandbox (and not the other way around). So if we buffoon things up we run a risk of being kicked out of the sandbox.
Anyone can make a mistake and any crew can make a mistake -- but when you have recurring issues is when you have a problem.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: www
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’d rate US ATC services as similar to many 3rd world country ATC services. Their use of non-standard RT, lack of empathy with non-english speaking airline crew, ridiculously fast speaking and unnecessary visual approaches for long haul airliners causes unnecessary extra RT, go-arounds and incidents.
You obviously haven’t been to LHR. Now, that airport definitely has the best ATC services in the world. And guess what, it’s limited on real estate, maxed out capacity wise and doesn’t need the use of visual approaches to achieve that capacity.
You obviously haven’t been to LHR. Now, that airport definitely has the best ATC services in the world. And guess what, it’s limited on real estate, maxed out capacity wise and doesn’t need the use of visual approaches to achieve that capacity.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: nfa
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’d rate US ATC services as similar to many 3rd world country ATC services. Their use of non-standard RT, lack of empathy with non-english speaking airline crew, ridiculously fast speaking and unnecessary visual approaches for long haul airliners causes unnecessary extra RT, go-arounds and incidents.
You obviously haven’t been to LHR. Now, that airport definitely has the best ATC services in the world. And guess what, it’s limited on real estate, maxed out capacity wise and doesn’t need the use of visual approaches to achieve that capacity.
You obviously haven’t been to LHR. Now, that airport definitely has the best ATC services in the world. And guess what, it’s limited on real estate, maxed out capacity wise and doesn’t need the use of visual approaches to achieve that capacity.
US ATC expects professional pilots to be competent, proficient operators. If you pay attention to how some of the "questionable " Asian operators are handled in the US, you'll see that Cathay Pacific gets treated the same as most domestic airlines because traditionally, CX hired experience. If CNs are willing to sit and watch their 130hr Adelaide brushwingers butcher a visual, they can do the paperwork and soon enough, Cathay will be positive speed control from 100 miles back and 20 mile finals alongside most of our Asian counterparts.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does throwing tea in the harbor constitute good manners?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, LHR and LGW also provide great ATC services but to call US third world? .... pompous perhaps?
US ATC expects professional pilots to be competent, proficient operators. If you pay attention to how some of the "questionable " Asian operators are handled in the US, you'll see that Cathay Pacific gets treated the same as most domestic airlines because traditionally, CX hired experience. If CNs are willing to sit and watch their 130hr Adelaide brushwingers butcher a visual, they can do the paperwork and soon enough, Cathay will be positive speed control from 100 miles back and 20 mile finals alongside most of our Asian counterparts.
US ATC expects professional pilots to be competent, proficient operators. If you pay attention to how some of the "questionable " Asian operators are handled in the US, you'll see that Cathay Pacific gets treated the same as most domestic airlines because traditionally, CX hired experience. If CNs are willing to sit and watch their 130hr Adelaide brushwingers butcher a visual, they can do the paperwork and soon enough, Cathay will be positive speed control from 100 miles back and 20 mile finals alongside most of our Asian counterparts.
Last edited by Dilbert68; 12th Sep 2019 at 21:27.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: crewbag
Age: 51
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, LHR and LGW also provide great ATC services but to call US third world? .... pompous perhaps?
US ATC expects professional pilots to be competent, proficient operators. If you pay attention to how some of the "questionable " Asian operators are handled in the US, you'll see that Cathay Pacific gets treated the same as most domestic airlines because traditionally, CX hired experience. If CNs are willing to sit and watch their 130hr Adelaide brushwingers butcher a visual, they can do the paperwork and soon enough, Cathay will be positive speed control from 100 miles back and 20 mile finals alongside most of our Asian counterparts.
US ATC expects professional pilots to be competent, proficient operators. If you pay attention to how some of the "questionable " Asian operators are handled in the US, you'll see that Cathay Pacific gets treated the same as most domestic airlines because traditionally, CX hired experience. If CNs are willing to sit and watch their 130hr Adelaide brushwingers butcher a visual, they can do the paperwork and soon enough, Cathay will be positive speed control from 100 miles back and 20 mile finals alongside most of our Asian counterparts.
But there is nothing in the current CX trajectory that indicates status quo. Like a gold reputation, it takes years to build and seconds to destroy.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: U.S.
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hah!!! You mean the airport where everyone follows RNAV transitions with specific speed controls to the final of widely-spaced ILS approaches? Where nearly the only arrival handling from the east is stepping aircraft down in a hold to join said transitions?? Go to ORD, JFK, LGA, EWR, SFO, etc if you want to watch talented controllers. I have flown to every continent except Antarctica, and while European controllers are typically competent and courteous, they are not as pressed as the approach controllers in those previously mentioned locations. England, center of the universe!!
