|
CX SFO (main thread)
https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/...ssy-sfo-3.html
Interesting chat re CX in SFO (when?) Fatigue and cockpit experience being highlighted amongst other things. (A350) |
Visual
Cant you just hear and see the “deer in the headlights” look? “Cleared for the visual...”. Oh. Dear. What to do?!?! “Maintain visual separation.” Oh. Dear. What to do?!?!!’ My take after listening to the tape, and hearing the confusion and twice repeated, “say again,” and no, I wasn’t there, is that some pilots of big fancy planes with lots of pretty screens have simply forgotten how to fly. |
The only valid thing you said is that "you weren't there". There's a million possible situations they could have been dealing with that we don't know about and ATC was no help putting them into that situation. Not to mention it's at the end of a 12 hour flight. I'm sure they can fly just fine.
|
Originally Posted by claraball
(Post 10563042)
The only valid thing you said is that "you weren't there". There's a million possible situations they could have been dealing with that we don't know about and ATC was no help putting them into that situation. Not to mention it's at the end of a 12 hour flight. I'm sure they can fly just fine.
oh now come on, don’t inject reason and logic into the topic...... |
Not to mention they found themselves at 2000' between a United Jet and a hard place experiencing an RA. Never mind they maybe contributed to the problem they flew theirselves out of it into a go around and another successful approach. All a bit harder than in your C-152. So take a holiday from the judgemental train and try and recall something other than your glory days because I'm sure all of your failures and errors you're repressing are hiding down there somewhere.
|
Originally Posted by plainpilot11
(Post 10563025)
Cant you just hear and see the “deer in the headlights” look? “Cleared for the visual...”. Oh. Dear. What to do?!?! “Maintain visual separation.” Oh. Dear. What to do?!?!!’ My take after listening to the tape, and hearing the confusion and twice repeated, “say again,” and no, I wasn’t there, is that some pilots of big fancy planes with lots of pretty screens have simply forgotten how to fly. |
The unwillingness of CX pilots (as a group) to disconnect the AP and AT before fully configured on the LOC / GS final is appalling. Some don’t even feel comfortable not being in VNAV all the time. “Children of the magenta” couldn’t be more true. Many who once knew how to fly have allowed themselves to become similarly enslaved to automation. Such is the world of FDAP and a collective fear of going around. Bring back the handling sims... |
The Truth
Originally Posted by cxorcist
(Post 10564238)
The unwillingness of CX pilots (as a group) to disconnect the AP and AT before fully configured on the LOC / GS final is appalling. Some don’t even feel comfortable not being in VNAV all the time. “Children of the magenta” couldn’t be more true. Many who once knew how to fly have allowed themselves to become similarly enslaved to automation. Such is the world of FDAP and a collective fear of going around. Bring back the handling sims... |
The bottom line is that a ‘maintain visual separation’ clearance was accepted (which places the burden for separation on the pilot accepting it) and later violated (to the extent of causing an RA). In an extremely busy operating environment with multiple arrivals and departures happening on intersecting runways. The controllers at SFO do an outstanding job of moving traffic given a difficult puzzle and it’s a place where you really need to be at the top of your game. You’ve got parallel arrivals (and departures) to runways which intersect other departures around midfield — I’m not sure I’d want the job of timing and deconflicting there and my hat’s off to them. And there is very little training or proficiency maintained in hand flying the aircraft or operating to visual approaches in such an environment. How many of us routinely practice true visuals while hand flying or S-turning the aircraft to maintain proper spacing ? if you want to operate pax service to places like this you have to be up to the task of so doing. And be sure your operating crews maintain proficiency. Anyone can get task saturated or make a mistake. But IMHO we don’t much practice to skills which can be required with parallel approaches and reduced separation instead deferring these skills to automation and controllers. So you see stuff like this from time to time. |
Originally Posted by ACMS
(Post 10563221)
oh now come on, don’t inject reason and logic into the topic...... |
Originally Posted by plainpilot11
(Post 10564499)
reason and logic would dictate that the question has to be answered, “How did CX that was cleared for the visual 28L end up UNDERNEATH United that was cleared for 28R.” Taking into account the facts that they missed actually turning the airplane when they were supposed to, means yes they were distracted. Why? Maybe because they were trying to set up the box for a visual 28L, instead of leaving the ILS 28L and flying it as such? Regardless, they were heads down when they should have been heads up. Flying through the LOC in SFO for 28’s is asking for an in-flight, a tragedy that would have made Asiana’s look minor. The CX crew were not in “their own backyard” The CX crew had flown 12 hours through their night time and were arriving at a circadian low period. The CX crew may only do 2 to 3 PF sectors a month. The CX crew have to deal with many many different ATC systems all over the World and cannot be expected to be familiar or current on SFO’s quirky procedures that they may only be exposed to once every six months. The UA crew are exactly the opposite, flying a LOT of sectors in their own backyard and probably frequently into SFO. This is exactly why SFO ATC should NEVER use this type of visual approach with foreign Long Haul carriers....... ever. Some countries ATC will not allow visual approaches by foreign Carriers into their Airports following previous incidents for exactly the above reasons I mention above. |
Originally Posted by cxorcist
(Post 10564238)
The unwillingness of CX pilots (as a group) to disconnect the AP and AT before fully configured on the LOC / GS final is appalling. Some don’t even feel comfortable not being in VNAV all the time. “Children of the magenta” couldn’t be more true. Many who once knew how to fly have allowed themselves to become similarly enslaved to automation. Such is the world of FDAP and a collective fear of going around. Bring back the handling sims... ummmm we do mate, in the RT. |
Originally Posted by ACMS
(Post 10564801)
yes agree, now factor in that:- The CX crew were not in “their own backyard” The CX crew had flown 12 hours through their night time and were arriving at a circadian low period. The CX crew may only do 2 to 3 PF sectors a month. The CX crew have to deal with many many different ATC systems all over the World and cannot be expected to be familiar or current on SFO’s quirky procedures that they may only be exposed to once every six months. The UA crew are exactly the opposite, flying a LOT of sectors in their own backyard and probably frequently into SFO. This is exactly why SFO ATC should NEVER use this type of visual approach with foreign Long Haul carriers....... ever. Some countries ATC will not allow visual approaches by foreign Carriers into their Airports following previous incidents for exactly the above reasons I mention above. The problem is clear, how fixated we are in automation, how every approach needs to come down to an ILS or an RNAV RNP because God forbid we can't identify a glide slope fluctuation and manually correct it. Too many people flying without confidence in their own skills and this is the result. Fatigue?No sorry, usually this flt is a 2 FO's set up, with a proper relief crew. Unless they had a different crew complement.... Visual approach too complicated? All ATC asks in SFO is to maintain visual separation with a preceding traffic. We don't fly the Tip Toe or Quiet Bridge visuals, they clear us for an ILS "and please don't overtake the plane in front". ATC has done all the separation beforehand, all the pilot has to do is to maintain it. Majority of the airports in the US are always at capacity. Asking to have a 5 nm separation on the ILS and be the only one in the area only cause we are a foreign carrier is naive and makes us look bad. There are different levels of automation, and sometimes we gotta bring it down a notch, but crews are too scared to do it. That being said, I would expect the UA pilot to get some flak for not responding to an RA, that's just bad. As far as I know, according to the FAA, an RA requires immediate notification to the NTSB, so at some point in the future we may read something official about this |
Without trying to be a "Monday Morning Quarterback" (look it up), there are certain basic essential skills in this job (especially as a Captain). One of them is not infringing a parallel localizer in an airport such as SFO. Although the UA should also be held to account, we cannot be making errors like this. Needless to say, the prior post correctly identifies the main problem, one that will steadily get worse. When you replace experience, judgement and confidence with low time and rote learned computer warriors, you are simply counting down the days to disaster. Not this time, but soon enough. One day our senior management (and all their predecessors since about 1994) will have the blood of hundreds on their eternal consciences. There is no doubt on that point. Tick tock....
|
Originally Posted by run-a-way
(Post 10564834)
Except the initial clearance wasn't for a visual approach...First clearance is to intercept the LOC 28L from a 310 hdg. If that had been done correctly it would have resulted in a subsequent clearance for the whole ILS28L. The LOC was overshot and CX was ASKED if they were able to continue visually, cx said yes, atc gave the clearance for the visual. Clearly autopilot was never disconnected and the cx pilot was turning knobs fixating in getting a clearance for an ILS (cx asking if they cleared for the ils, pilot asking has a different accent from the one who did the radio up until then).
The problem is clear, how fixated we are in automation, how every approach needs to come down to an ILS or an RNAV RNP because God forbid we can't identify a glide slope fluctuation and manually correct it. Too many people flying without confidence in their own skills and this is the result. Fatigue?No sorry, usually this flt is a 2 FO's set up, with a proper relief crew. Unless they had a different crew complement.... Visual approach too complicated? All ATC asks in SFO is to maintain visual separation with a preceding traffic. We don't fly the Tip Toe or Quiet Bridge visuals, they clear us for an ILS "and please don't overtake the plane in front". ATC has done all the separation beforehand, all the pilot has to do is to maintain it. Majority of the airports in the US are always at capacity. Asking to have a 5 nm separation on the ILS and be the only one in the area only cause we are a foreign carrier is naive and makes us look bad. There are different levels of automation, and sometimes we gotta bring it down a notch, but crews are too scared to do it. That being said, I would expect the UA pilot to get some flak for not responding to an RA, that's just bad. As far as I know, according to the FAA, an RA requires immediate notification to the NTSB, so at some point in the future we may read something official about this Considering the management believes that Airbus's are not designed to be hand flown probably says alot right there. |
Originally Posted by mngmt mole
(Post 10564873)
Without trying to be a "Monday Morning Quarterback" (look it up), there are certain basic essential skills in this job (especially as a Captain). One of them is not infringing a parallel localizer in an airport such as SFO. Although the UA should also be held to account, we cannot be making errors like this. Needless to say, the prior post correctly identifies the main problem, one that will steadily get worse. When you replace experience, judgement and confidence with low time and rote learned computer warriors, you are simply counting down the days to disaster. Not this time, but soon enough. One day our senior management (and all their predecessors since about 1994) will have the blood of hundreds on their eternal consciences. There is no doubt on that point. Tick tock....
The infrastructure at SFO is not ideal, but it isn’t changing anytime soon due to environmental regulations. Airlines have operated safely there for decades using simultaneous parallel visuals and departures off the ones. CX and other Asian carriers are almost always given the easier assignment, which is straight in while domestic carriers get the visual following traffic. Par usual, CX makes mountains outta molehills. |
All they did was forget to arm LOC And really? All this pussy footing around? Grow a pair.. they’re supposed to be international jet big boys nearly puked listening to those bs excuses. |
I am with blunderbus....i heard the atc video, my take is they just didnt arm loc...doesnt matter visual, tired or any other bs blah blah excuse. United should get a kick in the ass for ignoring a RA. The brief for sfo is high threat close parallel ops....i.e dont fly thru the runway....jesus just try seattle with 3 runways and they cross you high across two northern runways and then ditch you capture from above maintain visual separation.....”u visual cathay?”...... |
Originally Posted by Scoreboard
(Post 10565299)
I am with blunderbus....i heard the atc video, my take is they just didnt arm loc...doesnt matter visual, tired or any other bs blah blah excuse. United should get a kick in the ass for ignoring a RA. The brief for sfo is high threat close parallel ops....i.e dont fly thru the runway....jesus just try seattle with 3 runways and they cross you high across two northern runways and then ditch you capture from above maintain visual separation.....”u visual cathay?”...... 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. |
I think it’s great how everyone seems able to offer solutions as to how they would have done things better, despite not being there. I also think it’s great that everyone here seems to think they are far better pilots and something like this couldn't happen to them, due to their 'sky-god' like abilities.
Until a report is released that details all the facts, we sadly won't be able to learn much from this as it stands. I bet every single pilot who has ever taken to the skies has made numerous mistakes/slips/errors call them what you like, for all manner of reasons. Just like the Air France crash - I always say ‘there but for the grace of god go I’. People say, ‘oh well all they had to do was disconnect the AP and push forward and recover the stall’. None of us can imagine the panic and confusion that was occurring in that cockpit. The fact is that there are errors we have made and know about and there are errors that we haven't even thought about waiting to happen. Slating other pilots and colleagues doesn't help to prevent accidents and mistakes from happening. |
Originally Posted by Natca
(Post 10565314)
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. |
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. |
Originally Posted by Eyes only
(Post 10565577)
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. |
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. |
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 |
Originally Posted by Bleve
(Post 10566707)
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..’ |
Originally Posted by Oasis
(Post 10566942)
do you mean; don’t report the ‘field in sight’? Because that is the prompt before giving you the visual usually. either way, even if they give it to you, you can always say, ‘negative, requests vectors for the Ils..’ |
Originally Posted by Oasis
(Post 10566942)
do you mean; don’t report the ‘field in sight’? Because that is the prompt before giving you the visual usually. either way, even if they give it to you, you can always say, ‘negative, requests vectors for the Ils..’ |
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.
|
Originally Posted by claraball
(Post 10567167)
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.
|
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. |
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 |
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.
|
“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.
Originally Posted by Slasher1
(Post 10567462)
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. |
Originally Posted by rsb
(Post 10567949)
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. |
Originally Posted by rsb
(Post 10567949)
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by Apple Tree Yard
(Post 10567962)
With the odd notable exception, I sadly have to agree with that description. Most of them need to be seconded to LHR ATC for 6 months to obtain an understanding of how professionals do that job (and to learn a few manners).
|
Originally Posted by bm330
(Post 10567965)
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. |
Originally Posted by bm330
(Post 10567965)
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by Apple Tree Yard
(Post 10567962)
With the odd notable exception, I sadly have to agree with that description. Most of them need to be seconded to LHR ATC for 6 months to obtain an understanding of how professionals do that job (and to learn a few manners).
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:55. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.