Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Air Canada non go-around at SFO

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Air Canada non go-around at SFO

Old 25th Oct 2017, 20:20
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 628
Runway status lights

Regarding a quick fix for light signals in a commfail situation, a lot of places in the states now have runway status lights. Why not add a manual switch for those on the tower?
Donít have my charts here, but I believe SFO has them?
golfyankeesierra is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2017, 23:10
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,320
As I said previously, the issue was an ATC instruction rather than a clearance.

Deviating around a TRW because you can't get a word in is deviating from a clearance, and can be justified.

"Go around Acme 999," is an instruction, not a clearance.

As to suits that don't understand flying having written this stuff, well, I think they understood it all quite well. I can only speak about my company; we took it quite seriously. I am speaking of an FAA FAR in the U.S., not in a primitive ATC system in Backwater, Africa.
aterpster is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2017, 00:16
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 68
Posts: 3,345
Don’t know the ‘Bus, but is it possible the crew accidentally selected the last frequency by flipping the active to standby switch. If Airbii have that radio switch. That’d explain it and it’s been done before.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2017, 00:57
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,320
Seems like that is down the probability list. But, who knows in our speculative world here
aterpster is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2017, 04:36
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 33
Perhaps Transport Canada should look at crew rest issues a bit more closer!

Fatigued PM sets the Ground freq. on the STBY head, but inadvertently flips the switch.
Tired pilots fail to recognize the absence of any transmissions from the Tower for the next several minutes, nor they see Southwest still on the runway, or that annoying [email protected] like red light shining from the Tower!
When they go to flip the switch to 121.8, they realize they have been there all along.
Not that I have ever done a stupid thing like that, except once!
(5AM, JFK, after a 14 hour flight.)
787PIC is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2017, 04:50
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SF Bay area, CA USA
Posts: 254
I'm enjoying NOT, all the mental gymnastics and contortions to explain what in all probability was the ignoring of eight pleadings of the local controller to GO-AROUND.

Sorry.

"Fatigued PM sets the Ground freq. on the STBY head, but inadvertently flips the switch."

You can't sit on ground frequency at SFO at that time of night and not know you are on ground, I believe.

Last edited by jack11111; 26th Oct 2017 at 05:23. Reason: Added thought.
jack11111 is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2017, 05:22
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: LFBZ (for a while)
Posts: 731
I'm with jack111111. They didn't want to go around, they were sure the runway would clear in time, so they just watched carefully and landed. Then they invented some random story about radio problems. Why would they be fiddling with radios on short final?

As for the red light, have you ever actually seen one of these things even when you're trying, even when you know exactly where the tower is and you're staring at it? I confess that on the one occasion when I landed nordo, after a total electrical failure on take off, I completely failed to look for a green (or red) light. Bit busy aviating, getting the gear down with the manual pump, etc etc.
n5296s is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2017, 06:29
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Up high
Posts: 555
Since you where not there to see what happened it is extremely disrespectful to fellow professionals to essentially call them liars with NO evidence whatsoever.

There are many ways in which this can happen. I give you another one:

The radio volume is selected on and off by a press switch but it is overridden to on if the transmit button is selected in the comms panel. VHF 1 radio volume is off but as the panel is on transmit on VHF1 the sound from that radio can be heard. After the cleared to land the pilot presses the PA transmit button to make the "CC take you seats for landing" (or what ever AC equivalent call) then forgets to go back to VHF1 transmit. The VHF1 volume will then be off and the GA instruction can no be heard. After landing they look down and oops, realises the error. Presses VHF1 transmit again and they are back in the loop.
Elephant and Castle is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2017, 09:52
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 72
Posts: 562
E&C, which do you think is of greater concern?

1. That the crew deliberately ignored the g.a. instruction.

2. In error the crew disables the VHF preventing the ATC communicating with them on short finals.
roving is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2017, 13:30
  #90 (permalink)  
bpp
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Diego, CA., USA
Posts: 57
How about available red centerline lights controlled by the tower for both day and night?
bpp is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2017, 14:03
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Up high
Posts: 555
People jumping to conclusions without any knowledge of the facts concern me the most
Elephant and Castle is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2017, 16:41
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 56
Posts: 31
Actually, there are plenty of facts available. To state jumping to conclusions without any knowledge of facts is an erroneous statement itself.

Just like trying to land on the taxiway, on radio one minute and on radio immediately on landing, but the crew stated "there is something going on with the radio" that prevented them hearing GA...does one always call tower once on the ground to report radio problems?....more stories that dont add up.

Then there is the CVR issue....

but there is nothing to suggest they weren't looking at the runway ensuring it remained clear and safe to land.
based on? ATC was telling them to GA, and they did not give a reason. What if the previous aircraft was taking long to vacate because of a blown tire on landing? In your visual, can you see FOD on the runway, at night?

EDIT: For those of you looking at flashing lights, flares, and other scenarios, there is the FAROS system being tested by the FAA. I beleive it is installed at DFW...

Final Approach Runway Occupancy Signal (FAROS) is an FAA-sponsored concept, which is now being deployed for operational evaluation in the USA, as part of the overall enhancement of safety nets designed to reduce Runway Incursion hazards.
It works by providing a visual signal to aircraft on final approach to land that the runway ahead is occupied by another aircraft or a vehicle. This is done by adapting the PAPI or VASI system to alter from steady lights to flashing mode whilst the identified hazard remains. Externally, the PAPI or VASI system is unaltered and continues to function normally in its primary role as an angle of approach awareness indicator whether or not a FAROS input has temporarily caused the flashing mode to activate.

Last edited by underfire; 26th Oct 2017 at 17:04.
underfire is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2017, 18:25
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,320
Originally Posted by n5296s View Post

As for the red light, have you ever actually seen one of these things even when you're trying, even when you know exactly where the tower is and you're staring at it?
The red light was simply the controller (correctly) trying to fill in all the squares so he would have a bottle of water at the hearing. Can't blame him a bit. He probably had little expectation that it would be seen by the flight crew.
aterpster is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2017, 22:16
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Denver
Age: 53
Posts: 85
Originally Posted by Elephant and Castle View Post
Since you where not there to see what happened it is extremely disrespectful to fellow professionals to essentially call them liars with NO evidence whatsoever.

There are many ways in which this can happen. I give you another one:

The radio volume is selected on and off by a press switch but it is overridden to on if the transmit button is selected in the comms panel. VHF 1 radio volume is off but as the panel is on transmit on VHF1 the sound from that radio can be heard. After the cleared to land the pilot presses the PA transmit button to make the "CC take you seats for landing" (or what ever AC equivalent call) then forgets to go back to VHF1 transmit. The VHF1 volume will then be off and the GA instruction can no be heard. After landing they look down and oops, realises the error. Presses VHF1 transmit again and they are back in the loop.
On the A320 the transmit and receive are separated controls. Both pilots would have VHF1 receive selected, transmitting on any other position (including PA) doesnít change that.
hans brinker is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2017, 22:28
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Below the stratosphere
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by n5296s View Post
As for the red light, have you ever actually seen one of these things even when you're trying, even when you know exactly where the tower is and you're staring at it? I confess that on the one occasion when I landed nordo, after a total electrical failure on take off, I completely failed to look for a green (or red) light. Bit busy aviating, getting the gear down with the manual pump, etc etc.
Though I'm not a professional pilot, my experience of having a radio failure in the pattern and landing at a large, but relatively quiet, international airport was that I selected 7600 and then very carefully flew base, final and landed.

On reporting in person, the ATCO said well done for observing the green light and not flying around the tower flashing landing lights etc.

Except I didn't see the light, so a fail on my part - and that was when I knew COM1/COM2 was non-functional.

So, there were 2 professional pilots onboard AC, with a much higher level of training and experience, but I can empathise - they were cleared to land and were focused on that - had they been under a 'continue approach, expect late landing clearance' conditional clearance, then I'd have less sympathy.
Three Thousand Rule is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2017, 04:38
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 658
Originally Posted by jack11111 View Post
I'm enjoying NOT, all the mental gymnastics and contortions to explain what in all probability was the ignoring of eight pleadings of the local controller to GO-AROUND.
Sorry, of all the hypotheses posted, this is the really dumb one.

Here's another, they got a stuck mic on the readback of the landing clearance.
Vessbot is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2017, 05:33
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SF Bay area, CA USA
Posts: 254
Vessbot wrote:
"Here's another, they got a stuck mic on the readback of the landing clearance."

A stuck mic would have resulted in a blocked frequency, which it clearly was not.
jack11111 is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2017, 14:26
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 51
SFO sure seems to have its fair share of incidents these days.

While in this case it looks like it is probably the fault of the aircraft or pilots, is there something about SFO's operation style that is inherently unsafe or prone to accidents? Not casting any stones here but do think it is worth some investigation as to whether or not procedures there are partly responsible for the relatively high incidence of dangerous incidents or accidents at SFO.
paradoxbox is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2017, 13:28
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,320
The configuration of the airport is lousy. There was a great plan to fix it, but it was voted down. Perhaps 10 years ago or so.
aterpster is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2017, 17:11
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: California
Posts: 343
The configuration may be "lousy" but it hasn't radically changed recently.
It appears from recent events that the people having problems with it have not been on top of their game.
It will be a very difficult job to separate the current distances between 28L and 28R, given the position of the airport.
A great majority of those users every day have not had problems, just AC recently with two.
Who do you blame?, the airport and its handlers?, or the aircrews, or their training?
fleigle is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.