Air Canada non go-around at SFO
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Don’t have my charts here, but I believe SFO has them?
Don’t have my charts here, but I believe SFO has them?
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 Laser 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.)
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 Laser 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.)
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SF Bay area, CA USA
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Up high
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
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.
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.
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.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Below the stratosphere
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's another, they got a stuck mic on the readback of the landing clearance.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SF Bay area, CA USA
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"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.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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?
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?