Air Canada non go-around at SFO
Originally Posted by Uplinker
During the approach brief (clue: you're already airborne) would you rather have someone droning on for 5 mins about all the things you can both read on the approach plate, (and have flown hundreds of times), or would a better use of time be to think about the unlikely stuff: baulked landings, brake failure, discontinued approaches, Comms failures etc.?
OK, I'll grant you ONE of the latter list. Otherwise we'll talk ourselves to an early grave. PS: I note you didn't mention any of the really important stuff: unique characteristics of that airport/approach that might get might get you into strife or MEL considerations.
underfire,
I don’t think anyone is arguing that they HEARD the tower instruction and ignored. The issue is how did they NOT hear it? I cannot conceive of a crew hearing that transmission eight times and just landing.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that they HEARD the tower instruction and ignored. The issue is how did they NOT hear it? I cannot conceive of a crew hearing that transmission eight times and just landing.
Regardless of how the crew failed to hear the go-around instructions, occasional incidents like this are inevitable, if US ATC persists in giving landing clearances, before the runway is clear!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with that completely India.
I do not understand why the rules regarding that are not changed. It is dangerous. Just because it has worked until now doesn't mean it's a good idea.
While we are at it we should also change rules regarding runway crossing clearances to avoid incursion incidents due to radio failures and morons who don't pay attention.
Mom always told me look both ways before crossing the street, you'd think people would do the same before landing or entering a runway but...
I do not understand why the rules regarding that are not changed. It is dangerous. Just because it has worked until now doesn't mean it's a good idea.
While we are at it we should also change rules regarding runway crossing clearances to avoid incursion incidents due to radio failures and morons who don't pay attention.
Mom always told me look both ways before crossing the street, you'd think people would do the same before landing or entering a runway but...
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Asia
Age: 35
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is nothing wrong with giving landing clearance before the runway is clear. Any competent pilots would scan the runway on short final before landing.
Also, I have many captains taxing onto runway without ever bothering to check the final.
Also, I have many captains taxing onto runway without ever bothering to check the final.
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: England
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mere SLF here, but surely there's more to having a safe runway ahead than a lack of aircraft? If the preceding a/c left a contaminated runway, or there's a vehicle about to make a runway incursion, there is no way for pilots to know this visually.
Well, but this incident happened at night – 9.26pm, according to post #1.
Often at a busy airport the following a/c lands very soon after the preceding a/c enters the high speed exit. If the preceding a/c unexpectedly leaves contamination behind it at night, then unless its crew knows something's fallen off and calls the tower instantly, neither ATC nor the following crew can be aware of the contamination anyway. OTOH, if the preceding crew know beforehand that their a/c is likely to cause contamination, they'll have said so long before landing, and there'll be an emergency in effect. Although it seems this AC crew wasn't hearing the tower frequency, so if either of the above had happened, they wouldn't have known ...
If there's a vehicle about to make a runway incursion at night then (a) it'd have visible lights, (b) before entering a runway, IMHO any sensible vehicle driver (or pilot) should routinely look for traffic on the runway and up the approach.
Often at a busy airport the following a/c lands very soon after the preceding a/c enters the high speed exit. If the preceding a/c unexpectedly leaves contamination behind it at night, then unless its crew knows something's fallen off and calls the tower instantly, neither ATC nor the following crew can be aware of the contamination anyway. OTOH, if the preceding crew know beforehand that their a/c is likely to cause contamination, they'll have said so long before landing, and there'll be an emergency in effect. Although it seems this AC crew wasn't hearing the tower frequency, so if either of the above had happened, they wouldn't have known ...
If there's a vehicle about to make a runway incursion at night then (a) it'd have visible lights, (b) before entering a runway, IMHO any sensible vehicle driver (or pilot) should routinely look for traffic on the runway and up the approach.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It also moves traffic. The USA has a heck of a lot more traffic to move than Europe. The controllers use anticipated separation to make the calls. Good controllers will move traffic like a maestro conducting an orchestra. You go to ORD, LAX, JFK or ATL and everyone is moving in synch, from approach all the way to the local controller.
The Air Canada crew made an error. They missed calls. It wasn't serious this time and it could have been a simple switching error but it was an error. They don't deserve to get hung but someone needs to figure out just what happened. You can't learn from your mistakes if you don't know the mistake you made.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An AC flight was instructed to go around at close to midnight when the ASDE alarm sounded for a runway conflict. They heard the call but didn't think it was for them and landed. The alarm was caused by a driverless vehicle rolling off the ramp and onto the threshold of the runway when the aircraft was on very short final. It had lights on (beacon allegedly sub-standard) but was not seen by the crew. A fortuitous outcome.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: lisboa
Age: 48
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ever been to Toronto? We use it all the time with some modifications from our friends to the south. Arrivals can be cleared to land when not number one but we cannot put a departure in between and use multiple landing clearances.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: 64N, 020E
Age: 56
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC saved the day
If the visualization by VASAviation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXNWwKx9c1o is anything to go by, it looks like the situation started when the previous aircraft, SWA3117, exited via TANGO instead of DELTA. Since UAL2065 was already on TANGO, holding short of the also active 28L, I guess the controller was concerned that the tail of SWA3117 would be too close to 28R. When AC781 failed to acknowledge the go-around, the controller solved the problem by a) asking UAL2065 to - without delay - cross 28L despite company on 2 mile final and b) asking SWA3117 to pull all the way up to the 28L hold line. Both instructions in a rather hurried voice... So, some quick thinking by ATC meant that the runway was clear when AC781 touched down.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Wet Coast, Canuckland
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lesson to all Airbus pilots:
This is what could happen to you when you’re not careful while using remote tuning on your radio management panels. (...and good old Murphy happens to be riding the jump seat )
This is what could happen to you when you’re not careful while using remote tuning on your radio management panels. (...and good old Murphy happens to be riding the jump seat )
Last edited by hr2pilot; 9th Nov 2017 at 03:23.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw the same at CDG, unless LVP in progress