Air Canada non go-around at SFO
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Canada non go-around at SFO
This one just came up on the local news feed.
Federal Aviation Administration officials are investigating an incident at San Francisco International Airport involving an Air Canada plane.
The incident occurred Sunday night when Air Canada flight 781, an Airbus A320, wan preparing to land at SFO.
FAA spokesman Ian Gregor said air traffic control cleared the flight to land on Runway 28R. The Air Canada crew acknowledged the instruction when they were about 6 miles away from the airport, Gregor said.
"The tower controller subsequently instructed the Air Canada crew multiple times to execute a go-around because he was not certain that a preceding arrival would be completely clear of the runway before the Air Canada jet reached the runway threshold," Gregor said, adding the crew onboard the plan did not acknowledge any of the controller's instructions.
A supervisor then resorted to using a red light gun to alert the Air Canada flight to go around. Gregor said flashing a light gun is standard protocol when an air crew is not responding to radio instructions.
Air Canada flight 781 landed on Runway 284 at 9:26 p.m. The Air Canada crew after landing told the tower they had a radio problem, according to Gregor.
"A radar replay showed the preceding arrival was in fact clear of the runway when Air Canada landed," Gregor said.
The incident occurred Sunday night when Air Canada flight 781, an Airbus A320, wan preparing to land at SFO.
FAA spokesman Ian Gregor said air traffic control cleared the flight to land on Runway 28R. The Air Canada crew acknowledged the instruction when they were about 6 miles away from the airport, Gregor said.
"The tower controller subsequently instructed the Air Canada crew multiple times to execute a go-around because he was not certain that a preceding arrival would be completely clear of the runway before the Air Canada jet reached the runway threshold," Gregor said, adding the crew onboard the plan did not acknowledge any of the controller's instructions.
A supervisor then resorted to using a red light gun to alert the Air Canada flight to go around. Gregor said flashing a light gun is standard protocol when an air crew is not responding to radio instructions.
Air Canada flight 781 landed on Runway 284 at 9:26 p.m. The Air Canada crew after landing told the tower they had a radio problem, according to Gregor.
"A radar replay showed the preceding arrival was in fact clear of the runway when Air Canada landed," Gregor said.
Air canada, SFO, 28R, go-around...
I thought here we go again, somebody who doesn’t regularly read pprune posts an old new thread about something that has happened months ago.
But no! This is Air Canada again, on the same runway, same airport, same same same doing something they shouldn’t have.
What are the chances of that happening?
I thought here we go again, somebody who doesn’t regularly read pprune posts an old new thread about something that has happened months ago.
But no! This is Air Canada again, on the same runway, same airport, same same same doing something they shouldn’t have.
What are the chances of that happening?
ATC recording here:
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ks...2017-0400Z.mp3
AC781 is cleared to land at 21.41. The first go-around is at 23.46.
This kind of incident is bound to happen occasionally if aircraft are being cleared to land before the aircraft ahead has cleared the runway.
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ks...2017-0400Z.mp3
AC781 is cleared to land at 21.41. The first go-around is at 23.46.
This kind of incident is bound to happen occasionally if aircraft are being cleared to land before the aircraft ahead has cleared the runway.
The enthusiast-sourced ADS-B feed from SFO is pretty patchy and (as with last time around) the ACA A320 was a very early aircraft without GPS.
Notwithstanding that, it looks like the landing sequence was:
Southwest 3117 (28R)
Hawaiian 12 (28L)
Air Canada 781 (28R)
Again, subject to confirmation, it appears that the SWA 737-700 used the entire length of 28R before turning off at the far end. At the Bridge, it appeared to be about 1:20 ahead of the ACA (subject to the above caveats re the A320's ADS-B).
Notwithstanding that, it looks like the landing sequence was:
Southwest 3117 (28R)
Hawaiian 12 (28L)
Air Canada 781 (28R)
Again, subject to confirmation, it appears that the SWA 737-700 used the entire length of 28R before turning off at the far end. At the Bridge, it appeared to be about 1:20 ahead of the ACA (subject to the above caveats re the A320's ADS-B).
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not good!
Going NORDO after landing clearance is issued is very sloppy piloting. Even if the radio quits, you have two other radios. In a busy environment like SFO, if I don't hear anything for more than 30 seconds, I do a radio check!
I am sure they did not ignore the instructions deliberately, but c'mon fellas, were you trying to outdo your buddy and land on top of another aircraft?
Going NORDO after landing clearance is issued is very sloppy piloting. Even if the radio quits, you have two other radios. In a busy environment like SFO, if I don't hear anything for more than 30 seconds, I do a radio check!
I am sure they did not ignore the instructions deliberately, but c'mon fellas, were you trying to outdo your buddy and land on top of another aircraft?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And don't majors usually buy the enhancement package if they want to hold on to their older jets at all?
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
out of everyone
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they did have a radio failure, I can understand the decision to land in visual conditions. A go around in busy airspace without communication is no fun.
If they faked it, it was a very unprofessional and stupid decision, but why on earth would they do that?
If they faked it, it was a very unprofessional and stupid decision, but why on earth would they do that?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CHESTY trolling as usual. I recall, final approach into LHR, we were catching up the one ahead. Did all I could but still gaining, I prepared for a Go Around. ATC got in first and said "a/c call sign, Go Around, Go Around, I say again, Go Around". Didn't sound like a 'request' to me Chesty !
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC recording here:
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ks...2017-0400Z.mp3
AC781 is cleared to land at 21.41. The first go-around is at 23.46.
This kind of incident is bound to happen occasionally if aircraft are being cleared to land before the aircraft ahead has cleared the runway.
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ks...2017-0400Z.mp3
AC781 is cleared to land at 21.41. The first go-around is at 23.46.
This kind of incident is bound to happen occasionally if aircraft are being cleared to land before the aircraft ahead has cleared the runway.
about the way that the USA ATCOs issue / treat a landing clearance!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landflap. I agree. I have always had respect for Chesty but disagree that ATC issues "requests"!! We all know that the pilot has the ultimate responsibility but ATC but ATC instructions are mandatory and if the pilot thinks otherwise then he'll be called to explain his actions later. Long ago I was up front on a 747 landing on 09L at Heathrow. We left the runway and ATC told us to take the "second left........" The captain said to the FO "take the first, it's easier". I suggested doing what ATC said as the crew didn't know if ATC might know something the crew didn't - like maybe a broken light fitting which could have burst tyres. They took the second intersection....
Only a humble SLF observation and I appreciate there is such a thing as a conditional clearance but giving someone clearance to land when the runway is occupied is typical of todays habits of using words with no meanings or ignoring the meaning of the words you actually use..
Surely 'You are cleared to land' means just that surely-ie there is nothing in front of you in the air or on the ground, no one is going to taxi or drive a vehicle across the runway -the way ahead is CLEAR. If any of those things are not true then you cannot be CLEAR to land for the simple reason that you are not , there are obstacles in the way so the whole issue becomes pretty pointless and an opening to have an accident at some point
Surely 'You are cleared to land' means just that surely-ie there is nothing in front of you in the air or on the ground, no one is going to taxi or drive a vehicle across the runway -the way ahead is CLEAR. If any of those things are not true then you cannot be CLEAR to land for the simple reason that you are not , there are obstacles in the way so the whole issue becomes pretty pointless and an opening to have an accident at some point
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some airports take it a step forward, they give land behind clearances.
In this case: Radio failure or no radio failure? That’s the question.
Logging on to ACARS when on 6 miles final? I don’t think so.
In this case: Radio failure or no radio failure? That’s the question.
Logging on to ACARS when on 6 miles final? I don’t think so.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK.
Posts: 4,391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pax, I agree.
In the RAF we were sometimes "Clear land - one on." but that was with the intention that two aircraft would simultaneously occupy the runway. In civil aviation that is not usually the case.
In the RAF we were sometimes "Clear land - one on." but that was with the intention that two aircraft would simultaneously occupy the runway. In civil aviation that is not usually the case.
