Cathay messy in SFO
In many parts of the USA, pilots will often operate with TCAS in TA mode to avoid 'nuisance' RA because of parallel runway ops, mixed GA traffic etc. and the operators think this is quite acceptable as the airspace is designated as congested. The chances are that the UAL aircraft never got an RA because the automatics were not enabled. The danger comes when these guys operate over in Europe, which the US regards as congested in all areas, so it is quite possible that one half of a conflict is only receiving TA. So long as the other party follows the RA adequate separation should result, though the experts might be able to point out circumstances where this may not be good enough.
Why the rush to conclusion? Hopefully you saw the numerous references that debunked your "chances are" assumption.
Also, what parts of the USA do crews operate in TA mode? A mate telling you doesn't count.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In many parts of the USA, pilots will often operate with TCAS in TA mode to avoid 'nuisance' RA because of parallel runway ops, mixed GA traffic etc. and the operators think this is quite acceptable as the airspace is designated as congested. The chances are that the UAL aircraft never got an RA because the automatics were not enabled. The danger comes when these guys operate over in Europe, which the US regards as congested in all areas, so it is quite possible that one half of a conflict is only receiving TA. So long as the other party follows the RA adequate separation should result, though the experts might be able to point out circumstances where this may not be good enough.
wrong on many points. “The danger comes when in Europe?” Why? ”These guys...”. Seriously? We don’t operate in TA mode like you suggest. There are some GA airports with very closely spaced runways and if you are in day VMC... And you have the traffic in sight... then... you can select TA. This is not as common as you suggest. Or without restrictions, as you suggest.
In many parts of the USA, pilots will often operate with TCAS in TA mode to avoid 'nuisance' RA because of parallel runway ops, mixed GA traffic etc. and the operators think this is quite acceptable as the airspace is designated as congested. The chances are that the UAL aircraft never got an RA because the automatics were not enabled. The danger comes when these guys operate over in Europe, which the US regards as congested in all areas, so it is quite possible that one half of a conflict is only receiving TA. So long as the other party follows the RA adequate separation should result, though the experts might be able to point out circumstances where this may not be good enough.
Every 121 operator is required to have TCAS, and not in TA only mode. Every RA is required to be followed (if the UAL crew didn’t they will absolutely get a call from their safety department). When we go to Europe, we behave just like the rest of you.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a European-trained Controller I watch that video and R/T with some bemused feelings. Instructing one a/c "maintain visual " and let 2 heavies get so close on radar without saying something is remarkable.
In this scenario only the Cathay could maintain visual since he was behind the United all the time. I guess this situation is a daily thing for the SFO controllers and working well 99% of the time , and basically this is what you get when you want to move the traffic they do in parallel runways.
I flew a couple of times into Oshkosh ( again a few weeks ago) and the approach there not what you will call "European" but it works., and works very well even . Respect..But to get there you need to read a 30 pages instruction booklet beforehand.
I am not so sure the foreign airlines crews operating in say SFO , have all read and understood the booklet ( if there is one) on the local procedures and the differences between US ATC and their home turf.
In this scenario only the Cathay could maintain visual since he was behind the United all the time. I guess this situation is a daily thing for the SFO controllers and working well 99% of the time , and basically this is what you get when you want to move the traffic they do in parallel runways.
I flew a couple of times into Oshkosh ( again a few weeks ago) and the approach there not what you will call "European" but it works., and works very well even . Respect..But to get there you need to read a 30 pages instruction booklet beforehand.
I am not so sure the foreign airlines crews operating in say SFO , have all read and understood the booklet ( if there is one) on the local procedures and the differences between US ATC and their home turf.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I Wish I Knew
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instructing the aircraft below (CPA) to break off the approach and climb through the aircraft above (UAL) in such close proximity with the higher aircraft completely unable to see the other one seems like a questionable decision by ATC.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instructing the aircraft below (CPA) to break off the approach and climb through the aircraft above (UAL) in such close proximity with the higher aircraft completely unable to see the other one seems like a questionable decision by ATC.
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: London
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC workload? Can't believe someone was actively watching that radar and failing to advise. Is VASAviation simulation accurate?
Perhaps the parallel runways at SFO so close that ATC are used to seeing traces almost on top of each other, hence lack of concern?
Is it just me or have there been rather a lot of incidents recently at SFO? Seem to be a number of factors making it one of the higher risk airports at the moment. What could be done to fix it?
Perhaps the parallel runways at SFO so close that ATC are used to seeing traces almost on top of each other, hence lack of concern?
Is it just me or have there been rather a lot of incidents recently at SFO? Seem to be a number of factors making it one of the higher risk airports at the moment. What could be done to fix it?
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not uncommon to get a RA on final in SFO when doing closely spaced visual approaches. Standard procedures are continue if the parallel traffic is in site.
In this case it would have been wise for ATC to break off United and climb them away as it became apparent CPA had not complied with the last instruction and had lost SA.
In this case it would have been wise for ATC to break off United and climb them away as it became apparent CPA had not complied with the last instruction and had lost SA.
Guys,
Without reference to the above incident may I suggest that those of you that are not aware of the Eurocontrol ACAS Bulletins take a look at them here https://www.eurocontrol.int/search?k...blication_date
They are very good reading and start with No 1. They are published periodically so there are quite a few now and you will not read them all in one sitting but they are really worth reading for all pilots on both sides of the pond.
MM
Without reference to the above incident may I suggest that those of you that are not aware of the Eurocontrol ACAS Bulletins take a look at them here https://www.eurocontrol.int/search?k...blication_date
They are very good reading and start with No 1. They are published periodically so there are quite a few now and you will not read them all in one sitting but they are really worth reading for all pilots on both sides of the pond.
MM
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFO 28L/R is separated by 750' between centerlines (enviros won't let them move the runway over). When doing visuals expect to be paired up with parellel traffic. If one aircraft is slightly faster and closing or correcting to their G/S it can trigger a RA. If your told to follow but do not pass that's because your paired aircraft is slightly ahead of you and doesn't have you insight.
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Sudbury, Suffolk
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there's traffic you not aware of by all means comply with the RA.
SFO 28L/R is separated by 750' between centerlines (enviros won't let them move the runway over). When doing visuals expect to be paired up with parellel traffic. If one aircraft is slightly faster and closing or correcting to their G/S it can trigger a RA. If your told to follow but do not pass that's because your paired aircraft is slightly ahead of you and doesn't have you insight.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: US
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
occur due to the simultaneous closely spaced arrivals. ATC gives the instruction “report the traffic in sight”
when the pilot says “in sight” the controller will then state “maintain VISUAL separation cleared for the visual”. At that point the separation is among the pilots. Technique is to turn to TA only to avoid nuisance RA. That is approved UA procedure. If you don’t like that procedure you will go around and around and around on each approach to SFO. Pairing up and flying near the other plane is SOP for SFO. If you can’t fly the plane and adhere to instructions maybe it’s not the airport or the other airlines fault you are having difficulties.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Canada
Age: 40
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My airline suggests we use TA only at the several airports like SFO when you get close to other airplanes. If you forgot and you get an RA you are required to follow it. Surprised the UAL guys kept going with CPA flying under them.
Scary hearing the lack of SA onboard CPA. Seems those guys need a bit more time bombing around in a small airplane. When ATC clears them for a visual 28L follow the UAL jet, things should have been easier, but instead it seems it made it harder. Easiest thing should have been, AP off, FD off, A/THR off and fly the airplane. Instead it was painful listening to those guys, sounded very overwhelmed. How much experience are Cathay pilots being hired with these days?
Scary hearing the lack of SA onboard CPA. Seems those guys need a bit more time bombing around in a small airplane. When ATC clears them for a visual 28L follow the UAL jet, things should have been easier, but instead it seems it made it harder. Easiest thing should have been, AP off, FD off, A/THR off and fly the airplane. Instead it was painful listening to those guys, sounded very overwhelmed. How much experience are Cathay pilots being hired with these days?
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The elephant in the room here is why can't major international crews fly a visual?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’ve never been anywhere in the world as busy as some US corridors. It’s amazing to me how great the controllers are in New York. You have Newark, Kennedy, La Guardia, and teterboro all within a stones throw. I think there are some regional ATC differences for the environment... but it’s very spelled out on visual approaches, spacing, and TAs. That’s not the difference. SFO is also a busy airspace with OAK and SJC and a lot of GA. CX accepted the visual and they probably shouldn’t have. Tired. Long Duty... sun in the eyes. I’m not sure what happened. ATC and UA crews also interacted. It’s a lot of moving parts and not black and white. What’s missing is the visual from the cockpit. We don’t know what the crews saw or didn’t see. So all the speculation is worthless.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My airline suggests we use TA only at the several airports like SFO when you get close to other airplanes. If you forgot and you get an RA you are required to follow it. Surprised the UAL guys kept going with CPA flying under them.
Scary hearing the lack of SA onboard CPA. Seems those guys need a bit more time bombing around in a small airplane. When ATC clears them for a visual 28L follow the UAL jet, things should have been easier, but instead it seems it made it harder. Easiest thing should have been, AP off, FD off, A/THR off and fly the airplane. Instead it was painful listening to those guys, sounded very overwhelmed. How much experience are Cathay pilots being hired with these days?
Scary hearing the lack of SA onboard CPA. Seems those guys need a bit more time bombing around in a small airplane. When ATC clears them for a visual 28L follow the UAL jet, things should have been easier, but instead it seems it made it harder. Easiest thing should have been, AP off, FD off, A/THR off and fly the airplane. Instead it was painful listening to those guys, sounded very overwhelmed. How much experience are Cathay pilots being hired with these days?
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even without the objections of the "enviros," the neighbors can be counted on to almost universally, very loudly, and very effectively oppose runway expansion. They always do and, so far, they always win.
The environmental issues are hardly trivial, either. Fully a third of SF Bay has been filled (and much of it been built on) since the mid-nineteenth century. That's a big deal and current law prevents filling more of it without major environmental impact review and restoring previously-filled wetlands elsewhere in the Bay. Difficult and expensive.
There should be plenty of slots available at KOAK and KSJC.
cappt
"B/S! Move 28R a couple hundred feet out further into the bay. The current 28R can become bay again with little overall loss of San Francisco Bay."
You saying move it north 200'?, where would the GA terminal go?, the Coast Guard Station?, the tank farm to the NW?, the takeoff path would then be even closer to the San Bruno "mountain"...... you are the one with B/S.
f
"B/S! Move 28R a couple hundred feet out further into the bay. The current 28R can become bay again with little overall loss of San Francisco Bay."
You saying move it north 200'?, where would the GA terminal go?, the Coast Guard Station?, the tank farm to the NW?, the takeoff path would then be even closer to the San Bruno "mountain"...... you are the one with B/S.
f
