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

Cathay messy in 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.

Cathay messy in SFO

Old 3rd Sep 2019, 00:22
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 4,007
Received 15 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by Fortissimo
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.
West Coast is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2019, 00:34
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fortissimo
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. ďThe danger comes when in Europe?Ē Why? ĒThese guys...Ē. Seriously? We donít 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.
cessnaxpilot is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2019, 06:56
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Age: 56
Posts: 925
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fortissimo
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.
yeah, pull the other one.....
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 didnít they will absolutely get a call from their safety department). When we go to Europe, we behave just like the rest of you.
hans brinker is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2019, 07:13
  #24 (permalink)  
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.
ATC Watcher is online now  
Old 3rd Sep 2019, 10:39
  #25 (permalink)  
 
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.
Mad As A Mad Thing is online now  
Old 3rd Sep 2019, 11:32
  #26 (permalink)  
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.
I thought so as well (still European thinking) but remember Cathay was told at least twice to maintain visual separation , was definitively behind ,1500 ft lower. 10 kts slower and given a diverging heading , no real chances of collision .
ATC Watcher is online now  
Old 3rd Sep 2019, 11:50
  #27 (permalink)  
 
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?
PerPurumTonantes is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2019, 12:31
  #28 (permalink)  
 
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.
cappt is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2019, 12:47
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: England
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
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
Miles Magister is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2019, 13:16
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 67
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
cappt, I hope you don’t operate into Sydney. An RA is an RA.
Never ever been trained to second guess it.
What if there is traffic you’re not aware of?
George Glass is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2019, 16:24
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by George Glass
cappt, I hope you donít operate into Sydney. An RA is an RA.
Never ever been trained to second guess it.
What if there is traffic youíre not aware of?
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.
cappt is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2019, 16:37
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Sudbury, Suffolk
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cappt


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.
Errrrr how will you are not aware of it if you are not aware of it?
Maninthebar is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2019, 17:17
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: US
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by George Glass
cappt, I hope you donít operate into Sydney. An RA is an RA.
Never ever been trained to second guess it.
What if there is traffic youíre not aware of?
In SFO the runways are closely spaced. An RA will
occur due to the simultaneous closely spaced arrivals. ATC gives the instruction ďreport the traffic in sightĒ
when the pilot says ďin sightĒ the controller will then state ďmaintain VISUAL separation cleared for the visualĒ. 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 donít 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 canít fly the plane and adhere to instructions maybe itís not the airport or the other airlines fault you are having difficulties.
lambourne is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2019, 18:33
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: California
Posts: 345
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
cappt
Blaming the "enviros" for the runway situation at SFO is totally off course, where would another runway go?.
There is no room at SFO.!
f
fleigle is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2019, 18:36
  #35 (permalink)  
 
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?
CanadianAirbusPilot is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2019, 18:40
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by fleigle
cappt
Blaming the "enviros" for the runway situation at SFO is totally off course, where would another runway go?.
There is no room at SFO.!
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.
The elephant in the room here is why can't major international crews fly a visual?
cappt is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2019, 18:52
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Iíve never been anywhere in the world as busy as some US corridors. Itís 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 itís very spelled out on visual approaches, spacing, and TAs. Thatís 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 shouldnít have. Tired. Long Duty... sun in the eyes. Iím not sure what happened. ATC and UA crews also interacted. Itís a lot of moving parts and not black and white. Whatís missing is the visual from the cockpit. We donít know what the crews saw or didnít see. So all the speculation is worthless.
cessnaxpilot is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2019, 23:30
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CanadianAirbusPilot
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?
personally I suspect the only experience the CX pilots may have been lacking is the experience of sleep
ironbutt57 is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2019, 01:19
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
That's just not going to happen. Various versions of the battle have been going on since I was a kid in Foster City, with aircraft on final to 28 L/R skimming overhead "almost within reach." That was a very long time ago.

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.
OldnGrounded is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2019, 02:27
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: California
Posts: 345
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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
fleigle is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.