Another SFO incident for AC (#3)?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They hold it in the same regard as you do with “cleared to land, number 3”.
It’s just what you’re used to.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As many have implied, at a busy airport, airmanship and S.A. are paramount. Let’s say the crew discovered the mistake pretty late (200ft for example). I’d say they’re better off scanning for traffic and landing if the runway is clear, than going missed.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last time I landed in SFO the landing clearance was issued on first contact with TWR even though the runway was subsequently occupied by other aircraft three times prior to us actually landing. It’s a conditional clearance but different to most countries in that the conditions are not stated. Like a lot of what happens in SFO it can throw you off your game a little as it is a bit out of the normal pattern.
For me, that early landing clearance actually sets my mind at ease. My intent is to land, and absent further instructions, I’m able to do so. Now, I don’t have to worry about landing without a clearance.
If TWR knew something they didn't (runway incursion, debris, who knows what all) and had cancelled the clearance it could have all turned to custard toot sweet
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listening to Live ATC, it seems the Canadian flight and the Tower were in contact shortly before landing. The audio is of poor quality so it is not 100% but it sounds like a couple of brief messages between them. However, a short while later, Tower can be heard instructing the Canadian to hold short of some point and there was no reply from the aircraft. Tower called him again to repeat the hold short instruction and there was a response from the aircraft. Interestingly, what was not apparent was anything along the lines of "who told you to land?"
Try it at KSFO Tower archive 3rd October between 19:21 and 19:24 UCT.
Try it at KSFO Tower archive 3rd October between 19:21 and 19:24 UCT.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yes, I am sure that this is [something like] what happened - and they seem to have reported themselves which is admirable. The bit I was challenging was the blase attitude of other posters.
If TWR knew something they didn't (runway incursion, debris, who knows what all) and had cancelled the clearance it could have all turned to custard toot sweet
If TWR knew something they didn't (runway incursion, debris, who knows what all) and had cancelled the clearance it could have all turned to custard toot sweet
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listening to Live ATC, it seems the Canadian flight and the Tower were in contact shortly before landing. The audio is of poor quality so it is not 100% but it sounds like a couple of brief messages between them. However, a short while later, Tower can be heard instructing the Canadian to hold short of some point and there was no reply from the aircraft. Tower called him again to repeat the hold short instruction and there was a response from the aircraft. Interestingly, what was not apparent was anything along the lines of "who told you to land?"
Try it at KSFO Tower archive 3rd October between 19:21 and 19:24 UCT.
Try it at KSFO Tower archive 3rd October between 19:21 and 19:24 UCT.
Please don’t take my replies here to mean that we go around landing without clearances every day, but most often in these scenarios, doing so is often the lesser of 2 evils.
Never flown in Europe, but most North American airline pilots would have operated at non-towered airports before (occasionally, even at an airline), so it’s really not that much of an uncomfortable situation.
At least in my base, low vis takeoff and landing gets way more briefing time. I haven’t done an approach in months, and apparently it’s already snowing up north!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the issue of not being on the right freq at SFO is not landing clearance (you can see for yourself if the runway is clear of obstacles) but more the possible loss of separation with close parallel approach or takeoffs from the intersection runway that abort (not sure whether the RSL will fix that one).
Who cares what it seems like, do you have any data that indicates it’s unsafe? Opinion isn’t fact nor data. The vast majority of the top 10 busiest busiest airports in the world successfully use anticipated separation daily.
it’s simply different than what you’re used to, not more safe or less safe, just different,
it’s simply different than what you’re used to, not more safe or less safe, just different,
To the point another made about getting told to line up behind, I didn’t realise that this was something that was prohibited under the FAA as I don’t operate in the USA. Although a line up behind clearance would never be issued with a secondary condition, it will be specific referring to the next landing aircraft and never something like ‘after the third company a319 on the approach at 15 miles, cleared to line up behind’. I imagine that clearance option came about as a lot of the European airports are a lot smaller. For example, My base has just 1 runway but still moves 50 million pax a year, SFO has 4 and only shifts a fraction more. Therefore arguably compromises are necessary due to the infrastructure limitations to keep things moving. I just don’t see the advantage in clearing someone to land with 3 aircraft ahead.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify, you’re not always cleared to land on initial contact with the tower.
Having been exposed to “line up behind” and “cleared to land no. 3” early in my career, I really don’t see a problem with either.
If you really want to have fun in the US, you can be cleared for a visual approach without having the field in sight.
conditions apply of course
Having been exposed to “line up behind” and “cleared to land no. 3” early in my career, I really don’t see a problem with either.
If you really want to have fun in the US, you can be cleared for a visual approach without having the field in sight.
conditions apply of course
I never said my post was fact, it is opinion. I am not the regulator, this is a forum for discussion. Although I am used to it do it most weeks in CDG, I still don’t like it. I just don’t see the advantage. You have the crew going, ‘were we cleared to land, I can’t remember? Oh yeah we checked in so we must be cleared to land’.
To the point another made about getting told to line up behind, I didn’t realise that this was something that was prohibited under the FAA as I don’t operate in the USA. Although a line up behind clearance would never be issued with a secondary condition, it will be specific referring to the next landing aircraft and never something like ‘after the third company a319 on the approach at 15 miles, cleared to line up behind’. I imagine that clearance option came about as a lot of the European airports are a lot smaller. For example, My base has just 1 runway but still moves 50 million pax a year, SFO has 4 and only shifts a fraction more. Therefore arguably compromises are necessary due to the infrastructure limitations to keep things moving. I just don’t see the advantage in clearing someone to land with 3 aircraft ahead.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: expat
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually like this system. It reduces radio congestion and you don’t have to worry about that late landing clearance being stepped on.
But there is a gotcha which may or may not be a factor in this case.. If you do miss the frequency change to TWR (which comes at quite a busy phase of configuration change etc) there is no memory trigger at the point you would normally (in other countries) expect a clearance. You are thinking ahead, not back where the error occurred
Yes I know there are other cues which should clue you in but the brain is a funny thing when it gets focussed on a task.
Anyway it's not an excuse, just trying to give an insight into how a minor difference from your normal habit pattern can erode your passive defences.
But there is a gotcha which may or may not be a factor in this case.. If you do miss the frequency change to TWR (which comes at quite a busy phase of configuration change etc) there is no memory trigger at the point you would normally (in other countries) expect a clearance. You are thinking ahead, not back where the error occurred
Yes I know there are other cues which should clue you in but the brain is a funny thing when it gets focussed on a task.
Anyway it's not an excuse, just trying to give an insight into how a minor difference from your normal habit pattern can erode your passive defences.
This.
It’s life, Jim, just not as we know it.
Most old guys I know always keep a jaundiced eye out for traps, all the way to the gate, past the flirtatious 63 yr old purser, up the jetway, into the coffee shop. A landing clearance, like every other clearance is only good until the moment it is not anymore.
Last edited by Australopithecus; 2nd Nov 2019 at 04:07. Reason: fixed missing apostrophe
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly. Crazy stuff that people write about 'how it really is." FIfteen minutes prior is typically about 60 nm from the runway. No one gets landing clearance that far out..... unless you're racing the curfew into DCA back in the old days. ;-))))
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does help reduce chatter on sometimes very busy frequencies (e.g. closely spaced parallels) but it is a controller judgement call and by no means is it a blanket clearance.
I agree with the comment regarding the check-in at the FAF requirement being a PITA. On a mixed mode runway you can almost guarantee that you will try to check-in just as the preceding arrival is landing and the controller is trying to line up the next departure. The FAF is the transfer of control point from arrival to tower and some believe the transfer of comms should be at the same inconvenient point. IMHO If you check-in a mile early there will be no problems and you are less likely to forget as you pass the FAF and get busier.
The US controllers would clear you to land on first contact regardless of how many landers were in front of you. But I can’t honestly recall if they ever did that in poor visibility. I used to fly there often enough that the phrase “cleared to land” lost its meaning.
The more troubling thing about this incident isn’t that the crew didn’t hear the clearance, its that they wouldn’t have heard a go-around instruction either.
The more troubling thing about this incident isn’t that the crew didn’t hear the clearance, its that they wouldn’t have heard a go-around instruction either.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight in front of us at SFO went around once from short final. They finally contacted tower on the go and tower asks "UA123 say reason for go-around?" UA123 "we didn't have landing clearance" Tower- "OK, well, everyone usually just lands anyway".
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I would not mix up attempted humor on the R/T with actual regulations and procedures.