Another SFO incident for AC (#3)?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Innisfil Ontario Canada
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another SFO incident for AC (#3)?
Not sure if it's ok to reference AV Herald here, but this raised an eyebrow today...
Incident: Canada A319 at San Francisco on Oct 3rd 2019, landed without hearing landing clearance
By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, Oct 29th 2019 21:26Z, last updated Tuesday, Oct 29th 2019 21:26ZAn Air Canada Airbus A319-100, registration C-FZUJ performing flight AC-741 from Toronto,ON (Canada) to San Francisco,CA (USA) with 110 people on board, was on approach to San Francisco's runway 28L when the crew did not report on tower frequency. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on runway 28L.
The Canadian TSB reported the landing clearance was issued, however, it was not heard by the flight crew because they didn't switch to tower frequency. The airline conducts an investigation.
Incident: Canada A319 at San Francisco on Oct 3rd 2019, landed without hearing landing clearance
By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, Oct 29th 2019 21:26Z, last updated Tuesday, Oct 29th 2019 21:26ZAn Air Canada Airbus A319-100, registration C-FZUJ performing flight AC-741 from Toronto,ON (Canada) to San Francisco,CA (USA) with 110 people on board, was on approach to San Francisco's runway 28L when the crew did not report on tower frequency. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on runway 28L.
The Canadian TSB reported the landing clearance was issued, however, it was not heard by the flight crew because they didn't switch to tower frequency. The airline conducts an investigation.
That is not accurate. They landed without receiving clearance to land.
The clearance was issued but the crew did not know that., on this report anyway
The Canadian TSB reported the landing clearance was issued, however, it was not heard by the flight crew because they didn't switch to tower frequency.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Zone of Alienation
Age: 79
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big airports like that they kind of imply landing clearance with approach clearance. It’s the medium and smaller cities you have to worry about.
Atlanta used to say ‘you’re always cleared to land’. They didn’t want any go-arounds because of a late switch over or frequency congestion. They’d also flash a green light to make it legal.
Atlanta used to say ‘you’re always cleared to land’. They didn’t want any go-arounds because of a late switch over or frequency congestion. They’d also flash a green light to make it legal.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There does seem to be a significant difference between the US approach and other countries. In the US a clearance to make an approach is issued 15 minutes or so before touchdown as the aircraft is still in descent 10,000 - 8,000ft and the aircraft takes that as you can land off the approach. In other countries an explicit landing clearance is required and is provided at 2 or 3nm prior to touchdown, if not the aircraft is expected to go around. This was highlighted in the case of an aircraft landing at DCA when the Tower controller was not responding to phone calls and did not issue a clearance but an aircraft landed anyway.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: European Administrative Area (Western District and Islands)
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come to the Old World: Paris Charles De Gaulle on switching to tower at 9 miles "...you are number 3 for 26L cleared to land"
I was very surprised the first time I flew in a light plane in the US at Santa Monica, when we were number 3 and cleared to land. In Canada (and all the other countries I have flown in), you are not cleared to land until you are number 1 and the runway is clear.
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: Mar 2006
Location: expat
Posts: 129
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.
Last time I landed in SFO the landing clearance was issued on first contact with TWR
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,
But this was not what happened in this case. The flight crew did not receive a clearance to land from TWR whether anticipated or not. They just landed.
Hence, I assume, the investigation
Hence, I assume, the investigation