Air Canada non go-around at SFO
 

This one just came up on the local news feed.

Wow... That's a nasty one. Obviously CVR were not preserved?

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?

Hold on, who's in command of the aircraft? ATC or the commander? ATC only issue requests...

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.

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).

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? :)

Is not having GPS significant to the event?

And don't majors usually buy the enhancement package if they want to hold on to their older jets at all?

Not at all.

It just makes working out what happened without access to the FDR and radar tapes more difficult for PPRuNers. :O

Having read just a few of your comments on here I am seriously doubting if you are here to contribute to any discussion or just here to troll the :mad: out of everyone

I believe that some of what you see on FR24 is EHS Mode S in any event; a number or our fleet aren't ADS-B equipped but you still see them on FR24.

One on 121.5 and the other on ACARS DATA? :{

showing once again that they are the finest in the land.

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?

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 !

Exactly :ok: about the way that the USA ATCOs issue / treat a landing clearance!

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

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.

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.

the way I took chesty's comment was we get many requests.

Such as expedite this expedite that and we have to just ignore you.

On the roll out if we put the power up even slightly after landing and the ground speed is above 30 knts (or some other value) it triggers a FDR SOP bust. ATC told us to go faster is no excuse. Being on the runway is no different to being on the taxiway or apron.

Only way round it is being told to roll to the end before landing then not using flight idle and leaving the power setting reduction until further down the runway.

Brake hard to try and make a intersection and still to fast to make it but over 30 kts we can't put the power up. Once at 30knts we can increase power again but can't go over 30kts. You can scream expedite all you like tell us aircraft at 2 miles final, not going to change a thing. It will be 30knts until we get to the next exit.

You can’t. I can. Different airlines, different policies.
So, who is in command, the airline or you?

Because I will be sacked for not complying with SOP's the airline when it comes to expediting.

I will as a matter of course get off a live runway as safely and quickly as I can inside company SOP's.

Apart from anything else going faster than 30knts on back track is counted as a low speed aborted departure. 10 mins for brake cooling in theory.

I agree its airline policy and obviously doesn't apply to Ryanair.

Suprised no-one commenting about the visual (directed red light) cue not picked up by the crew.
Fairly unusual procedure I guess but still something the PF shouldn't miss (hopefully not confused with a laser attack...)

I’m not Ryanair.
Sounds like you are flying i China or ME.
If I need 40 kts on the runway, I will do so. If it raises questions, by ATC request will do.
It does explain why I get stuck behind some airlines taxiing at very low speeds. Madrid behind EZY is a nightmare.
Anyway, you have my sympathy. It must be stressful to be scared of loosing your job for a minor issue like a few kts.

Because it’s not a laser? You have to look the tower to see it. If you are in a lost comm situation and trying to resolve it at the same time as you are looking for other traffic, that may be the last thing you are thinking of.

"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,

Is it still the common use e.g. LGW, where ATC would say, "XYZ continue approach, expect late landing clearance, One to vacate."? It certainly was common in the rush hour of a single runway op, and it would have reduced capacity hugely if not used. Equally, the, "XYZ continue approach, expect late landing clearance, one to depart." Squeezing a landing followed by a departure and another landing into 2 minutes was a great demonstration of teamwork and needed respect by the crews and strict adherence to speed, situational awareness and to vacate PDQ. There were far more successful late landings than GA's.
I remember decades ago, at LHR, where "cleared to land, one about to vacate." was the call. Is it not the case that the commander can land if visual with the preceding traffic and can be certain that they can stop well before the turnoff being used by the preceding? Or has that allowance be rescinded?
The debate about ATC instructions v requests is an interesting one. In USA you can be cleared to land No.5. I'm not sure if you have to be VMC. There you are sliding down the glide with the squadron ahead of you. I assume the philosophy is you are cleared to land if you consider it safe to do below whatever height you choose. EASA & FAA ATC hand-books will tell us. Other regions might have more draconian attitudes.
I remember a medium jet at LGW being given takeoff clearance behind a heavy. The captain was most critical of ATC that the clearance was given <2mins after the heavy. ATC replied that "they could take as long as they wanted; there was no traffic on finals. It was not an order, just a clearance." Similar "cleared to land" is not an order; however a GA is somewhat different. ATC might get a little trigger happy at some places, i.e. the opposite of LGW in rush hour, but I reckon your defence needs to be solid not to comply. If you think you are going to be able to land OK then a couple of "say again's" might delay the call and even reverse it. Ha!

Not really in fact, I know the rules and you just ignore any expedite requests and go to those SOP limits or a speed which is safe for the conditions.

There is also maintence reasons as well. You go through less tyres and the steering maintence cost has dropped significantly.

Since they brought the SOP in they haven't had a single off road event. Its a medium sized EU operator. I believe it was due to an incident where it was a major factor.

After the initial getting used to it frustration its actually pretty sensible. The number of times I had my arse twitch with wondering if we were going to stay on the black stuff in previous jobs while trying to expedite to help out mostly in the RHS. I am quite happy to comply with the SOP. Its already saved my bacon once when the steering system decided to go on strike and give me a hard full right turn.

Managed to keep on the black stuff any faster, and I would have been reading about myself on pprune with a nose wheel in the muck at AMS.

Just thinking about the regular airports I operate into and if I know where the tower is....

It would be interesting to work out how many steady red lights there are within the airport perimeter. Probably in the thousands.

Might have worked in the old days of signal squares, grass strips, Verey Pistols and two-storey towers next to them but with multiple miles-long runways and huge buildings, towers can be way off where you’re looking when on short finals.

Its a flashing red light.

AC had radio when they aknowledged landing clearance.

Aside from that, AC had no idea why tower was saying go around.

Same applies, how many red flashing lights are there at an airport? Answer: hundreds!

ICAO Annex 2, Rule of the Air.
Ch. 3.6.5.2.1, pag. 3-8.

3.6.5.2
Communication failure. If a communication failure

precludes compliance with 3.6.5.1, the aircraft shall comply

with the voice communication failure procedures of Annex 10,

Volume II, and with such of the following procedures as are
appropriate. The aircraft shall attempt to establish communications
with the appropriate air traffic control unit using all other
available means. In addition, the aircraft, when forming part of
the aerodrome traffic at a controlled aerodrome, shall keep a
watch for such instructions as may be issued by visual signals.

ICAO Annex 2, Rule of the Air.
Ch. 3.6.5.2.1, pag. 3-8.

http://www.pprune.org/4062811-post6.html

Found this on youtube while thinking about the comments about the red lights from the towers.

It has some outside video of what the crew will have seen.

Loads of red lights. Seems like 3 flashing lights perm, wouldn't surprise me if one of them was a flashing red on top of the tower.

And I don't have a clue where the tower is.

https://youtu.be/O3LTYeZrzH8

Hope they can prove they really had comm issues.

Lesson 1. Look for the little red devil :E

Most likely the latter.

Hmm: Landing clearance given, rather than "Air Canada, continue ..." then landing clearance revoked due to, it appears, the preceding traffic spending a bit longer on the runway than ATC anticipated.
That's my guess, would like to see how the decision chain in the cockpit went. Might be a good teaching tool in the future, and thankfully nobody got hurt. A chance to learn without tears, one hopes.

According to the tape they used taxiway "T" just past midfield and after crossing the departure runways, which is normal ops.
Air Canada 781 also used taxiway tango and held behind the WN.
Yes a bad time to go NORDO, but of course this sort of thing could only happen in the States;)

I'd be interested to know how controllers in a digital tower such as that about to grace LCY would be able to give light signals in similar circumstances (I'm thinking of loss of comms, rather than occupied runway). Chap/chapess in a little chequered box by the rwy, perhaps? That's progress!

Thing I would worry about most with commfail on final 28 SFO is a departure off the 01’s. If there’s traffic slow in vacating your own runway, you’ll see it; a departure off 01 is a surprise if you’re unaware.. (for those unfamiliar with SFO, most departures, except heavies, use 01 crossing between 2 landing aircraft on 28, an ATC challenge by itself ).
To be honest there is no real risk landing on a runway with preceding about to vacate, once you get there he is off the runway anyway. Now an encounter with somebody off 01 is something else (George Carlin used to call that “near miss” 😳 ).

BTW, I can’t believe someone with Atc is so naive to assume a pilot would see a red light signal at an International airport. Must be a desk-jockey.

On approach to CGN one night some years ago when it was very busy with night freight. We are using 14L, cloud base around 500 feet and sudenly the Tower Freq goes off the air (but we don't know that - why would we?).

Pop out of cloud, go visual and, lo and behold, there are the lights of an aircraft on the threshold waiting for take-off.

Go Around and contact Approach. Told that Tower had suffered an RT failure.

On subsequent contact with Tower, I am told that they had been flashing a red light at me from the Tower!

Red light from the Tower at 500 feet?

Get real!

For a start, where the hell is the Tower at CGN?

You will be astonished to learn that looking for a Red Light from the Tower was pretty low down in my list of priorities.

Incidentally, I actually saw Chesty Morgan in the Flyers Club in Gander in the 1970s. I can confirm that she was all "teeth and t+ts".