PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   Another SFO incident for AC (#3)? (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/626770-another-sfo-incident-ac-3-a.html)

ACA856 30th Oct 2019 21:19

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.


Airbubba 30th Oct 2019 22:49

Lemme guess, they 'forgot' to preserve the CVR recording.

Check Airman 30th Oct 2019 23:51

They landed uneventfully without a clearance at a busy airport. Iím sure nobodyís going for the CVR. Maybe file an ASAP, then enjoy your layover.

Maninthebar 31st Oct 2019 06:16


Originally Posted by Check Airman (Post 10607028)
They landed uneventfully without a clearance at a busy airport. Iím sure nobodyís going for the CVR. Maybe file an ASAP, then enjoy your layover.

"They landed without a clearance as a busy airport".

You think that's OK?

Cropduster 31st Oct 2019 06:23

Maninthebar...
They didn't land without a clearance, they landed without acknowledging a clearance. Subtle difference.

Maninthebar 31st Oct 2019 06:34

That is not accurate. They landed without receiving clearance to land.


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 clearance was issued but the crew did not know that., on this report anyway

blue up 31st Oct 2019 07:19

Back in my day we only did something after we had heard the clearance AND read it back for confirmation.:oh:

FIRESYSOK 31st Oct 2019 07:57

Big airports like that they kind of imply landing clearance with approach clearance. Itís the medium and smaller cities you have to worry about.

Atlanta used to say Ďyouíre always cleared to landí. They didnít want any go-arounds because of a late switch over or frequency congestion. Theyíd also flash a green light to make it legal.

Meester proach 31st Oct 2019 18:31

Does it mean anything in the US anyway ? Theyíll be four ahead when you are ď cleared to land ď

Ian W 31st Oct 2019 19:13

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.

Airbubba 31st Oct 2019 19:38


Originally Posted by Ian W (Post 10607714)
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.

Izzat so?

I'm not rightly sure that's how it works in America. ;)

six-sixty 31st Oct 2019 21:17

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"

India Four Two 31st Oct 2019 21:29

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.

Australopithecus 31st Oct 2019 22:27

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.

HPSOV L 31st Oct 2019 22:33

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. Itís 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.

BRUpax 1st Nov 2019 01:10


Last time I landed in SFO the landing clearance was issued on first contact with TWR
Indeed, and this is pretty much standard at most, if not all, major airports in the USA.

West Coast 1st Nov 2019 03:22

It's called anticipated separation. If they end up not having it, then it's off you go. It works quite well.

giggitygiggity 1st Nov 2019 04:09


Originally Posted by West Coast (Post 10607977)
It's called anticipated separation. If they end up not having it, then it's off you go. It works quite well.

But why? Seems like an unnecessary erosion of safety. The only answer I can conceive is controller laziness or a desperation to sound slick.

West Coast 1st Nov 2019 05:01


Originally Posted by giggitygiggity (Post 10607995)
But why? Seems like an unnecessary erosion of safety. The only answer I can conceive is controller laziness or a desperation to sound slick.


Who cares what it seems like, do you have any data that indicates itís unsafe? Opinion isnít fact nor data. The vast majority of the top 10 busiest busiest airports in the world successfully use anticipated separation daily.

itís simply different than what youíre used to, not more safe or less safe, just different,

Maninthebar 1st Nov 2019 06:18

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:36.


Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.