AC in SFO. Again...

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Message
Author
User avatar
telex
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:05 pm

AC in SFO. Again...

#1 Post by telex » Mon Oct 23, 2017 11:47 pm

Federal Aviation Administration officials are investigating an incident at San Francisco International Airport involving an Air Canada plane.
The incident occurred Sunday night when Air Canada flight 781, an Airbus A320, wan preparing to land at SFO.
FAA spokesman Ian Gregor said air traffic control cleared the flight to land on Runway 28R. The Air Canada crew acknowledged the instruction when they were about 6 miles away from the airport, Gregor said.
"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, adding the crew onboard the plan did not acknowledge any of the controller's instructions.

A supervisor then resorted to using a red light gun to alert the Air Canada flight to go around. Gregor said flashing a light gun is standard protocol when an air crew is not responding to radio instructions.
Air Canada flight 781 landed on Runway 284 at 9:26 p.m. The Air Canada crew after landing told the tower they had a radio problem, according to Gregor.
"A radar replay showed the preceding arrival was in fact clear of the runway when Air Canada landed," Gregor said.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Noo
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:41 am

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#2 Post by Noo » Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:22 am

Well let's get this party started. Ahem, 'They didn't hit so there was no danger'.
---------- ADS -----------
  

PostmasterGeneral
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 352
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:50 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#3 Post by PostmasterGeneral » Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:21 am

Can’t wait to see how badly they get roasted by the CBC this time...

Click the link for ATC audio

https://m.soundcloud.com/user-771239359 ... 2017-0400z
---------- ADS -----------
  

Jet Jockey
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:42 am
Location: CYUL

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#4 Post by Jet Jockey » Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:34 am

Well I sure hope they had some sort of technical radio issue because if not they are lying.

I find it hard to believe that in a modern aircraft that all the radios and I assume the A320 has 3 VHF comms failed at the same time.

Did the tower try to warn them on 121.5?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 945
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#5 Post by rookiepilot » Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:54 am

Routine non go around... :mrgreen:
---------- ADS -----------
  

trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4393
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#6 Post by trey kule » Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:11 am

Off the top of my head, i would expect if they had a radio issue, their txpndr would have either been reset to the appropriate code, or would have gone off line.

I am sure Rockie will explain it to us as well as why they ignored the red light.

But lets wait for the facts. In the meantime we can sharpen our pitchforks and start heating up the tar.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Everyone is a genius in hindsight

Eric Janson
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 674
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#7 Post by Eric Janson » Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:51 am

Jet Jockey wrote:I find it hard to believe that in a modern aircraft that all the radios and I assume the A320 has 3 VHF comms failed at the same time.
Disclaimer:- I do not work for Air Canada. The information below is general and for information purposes only. I am in no way claiming this is what happened.

The A320 has 3 VHF radios.

Normally #1 is used for ATC
#2 is used for 121.5/company/handling/ATIS/Volmet
#3 is used for data (ACARS) and as a backup for #1 or #2 in case of failure.

The radios are controlled through 3 RMP (Radio Management Panels) located beside each Pilot and on the overhead panel. Each RMP can tune all radios.

If an RMP is used to tune an offside VHF (eg:- RMP #2 has VHF #1 selected) a white SEL light comes on to warn the Pilot he is tuning an offside radio.

A lot of Airlines do not allow this configuration due to the risk of changing the active ATC frequency while the Pilot thinks they are using VHF #2. I personally don't do this either when I'm sitting in the right seat.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business

Victory
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 268
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:32 am

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#8 Post by Victory » Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:18 am

What does the pilot actually say? "Air Canada 781 restoring(?) the radios here." It doesn't really sound like the word "problem".
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3469
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#9 Post by pelmet » Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:26 am

AC had a radio problem. Hmmm.....quite possible as these things can happen. It would be interesting to see what the logbook entry says. Maybe an AC pilot flying that fin number can tell us if there was an entry and if so, does it say ground checked serviceable for the sign-off.

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ksfo/ ... -0400Z.mp3

Start at 21:41 and listen for two minutes for go-around.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by pelmet on Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

FL410
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:12 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#10 Post by FL410 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:34 am

pelmet wrote:Or was the radio problem that NorCal approach was still selected.
They were on tower frequency and cleared to land. This article says tower tried waving them off with a light gun: http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/10/23/ ... up-at-sfo/
---------- ADS -----------
  

altiplano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#11 Post by altiplano » Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:35 am

Finger troubles?

Switched to tower, check in, cleared to land, reach down to tune next frequency on the stby and accidentally flip it/dial the wrong side/insert error....
---------- ADS -----------
  

Mach1
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:04 am

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#12 Post by Mach1 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:52 am

I'm not defending anyone here. However, in all honesty how many of you would actually look at the tower during final approach at an airport the size of SFO? I would be concentrating on the PAPI's, the runway, flying the aircraft on speed and profile (AC probably making sure it's a runway not a taxiway - sorry, couldn't resist a little joke there, no harm intended). I can honestly say, I am not sure if I would have noticed the light gun. That is something for me to put thought into in the future.
---------- ADS -----------
  
I'm going to knock this up a notch with my spice weasle. Bam!

Jet Jockey
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:42 am
Location: CYUL

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#13 Post by Jet Jockey » Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:03 am

Mach1 wrote:I'm not defending anyone here. However, in all honesty how many of you would actually look at the tower during final approach at an airport the size of SFO? I would be concentrating on the PAPI's, the runway, flying the aircraft on speed and profile (AC probably making sure it's a runway not a taxiway - sorry, couldn't resist a little joke there, no harm intended). I can honestly say, I am not sure if I would have noticed the light gun. That is something for me to put thought into in the future.
Agreed and I'm willing to accept your comment but they claim they had radio problems...

What sort of problem, partial comm failure, total comm failure, hit the wrong switch comm problem?

SQ7600 if you know you have a comm failure? How did they talk to ground once they had landed?

Anyway I guess we will find out when the "official" report comes out.

Hopefully this crew will be more forthcoming and more truthful then the previous 320 crew involved in the near miss in SFO.
---------- ADS -----------
  

crazyaviator
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 671
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:52 pm
Location: Ontario

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#14 Post by crazyaviator » Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:37 am

This one may be excusable IF the pilots didn't lie about finger trouble, however, the SOO incident was not soo excusable ! :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
  

Sharklasers
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 5:24 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#15 Post by Sharklasers » Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:51 am

pelmet wrote:AC had a radio problem. Hmmm.....quite possible as these things can happen. It would be interesting to see what the logbook entry says. Maybe an AC pilot flying that fin number can tell us if there was an entry and if so, does it say ground checked serviceable for the sign-off.

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ksfo/ ... -0400Z.mp3

Start at 21:41 and listen for two minutes for go-around.
I'm sure some AC pilot will risk his career so that pelmet can play amatuer TSB. :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
  

Victory
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 268
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:32 am

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#16 Post by Victory » Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:27 am

Time was you didn't clear an aircraft to land until the runway was actually clear for them to land on. Now that's fallen by the wayside and landing clearance can be given whenever. A comm failure like this is a good example why that might not be a good idea.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
corytrevor
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: sunnyvail

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#17 Post by corytrevor » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:23 am

Jet Jockey.

The crew involved in the previous SFO incident has never tried to cover anything up and has been 100% truthful throughout the investigation.
---------- ADS -----------
  

GyvAir
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1760
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:09 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#18 Post by GyvAir » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:07 am

corytrevor wrote:Jet Jockey.

The crew involved in the previous SFO incident has never tried to cover anything up and has been 100% truthful throughout the investigation.
How do you know?

People on this forum are big on making absolute statements of fact on matters where in all likelihood they don't have access to any factual information. And if they do have access to that information, they probably shouldn't be commenting about it on a forum such as this.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7690
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#19 Post by Rockie » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:16 am

trey kule wrote:I am sure Rockie will explain it to us as well as why they ignored the red light.
If you’ve ever paid attention you would know I don’t speculate and will say what I always say regardless of who is involved. I don’t know what happened and will wait until the report comes out and facts are known. Pretty much what you said, but don’t let that stop your insults.
---------- ADS -----------
  

altiplano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#20 Post by altiplano » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:51 am

The red light comment is ridiculous.

Who looks for that? Particularly when they probably haven't realized they had a comm problem yet.

I don't think I could barely see the red/green when they broke it out in my PPL days AND I was looking for it.

This crew proceeded per their last acknowledged clearance. If it wasn't in SFO it would get zero press time.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3469
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#21 Post by pelmet » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:58 am

I had a com failure once down in YHM in an aircraft. I accidentally pulled a short headset cord out. Squawked 7600 on final and landed. Figured out the problem once I was on the ground. ATC asked if I saw the green light. I did not and I doubt the AC guys saw the red light. That’s just the way it likely is.

Pelmet....your amateur TSB investigator[but who gets more facts out for you].
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by pelmet on Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
corytrevor
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: sunnyvail

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#22 Post by corytrevor » Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:22 pm

GyvAir wrote:
corytrevor wrote:Jet Jockey.

The crew involved in the previous SFO incident has never tried to cover anything up and has been 100% truthful throughout the investigation.
How do you know?

People on this forum are big on making absolute statements of fact on matters where in all likelihood they don't have access to any factual information. And if they do have access to that information, they probably shouldn't be commenting about it on a forum such as this.

Your supposition that I don’t have the facts is incorrect. Having said that, what part of my post shouldn’t be posted on a forum such as this?
---------- ADS -----------
  

GyvAir
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1760
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:09 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#23 Post by GyvAir » Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:48 pm

corytrevor wrote:
GyvAir wrote:
corytrevor wrote:Jet Jockey.

The crew involved in the previous SFO incident has never tried to cover anything up and has been 100% truthful throughout the investigation.
How do you know?

People on this forum are big on making absolute statements of fact on matters where in all likelihood they don't have access to any factual information. And if they do have access to that information, they probably shouldn't be commenting about it on a forum such as this.

Your supposition that I don’t have the facts is incorrect. Having said that, what part of my post shouldn’t be posted on a forum such as this?
If you have first hand access to the facts, a general sense of professionalism would tell you the answer to that question.

The only way you could really know with absolute certainty whether the crew was 100% truthful was if you were one of said crew. If that’s the case, this really isn’t where you should be talking about it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
corytrevor
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: sunnyvail

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#24 Post by corytrevor » Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:22 pm

GyvAir wrote:
corytrevor wrote:
GyvAir wrote:
How do you know?

People on this forum are big on making absolute statements of fact on matters where in all likelihood they don't have access to any factual information. And if they do have access to that information, they probably shouldn't be commenting about it on a forum such as this.

Your supposition that I don’t have the facts is incorrect. Having said that, what part of my post shouldn’t be posted on a forum such as this?
If you have first hand access to the facts, a general sense of professionalism would tell you the answer to that question.

The only way you could really know with absolute certainty whether the crew was 100% truthful was if you were one of said crew. If that’s the case, this really isn’t where you should be talking about it.

A general sense of professioanalism would lead one to assume that the Air Canada crew told the whole truth. The fact that some on this forum doubt that speaks volumes about their character.

No I am not one of the crew lol. Why would they scroll through this mud slinging contest.
---------- ADS -----------
  

GyvAir
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1760
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:09 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#25 Post by GyvAir » Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:34 pm

I don't doubt that they would tell the truth, either. No matter how much they may have messed up, lying about the details wouldn't likely help anything.
In the off chance they didn't though, it would be far from the first time a crew had "gotten their stories straight" before talking to investigators.

My little bone to pick though was just people stating "facts" with nothing to back them up, not even a personal track record of credibility on the site. (whatever that’s worth)
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”