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
whistlerboy02
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 7:20 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#26 Post by whistlerboy02 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:02 pm

The CVR will sort it out...... it always does :)
---------- ADS -----------
  

GyvAir
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1757
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:09 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#27 Post by GyvAir » Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:29 pm

Are FDRs these days fancy enough to determine and record what radios are selected and to what frequencies?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Mach1
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 461
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:04 am

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#28 Post by Mach1 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:11 pm

Jet Jockey wrote: 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.
I can't and won't speak to the radio... I wasn't there... my only comment was on the use of a light signal.
if you know you have a comm failure?
I think than is an important part of the event... did they know they had a comm failure? Or did they only realise that after they tried to call for taxi clearance? I don't know... none of us know.

Maybe we should put down the pitchforks and torches until we do know.
---------- ADS -----------
  
I'm going to knock this up a notch with my spice weasle. Bam!

A346Dude
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#29 Post by A346Dude » Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:46 pm

What is the point of a landing clearance if everyone gets it on initial contact, especially if they're not told about the traffic not far ahead who could dog it getting off the runway?
---------- ADS -----------
  

True North
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 6:39 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#30 Post by True North » Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:08 pm

This was by definition a comm failure, we just don't know what caused the failure.

I can't accept that an Air Canada crew intentionally ignored 6 calls in one minute from the tower to go around (according to CTV News so take that for what it's worth). They didn't hear the calls. It could be a technical fault or it could be finger trouble but the last transmission they heard was "cleared to land". They undoubtedly knew the preceding traffic had to clear the runway and that things were close so they were likely both quite focused on the traffic while also mentally preparing for a go around. The control tower is way over there on the left somewhere and I don't know how bright the light is that they shine at you. The last time I saw one was when I did my PPL and I seem to remember having to really look for the damn light - and that was at a little airport that didn't have lights flashing all over the ramp all the time. So, it's entirely possible the crew didn't see the light either. Ultimately it's a happy ending, nothing got bent and no one got hurt. The facts will come out and we'll all learn some lessons but in the big scheme of things it's a non-event. I agree that if it wasn't SFO we probably wouldn't be talking about it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

atphat
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 426
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:01 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#31 Post by atphat » Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:14 pm

I don’t know about any of you. But when I’m within 6 miles of the airport the last thing I’m looking at is the tower and looking for lights. I’m either flying or monitoring. So we can all stop pretending that’s it’s a big deal in any way they didn’t see “the light”. A light they weren’t aware they were supposed to be looking for.
---------- ADS -----------
  

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5580
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#32 Post by ahramin » Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:26 pm

It’s worth thinking about though. Happened to me in YVR a couple years ago. Pm messed up the frequency change, was trying to get back on arrival at 500’ and I looked at the tower and saw the green light. Saved a go around.

If you’re not expecting it though, you’d never see it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

atphat
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 426
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:01 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#33 Post by atphat » Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:41 pm

Good point
---------- ADS -----------
  

trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4381
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#34 Post by trey kule » Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:44 pm

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.
You are right about the insult, my apology, and I will try and refraim in the future
---------- ADS -----------
  
Everyone is a genius in hindsight

Meatservo
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2293
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Negative sequencial vortex

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#35 Post by Meatservo » Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:24 pm

A whole lot of feathers and not much chicken, if you ask me. This is boring.
---------- ADS -----------
  
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself

User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 760
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#36 Post by confusedalot » Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:44 pm

Unintended finger trouble...oops...that's my vote. Yes it is boring. :smt069
---------- ADS -----------
  
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?

User avatar
'97 Tercel
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 5:19 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#37 Post by '97 Tercel » Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:05 pm

SFO is a supreme sh$t-show. Most days it makes Newark or Teterborough look like CYEG...and that's on a nice day. I find the controllers there difficult to deal with.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
KAG
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3503
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:24 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#38 Post by KAG » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:38 am

I second the thought if this had if happened anywhere other the SFO, this wouldn't be news. Anyone who hadn't accidentally flipped a radio (or forgot to) isn't being honest. The red light... Been a long time since looking for one. Can't comment. It's just poor timing (go around instructed after landing clearance Recieved) and location that this is even news.
---------- ADS -----------
  
The feet you step on today might be attached to the ass you're kissing tomorrow.
Chase lifestyle not metal.

User avatar
oldtimer
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2270
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:04 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#39 Post by oldtimer » Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:37 am

No one has ever mentioned the fact that maybe the comm radios were working just fine but the busy crew just tuned them out. They were cleared to land, had the runway in sight and in all probability saw the United flight clearing the runway. From the audio feed I listened to, my SWAG guess was that they were inside the FAF when the go around instruction was given. Before I retired, I can remember instructing my right seater to ignore all calls below 200 feet. On take-off, we were also trained to ignore and not respond to any calls from V1 and until we reached 400 feet. Does anyone know what AC's SOP's say about any communications inside the FAF or if they are instructed about doing a go around below 500 feet AAE.
---------- ADS -----------
  
The average pilot, despite the somewhat swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy and caring.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.

User avatar
daedalusx
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 184
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:51 am

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#40 Post by daedalusx » Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:12 am

oldtimer wrote:No one has ever mentioned the fact that maybe the comm radios were working just fine but the busy crew just tuned them out. They were cleared to land, had the runway in sight and in all probability saw the United flight clearing the runway. From the audio feed I listened to, my SWAG guess was that they were inside the FAF when the go around instruction was given. Before I retired, I can remember instructing my right seater to ignore all calls below 200 feet. On take-off, we were also trained to ignore and not respond to any calls from V1 and until we reached 400 feet. Does anyone know what AC's SOP's say about any communications inside the FAF or if they are instructed about doing a go around below 500 feet AAE.
Completely false as every 705 operator will conduct a low-energy go-around in sim during training/ppc/loft (truck/plane on the runway) way below 200'.
---------- ADS -----------
  
In twenty years time when your kids ask how you got into flying you want to be able to say "work and determination" not "I just kept taking money from your grandparents for type ratings until someone was stupid enough to give me a job"

Jet Jockey
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:42 am
Location: CYUL

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#41 Post by Jet Jockey » Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:22 am

daedalusx wrote:
oldtimer wrote:No one has ever mentioned the fact that maybe the comm radios were working just fine but the busy crew just tuned them out. They were cleared to land, had the runway in sight and in all probability saw the United flight clearing the runway. From the audio feed I listened to, my SWAG guess was that they were inside the FAF when the go around instruction was given. Before I retired, I can remember instructing my right seater to ignore all calls below 200 feet. On take-off, we were also trained to ignore and not respond to any calls from V1 and until we reached 400 feet. Does anyone know what AC's SOP's say about any communications inside the FAF or if they are instructed about doing a go around below 500 feet AAE.
Completely false as every 705 operator will conduct a low-energy go-around in sim during training/ppc/loft (truck/plane on the runway) way below 200'.
Not only 705 operators but 604 and 704 operators too, as low as 50'.
---------- ADS -----------
  

atphat
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 426
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:01 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#42 Post by atphat » Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:01 pm

Ignore any calls below 200’?? Lol. Doesn’t matter what year it was. That’s just insane.
---------- ADS -----------
  

trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4381
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#43 Post by trey kule » Wed Oct 25, 2017 3:53 pm

From experience, I have found that when cleared, say no 3 on final...follow the Bowbus in front.
There is still chatter on the radio from the tower clearing the arriving aircraft in front off the runway, or clearaces to aircraft following etc.

So it would seem strange that suddenly things were quiet, or the talk was of ground clearances maybe..


But having said that, if it happened on final...the com failure rules used to be go to the last point cleared...which is to land, in this case.
And as there were aircraft in front on the runway I can see the crew focussed on that rather than trying to diagnose a comm failure on short final. Funny how there is so much emphasis on fly the airplane first, and then condemation for doing just that,

If it was a finger issue! . Maybe an SMS issue for better training before cleared to fly on line, and if SOPs not followed, a dressing down.

The tower called them 6 times, flashed lights etc, makes sensational news, but putting myself in their position and recognizing a com problem, I would have been focussed on the runway traffic and preparing for the missed, rather that trying to diagnose a com issue. If it was a real com failure going missed would have been a nightmare, and despite what today’s pilots think you can get a fairly good sense of the plane in front being clear before you land.
Now if they simply did not recognize they had a problem that may be a different issue. I doubt we will ever know.

I think was far different from lining up visual on a taxiway full of aircraft. Very different.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Everyone is a genius in hindsight

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6629
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#44 Post by photofly » Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:02 pm

trey kule wrote: But having said that, if it happened on final...the com failure rules used to be go to the last point cleared...which is to land, in this case.
And as there were aircraft in front on the runway I can see the crew focussed on that rather than trying to diagnose a comm failure on short final. Funny how there is so much emphasis on fly the airplane first, and then condemation for doing just that,
That, is a very good point. I'd be stunned if an aircrew were cleared to land and on short final went around because they had a radio failure. Then what?
---------- ADS -----------
  
“This isn’t flying, it’s falling. With style.”

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

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#45 Post by crazyaviator » Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:34 pm

From experience, I have found that when cleared, say no 3 on final...follow the Bowbus in front.
There is still chatter on the radio from the tower clearing the arriving aircraft in front off the runway, or clearaces to aircraft following etc.

So it would seem strange that suddenly things were quiet, or the talk was of ground clearances maybe..


But having said that, if it happened on final...the com failure rules used to be go to the last point cleared...which is to land, in this case.
And as there were aircraft in front on the runway I can see the crew focussed on that rather than trying to diagnose a comm failure on short final. Funny how there is so much emphasis on fly the airplane first, and then condemation for doing just that,

If it was a finger issue! . Maybe an SMS issue for better training before cleared to fly on line, and if SOPs not followed, a dressing down.

The tower called them 6 times, flashed lights etc, makes sensational news, but putting myself in their position and recognizing a com problem, I would have been focussed on the runway traffic and preparing for the missed, rather that trying to diagnose a com issue. If it was a real com failure going missed would have been a nightmare, and despite what today’s pilots think you can get a fairly good sense of the plane in front being clear before you land.
Now if they simply did not recognize they had a problem that may be a different issue. I doubt we will ever know.

I think was far different from lining up visual on a taxiway full of aircraft. Very different.
Totally Agree !
---------- ADS -----------
  

CFR
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: CYAV

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#46 Post by CFR » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:06 pm

Time to bring back Tasker Shacks!
---------- ADS -----------
  

lostaviator
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:42 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#47 Post by lostaviator » Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:07 am

1. I've been given clearance to line up and wait and here I am sitting there fat dumb and happy thinking "man, it got quiet", then noticed the FO's fingers had done a little frequency dance accidentally switching to the backup while putting the departure frequency in.

So, it can happen.

2. Re: the last SFO incident and arguing over the "trustfulness"; correct me if I am wrong, but did the incident not go unreported for 2 days? And then only by ATC?
---------- ADS -----------
  

pdw
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1468
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:51 am
Location: A mile final 24 CYSN

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#48 Post by pdw » Thu Oct 26, 2017 2:09 pm

trey kule wrote:Now if they simply did not recognize they had a problem ...
Looks like they're #2 as the " problem " begins (from a com dial glitch/issue). Well, the com problem (" finger dance" issue or whatever) dawns on them e v e n t u a l l y , but first, it's like you say ... "you are focusing on #1 clearing the active" for your turn while anticipating the expected clearance which isn't coming .. isn't coming .. huh? Focused up ahead rather than any red light effort/frustration in the tower ... impossible to expect really ... during heavy business of the late approach / next-in-line and no reason to expect any different ...

If radios were fine other than the fault of nudging the other dial ?.. which then sees them maintaining 'in-position for landing' if turned out safe to do so ... as it now appears it was. Then the point made for the PIC's perspective, he/she becomes aware of com-fail rules applying upon realization, yet also still 'flying the plane' in the meantime applies. Not as critical at which point that was discovered if it fits under the com fail rules, since they never reached the point where they saw a visual indicator of conflict that would have forced them around under com fail rules.

Maybe the CBC can figure out a way to explain that ...
---------- ADS -----------
  

ditar
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: This pale blue dot

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#49 Post by ditar » Thu Oct 26, 2017 2:23 pm

I agree that this is probably nothing more than finger trouble. I found myself in the opposite situation once, having been cleared for takeoff and given the departure frequency, I dialled it in and accidentally hit the swap button. As (bad) luck would have it we did a rejected takeoff and I announced the reject on the departure frequency. By the time I realized the error and switched back to tower the controller was already telling us to get off the runway.
---------- ADS -----------
  

BE20 Driver
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 12:58 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#50 Post by BE20 Driver » Fri Oct 27, 2017 7:39 am

My first question was what time of day did this occur at (body clock time)? Finger trouble can happen at any time of day but it's far more likely at 3:00 am (which I believe was the body clock time of the first SFO incident).
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”