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
complexintentions
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1929
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: of my pants is unknown.

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#51 Post by complexintentions » Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:27 am

Had a total comms failure on a base vector once. Recognized it when I attempted to query ATC if they wanted us to go through the localizer - given that it was simultaneous parallel runway ops I was getting a bit twitchy. With no answer we just turned onto final and landed. There was no light signal, no time for it. Going around seemed kind of stupid with no radios and nothing but a big, empty runway in front of us. So we just made sure the runway was clear and landed. Taxiied off, stopped, and waited a bit to see if we'd get light signals to taxi in. Nope. So we just carefully taxied in and shut down. I then hurriedly went and looked up the local tower phone number and asked if I was in trouble. They said no, we had done exactly what we should have - the last thing they want is us wandering around a busy terminal NORDO.

So yeah, if the runway was clear in SFO, and the AC crew thought - or were even unaware of - that they had a complete comms failure, landing was probably the best option for all involved. Of course if they couldn't positively verify the runway was clear they'd have to go around and figure it out from there, but otherwise, get on the ground and out of the way. I'm sure someone will chip in and say how it violates some inviolable SOP but I'd hope a bit of airmanship is still allowed in rare instances. :roll:

Incidentally the term du jour for a go around from below DH is a "rejected landing", not a "go-around". :mrgreen:
---------- ADS -----------
  
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3432
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#52 Post by pelmet » Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:48 am

They probably didn't even know that there was a com failure, possibly caused by radio mismanagement(or perhaps a real single failure). One would likely just squawk 7600 as I did in my earlier mentioned event. I would assume that the pilot flying in the previous post regarding a complete failure was sharp enough and did the same in order keep ATC advised of the situation.

Once the 7600 is done, look for the tower and associated light for the clearance(if vis is good enough).
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 900
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#53 Post by rookiepilot » Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:09 pm

complexintentions wrote:. .

So yeah, if the runway was clear in SFO, and the AC crew thought - or were even unaware of - that they had a complete comms failure, landing was probably the best option for all involved.
:
Totally agree. Non event.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
PT6-114A
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:06 am
Location: I love the south

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#54 Post by PT6-114A » Mon Oct 30, 2017 6:40 am

Wonder if they were doing an LDA PRM to one of the runways? The requires two radios on two different frequencies so could see how maybe a finger pushing problem. Can’t remember the last time I looked at the tower on short final either. But if landing at a place like KSFO and it’s busy but quiet on the radio you have to start thinking why.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3432
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#55 Post by pelmet » Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:40 pm

Someone on another forum made this interesting statement......

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/6010 ... ost9951238

"A lesson to all Airbus pilots:
This is what could happen to you when you’re not careful while using remote tuning on your radio management panels."


I seem to remember a memo a while back on a particular fleet where I work about not using remote tuning due to some incident somewhere. I personally never use remote tuning. Seems easy to get it wrong.
---------- ADS -----------
  

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...

#56 Post by confusedalot » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:22 pm

yeah that's the ticket. Don't use the resources available to you. Smart move.

I don't know the bus, but I do know many other aircraft, one of which where the ONLY way to tune radios was through a CDU. I suspect that would qualify as ''remote tuning''.

Let it rest, finger trouble happens. No matter what the technology.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

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

:?

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3432
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#57 Post by pelmet » Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:28 pm

pelmet wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:40 pm
Someone on another forum made this interesting statement......

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/6010 ... ost9951238

"A lesson to all Airbus pilots:
This is what could happen to you when you’re not careful while using remote tuning on your radio management panels."


I seem to remember a memo a while back on a particular fleet where I work about not using remote tuning due to some incident somewhere. I personally never use remote tuning. Seems easy to get it wrong.
confusedalot wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:22 pm
yeah that's the ticket. Don't use the resources available to you. Smart move.

I don't know the bus, but I do know many other aircraft, one of which where the ONLY way to tune radios was through a CDU. I suspect that would qualify as ''remote tuning''.

Let it rest, finger trouble happens. No matter what the technology.
It is a smart move actually. Assuming the link is accurate, one of the SFO guys used his resources and therefore proved how smart it is, by making national headlines. Yeah...that's the ticket. Evaluating which resources are helpful versus increasing risk of "finger trouble" is something we should all do instead of accepting that this is inevitable.

Your mention of types that have only one way to tune is useless to the discussion as it is the only option available :roll: .

Its only my suggestion but I will state it again(as applicable to Boeing's)...avoid the remote tuning. Not sure but I suspect Airbus is the same. I may just find out soon.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by pelmet on Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Alcoholism
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:51 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#58 Post by Alcoholism » Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:46 pm

they mistakenly tuned wrong freq after tower (ground freq in stby, accidentally got switched to primary), realized after touchdown. Memo afterwards from HQ about stop being tards in SFO and be more vigilant when flying there.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Victory
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 260
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:32 am

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#59 Post by Victory » Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:22 am

Set the Ground frequency you want in standby before making your initial call to tower. This also allows you time to listen and make sure you aren't stepping on a conversation with your call. It also prevents this error since if you accidentally switch it to Ground they will come back and say wrong frequency dummy.
---------- ADS -----------
  

mbav8r
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1790
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#60 Post by mbav8r » Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:21 am

Victory wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:22 am
Set the Ground frequency you want in standby before making your initial call to tower. This also allows you time to listen and make sure you aren't stepping on a conversation with your call. It also prevents this error since if you accidentally switch it to Ground they will come back and say wrong frequency dummy.
Victory, are you in the habit of tuning your next frequency before contacting the assigned frequency? There are airports with multiple tower frequencies and if you tune the wrong one and already pre tuned ground in your example, now you have to rely on memory to go back to the previous arrival or trial and error on each of the tower frequencies. As a rule I don’t change the standby until contact is established on the assigned, just saying there is potential for issues either way. Diligence will save the day, making sure after you pre tuned your next call that you’re still on the one you need but I suspect habit played a role here, most of the time, when you dial in a frequency on the standby side, it has been assigned and you flip it over for use.
---------- ADS -----------
  
"Stand-by, I'm inverted"

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

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#61 Post by lostaviator » Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:36 am

Victory wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:22 am
Set the Ground frequency you want in standby before making your initial call to tower. This also allows you time to listen and make sure you aren't stepping on a conversation with your call. It also prevents this error since if you accidentally switch it to Ground they will come back and say wrong frequency dummy.
Yikes. Bad move for so many reasons.

Ever get the frequency wrong? Try and check in and no ones home? Now what are you going to do? Wait for New York to find you on guard?
Ever switch over and have the controller tell you the last guy gave you the wrong one and to go back to the last freq?

I appreciate the fact you wait before checking in because that is my biggest pet peeves. Guys who have their finger on the push to talk before they have switch the freq stepping all over everyone... That or people who check in, don't hear anything for an ENTIRE 5 SECONDS so they chirp in again. Chill. The controller knows you're there. 8)
---------- ADS -----------
  

Victory
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 260
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:32 am

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#62 Post by Victory » Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:49 am

No because I know the frequency before they give it to me. It's on the plate right in front of me. :lol:
---------- ADS -----------
  

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

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#63 Post by lostaviator » Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:58 am

Maybe it is. But that's in the airport environment. Once you train your fingers to do that, they will always do that; including in airspace you aren't familiar with. You'll learn one day.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Victory
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 260
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:32 am

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#64 Post by Victory » Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:54 am

I'm always familiar. The information is published and widely available.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3432
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#65 Post by pelmet » Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:38 pm

"C-GPWG, an Airbus 320-200 aircraft operated by Air Canada, was conducting flight ACA781 from Montreal/Pierre Elliott Trudeau Intl, QC (CYUL) to San Francisco Intl, CA (KSFO) with 5 crew members and 144 passengers on board. After having received the proper clearance to land on Runway 28R at KSFO, the flight crew continued their approach and landed uneventfully. Following the landing and after the flight was handed over to ground control, ATC requested that the flight crew contact them by phone once the flight was secure. Subsequently, the flight crew was informed that the tower had unsuccessfully attempted to contact them while on final approach. The flight crew advised that they had not heard any calls after receiving their clearance to land. The operator is investigating the incident."
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3432
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#66 Post by pelmet » Sun Dec 31, 2017 6:21 am

pelmet wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:28 pm
pelmet wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:40 pm
Someone on another forum made this interesting statement......

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/6010 ... ost9951238

"A lesson to all Airbus pilots:
This is what could happen to you when you’re not careful while using remote tuning on your radio management panels."


I seem to remember a memo a while back on a particular fleet where I work about not using remote tuning due to some incident somewhere. I personally never use remote tuning. Seems easy to get it wrong.
confusedalot wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:22 pm
yeah that's the ticket. Don't use the resources available to you. Smart move.

I don't know the bus, but I do know many other aircraft, one of which where the ONLY way to tune radios was through a CDU. I suspect that would qualify as ''remote tuning''.

Let it rest, finger trouble happens. No matter what the technology.
It is a smart move actually. Assuming the link is accurate, one of the SFO guys used his resources and therefore proved how smart it is, by making national headlines. Yeah...that's the ticket. Evaluating which resources are helpful versus increasing risk of "finger trouble" is something we should all do instead of accepting that this is inevitable.

Your mention of types that have only one way to tune is useless to the discussion as it is the only option available :roll: .

Its only my suggestion but I will state it again(as applicable to Boeing's)...avoid the remote tuning. Not sure but I suspect Airbus is the same. I may just find out soon.
According to a source of mine...AC did send out a memo stating the same as what I suggested earlier on the thread which is....avoid remote tuning.
---------- ADS -----------
  

sportingrifle
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:29 am

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#67 Post by sportingrifle » Mon Jan 01, 2018 2:35 am

My take away is 3 lessons here....

Don't remote tune the radios. How hard is it to reach two feet across to tune a radio?
Don't have the company frequency on No. 2. In fact, don't have it on after landing while taxiing, the company already knows you landed and if the wheelchairs weren't arranged before 10 000', they can wait until the airplane is at the gate.
Instead of pre-tuning ground, have 121.5 on the #2. That is what people who are trying to get a hold of you will use if the normal freq doesn't work. It is also very useful if you have a problem and the atc freq is busy. Very useful in areas where English isn't native.

sportingrifle
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3432
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#68 Post by pelmet » Mon Mar 26, 2018 11:02 am

pelmet wrote:
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.
A very credible source advised me the other day that no entry was made in the logbook because the radio was servicable.

In the end, an unfortunate error happened and as far as I can tell, once discovered was handled properly. Radio mistuning happens on occasion and I can guarantee you that every pilot that has posted on this thread has done it but were likely fortunate enough for it not to be at a critical time. As the PF or PM(or single pilot operation) in this situation, it can be difficult to detect, especially as there can be a tendency for the pilot to partially tune out radio information not directed to your own flight. Which is why I would expect neither pilot to be looking for a light signal.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Zaibatsu
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:37 am

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#69 Post by Zaibatsu » Mon Mar 26, 2018 3:10 pm

Why would remote tuning matter? Whatever method you use, verify the frequency and establish contact. Seems like banning remote tuning is a bandaid fix that doesn’t address the root cause. These guys would have been caught with a KX-170 that didn’t quite ‘clunk’ to the right frequency.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Victory
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 260
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:32 am

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#70 Post by Victory » Mon Mar 26, 2018 3:22 pm

Zaibatsu wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 3:10 pm
bandaid fix that doesn’t address the root cause
Welcome to aviation.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3432
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#71 Post by pelmet » Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:43 pm

Zaibatsu wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 3:10 pm
Why would remote tuning matter? Whatever method you use, verify the frequency and establish contact. Seems like banning remote tuning is a bandaid fix that doesn’t address the root cause. These guys would have been caught with a KX-170 that didn’t quite ‘clunk’ to the right frequency.
We had a memo come out against remote tuning after some sort of an incident. Never heard the details but it was no doubt something about being on the wrong frequency. Guys still do it while setting up multiple HF frequencies but I always double check it in the non-remote state. It just seems to be much easier to make a mistake for some while others seem to have no problem. I doubt your statement about the KX-170 is correct.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Zaibatsu
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:37 am

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#72 Post by Zaibatsu » Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:04 pm

Really? You’ve never tuned a radio and had it 25 or 50 kHz off because you looked away too quickly when tuning it or it got left off a detent or got knocked and went the wrong way?

Like I say, it doesn’t matter if it’s manually tuned, remote tuned, or auto tuned, you need to verify it’s the correct frequency before you hit transmit and that you hear the correct response at the other end. I’m a fan of remote tuning because I can do it faster that way and it’s rare that I’ve punched in the wrong frequency.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3432
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: AC in SFO. Again...

#73 Post by pelmet » Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:59 am

Zaibatsu wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:04 pm
I’m a fan of remote tuning because I can do it faster that way and it’s rare that I’ve punched in the wrong frequency.
Thanks for proving me correct. It may be rare but likely more frequent than normal.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”