AC in SFO. Again...

[Jet Jockey]

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'.

[atphat]

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

[trey kule]

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.

[photofly]

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?

[crazyaviator]

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 !

[CFR]

Time to bring back Tasker Shacks!

[lostaviator]

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?

[pdw]

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 ...

[ditar]

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.

[BE20 Driver]

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).

[complexintentions]

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.

Incidentally the term du jour for a go around from below DH is a "rejected landing", not a "go-around".

[pelmet]

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).

[rookiepilot]

. .

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.

[PT6-114A]

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.

[pelmet]

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]

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.

[pelmet]

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.

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 .

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.

[Alcoholism]

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.

[Victory]

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.

[mbav8r]

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.