"Maintain visual separation - But don't turn away from a conflicting plane!"

[Gabriel]

Pilot rite. ATC wong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fTJ9of_IOc

Would love to hear the opinions of our staff ATP's (in activity or retired). And if we have a controller in our staff I'd love to hear them too.

[bstolle]

Turning without clearance head on into the arriving traffic, almost the opposite direction of the cleared heading, no way I'd even remotely consider that.
I'm surprised that the ATC stayed so calm.
If I think I have to turn now, I would at least continue turning into the approach direction as in the case of a missed approach.

[Gabriel]

Turning without clearance head on into the arriving traffic, almost the opposite direction of the cleared heading, no way I'd even remotely consider that.
I'm surprised that the ATC stayed so calm.
If I think I have to turn now, I would at least continue turning into the approach direction as in the case of a missed approach.

He mentioned that a tailwind was pushing the plane during the turn. It looks to me he was concerned about overshooting his final and he knew there was a plane in the final for the parallel which is extremely close to his final and with whom he was supposed to keep visual separation. In that case keep turning in that direction is a big no-no, no?

What does "maintain visual separation" mean if you are not allowed to maneuver to do so?

As I see it (and again, I am not a pilot, well I am but not that kind of pilot) he received two conflicting instructions: Turn to final to intercept the localizer and maintain visual separation. Those 2 instructions entered in conflict with each other. Between the two, he decided to comply with maintaining visual separation.

[fleckenmann]

If you instruct a pilot to perform a Visual and to maintain own separation he is allowed to manouver. Everything laid down in ICAO DOC 4444

[bstolle]

If you instruct a pilot to perform a Visual and to maintain own separation he is allowed to manouver. Everything laid down in ICAO DOC 4444

At no point in the recording I heard ATC issue an approach clearance.

[bstolle]

He mentioned that a tailwind was pushing the plane during the turn. It looks to me he was concerned about overshooting his final and he knew there was a plane in the final for the parallel which is extremely close to his final and with whom he was supposed to keep visual separation. In that case keep turning in that direction is a big no-no, no?

He could have tightened the turn by e.g. increasing the bank angle and/or reducing speed.

[Gabriel]

He could have tightened the turn by e.g. increasing the bank angle and/or reducing speed.

Well, I am not shy when it comes to criticizing pilots, but in this case he could have done this or that, but he was in the PIC's seat and he had to take a decision. It was his prerogative, not yours.

14 DFR part 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

AIM 6-1-1. Pilot Responsibility and Authority
a. The pilot-in-command of an aircraft is directly responsible for and is the final authority as to the operation of that aircraft. In an emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot-in-command may deviate from any rule in 14 CFR Part 91, Subpart A, General, and Subpart B, Flight Rules, to the extent required to meet that emergency.
b. If the emergency authority of 14 CFR Section 91.3(b) is used to deviate from the provisions of an ATC clearance, the pilot-in-command must notify ATC as soon as possible and obtain an amended clearance.

I'd say that's exactly what the pilot did.

[3WE]

3BS thoughts so Bobby, ATL and Bernt can be thoroughly informed.

I THINK there’s some huge details here around a very small issue.

I think the issue is that MAYBE a TCAS advisory might REQUIRE a go around- thus he saw no good options.

Now, maybe he could have said, hey, I need to swing wide/overshoot the final because it’s looking extremely tight.

I do not see ANY foul in him breaking off. He communicated and ATC did not argue and he has the final authority and doesn’t need the e-word unless ATC argues.

I call BS on “Possible deviation”- again, he communicated and has the final autority.

And sorry: 30 years ago, I was riding an ATR into flyover. We turned from the south downwind to base and flew over the top of an MD-80 lined up for 30L and we lined up on 30R. It looked really cool and a little tight, but I would bet a steak dinner, procedures and separations were followed to a T. I would add that we leveled maybe 1000 feet above the MD-80 and then descend “steeply” to get on the glide slope. It was a similar deal as those two runways are essentially adjacent. Maybe SFO should have had some better Altitude separation?

Finally, while this is certainly geek fodder, it also strikes me as a big nothing/another day at the office.

[bstolle]

If the emergency authority of 14 CFR Section 91.3(b) is used .

I didn't see anything even remotely close to an emergency.
Again, my main issure is the direction in which he turned!!!

[Gabriel]

Again, my main issue is the direction in which he turned!!!

Before they broke off, what bank angle were they holding ? What config did they have? And were they at minimum selectable speed for that config already?

[bstolle]

Since they were most likely still on AP, 25°. If they were already at min speed, they could have extended the flaps further.

[3WE]

Before they broke off, what bank angle were they holding ? What config did they have? And were they at minimum selectable speed for that config already?

Bernt: I have seen airliners approach 30 degrees of bank during landing maneuvers (at STL with our close parallel runways) so to Gabieee’s point maybe he couldn’t steepen the bank, but (to your point) I might have lessened the bank and told ATC I needed to aim a little behind the guy (and perhaps overshoot the centerline and come back and get everything done nice and pretty and stabilized without “punting” and messing up ATCs sequences.

Gabe: A song for you:

https://youtu.be/PEy6968xO-I?si=1UE25tsUZ4RVD7y1

(If the link doesn’t work, it’s not_Queen)

[Evan]

What does "maintain visual separation" mean if you are not allowed to maneuver to do so?

When ATC gives them the base turn, doesn't that cancel the 'maintain visual separation' status and transition to 'follow my vectors?' Air Canada was directed to maintain visual separation with 1603 at that point. Not that I think what they did was wrong if they felt the ATC instruction would lead to another RA/go around.

Turning without clearance head on into the arriving traffic, almost the opposite direction of the cleared heading, no way I'd even remotely consider that.

They abandoned the turn and returned to the previously cleared heading of 100. Where else would you go?

And does nobody here have any concern over an Air Canada flight crossing the active runway STOPPING on the runway, then using the excuse that they were only cleared to cross the runway. That controller was having an eye-rolling day.

[Gabriel]

And does nobody here have any concern over an Air Canada flight crossing the active runway STOPPING on the runway, then using the excuse that they were only cleared to cross the runway. That controller was having an eye-rolling day.

Actually, I have more concerns with that Tower controller than with the pilot. And more concerns with the SYSTEM at SFO than with any particular person operating in that system, be it ATC or pilot.

Regarding the tower controller:

TWR: United 1603, turn left at Delta
UA1603: We'll turn off on Tango, we are not going to make Delta
TWR: Delta is past Tango

No, it is not. Not if you just landed on 28L. Tango is a diagonal taxiway that crosses Delta at about the right runway edge line of 28L. So you land in 28R, Delta is past Tango, but if you land on 28L as UA1603 did, Tango is past Delta.

TWR: Air Canada 765, at Tango cross RWY 28L
AC765: At Tango cross 28L
TWR: Air Canada get of the runway! Hawaiian 12 heavy go around
TWR Air Canada 765, next time you need to exit the runway Is there a reason why you didn't cross the hold-shot bars?
AC765: We were told to cross the runway but no further clearance. We had a tow coming towards and we didn't know if the tow was cleared to cross in front of us. That's why we stopped.
TWR: And you stopped but didn't ask anyone? The clearance was to cross which is to clear the hold bars as appropriate

Well, let's see, you just clear me to cross the runway, you don't tell me what you want me to do next, I am supposed to clear the bars but there is a tow coming that we don't know if they are cleared to cross in front of us and we don't want to crash with it. And, what else? Oh yes, did I mention that Tango bifurcates, correction, TRIFURCATES at the hold short line, and none of these 3 lines is Tango? Which of the 3 lines was I supposed to follow while clearing the hold-short line? Any of the three and I would have violated my taxi clearance.

But no, AC765 very smartly ends the discussion there with just a "Roger that"

Both pilots were smart in not engaging in discussions with ATC when "provoked".

This was the approach controller, not TWR, but...

After UA turns back to the original "downwind" and advises the controller...
APP: United 1603, climb and maintain 5000. If you need like a 12 miles final you need to let me know before I turn your base

That's not what I said. I don't need a 12-miles final, I just need you not to turn me directly into another plane that is flying the parallel and that, if we are lucky, our wingtips will end up just a few 100's ft one form the other.

But no, United just said "Ok, climb and maintain 5000".

Going to the SFO system...

28L and 28R are just 750 ft away. The wingspan of a 737 (or 1/2 wingspan times 2, one 1/2 for each plane) is about 120 ft, so you have just 630 ft from wingtip to wingtip. That's not a lot when approaching at 140 kts, and even less with bigger planes. And ATS loves to put planes as much next to each other as the manage to, because in this way they have more window to clear take offs on the intersecting runways. 28L and 28R also have the thresholds exactly next to each other (no staggering), so having 2 planes next to each other in parallel approaches also mean that they will be at the same altitude. That triggers a lot of TCAS RA's that end up in go arounds. Some companies opted to instruct pilots to select TCAS TA-only mode when operating visual parallel approaches in SFO. Others instruct to keep RA's armed, the logic being that if you get traffic alert in short final that's not the best moment to evaluate and decide if it is coming from the plane next to you or from some other traffic of which you don't even know about. I once suggested that ATC should aim to keep a small staggering, even if just 0.5 miles (which is about 15 seconds) but was burned alive for how much that would affect operations and the airport capacity by delaying all take-offs for 15 seconds cumulative.

[Gabriel]

When ATC gives them the base turn, doesn't that cancel the 'maintain visual separation' status and transition to 'follow my vectors?' Air Canada was directed to maintain visual separation with 1603 at that point. Not that I think what they did was wrong if they felt the ATC instruction would lead to another RA/go around.

I don't know that it would, after all it is still the traffic with which you were instructed to maintain visual separation. But, as you said it is a moot point, for I would say 3 reasons:

1) You want to remain alive and keep your crew and passengers safe. If you perceive an unsafe situation, you are going to do what you need to keep your flight safe.
2) 14 CFR 91.3 says that you have the authority to do so, and 91.123 says that if you deviate from an ATC clearance for safety reasons, you have to advise immediately which they did.
3) It is a no-brainer that, if you have another plane in sight, you are going to keep visual separation from it even if not instructed to do so by ATC.
3 cont'd) But on top of that, you are REQUIRED BY LAW to do so. 91.113(b) says: "When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft."