Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Canada A320 lands at KSFO despite multiple go-around instructions from tower...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    Aha!!! This, if correct, would make much more sense regarding the sequence of events.

    Good find. Two aircraft on the taxiway. Nice job by the controller. In a perfect world, maybe the tower gives turnoff instructions earlier- not that that is a priority during early roll out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Aha!!! This, if correct, would make much more sense regarding the sequence of events.

    Leave a comment:


  • Leftseat86
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    I'm not aware of any actual regulations to the effect, but it stands to reason that it would be good ATC policy to never have an aircraft holding short of 28L on exit T, and if that happens accidentally, to advise following traffic to go-around until you can get it clear.
    SFO is an unusual field as it has two parallel runways very close together. Therefore the distance from the beginning of exit T—a high-speed turnoff—to the hold line short of 28L is very, very short. It's like having you car stall 50 feet into a highway exit. Not the safest place to be sitting.
    It wouldn't surprise me if SFO has a policy to avoid that danger.
    At LAX we have the same thing on the north side, and when the turn offs between the runways get full, ATC usually tells the next arrival which turnoff they should expect to use or "roll to the end".

    Leave a comment:


  • Leftseat86
    replied
    I have no idea what the tower controller saw or why he decided he needed to issue a go-around. Airplanes routinely hold short between those runways at SFO on Tango unless they're an A380 or 777-300 or something. The point is, if the tower needs you to go around, you should go around. There can always be something you can't see, a vehicle, an airplane coming from the crossing runway or a crossing taxiway, etc.

    So if you have no radio, you should just go off flying wherever you please (with no flight plan and no communications to ATC)? And just how is it you get your traffic sequencing and collision avoidance and landing clearance to come back and land, if your radio truly is fried? Landing on a nice clear runway ahead isn't better? And just how are you supposed to know when you radio quits....ask for radio checks every 10 seconds (when maybe you want to focus on landing the plane???).
    There are pretty specific and detailed lost comm procedures for commercial flying. I get it, they didn't know they had a radio issue maybe, but I need to see what the investigation says and see if there actually was an issue or the guys just spaced out or ignored the tower because they didn't think it was a problem. That's not ok.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    Think about that hold line on exit T short of 28L.
    What's the point of a high speed exit if you are going to stop there anyway?
    In this case it seems that a low speed exit was done using that exit because it was closer and easier.
    So why did ATC request D in their case? Seems unfair...
    Maybe because, out of a concern for safety, they reserve T for higher speed exits which do not have to stop short of 28L, while they deem D safer for those that do.
    For one thing, D, as you point out, has better visibility to 28L.
    But there is another thing about D. A following aircraft, turning slowly off at D will certainly see you there and, moving around 10kts or less, have time to stop.
    An aircraft departing onto T with the intent to NOT hold short of 28L can still be traveling at 40-60kts. If you are holding there and for some reason they neglected to notice, that's going to be messy.
    Now, OF COURSE they would see you there. Except that unthinkable runway incursions seem to happen in spite of all the 'of course's'. Distractions. Human factors. Aviation safety is predicated on the assumption of error.

    I'm not aware of any actual regulations to the effect, but it stands to reason that it would be good ATC policy to never have an aircraft holding short of 28L on exit T, and if that happens accidentally, to advise following traffic to go-around until you can get it clear.
    SFO is an unusual field as it has two parallel runways very close together. Therefore the distance from the beginning of exit T—a high-speed turnoff—to the hold line short of 28L is very, very short. It's like having you car stall 50 feet into a highway exit. Not the safest place to be sitting.
    It wouldn't surprise me if SFO has a policy to avoid that danger.
    You might be over thinking things, but no foul... however... what does any of this have to do with the need for a go around?

    ...there has to be more to the story (it could be very simple) and the Av herald report seems unusually silent... you shouldn't have to send someone around BECAUSE they took the high speed...2 planes on T? The prior landing left his tail hanging over and some foul up on being able to tell him to pull up more? blah, blah, blah...

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    Explain how aerioplanie BETWEEN hold short lines comprises clearance.
    Think about that hold line on exit T short of 28L.
    What's the point of a high speed exit if you are going to stop there anyway?
    In this case it seems that a low speed exit was done using that exit because it was closer and easier.
    So why did ATC request D in their case? Seems unfair...
    Maybe because, out of a concern for safety, they reserve T for higher speed exits which do not have to stop short of 28L, while they deem D safer for those that do.
    For one thing, D, as you point out, has better visibility to 28L.
    But there is another thing about D. A following aircraft, turning slowly off at D will certainly see you there and, moving around 10kts or less, have time to stop.
    An aircraft departing onto T with the intent to NOT hold short of 28L can still be traveling at 40-60kts. If you are holding there and for some reason they neglected to notice, that's going to be messy.
    Now, OF COURSE they would see you there. Except that unthinkable runway incursions seem to happen in spite of all the 'of course's'. Distractions. Human factors. Aviation safety is predicated on the assumption of error.

    I'm not aware of any actual regulations to the effect, but it stands to reason that it would be good ATC policy to never have an aircraft holding short of 28L on exit T, and if that happens accidentally, to advise following traffic to go-around until you can get it clear.
    SFO is an unusual field as it has two parallel runways very close together. Therefore the distance from the beginning of exit T—a high-speed turnoff—to the hold line short of 28L is very, very short. It's like having you car stall 50 feet into a highway exit. Not the safest place to be sitting.
    It wouldn't surprise me if SFO has a policy to avoid that danger.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    This is the part that I don't get:

    1- Plane A lands.
    2- Tower wanted plane A to exit in TWY D (perpendicular) but plane A was already leaving the RWY in TWY T (high speed and before TWY D)
    2.1- Obviously, because TWY T being both high speed and before TWY D, Plane A left the RWY before it would in TWY D.
    2.1.1- Why was the controller so eager for plane A to use TWY D?
    3- Plane B was approaching, landing clearance already granted.
    4- When ATC saw what plane A was doing, they desperatly tried to make plane B go around.
    4.1- How would plane A using TWY T instead of D trigger a go-around for plane B request that would have not been needed had plane A used TWY D?
    5- ATC told plane B to use TWY T.
    5.1- Why not D, that was clear?
    6- (the strangest part) Plane C landed with plane A and B in TWY T, without any attempt from ATC to make plane C go around.
    6.1- How plane A in TWY T was a concern for the landing of plane B, but plane A + plane B in TWY T was not a concern for the landing of plane C?

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    Could it be due to T being a high speed turnoff? Do those have to be clear for the runway to be clear?
    Read thread.
    Note Google Earth screen grab photo posted by 3BS to contribute to conversation.
    Note hold short lines in photo.
    Explain how aerioplanie BETWEEN hold short lines comprises clearance.

    Waiting for final report to say aerioplanie might have stopped short?

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    So that they could cross the runway without clearance?
    No, dipshit-blinded-by-procedure, the fundamental rule to always double check for yourself...ATC sometimes makes mistakes... pilots sometimes mistakenly hear that they are cleared...you know... redundancy... backups...

    ...see how pure procedural thinking has a detrimental effect?

    Edit: yes, Gabe beat me to politely state what should be OBVIOUS.

    Edit #2:

    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    Still, even if I was getting clearance on T I might slide open the window to double check that. But you know how paranoid I am.
    1. Please do slide open the window and look.

    BUT I KNOW THAT YOU WILL GET BETTER VISIBILITY IF YOU ARE AT 90 DEGREES INSTEAD OF ~135 DEGREES FROM THE FINAL APPROACH COURSE.

    2a. I am willing to bet that pilots almost always do whatever they can to STILL look down the runway as a safety check.
    2b. I am willing to bet that pilots almost always are intimately situationally aware of the traffic status when crossing a runway.
    2c. I am willing to bet that even with situational awareness and a 135 degree angle that they STILL do whatever they can to look down the runway.

    and

    2d. They will STILL have a better view if they could hold at a 90 degree angle instead of a 135 degree angle. (and that's probably got something to do with that being a designated hot spot.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    So that they could cross the runway without clearance?
    Not so.
    So, AFTER RECEIVING THE CLEARANCE you can look both sides BEFORE CROSSING THE RUNWAY in case the controller or another pilot made a mistake.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Could it be due to T being a high speed turnoff? Do those have to be clear for the runway to be clear?

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    3. A plane utilizing D would be perpendicular so they could look out a side window (only 90 degrees) and see approaching traffic much better.
    So that they could cross the runway without clearance?

    Still, even if I was getting clearance on T I might slide open the window to double check that. But you know how paranoid I am.

    Doesn't explain the 28R go-around at all though...

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by flashcrash View Post
    I've probably got this wrong, but I believe taxiway T is a runway incursion hotspot. Although quite why D is not is a mystery to me.
    Do we read each others posts, or just blow in here full throttle and post off of the original and/or title? (and that references more than one instance in this thread of redundancy).

    1. I believe that hot spots TEND to have history (although one might also be able to infer what might be a hot spot...2, and 3 describe the inference)
    2. A plane utilizing T would have bad visibility of planes landing on the parallel runway because they are 'facing foward' and do not have much visibility from ~135 degrees to the left.
    3. A plane utilizing D would be perpendicular so they could look out a side window (only 90 degrees) and see approaching traffic much better.
    4. While you may think you could Take T and successfully assume the same position had you taken D, the hold short lines in a post not-too-far-above shows otherwise.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by Comment in AvHerald I wonder by whom? :uhoh:
    For the record and for what it's worth, I am against it being permitted that ATC clears an airplane X to land when there are other airplanes that will land or take-off in the same runway before the airplane X. I know that it is permitted in the US, it is not permitted in many other places of the world.

    To clear an airplane to land, the RWY should be clear and expected to remain clear unit such airplane lands.

    Yes, you can always order the go-around later. But you can also let the plane keep approaching and withheld the landing clearance until later. If the plane is about to touch down and have not received a landing clearance they must go around.

    Remember the La Guardia accident where an MD-80 went off the side of the RWY? It was disabled with no radio for several minutes, and ATC didn't know because of the fog. It could have been a TOTAL AIR DISASTER.
    .

    Leave a comment:


  • flashcrash
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    I don't understand the significance of T over D here except that T would get them to the 28L crossing sooner... but not that much sooner. Are they timing things that tight at SFO?
    I've probably got this wrong, but I believe taxiway T is a runway incursion hotspot. Although quite why D is not is a mystery to me.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X