Results 1 to 19 of 19

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

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    L.A.
    Posts
    6,884

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

    Radio issue? Ok. I suppose we will be able to tell from the CVR what actually happened, but it's pretty dangerous do be incommunicado at that point in a flight.

    The FAA later reported that tower cleared the Air Canada A320 to land when it was about 6nm out, but once he recognized that the runway might not be clear he instructed the A320 to go around for six times. When the aircraft did not respond tower also used the light gun showing red to alert the crew to go around, however, the aircraft continued to land. The runway happened to be clear by the time the A320 touched down. The crew subsequently told tower they had a radio problem. The FAA have opened an investigation into the occurrence.


    http://avherald.com/h?article=4b016414&opt=0

  2. #2
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,098

    Default

    I have scoured the Av-Herald thing for several minutes...

    I am not seeing ANY mention of a hazard, though I will ass-ume that the aircraft that landed earlier was not adequately clear by some obscure regulation...I also have to ass-ume that the pilots saw a good clear runway, and that given that you routinely land sorta kina usually pretty close to the centerline, there was no real danger unless the pilots wanted to make big reversing rudder inputs and swerves to hack off Evan.

    I also don't get why Taxiway D would get them adequate clearance while the high-speed Taxiway T presented a hazard...sure, the geometry is different, but it would appear you approach the SAME hold short line.

    Along with some fundamental rules (like look out the window), AND some procedures that address what to do if your radio messes up, seem to have handled this as it's supposed to be handled...

    Quote Originally Posted by The Legacy who posted in the Av Herald discussion thread
    No Radio = Go Around
    By The Legacy on Tuesday, Oct 24th 2017 17:24Z

    I have no clue why this flight didn't do a go-around. If they have radio problems, their first task would be to immediately go around; In a loss-comm go-around scenario, ATC can redirect traffic in the air, and TCAS can assist. Neither can help on the ground.


    I think we are seeing a parlour talking ass-hat. 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???). And then I'm thinking of light plane instrument procedures where they tell you that if the radio quits, just continue on your flight plan...INCLUDING LANDING.

    ATC knows what you were PLANNING to do, so sticking with the plan is a pretty good idea, assuming there's no obvious reason to deviate into confusion!
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leftseat86 View Post
    Radio issue? Ok. I suppose we will be able to tell from the CVR what actually happened, but it's pretty dangerous do be incommunicado at that point in a flight.



    [/FONT][/COLOR][/CENTER]http://avherald.com/h?article=4b016414&opt=0
    Tower just wanted to instruct the previous landing to roll down to taxiway D when he saw the aircraft had already joined taxiway T. The controller therefore instructed the aircraft to hold short of runway 28L on taxiway T.

    As result tower instructed "Air Canada seven eighty one, go around"
    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?

  4. #4
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,098

    Default

    Went to Google Earth where one can see the hold-short lines.

    I see why MAYBE the tower wanted the plane to go to taxiway Delta. For some crazy, nit-picky, black-and-white legal reason, Taxiway D allows you to get closer to the runway, making the act of crossing it quicker...AND it is depicted as a hot spot...the pilots would have better visibility crossing the runway square...to see landing traffic (not that that is supposed to matter- other than SA is a good thing).

    I still DO NOT see what any of this has to do with a need for a go-around. The high-speed taxiway seems to offer a good slot to park the plane and be officially clear of both runways (just like Taxiway D).

    Of course, an Av-Herald article is NOT the final report...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	KSFO.JPG 
Views:	23 
Size:	153.7 KB 
ID:	10355
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,887

    Default

    Quote 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.
    .

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  7. #7
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,098

    Default

    Quote 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.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

    Quote 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...

  9. #9
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

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

  10. #10
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,887

    Default

    Quote 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.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  11. #11
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,098

    Default

    Quote 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:

    Quote 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.)
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  12. #12
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,098

    Default

    Quote 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?
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,887

    Default

    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?

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  14. #14
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,409

    Default

    Quote 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.

  15. #15
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,098

    Default

    Quote 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...
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    L.A.
    Posts
    6,884

    Default

    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.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    L.A.
    Posts
    6,884

    Default

    Quote 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".

  18. #18
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,887

    Default

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


    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  19. #19
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,098

    Default

    Quote 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.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •