Jump to content

AirCanada Lands in SFO despite being told to abort


Guest

Recommended Posts

October 24, 2017 7:25 am   Updated: October 24, 2017 7:26 am   
 
Air Canada flight from Montreal lands on San Francisco runway after crew told to abort landing


 By Staff  The Canadian Press    
https://globalnews.ca/news/3821395/air-canada-san-francisco-airport-abort-landing/

 American aviation officials are investigating after an Air Canada flight from Montreal landed on a San Francisco runway after being told not to.

The Canadian Press/Adrian Wyld
SAN FRANCISCO – American aviation officials are investigating after an Air Canada flight from Montreal landed on a San Francisco runway after being told not to.

Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Ian Gregor says Air Canada flight 781 was inbound to San Francisco International Airport on Sunday night and was initially cleared for landing.

But Gregor says air traffic control later instructed the Air Canada crew to abort the landing because the controller wasn’t sure whether a previous flight would have completely cleared the runway before the Air Canada jet reached it.

He says the Air Canada crew did not acknowledge any of the controller’s instructions over the radio, so a supervisor then used a red light gun to alert the crew not to land.

But again, the crew didn’t respond, and Gregor says the flight landed immediately.    
  
After landing, the Air Canada crew told the control tower that they had a radio problem.

Gregor says that a radar replay showed the previous arrival was clear of the runway when the Air Canada flight landed.

READ MORE: Air Canada plane almost lands on crowded taxiway at San Francisco airport

Representatives from Air Canada did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Well, this is going to be interesting.

My standard disclaimer that investigations are the job of investigators.  That said, the audio is compelling and raises a long standing concern.

A landing clearance used to mean that the runway was yours and safe to use.  As a result, landing clearances would not be issued until the controller had the conditions to issue it.  In Toronto, we get all sorts of late landing clearances, which is not necessarily a good thing, but in SFO and a lot of US airports, you can get a landing clearance with traffic still to land ahead of you.

Anyone familiar with the old 'swiss cheese' model can spot this trap immediately.  With a clearance in hand, the crew assumes they are cleared to land until told otherwise.  With an early landing clearance, the runway will not, in fact, be safe to use at some point, or several points, from the time of clearance until landing.  In the event one of the aircraft ahead does not clear, that landing clearance is now a threat that has to be mitigated, and that mitigation is going to rely on communications.  A comm failure, frequency congestion, clipped transmission and a few other things can defeat that mitigation.  This incident appears, AT THIS TIME, to have that complexion.

While the investigation will, I hope, this time have a CVR, what really sticks with me is, had there not been an early landing clearance issued, the AC flight would have gone around, because that same comm issue, whatever it was, would have interfered with the issuance of that landing clearance, instead of the rescinding of a previous, now inappropriate, clearance.

FWIW

Vs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right at the beginning of the audio he clears an aircraft to land on 28L then clears an aircraft for takeoff on 28L  How is that appropriate?

AC 781 was cleared to land at the beginning of the audio.  2 subsequent aircraft were also cleared to land BEFORE 781 was told to go around.  how can 3 aircraft be cleared to land at the same time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, boestar said:

Right at the beginning of the audio he clears an aircraft to land on 28L then clears an aircraft for takeoff on 28L  How is that appropriate?

AC 781 was cleared to land at the beginning of the audio.  2 subsequent aircraft were also cleared to land BEFORE 781 was told to go around.  how can 3 aircraft be cleared to land at the same time?

The FAA has a different set of rules when it comes to landing clearances. But what is given can always be taken away. As long as you can hear the call. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vsplat said:

Well, this is going to be interesting.

My standard disclaimer that investigations are the job of investigators.  That said, the audio is compelling and raises a long standing concern.

A landing clearance used to mean that the runway was yours and safe to use.  As a result, landing clearances would not be issued until the controller had the conditions to issue it.  In Toronto, we get all sorts of late landing clearances, which is not necessarily a good thing, but in SFO and a lot of US airports, you can get a landing clearance with traffic still to land ahead of you.

Anyone familiar with the old 'swiss cheese' model can spot this trap immediately.  With a clearance in hand, the crew assumes they are cleared to land until told otherwise.  With an early landing clearance, the runway will not, in fact, be safe to use at some point, or several points, from the time of clearance until landing.  In the event one of the aircraft ahead does not clear, that landing clearance is now a threat that has to be mitigated, and that mitigation is going to rely on communications.  A comm failure, frequency congestion, clipped transmission and a few other things can defeat that mitigation.  This incident appears, AT THIS TIME, to have that complexion.

While the investigation will, I hope, this time have a CVR, what really sticks with me is, had there not been an early landing clearance issued, the AC flight would have gone around, because that same comm issue, whatever it was, would have interfered with the issuance of that landing clearance, instead of the rescinding of a previous, now inappropriate, clearance.

FWIW

Vs

Perhaps after receiving the landing clearance from SFO tower on the active selected frequency, someone tried to preset SFO ground control on the standby side and messed things up? That many unanswered calls until on the runway makes me think a second set of eyes rectified the problem in the flight deck. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

blues, your scenario s entirely possible - and frankly that kind of trap in built right into the panel of that aircraft.

That said, as we have seen in runway  and taxiway incursions, the business of opening the trap door (clearing someone to do something before you know it to be OK)  and then expecting you can close it later (if you find out it isn't OK after all)  is simply bad design.  In the "normal" case, the crew finger trouble, or other comm failure results in no landing clearance = go around = safe.  In the FAA early clearance world, as we have seen, the same combination of events results in a landing without assured separation = unsafe.

I know I am on a hobby horse here, but the latitude within the US regarding landing clearance seems to me to be expediency trumping safety.  But then, how many of their airports are already operating above their design safety capacity?

rant off (for now...)

Vs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vsplat said:

 

I know I am on a hobby horse here, but the latitude within the US regarding landing clearance seems to me to be expediency trumping safety. 

Exactly right.  Checked in with BOS TWR a few days ago; "You're number 3, cleared to land."  From the time we were "cleared to land" until we actually landed there were 8 aircraft movements on our intended runway!  The 2 guys who landed and cleared ahead of us, 2 take-offs from a crossing runway (1 between each lander) and 4 aircraft taxiing across our runway (2 between each lander).  On top of this we were bullied into accepted a Visual so the controller could tighten up the spacing and there was a Cape Air 402 doing a slant Visual to 33R.  The configuration was landing 33L and departing 27.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion..however...I am sure all of us have accepted a landing or T/O clearance  when the runway has not been TOTALLY clear. I think every once in awhile what happened in SFO does happen at many airports  and fortunately no serious consequences...however....... if ATC were to ensure the runway was totally vacant at the time of issuing a clearance the traffic flow at that airport would be seriously impeded. 

The trick is to get an acceptable balance, without compromising flight safety, between the aircraft operators and the ATC. I think we can agree that most airports and crews  are doing just that.

If you don't agree, then the responsibility is on you, the drivers to refuse to accept  what you consider as an unacceptable clearance....and put your opinion on paper to the authorities .

If there is further investigation, (CVR etc) I hope it is made public.

seeker posted....

On top of this we were bullied into accepted a Visual so the controller .....

(((perhaps a "mis-post??))

With respect..."bullied" ??? In all my years it would be a frosty day in hell when any controller "bullied" me into any procedure......he might "ask" me  to vary/change  my chosen procedure  but I have never been "bullied"  into any procedure........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think he meant a real “bullied” but more like there is an understanding from the controller that you’re going to accept the clearance. Always your choice to say no and continue vectoring or whatever.

I’ve had several discussions about accepting a visual approach because the question becomes who is responsible for traffic separation? In a court of law it would probably be the PIC. US controllers love to hand out visual clearances and at some of the busiest airports too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullied is a pretty good term here.  Yes you can try and refuse, and on occasion I have done so, but the reality is such a decision often trades one problem for another, perhaps of greater significance.  First off, it may take a very long while to get a word in edgewise.  Then it will take a while for the controller to accept that a landing clearance that virtually every other flight on their shift has accepted, is somehow a problem for your flight.  Then there will be a 'whatever' moment as they realize that the analysis is not relevant, you are going around. 

Then they have to find a spot for you.  Many of us here have had the pleasure of a GA at a busy US airport.  I'll pick on LGA, simply because they love to shoehorn traffic with the best of them.  I've gone around there plenty, and yes, some of those times, I called, 'this is not going to work, AC### is going around'.  Well, it felt like the first go around in the history of aviation.  multople headings, altitudes, clearances, reclearances, all the while the two of us are trying to get the aircraft cleaned up, maybe get the box to catch up to the action so our map makes sense, since of course we are not on the published missed.  Etc, etc.  My personal record for the next approach was 35 minutes later.  We had the fuel in those days to entertain ourselves as we toured New York State at low level.  Nowadays, I'm thinking that would have been a diversion, to, hmmmm, Newark?  It's not going to be a straight in.

Most of the time the overstuffing of traffic becomes a risk management exercise, where the crew is choosing the least of evils.  It should not be that way, but believers in the normalization of deviance would be on familiar ground in this discussion.

So, while the term may be distasteful and perhaps even beyond belief,  a crew burning into their extra fuel doesn't have the luxury of an on-air dust-up with ATC.  If ATC overpressures the situation, the crew has to suck it up and decide if they can live with it.  Maybe not traditional schoolyard bullying, but the dynamics are similar.

Vs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect, it seems as though at least some of the posts constitute " preaching to the crowd"; telling other pilots that which they might reasonably assume is known.

From " out here", what appears to be the case is that once clearance was received, certain assumptions were made and the rf was changed and as a result, further atc  landing instructions were not received.

That is perhaps presumptuous but either the radio failed completely or approach frequency was changed prematurely. There is no way that received instructions would be ignored.

Seeker references his experience. The bottom line from his post is that they heard and responded to instructions presumably correlating those with the capabilities of the aircraft in that given situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kip Powick said:

seeker posted....

On top of this we were bullied into accepted a Visual so the controller .....

(((perhaps a "mis-post??))

With respect..."bullied" ??? In all my years it would be a frosty day in hell when any controller "bullied" me into any procedure......he might "ask" me  to vary/change  my chosen procedure  but I have never been "bullied"  into any procedure........

"Bullied" I said and "bullied" we were - no mis-post.  Thanks for Vsplat for typing the whole thing out so I don't have to.

Here, I'll tell one short story;  Going into ORD, summer evening, hazy, landing west, into the setting sun.  I've been to ORD plenty of times and know where the airport should be but couldn't see it because of the sun and haze.  

ATC: "XXX, you got the field?"

Us: "Negative, too hazy."

5 seconds later (literally, 5 seconds later) ATC: "XXX, you got the field?"

Us: "Negative, we're looking into the setting sun here."

ATC: "XXX turn right heading 360, climb 5 thousand."

Us: "Turn right heading 360, Wait!, what's going on?

ATC: "Everyone else is able the visual, if you aren't I'm going to break you out and we'll work on a different plan.  So....you got the field now?"

Us: "Field in sight"

ATC: "Yeah, thought so, cleared the visual, switch to tower."

We did not have the field in sight but we had the ILS.  This is actually what the controllers want - they want you to fly the ILS but say that you have the field in sight so they can shorten the spacing.  Technically I should have been cleared for the ILS but the controller would not clear me for that.  I was going to play by their rules or get a tour of Northern Illinois.  Same thing has happened to me at a dozen major airports in the USA.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soooooooo..both you and Vsplat have been "bullied" by ATC.

You call this being "bullied" yet, in all seriousness  you were not...(Not going to post the definition of being bullied....you can look it up if you so desire:lol:)

There were no threats given to either of you.....you were given options and you decided to facilitate your arrival by accepting an option that you felt was not perfect, but would expedite your arrival and fell within your personal envelope of not compromising  Flight Safety.

If you didn't like the situation and felt it could result in compromising Flight Safety you certainly were justified with advising ATC and initiating a GA.

In the end, it depends on each persons interpretation of the word " bullied".......In my world, when flying , I was never  " bullied by ATC" and I think most ATC personnel would object to that phraseology.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bul·ly1
ˈbo͝olē/
verb
past tense: bullied; past participle: bullied
  1. use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.

 

 

I don't know Kip, sounds like exactly what happened.  Furthermore I don't know why you won't accept my description of what I see on a regular basis? 

When you were flying you were never bullied - got it.  Meanwhile, for those of us flying today - happens all the time.  Anyway, I'm not going to waste any more electricity arguing this with you.  HAGD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing new here, the US has been issuing premature landing clearances since at least the 1970's to improve efficiencies. As we can see, a poor plan can be expected to go wrong every once in a while. Although we don't have the full story regarding the crew's role yet, it seems pretty clear they were in the right.

There's another trap that's commonly laid by ATC that sets a crew up for disaster; late / last minute runway changes, especially in IFR conditions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if I came into this convo late or I missed something, Anyway, both YYZ and YUL have issued landing clearances with traffic ahead for years now. Don't know about YVR. Good, bad , or indifferent that's the way it is.

The red landing signal is ridiculous. If you have been still active in the last 30 years, when was the last time you looked at the tower for a light?  Especially if you'd already received a landing clearance. For me it was Springbank, for controller training in 1973. Sheesh.

The other thing was ATC. Not good. I would have expected something like "ACXXX traffic on runway. Pull up and go around". Maybe with just a touch of urgency. This is kind of a big deal. That monotone blurb thing just blended in with the dross. 

They'll figure it out. Welcome to the imperfect universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a drumbeat of cultural acceptance? No one seems to be responding to the simple fact that after clearance was issued, a cautionary note was sounded and ignored or at least, reportedly so.

Please pause and consider the comments on this forum when Air France pilots made certain decisions that had negative consequences.

I suggest that the response of their NA peers was less than " sympathetic and understanding".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...