AirCanada Lands in SFO despite being told to abort

[blues deville]

My last A320 flight was April 2003. Does that black toggle switch on the lower right corner turn off the ACP? Cannot remember.

[J.O.]

Quote

My last A320 flight was April 2003. Does that black toggle switch on the lower right corner turn off the ACP? Cannot remember.

That is correct. However IIRC, it is an over centre switch that requires a deliberate lifting of the toggle to turn it off, making accidental changing of the switch position unlikely.

The FAAs policy on early landing clearances is unique in the western world. It is a textbook example of normalization of deviance at the institutional level and ICAO’s blindness to this (and other ATC issues in the USA) is shameful. 

[boestar]

Just out of curiosity I spent my lunch break watching and listening to ATC arrival and Tower for runway 23 in YYZ while I ate.

No clearance to land was given when another landing clearance was in effect for that runway.  it was one at a time.  Landing clearances WERE given with an aircraft "on the roll" for departure.  Not once did I hear a clearance given for an aircraft that had one still on approach.   The clearances were given on a fairly short final.

[Moon The Loon]

3 hours ago, boestar said:

Just out of curiosity I spent my lunch break watching and listening to ATC arrival and Tower for runway 23 in YYZ while I ate.

No clearance to land was given when another landing clearance was in effect for that runway.  it was one at a time.  Landing clearances WERE given with an aircraft "on the roll" for departure.  Not once did I hear a clearance given for an aircraft that had one still on approach.   The clearances were given on a fairly short final.

The Americans are "famous" for this: Imagine being third in a row on approach, two ahead of you and one lining up on the ground for takeoff, and you get your landing clearance. All in good VMC notwithstanding.

Ludicrous.

[vanishing point]

 

"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."

 

YVR is intermittent on this.  Don't know if it's controller preference or their policy.

[UpperDeck]

Just a very little like Boestar, I watched a video of operations at AMS. For reasons I would not pretend to understand, they were using what I will call a N/S runway for arrivals but directed an Emirates 380 to an E/W runway for departure. This required the Emirates flight to cross the arrivals runway.

An arriving KLM was given clearance and the Emirates flight was asked to proceed with all due speed.

He couldn't move fast enough. The arriving KLM was directed to go around.

A little more complex than that but you get the idea.

So.....here we have an AC flight given clearance. Yes.....perhaps prematurely but clearance nonetheless. Agreed?

Now....conditions changed and it was suspected that the runway was not clear. A warning was sounded but not heard.

The issue is NOT about US practices and procedures. The issue is with the failure of communications between ATC and this particular flight on this particular day!

If the "impedance" to a safe runway in SFO was this lumbering Emirates 380, well....all would NOT have ended well when the AC 320 failed to respond to a direction to go around.

Why did that AC flight crew not hear or respond to the ATC communications? 

THAT is the issue!!

[blues deville]

I’d say this was just bad timing plus finger trouble on the Audio Panel. I recall that Airbus (A320) design took some practice to get comfortable depending on previous experience. Perhaps a training flight or again was fatigue a factor after a long flight from YUL?

Radios worked all the way from Dorval and somehow stopped at 1500’, then started again on the ground?

Unfortunate for AC that it was in SFO again. 

Re: Photo is a screen shot of :45 sec time lapse video at SFO. My FO set his iPhone to video my birthday landing. Day or night it’s a busy place and you can see  how close these parallel runways are to each other. 

[Kip Powick]

Busy Airports...(2016 Data)

 

[blues deville]

Interesting list but ATL has everything from Q400s to A380s. Seoul/Incheon (#19) doesn’t know what a propeller is. 

The only ones not in my logbook are #’s 21& 29. And hopefully won’t be adding them. ATL at #1 is definitely busy and they love to hand out the visuals too. Of course time of arrival makes a difference between relaxed and not so much.

Our company ATC g/s instructor is a retired Atlanta controller and I could listen to his stories all day long about life as a controller in a busy airport. Interesting guy. 

[Zan Vetter]

Aircraft movements probably more relevant that passenger volume but it’s an ok proxy for how busy the airspace is I guess.

[Kip Powick]

22 minutes ago, Zan Vetter said:

Aircraft movements probably more relevant that passenger volume but it’s an ok proxy for how busy the airspace is I guess.

Aircraft Movements

 

[Zan Vetter]

USA 3 of the top 10 by pax volume, 8 of the top 10 by movements. Yep the airspace is busy.

[Lakelad]

.

Would've video provided confirmation of who and when?

Quote

' the pilot told FAA investigators he received clearance to land before the radio frequency was changed, but did not say who switched the channel or why,'

Air Canada pilot blames switched radio channel for close call in San Francisco

Thu Jan 11, 2018 - The Globe and Mail
Eric Atkins

The pilot of an Air Canada plane that landed at San Francisco International Airport despite repeated orders to abort the touchdown told U.S. investigators the crew could not hear the commands because the cockpit radio's frequency had been changed, according to documents obtained by The Globe and Mail.

The Airbus 320 from Montreal was within 2.1 kilometres of touching down at about 9:30 p.m. on Oct. 22 when an air-traffic controller ordered the plane to abandon the landing because another passenger jet had not cleared the runway. When the Air Canada crew failed to respond, the controller repeated the "go around" command six times. The tower then took the unusual step of flashing a red light at the cockpit in a final attempt to wave it off, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration said.

The orders went unheeded. After the pilot landed safely, he told the tower he had radio trouble.

The air-traffic controller replied, "That's pretty evident," according to a recording of the communications from LiveATC.net.

In a postincident interview, the pilot told FAA investigators he received clearance to land before the radio frequency was changed, but did not say who switched the channel or why, according to FAA reports obtained by The Globe in a Freedom of Information request.

"After receiving landing clearance from SFO [San Francisco] tower, the VHF radio frequency was changed to another frequency. The runway was clear and in sight so I landed," the pilot said. "After clearing the runway is when we discovered that the tower did try to communicate with us but we did not hear any communications until on the ground."

The FAA said the pilot's failure to monitor radio communications is a violation of federal aviation regulations, but "appears to not have been intentional."

The incident report said the other plane was clear of the runway when Air Canada landed, but it was not clear if "all parts" of the plane had crossed the holding line on the taxiway.

The close call is the second recent incident involving Air Canada passenger jets making nighttime landings at San Francisco and raises questions about Canada's rules governing pilot flight time and fatigue.

The incident, which could have involved hundreds of passengers and crew members, was averted when the Air Canada crew aborted the landing 59 feet above the ground, flying over the jets waiting to take off just before midnight local time.

Speaking about the Oct. 22 incident, retired pilot John Cox speculated fatigue could have made the pilot less aware the normally busy radio had gone silent.

A crew member likely switched the console-mounted radio to another frequency by mistake, said Mr. Cox, who flew for 48 years. "It's likely that they never knew they didn't have radio communication," he said.

Air Canada declined to comment.

The Vancouver-based pilot's name, age and other identifying information were blacked out in the FAA documents obtained by The Globe.

According to the report, the pilot had flown a total of 26,000 hours, including 7,500 in the Airbus model involved in the incident.

The pilot told investigators it was his first flight of the day and he had been on duty for 10 hours with eight or more hours of rest in the previous 24 hours. He said he believed fatigue played no role in the incident and he was not feeling rushed, according to the report.

Airline industry experts say Canada's rules on pilot flight duty times are more lax than those of the United States, Europe and many other countries. Canadian pilots, who adhere to Canadian rules when they fly internationally, are allowed to be at the controls more hours in a month and are entitled to less rest between flying than pilots in most other countries.

Canadian rules permit flight crews to be at work for 14 hours, compared with nine to 13 or 14 hours for pilots in the United States and Europe.

"When you compare Canada's rule to the U.S., Europe and others, there's probably only two or three countries with more lax rules than us," said Dan Adamus, the president of the Canadian branch of the Air Line Pilots Association.

Clinton Marquardt, an industry fatigue consultant and a former Transportation Safety Board investigator, said pilots' working conditions make them vulnerable to fatigue and their abilities to operate safely can suffer.

"One of the challenges pilots have is they're expected to sleep at all different times during the day. And their body takes time to adjust to new sleep periods," Mr. Marquardt said.

The Canadian government has proposed new rules for pilot flight duty and rest, noting "the current Canadian regulatory regime does not reflect the scientific principles and knowledge on fatigue that were only discovered and understood in the last few decades," according to a Transport Canada summary of the proposed rules.

The final version of the new rules is expected to be issued early in 2018. Large passenger airlines will have 12 months to comply.

Pilot groups say the new rules are not tough enough and place airlines' financial interests ahead of passenger and crew safety.

"The good news is we're on our way to a new rule. The bad news is it's not as robust as it should be," Mr. Adamus of the Air Line Pilots Association said.

Under the proposed rules, flight duty time, which includes pre- and postflight work, is reduced from 14 hours to a range of nine to 13 hours, depending on the time of day the pilot started work. Yearly flight time is capped at 1,000 hours, down from 1,200 hours.

However, the Air Canada pilots union says the new rules will allow pilots whose long-range flights begin in the late afternoon or evening to fly for more hours than their U.S. counterparts.

Mr. Adamus, a pilot with Jazz Aviation, said the new rules are silent on a pilot's maximum daily flight time, compared with the United States' eight or nine hours or the 8 1/2 hours recommended by NASA.

Risk of collision or "loss of separation" accounted for 139 of 833 incidents in Canada in 2016, according to Canada's Transportation Safety Board. TSB data show landings account for the vast majority of aircraft accidents in Canada between 2007 and 2016.

Since the July near miss, the FAA has changed the rules governing night landings at San Francisco. When an adjacent runway is closed, pilots must use instruments or satellite-based systems to land, and cannot rely solely on a visual approach.

Additionally, the FAA now requires two air-traffic controllers be on duty during busy nighttime periods.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

Here we go again, how long until............................................

FAA investigates latest close call at San Francisco airport By OLGA R. RODRIGUEZ Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- An Aeromexico passenger jet was ordered to abort a landing at San Francisco International Airport as it descended toward a runway occupied by another commercial jet, the third close call at the busy airport in six months, officials said Thursday. Aeromexico Flight 668 from Mexico City had been cleared to land Tuesday and it was about a mile (1.6 kilometers) from the airport when controllers saw the aircraft was lined up for a runway occupied by a Virgin America Airbus A320 jet waiting to take off for Kona, Hawaii, Ian Gregor, Federal Aviation Administration spokesman, said in an email. The tower ordered the Aeromexico Boeing 737 jet to circle around. "Aeromexico 668 go around!" an air traffic controller is heard saying on audio recordings, the Mercury News in San Jose, California, reported. The pilot quickly acknowledges the request to abort the landing: "Aeromexico 668 going around." The 11:45 a.m. event happened after the Aeromexico jet was cleared on Runway 28R the airport, which is parallel to Runway 28L. The R stands for right and the L stands for left, Gregor said. Crew on the Aeromexico jet were "cleared to land on Runway 28R, and correctly read back that clearance. When the plane was about a mile from the airport, air traffic controllers noticed the aircraft was lined up for Runway 28L and instructed the crew to execute a missed approach," Gregor said. The plane later safely landed, Gregor said. He said the FAA has opened an investigation. Pilots and safety experts said air traffic controllers did a good job when they quickly redirected the Aeromexico jet at an airport that many pilots say is notoriously difficult to land at. The runways are close together and unlike at other major airports, planes landing and taking off often share the same runways. "I would not say there's cause for alarm," said retired airline captain and aviation safety expert John Cox. "The tower, air traffic control, did a very good job, they sent the Aeromexico flight around." Longtime American Airlines pilot Chris Manno said "it seems a pilot got left and right wrong in their head," Manno said. "The good news is the controller recognized it and the system worked." An Air Canada flight crew landed in October on one of the airport's runways despite repeated warnings to abort because a controller believed another airplane had not left the area yet. In July, an Air Canada jet with 140 people on board nearly landed on one of the airport's taxiways where four planes were waiting to take off, prompting the FAA to issue new rules for nighttime landings and control tower staffing at the airport. "The third incident in six months, it does raise an eyebrow," said Doug Moss, an aviation consultant and airline pilot. "All three incidents were caused by different reasons, but in general the San Francisco airport is somewhat problematic, in that there's a lot of traffic in and out of there, and there's not enough runways, the runways they do have are not separated laterally enough." He said officials have pushed for years to expand the airport, but there is significant community opposition.

[conehead]

Longtime American Airlines pilot Chris Manno said "it seems a pilot got left and right wrong in their head,"

What’s the big deal? My wife does this all the time, it’s my job to correct her!

[DEFCON]

Together, the details of the Halifax and SFO incidents make it sound like some major improvement to the sop's related to visual approaches are in order.

 

 

[blues deville]

30 minutes ago, DEFCON said:

Together, the details of the Halifax and SFO incidents make it sound like some major improvement to the sop's related to visual approaches are in order.

 

 

You are correct DEFCON. An FAA directed improvement. 

[DEFCON]

An interesting read between the lines kind of FAA document.

https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2017/SAFO17010.pdf

 

 

[DEFCON]

From 'Flight Safety International' ...

Air Canada to conduct 'immediate safety review' following SFO close calls

An Air Canada jet lands at San Francisco International Airport, Tuesday, October 24, 2017, one day after another Air Canada flight failed to heed a go-around order from the air traffic controller. (Karl Mondon/ Bay Area News Group)

Air Canada has launched a review of its operating system and increased pilot training among a number of changes prompted by two dangerous close-calls at San Francisco International Incident in the last six months. (Karl Mondon/ Bay Area News Group)

SAN FRANCISCO - Following two alarming close-calls at San Francisco International Airport last year, Air Canada has agreed to an immediate safety review of its entire operations, including increased pilot training and a closer look at the airline's arrivals and departures at SFO, the Bay Area News Group has learned.

The airline's agreement - worked out with Transport Canada, that country's Federal Aviation Administration equivalent - comes amid a spike in incidents involving other airlines during take offs and landings at SFO. The National Transportation Safety Board is also investigating a December 2016 incident where a passenger jet almost pulled onto a runway in front of a departing jet liner, as well as a February 2017 incident where a plane aborted a landing when it learned another commercial jet liner was on the runway.

But the sweeping Air Canada reviews show how serious the two SFO incidents with that airline were, including one which aviation experts have said could have caused one of the deadliest aviation disasters ever.

"Many airlines have gone through this type of scrutiny after a major problem," said Ross Aimer, a retired United Airlines pilot and CEO of Aero Consulting Experts, who has followed the SFO mishaps. "These are all good and welcomed measures. However, I don't see a crucial part which is a look at pilot fatigue issues in Canada."

Aimer said he believes fatigue played a role in both Air Canada incidents at SFO. In July, an Air Canada nearly landed on four passenger jets awaiting takeoff after the flight crew mistook a crowded taxiway for its intended runway. In October, an Air Canada plane ignored repeated orders from the tower to abort its landing because air traffic controllers feared a different plane was still on the runway. The Air Canada plane landed safely, and later explained that it was having problems with its radio.

"Transport Canada continues to work with Air Canada as a result of these incidents," said Transport Canada spokeswoman Marie-Anyk Côté. "To date, the department is satisfied with the review conducted by Air Canada of their Airbus program as well as the corrective action plan they have put in place to address identified issues."

The measures include:

Conducting an immediate safety review of Air Canada's operations;
Reducing intervals between pilot training and evaluation from eight to six months for the next three years;
Conducting four in-flight surveillance flights into and out of SFO;
Appointing a technical advisor to observe the ongoing SFO investigations;
Enhancing surveillance activities on the airline's narrow body Airbus fleet and;
Air Canada conducting a complete review of its operations.
Air Canada did not respond to a request for comment. Côté said Air Canada's operations audit is ongoing.

FAA spokesman Ian Gregor said his agency is "satisfied with the actions (Air Canada and Transport Canada) have taken."


Last week, an Aeromexico plane lined up to the wrong runway, where a Virgin America plane was waiting to depart. That plane dropped to about 250 feet and was about .69 miles from the start of the runway before aborting the landing and flying over the other aircraft, according to data reviewed by this news agency.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/17/exclusive-air-canada-to-conduct-immediate-safety-review-following-sfo-close-calls/
 

 

[Boney]

Maybe KSFO is the problem, not discounting fatigue. 

CPDLC could also help as its another backup, like 121.5, in the event atc can't get a hold of you. But, the yanks don't use it. Maybe when ADS-B becomes mandatory in 2020, the US will utilize this technology. 

Cheers. 

[blues deville]

6 hours ago, Boney said:

Maybe KSFO is the problem, not discounting fatigue. 

SFO is a busy airport and you need to bring your “A” game each time. But no different than any other major US airport that AC serves. 

[Boney]

58 minutes ago, blues deville said:

SFO is a busy airport and you need to bring your “A” game each time. But no different than any other major US airport that AC serves. 

Agreed.

However, it seems that KSFO have issues over the last few years. Lets hope that the investigation come up with something that we all can learn from.

Cheers

[blues deville]

1 hour ago, Boney said:

Agreed.

However, it seems that KSFO have issues over the last few years. Lets hope that the investigation come up with something that we all can learn from.

Cheers

I’m hoping that the fatigue issue gets addressed because I firmly believe the near taxiway landing was a direct result of tired pilots. 

[conehead]

23 hours ago, DEFCON said:

Enhancing surveillance activities on the airline's narrow body Airbus fleet and;

What does this mean?

[Kip Powick]

11 minutes ago, conehead said:

What does this mean?

Just a WAG but It sounds like more "check-pilots" doing more long flights on the narrow body fleet