Air Canada flight crew almost causes second major incident at KSFO

[skelsey 765]

33 minutes ago, Chock said:

All that aside, short of the crew of that Air Canada jet having been cleared, then owing to expectation bias not considered the possibility their landing clearance might be cancelled and not noticing their radio had gone U/S, it's difficult to defend their actions. That's not an impossible scenario, and if that was the case then they really would not have done anything wrong other than to have not seen a visual signal, but it seems more likely to me that they'd flipped to the ground frequency too early, and that is something they should be pulled up for if that was what happened, although it's kind of difficult to prove

But if that is what happened, disciplining the pilots won't help avoid an incident in future where perhaps the frequency is blocked or the aircraft (or tower) radio fails in similar circumstances.

Not clearing aircraft to land on an occupied runway, however, might do. Heathrow, Gatwick, Amsterdam et al all seem to be able to push large amounts of tin without just clearing everybody to land and hoping the Swiss cheese holes don't line up.

[Chock 17,769]

Just now, skelsey said:

But if that is what happened, disciplining the pilots won't help avoid an incident in future where perhaps the frequency is blocked or the aircraft (or tower) radio fails in similar circumstances.

Not clearing aircraft to land on an occupied runway, however, might do. Heathrow, Gatwick, Amsterdam et al all seem to be able to push large amounts of tin without just clearing everybody to land and hoping the Swiss cheese holes don't line up.

Yup, this is true. It could have been another Tenerife, and as far as I know most Civil Aviation Authorities regard missed communications as one of the major priorities they have to address, since there have been quite a few major collisions on runways as a result of bungled communications.

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

9 hours ago, warriorpilot said:

That is correct but sometimes you can be on a short final when the aircraft ahead of you makes the turn. It happens to me more than often in small GA fields. For example once I was flying to KLNS and there was a 152 landing ahead. The 152 had touched down and I was at a 1-2 mile final. We immediately saw that the aircraft was still on the runway but it possibly could get out of it in time for us to land. So we went to the slowest speed possible and by the time I was starting to cross the threshold the aircraft had crossed the hold line when he was leaving the runway. So in that scenario we legally landed and did not have to go around. 

Had the tower controller told us to go around we would have forgotten our attempt immediately to try to squeeze in and just gone around. That call however never came and we made it in. 

If that crew in fact had a radio failure and the preceding aircraft had vacated the runway they legally did not thing wrong. 

Yeah I totally agree with you. That's what I woukd expect from a pilot.

It comes down to a pilot having a point at which at any given time, if there is something that makes them feel uncomfortable, they go around, whether or not they are told to.

My point is thst just because the faa allows controllers to give consecutive landing clearances has nothing to do with this incident.

 

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

2 hours ago, skelsey said:

But if that is what happened, disciplining the pilots won't help avoid an incident in future where perhaps the frequency is blocked or the aircraft (or tower) radio fails in similar circumstances.

Not clearing aircraft to land on an occupied runway, however, might do. Heathrow, Gatwick, Amsterdam et al all seem to be able to push large amounts of tin without just clearing everybody to land and hoping the Swiss cheese holes don't line up.

The problem is in trail spacing on final. Not clearing someone to land.

I can't tell you how many times I have landed at ord or sfo and then told to hurry off the runway because traffic is on a 1 mile final.

 

[vc10man 732]

I just love reading your posts, Alan, So analytical, so educating too. In one thread, I have gleaned so much knowledge of r/l ops.

Kudos to all.

[vc10man 732]

3 hours ago, Chock said:

could have been another Tenerife,

Hope in what's left of my lifetime, we never go there again.

[Chock 17,769]

21 minutes ago, vc10man said:

Hope in what's left of my lifetime, we never go there again.

Amen to that bro, can remember when that happened, it was horrific.

[vc10man 732]

16 minutes ago, Chock said:

Amen to that bro, can remember when that happened, it was horrific.

And I am of that age to remember too. Just thankful that we did not have the superfast modern wireless world of today for this to have gone pear-shaped in whys, wherefores,and could haves.

Somewhere somebody is still grieving a loved one's loss there.

R.I.P. all.

[skelsey 765]

2 hours ago, ahsmatt7 said:

The problem is in trail spacing on final. Not clearing someone to land.

I can't tell you how many times I have landed at ord or sfo and then told to hurry off the runway because traffic is on a 1 mile final.

Of course, as with many other major airfields. Heathrow manages to land 45-55 an hour on (mostly) one runway with a fair proportion of heavies (hence longer rollouts and greater wake spacing on final). Gatwick manages 50-60 movements per hour (both arrivals and departures) off a single runway. Neither routinely clear aircraft to land without the runway actually being available. Likewise Amsterdam.

To suggest that the fact that the flight was cleared to land before the runway was in fact clear has nothing to do with this is ridiculous -- it has everything to do with it. If Air Canada had not been cleared to land, there would have been no question about whether they should have gone around or not -- there is no excuse not to. Incident avoided.

However, as it turns out, the last instruction they received was "Cleared to land". Then, for whatever reason (which isn't important -- whether it was finger trouble, a technical issue or anything else), they were unable to receive further instructions. In the absence of receiving further instructions, they did precisely what their last received clearance was -- land!

On this occasion, although the result was a technical loss of separation, no actual harm was done. However, this should serve as a wake-up call to highlight what could happen if, as I mentioned above, the holes in the Swiss cheese line up and there is a radio failure or a blocked frequency (stuck mike?) with a more critical situation on the ground after everyone and his wife has already been cleared to land. I suspect however the investigation will focus more on why the comms were lost rather than on the overall system which unquestionably failed dangerous.

[Boomer 1,619]

Some here were too quick to blame the crew in this case...

[ESzczesniak 128]

Yes I am. Crew is responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. That was in Jeopardy. Whatever the reason. They could have even initiated the go-around for a foul runway. 

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

53 minutes ago, skelsey said:

Of course, as with many other major airfields. Heathrow manages to land 45-55 an hour on (mostly) one runway with a fair proportion of heavies (hence longer rollouts and greater wake spacing on final). Gatwick manages 50-60 movements per hour (both arrivals and departures) off a single runway. Neither routinely clear aircraft to land without the runway actually being available. Likewise Amsterdam.

To suggest that the fact that the flight was cleared to land before the runway was in fact clear has nothing to do with this is ridiculous -- it has everything to do with it. If Air Canada had not been cleared to land, there would have been no question about whether they should have gone around or not -- there is no excuse not to. Incident avoided.

However, as it turns out, the last instruction they received was "Cleared to land". Then, for whatever reason (which isn't important -- whether it was finger trouble, a technical issue or anything else), they were unable to receive further instructions. In the absence of receiving further instructions, they did precisely what their last received clearance was -- land!

On this occasion, although the result was a technical loss of separation, no actual harm was done. However, this should serve as a wake-up call to highlight what could happen if, as I mentioned above, the holes in the Swiss cheese line up and there is a radio failure or a blocked frequency (stuck mike?) with a more critical situation on the ground after everyone and his wife has already been cleared to land. I suspect however the investigation will focus more on why the comms were lost rather than on the overall system which unquestionably failed dangerous.

The big difference between your thinking and mine I guess is that just because someone is cleared to land...doesnt mean they are assured a landing.

This doesn't fall on the controllers shoulders in my opinion. It doesn't even fall on the ATC system or the 7110.65.

It falls on the pilots. I can't imagine why a crew would continue to take an airplane past the threshold with another airplane still on the runway. If the runway isn't clear, then you go around. You don't try to thread the needle and you most assuredly don't try to force a landing. I don't care what clearance you have.

It's common sense, even if the radios weren't working, if it doesn't look right, then don't land.

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems as if this was a very close situation where the airbus landed literally as the other airplane was just getting off the runway.

I guess I didn't catch the memo where pilots can't initiate go around on their own.

 

 

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

57 minutes ago, Boomer said:

Some here were too quick to blame the crew in this case...

Why would one not blame the crew? They had every opportunity to initiate a go around before causing this incident.

Radio failure or not, you don't compromise safety to arbitrarily follow a command from ATC.

Gtantrd, it's a really bad day to habe to go missed when your radios aren't working

 however, pilots get paid to get out of these situations and keep everyone safe.

[scottb613 1,187]

Hi Folks,

91.3 seems to put the onus clearly on the PIC - it's a catch all... As a mere GA guy I wouldn't think twice about going around with another aircraft on the runway... In fact I've done it more than once... LOL - you ain't seen noth'n until you approach a busy uncontrolled field on a weekend with good weather...

Regards,
Scott

[scianoir 610]

In my mind "cleared to land" should mean "the runway is yours" - that would be fail-safe terminology.

But then I was only a GA pilot and maybe I'm a dinosaur!

Bill