Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Air Canada | Aeroplan
Reload this Page >

AC ignores multiple SFO ATC go around orders Oct22

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

AC ignores multiple SFO ATC go around orders Oct22

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Oct 25, 2017, 12:41 pm
  #46  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: OGG, YYC
Programs: AA, AC
Posts: 3,697
Originally Posted by Bohemian1
We will probably never know, but I really question what is going here with cockpit management. ATC assigns a frequency, you read it back and punch into the radio if it's not already set up. They identify themselves on the new frequency and get no response.

At this point two pilots decide to ignore the issue for now and proceed to land. Is this SOP? I always thought you were supposed to go back the previous frequency, identify yourself and your status and inquire what the correct frequency is supposed to be. Or were they simply following the last "AC 781 clear to land, contact XXX at YYY.Y"?
That's not what happened. They were already on tower frequency. That's clearly the case because they accepted and read back landing clearance. The next frequency change will not occur until they're on the ground and clear of the runway, so there's no reason to touch the radios.

What they might have done is, after landing clearance, pre-tune the ground frequency so that when handed off to ground, they can switch quickly with one button push. I do this myself, but I always get that done long before I'm on tower frequency. Making any change to the radio in the super critical phase between landing clearance and clearing the runway is risky.

The above is speculation. It's possible there actually was a radio equipment failure. But I'd bet against that. My money is on poor cockpit practices.
After Burner is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2017, 1:00 pm
  #47  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: OGG, YYC
Programs: AA, AC
Posts: 3,697
Originally Posted by RangerNS
It is suspicious that they ignored the red light, but I have no idea if it could realistically have been visible from the cockpit. Pilots have good vision, but peripheral vision and cognitive capabilities are finite. If you don't think your radio is broken, you think everything is fine, why would you be on alert for 1920's signal device?
This, I think, is exactly right. I have my doubts that I would notice a light signal from the tower during short final. I've never seen one, so have no idea what it would look like. I don't recall ever having talked to another pilot who has ever seen a light gun.

This might have been an effective signal in 1920 when airfields were remote and dark places. But in 2017 at SFO where there's a sea of lights, including blinking red lights on the left wing tips of every aircraft on the ground, it might be very difficult to see.
After Burner is offline  
Old Oct 26, 2017, 4:43 am
  #48  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by RangerNS
... Or the tower radios could have been. The tapes are what was spoken into the operators mic, not necessarily what was broadcast, not necessarily what was received by the A/C, and not necessarily what was received in the headphones of the crew.
What we are hearing are not ATC tapes, live recording made by others on that specific frequency. If a live ATC listener/receiver able to hear, so does a/c.

Question is did maintenance checked and found any issue with equipment. Very unlikely or they fixed in 90 minute. FAA/TSB report should tell.

Some posters on social media suggesting, crew are allowed to erase CVR, that would raise more questions.
avcritic is offline  
Old Oct 26, 2017, 9:00 am
  #49  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada
Programs: UA*1K MM SK EBG LATAM BL
Posts: 23,309
Originally Posted by RangerNS
Why do you think nothing has changed? Are you up on the flight polices and maintenance PIM?
To me, the fact that 'incidents' keep happening is a good indicator that noone cares.
rankourabu is offline  
Old Oct 26, 2017, 9:22 am
  #50  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: YEG
Programs: AC Lifetime SE100K, 3MM, SPG Lifetime Plat, Hertz PC, National Executive Elite
Posts: 2,901
Originally Posted by rankourabu
To me, the fact that 'incidents' keep happening is a good indicator that noone cares.
Obviously, you have never worked in a hazardous environment. It is exactly these types of events that give upper management the warnings that something is missing and that changes need to be made. BTW, in this event, there are, once again, redundant processes in place to prevent a ground strike. Of course, the primary barrier is the call from the tower. The secondary barrier is the light. These 2 barriers were obviously ignored. There is a third and equally important barrier. That is the pilots' ability to see as they land. Of course, if there was a plane on the runway, and they saw it, they would go around. They landed and they landed safely, I don't think we know if there was still traffic on the runway when they landed. The warning is that the first two (or perhaps more) barriers did not function as designed. Once you rely on the final barrier, you no longer have a redundant process. This is concerning. I think it is wrong to say that no one cares. I am sure that management cares and that they are doing everything that they believe is necessary to fix these problems.

Just my two cents.
YEG_SE4Life is offline  
Old Oct 26, 2017, 9:29 am
  #51  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SJC/YUL
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold
Posts: 3,878
Originally Posted by YEG_SE4Life
Obviously, you have never worked in a hazardous environment. It is exactly these types of events that give upper management the warnings that something is missing and that changes need to be made. BTW, in this event, there are, once again, redundant processes in place to prevent a ground strike. Of course, the primary barrier is the call from the tower. The secondary barrier is the light. These 2 barriers were obviously ignored. There is a third and equally important barrier. That is the pilots' ability to see as they land. Of course, if there was a plane on the runway, and they saw it, they would go around. They landed and they landed safely, I don't think we know if there was still traffic on the runway when they landed. The warning is that the first two (or perhaps more) barriers did not function as designed. Once you rely on the final barrier, you no longer have a redundant process. This is concerning. I think it is wrong to say that no one cares. I am sure that management cares and that they are doing everything that they believe is necessary to fix these problems.

Just my two cents.
Wow, what a snarky reply. What evidence do you have that management is doing everything necessary to fix this?? AC has officially called this a "normal landing". That would indicate that they intend to fix absolutely nothing.
Mountain Explorer is offline  
Old Oct 26, 2017, 9:31 am
  #52  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,804
Originally Posted by kjnangre
Wow, what a snarky reply. What evidence do you have that management is doing everything necessary to fix this?? AC has officially called this a "normal landing". That would indicate that they intend to fix absolutely nothing.
I don't thnk that indicates anything. PR BS and internal safety stuff are orthogonal to each other.

At least they got rid of Valujet Klaus.
Stranger is offline  
Old Oct 26, 2017, 9:38 am
  #53  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SJC/YUL
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold
Posts: 3,878
Originally Posted by Stranger
PR BS and internal safety stuff are orthogonal to each other.
That sounds good. I see no evidence that it's true at AC tho. Do you have some?
Mountain Explorer is offline  
Old Oct 26, 2017, 9:52 am
  #54  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: YEG
Programs: AC Lifetime SE100K, 3MM, SPG Lifetime Plat, Hertz PC, National Executive Elite
Posts: 2,901
Originally Posted by kjnangre
Wow, what a snarky reply. What evidence do you have that management is doing everything necessary to fix this?? AC has officially called this a "normal landing". That would indicate that they intend to fix absolutely nothing.
Snarky? Towards whom? I just thought it was a little more factual. Evidence that they care? Millions of people fly with them on an ongoing basis and have no close calls or incidents. It is an extremely hazardous industry. If upper management didn't care and didn't put efforts into improvement, things would deteriorate quickly. I have seen it.

Don't get me wrong. Events like this are eye opening. It is false to say that AC doesn't care. It also opens their eyes. The only other thing that I can offer as evidence is that, a couple of months after the taxiway landing attempt, I sat beside an AC Director and had a direct conversation with him.

I fly as much as anyone does on AC. Especially within NA. If they didn't care, they would be unsafe. If they were unsafe, I wouldn't trust them.
YEG_SE4Life is offline  
Old Oct 26, 2017, 9:59 am
  #55  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SJC/YUL
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold
Posts: 3,878
Originally Posted by YEG_SE4Life
Snarky? Towards whom? I just thought it was a little more factual. Evidence that they care? Millions of people fly with them on an ongoing basis and have no close calls or incidents. It is an extremely hazardous industry. If upper management didn't care and didn't put efforts into improvement, things would deteriorate quickly. I have seen it.

Don't get me wrong. Events like this are eye opening. It is false to say that AC doesn't care. It also opens their eyes. The only other thing that I can offer as evidence is that, a couple of months after the taxiway landing attempt, I sat beside an AC Director and had a direct conversation with him.

I fly as much as anyone does on AC. Especially within NA. If they didn't care, they would be unsafe. If they were unsafe, I wouldn't trust them.
No close calls or incidents?? 100% false. You must have an incredibly short memory. I would argue that AC has had the MOST number of close calls and incidents of any worldwide airline this year. You clearly have a blind trust of them, regardless of the facts. Fine, it's your life. I, however, will not fly on an AC plane until things change.
Mountain Explorer is offline  
Old Oct 26, 2017, 10:01 am
  #56  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Toronto, ON
Programs: AC 75K
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by kjnangre
I would argue that AC has had the MOST number of close calls and incidents of any worldwide airline this year.
What's your evidence for this statement?
ChrisA330 is offline  
Old Oct 26, 2017, 10:06 am
  #57  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: YEG
Programs: AC Lifetime SE100K, 3MM, SPG Lifetime Plat, Hertz PC, National Executive Elite
Posts: 2,901
Originally Posted by kjnangre
No close calls or incidents?? 100% false. You must have an incredibly short memory. I would argue that AC has had the MOST number of close calls and incidents of any worldwide airline this year. You clearly have a blind trust of them, regardless of the facts. Fine, it's your life. I, however, will not fly on an AC plane until things change.
I would say that you are taking my comments out of context. They have had a couple of close calls. There are still millions of people who have flown with them who have not experienced a close call. You're right, you can choose not to fly with them. I can choose to fly with them. I just like the comments to be factual. There are too many armchair critics who are quick to defame. To say that upper management doesn't care is A False Statement. End of story. If you want to say that you don't see any evidence that they care. Well, that is your opinion. I doubt that they will be sending you a letter outlining the steps that they are taking to change your opinion.

And, now I am truly curious. How will you know when things have truly changed, so that you can start to fly with them again?
YEG_SE4Life is offline  
Old Oct 26, 2017, 10:07 am
  #58  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SJC/YUL
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold
Posts: 3,878
Originally Posted by ChrisA330
What's your evidence for this statement?
The two incidents at SFO. I follow the industry closely and I am not aware of any other worldwide airline that has had multiple such incidents this year or that came within a handful of feet of killing so many hundreds of people. Especially not airline that cares so little that they keep "accidently" letting the CVR get overwritten by quickly flying the plane again. So ya, there's lots of evidence.
Mountain Explorer is offline  
Old Oct 26, 2017, 10:13 am
  #59  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,449
Originally Posted by kjnangre
The two incidents at SFO. I follow the industry closely and I am not aware of any other worldwide airline that has had multiple such incidents this year
I'm sorry but "not aware" isn't empirical evidence to support your contention. If there is facts to support your contention please share them but until then it's merely an opinion. That is of course merely my humble opinion.
tcook052 is offline  
Old Oct 26, 2017, 10:13 am
  #60  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SJC/YUL
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold
Posts: 3,878
Originally Posted by YEG_SE4Life
To say that upper management doesn't care is A False Statement. End of story.
Well then, it's settled. I feel so much better now, I'll book some AC flights immediately.

You're exactly the same as the PR BS who call everything "normal", with no regard for the facts
Mountain Explorer is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.