Another Air Canada Incident at SFO

This is sooo simple and obvious. This was an Air CANADA flight, correct. All the controller had to say was "AC 781, go around, eh" and there would never have been a problem.

Pretty serious failure - SFO a busy place. Kudos to the calm controller.

Is it conceivable that after the clearance to land was received, the crew inadvertently switched the radio to the ground control frequency they anticipated?

Happened to me once at KPHL. The heavies were all on 27L. We were sequencing to land on 35 behind a 757 landing to the west. Approach was talking to both of us continuously about our spacing. We needed a visual on the 75. We were never switched to tower for landing clearance even though we got good spacing for the crossover landing. Unbeknownst to us, tower was telling us to go around on tower frequency multiple times that we never heard. We continued and landed with no problem. Upon clearing the runway we learned we were still on approach frequency with no landing clearance. Two wrongs don't make a right. We got a phone number to call and I was worried that I was going to be reported. Turned out it was approach control apologizing for the unusual event. Nothing ever came of this. We all made mistakes that day.

At least they had time to pull the CVR this time.

My guess is the PNF preselected ground in the standby but accidentally line selected it to active making the tower standby. Probably trying to get ahead of the game once on the ground to limit heads down time. Its an easy thing to do on some equipment because thats your usual habit all the way across the country switching frequencies, you're continually line selecting it the active, but not preselecting.

If the AC crew had heard the repeated instructions to go around, they presumably would have done that, so let's say they didn't hear the calls. I realize that this assumes facts not yet in evidence, as an attorney might say, but if true, what would have been the proper procedure, especially if they suspected that they were having a radio problem due to silence during the approach? Also, how easy would it have been to miss the red light visual go-around signal from the tower? Lots of questions to be answered, but thankfully they landed without incident.

In case the crew was completely focused on a flight deck issue, the tower should have changed his call to AC781. Droning the same thing over and over isn't going to break a crews focus if there was an issue.

There has to be more to this report. No sane pilot would knowingly ignore that sort of instruction...we all know we will be the first ones to smack into whatever is in the way.

1. Aviate.
2. Navigate.
3. Communicate.

No harm, no foul.

In every part of the world except the US , when the Tower issued a landing clearance, it means exactly that. The runway is clear of traffic and you are “cleared to land”. In the US , Tower gives you landing clearance on first contact even though there may be preceding aircraft on approach or on the runway awaiting takeoff. What does FAA mean when an aircraft is “cleared to land”. If only the whole world can follow ICAO standards there would be no such problem.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/10/24/air-canada-flight-781-sfo-close-call/

Tom, one of your photos looks a lot like NKP after 1967. True?

Non c'est aime

A ma côte

Ce mort pour la guerre

Associations flightaware kandiaré mali

Need to hear the full story before I pass judgment

I don't know what happened with ACA781's radios. I haven't heard or read a thing. Nothing has been reported. What happens in US airports, due to congestion, is they clear multiple aircraft to land on the same runway before any have touched down, while also clear aircraft to takeoff from the same runway and taxi aircraft across the same active. A zoo.

Most soundly managed airports with parallel runways dedicate one for outbound and the other for inbound. On this radio clip, the SFO Twr clears two inbound aircraft to land on 28R, ACA781 and UAL502. This rarely happens outside the US, for many good reasons.

There was no danger to ACA781. Whatever issue prompted the Twr to instruct a go around, like some aircraft wasn't where should've been, turned out to be a non-factor. Some people speculate that an AC pilot flipped the channel. Maybe. But the fact is, when a Twr issues a landing clearance, the Twr better be damn certain the runway is clear. In the US, due to too many aircraft, this doesn't happen. US Twr ATC landing clearances aren't any assured guarantee.

Maybe the ACA crew messed up, maybe they didn't. What's for certain is US airspace is a crap shoot.

BATEAUX MOUSSA ABDOU COULIBALY KANDIARE MALI KAYES DST GANA, MALI ..

In China any loss of comm of 10 minutes enroute or 3 minutes in the terminal area would result in severe actions against the pilots, including dismissal in the case of expatriate foreign pilots. As a safeguard we adopted a policy of NO OFFSIDE TUNING of the radio sets. Each frequency change must be done individually on the L and R sets and the PM must announce such changes It is hoped that such deliberate and conscious actions would reduce if not eliminate “finger problems”. Just another attempt ti reduce the chance of an accident, even if it means slightly more work.

Ok

Lots of comments! When we received a landing clearance, we were cleared to land unless some external thing appeared and our clearance was cancelled. We "never" changed radio freq. on the fly, never. However, ground freq. could have been preselected or tuned on another radio outside of the FAF. Things are changing but some of the basics still apply.

Could be incompetence, wrong freq. selected, distraction or whatever. The radio comms used by aircraft are grossly out of date old AM radio sets. One could easily have text messages sent by ATC to aircraft (voice to text so no typing by ATC) and displayed. One could have the flight plan auto-select the frequencies based on GPS position near airport. One could have single button acknowledge of receipt of ATC text message, and on and on. Text message stays displayed in aircraft until new one arrives. But the airline industry, while advanced in many areas, is running model T communications. I've read nothing about anything but ADSB, so I'm assumning old, out of date, unsafe comms will continue for some time.

There are several radios in each aircraft each tuned to a different frequency anticipated to be handed off to as they change controllers. IT is possible the pilot not flying changed a radio earl once given permission to land. If a complete radio failure did happen the P/F would focus on flying the plane and make a visual approach while the NP/f would trouble shoot the problem.

If the P/F felt it was safe to land then he would land the plane, most likely in this event it would be the Captain taking command even if it had been the First Officer fling. If it was not safe to land and without radio communication it would be up to the tower and ATC Approach and departure control to clear air space as the pilot maneuvered for another approach. I believe this is all covered on the pilots approach and departure plates as to heading to fly and forth.

Didn't hear them acknowledge the tower.

I couldn't see what was happening but judging from how he was handling other traffic on the ground, all of the fast-exits were blocked. I don't believe KSFO has a relief taxiway between 28L & 28R, so planes exiting off of 28R literally dead ends into the hold short line for 28L.

IF he could not hear them tell him to go around, how did he hear them give him clearance to land?

Hope this is not a sign of systemic problem at AC but two serious incidents in a row should trigger a full fledged investigation.

If we are cleared to land, our focus is LAND.

Blame pilots? Who cleared the runaway when in reality was not clear?

Air controller created this problem. He must be accountable.

> "I would say this is quite a serious incident. Being asked multiple times to go around, and yet they continue to land."

This is a case of pilots rights vs controllers getting too big for their britches. This is yet another example of the FAA's foolish decision to call people who man the towers "controllers." Being labeled this way can cause an inflated sense of self with certain insecure people. They start thinking of themselves as "controllers" and before they know it they start trying to control everything around them, even aircraft on final approach as in this extreme case.

Pilots need to stick together and not let themselves be trampled upon by people with an inflated sense of power. The Air Canada pilots acted precisely as they should have, ignoring the person yammering at them on the radio. Such yammering is a threat to aircraft safety. Goog going AC!

Pilots Lives Matter

How often does failing to respond to ATC occur over the course of a year?

We have a few house rules. One is to NOT fly foreign flag carriers with a few exceptions, Luftansa, BA and Quantas. We can add Air Canada to this never ever list.

Are light gun signals no longer used by controllers in the Tower? Also, adding the reason for the go-around helps to emphasize the need for the go-around. But then, the pilot must be on the correct frequency.

Not AC... Any flight... If cleared for land... Land and no mind change... And now you go around.

It's not a video game or flight simulator

Thinking ACA has an internal problem. Not the only time they’ve had an incident of being told to go around multiple times and failing to do so. Here a van entered the runway, ATC instructed twice to go around and they did not: https://youtu.be/EGVhfUBUvjc

What was the first accident

Really make me wonder if the pilot speaks English.

I hope this person is not flying around for a while

nianiedo abike thokomi'''

Bateaux commerces de moussa abdou coulibaly kandiare mali destination fana mali Afrique,