AC in SFO. Again...

[pelmet]

I had a com failure once down in YHM in an aircraft. I accidentally pulled a short headset cord out. Squawked 7600 on final and landed. Figured out the problem once I was on the ground. ATC asked if I saw the green light. I did not and I doubt the AC guys saw the red light. That’s just the way it likely is.

Pelmet....your amateur TSB investigator[but who gets more facts out for you].

[corytrevor]

Jet Jockey.

The crew involved in the previous SFO incident has never tried to cover anything up and has been 100% truthful throughout the investigation.

How do you know?

People on this forum are big on making absolute statements of fact on matters where in all likelihood they don't have access to any factual information. And if they do have access to that information, they probably shouldn't be commenting about it on a forum such as this.

Your supposition that I don’t have the facts is incorrect. Having said that, what part of my post shouldn’t be posted on a forum such as this?

[GyvAir]

Jet Jockey.

The crew involved in the previous SFO incident has never tried to cover anything up and has been 100% truthful throughout the investigation.

How do you know?

People on this forum are big on making absolute statements of fact on matters where in all likelihood they don't have access to any factual information. And if they do have access to that information, they probably shouldn't be commenting about it on a forum such as this.

Your supposition that I don’t have the facts is incorrect. Having said that, what part of my post shouldn’t be posted on a forum such as this?

If you have first hand access to the facts, a general sense of professionalism would tell you the answer to that question.

The only way you could really know with absolute certainty whether the crew was 100% truthful was if you were one of said crew. If that’s the case, this really isn’t where you should be talking about it.

[corytrevor]

How do you know?

People on this forum are big on making absolute statements of fact on matters where in all likelihood they don't have access to any factual information. And if they do have access to that information, they probably shouldn't be commenting about it on a forum such as this.

Your supposition that I don’t have the facts is incorrect. Having said that, what part of my post shouldn’t be posted on a forum such as this?

If you have first hand access to the facts, a general sense of professionalism would tell you the answer to that question.

The only way you could really know with absolute certainty whether the crew was 100% truthful was if you were one of said crew. If that’s the case, this really isn’t where you should be talking about it.

A general sense of professioanalism would lead one to assume that the Air Canada crew told the whole truth. The fact that some on this forum doubt that speaks volumes about their character.

No I am not one of the crew lol. Why would they scroll through this mud slinging contest.

[GyvAir]

I don't doubt that they would tell the truth, either. No matter how much they may have messed up, lying about the details wouldn't likely help anything.
In the off chance they didn't though, it would be far from the first time a crew had "gotten their stories straight" before talking to investigators.

My little bone to pick though was just people stating "facts" with nothing to back them up, not even a personal track record of credibility on the site. (whatever that’s worth)

[whistlerboy02]

The CVR will sort it out...... it always does

[GyvAir]

Are FDRs these days fancy enough to determine and record what radios are selected and to what frequencies?

[Mach1]

Agreed and I'm willing to accept your comment but they claim they had radio problems...

What sort of problem, partial comm failure, total comm failure, hit the wrong switch comm problem?

SQ7600 if you know you have a comm failure? How did they talk to ground once they had landed?

Anyway I guess we will find out when the "official" report comes out.

Hopefully this crew will be more forthcoming and more truthful then the previous 320 crew involved in the near miss in SFO.

I can't and won't speak to the radio... I wasn't there... my only comment was on the use of a light signal.

if you know you have a comm failure?

I think than is an important part of the event... did they know they had a comm failure? Or did they only realise that after they tried to call for taxi clearance? I don't know... none of us know.

Maybe we should put down the pitchforks and torches until we do know.

[A346Dude]

What is the point of a landing clearance if everyone gets it on initial contact, especially if they're not told about the traffic not far ahead who could dog it getting off the runway?

[True North]

This was by definition a comm failure, we just don't know what caused the failure.

I can't accept that an Air Canada crew intentionally ignored 6 calls in one minute from the tower to go around (according to CTV News so take that for what it's worth). They didn't hear the calls. It could be a technical fault or it could be finger trouble but the last transmission they heard was "cleared to land". They undoubtedly knew the preceding traffic had to clear the runway and that things were close so they were likely both quite focused on the traffic while also mentally preparing for a go around. The control tower is way over there on the left somewhere and I don't know how bright the light is that they shine at you. The last time I saw one was when I did my PPL and I seem to remember having to really look for the damn light - and that was at a little airport that didn't have lights flashing all over the ramp all the time. So, it's entirely possible the crew didn't see the light either. Ultimately it's a happy ending, nothing got bent and no one got hurt. The facts will come out and we'll all learn some lessons but in the big scheme of things it's a non-event. I agree that if it wasn't SFO we probably wouldn't be talking about it.

[atphat]

I don’t know about any of you. But when I’m within 6 miles of the airport the last thing I’m looking at is the tower and looking for lights. I’m either flying or monitoring. So we can all stop pretending that’s it’s a big deal in any way they didn’t see “the light”. A light they weren’t aware they were supposed to be looking for.

[ahramin]

It’s worth thinking about though. Happened to me in YVR a couple years ago. Pm messed up the frequency change, was trying to get back on arrival at 500’ and I looked at the tower and saw the green light. Saved a go around.

If you’re not expecting it though, you’d never see it.

[atphat]

Good point

[trey kule]

If you’ve ever paid attention you would know I don’t speculate and will say what I always say regardless of who is involved. I don’t know what happened and will wait until the report comes out and facts are known. Pretty much what you said, but don’t let that stop your insults.

You are right about the insult, my apology, and I will try and refraim in the future

[Meatservo]

A whole lot of feathers and not much chicken, if you ask me. This is boring.

[confusedalot]

Unintended finger trouble...oops...that's my vote. Yes it is boring.

['97 Tercel]

SFO is a supreme sh$t-show. Most days it makes Newark or Teterborough look like CYEG...and that's on a nice day. I find the controllers there difficult to deal with.

[KAG]

I second the thought if this had if happened anywhere other the SFO, this wouldn't be news. Anyone who hadn't accidentally flipped a radio (or forgot to) isn't being honest. The red light... Been a long time since looking for one. Can't comment. It's just poor timing (go around instructed after landing clearance Recieved) and location that this is even news.

[oldtimer]

No one has ever mentioned the fact that maybe the comm radios were working just fine but the busy crew just tuned them out. They were cleared to land, had the runway in sight and in all probability saw the United flight clearing the runway. From the audio feed I listened to, my SWAG guess was that they were inside the FAF when the go around instruction was given. Before I retired, I can remember instructing my right seater to ignore all calls below 200 feet. On take-off, we were also trained to ignore and not respond to any calls from V1 and until we reached 400 feet. Does anyone know what AC's SOP's say about any communications inside the FAF or if they are instructed about doing a go around below 500 feet AAE.

[daedalusx]

No one has ever mentioned the fact that maybe the comm radios were working just fine but the busy crew just tuned them out. They were cleared to land, had the runway in sight and in all probability saw the United flight clearing the runway. From the audio feed I listened to, my SWAG guess was that they were inside the FAF when the go around instruction was given. Before I retired, I can remember instructing my right seater to ignore all calls below 200 feet. On take-off, we were also trained to ignore and not respond to any calls from V1 and until we reached 400 feet. Does anyone know what AC's SOP's say about any communications inside the FAF or if they are instructed about doing a go around below 500 feet AAE.

Completely false as every 705 operator will conduct a low-energy go-around in sim during training/ppc/loft (truck/plane on the runway) way below 200'.