Cleared to land?

An open discussion of aviation safety related issues.

Moderators: FrankM, el, Dmmoore

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4342
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Cleared to land?

Postby 3WE » Sun Mar 05, 2017 5:43 pm

Are we sure?
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 3793
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: Cleared to land?

Postby flyboy2548m » Mon Mar 06, 2017 2:46 pm

No.
Chief Pilot/ACJ Program Manager, Vandelay Industries, Inc

User avatar
J
Posts: 1171
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: South of Canada

Re: Cleared to land?

Postby J » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:21 pm

SFO Landing Incident Prompts Focus on Pilot Monitoring, CRM

In a safety alert prompted by the July 7 incident at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) in which an Air Canada Airbus A320 nearly landed on a crowded taxiway, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration is reiterating the importance of vigilant pilot monitoring and overall crew resource management (CRM) to maintain safe levels of situational awareness on the flight deck.

Approaching SFO at just before midnight, the pilots of the A320 received clearance to land on Runway 28 Right, but came within about 60 feet of touching down on the adjacent parallel taxiway. Four aircraft occupied the taxiway at the time: two United Airlines Boeing 787s, a United 737 and a Philippine Airlines Airbus A340.

This incident is an extreme example of incorrect surface approaches and landings,” the FAA said in the August 18 alert aimed at flight operations professionals. “This event highlights the importance of employing best practices for successful approaches and landings to the correct airport and runway.”

On the night of the incident, Runway 28 Left remained closed for construction, and several indications of that fact included a lighted X and an Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) message noting the runway’s lights were not illuminated.

Preliminary NTSB reporting suggests the Air Canada pilots, who had lined up on the taxiway for at least 3 nautical miles, lost situational awareness. According to the NTSB, both the taxiway and the active runway were illuminated on “default settings,” including green centerline and blue edge lights on the taxiway, as well as white centerline and touchdown zone lights and green threshold and edge lights on the runway’s approach end.

At about 0.7 nautical miles out, the Air Canada crew queried ATC about “seeing lights on the runway,” NTSB said, and requested a cleared-to-land confirmation. ATC re-confirmed the clearance. Moments later, the crew in the United 787 sitting first on the taxiway told ATC that the Air Canada aircraft was headed for the taxiway. The second aircraft, the Philippine A340, turned on its landing lights.
As the Air Canada aircraft passed over the taxiway end, at about 85 feet agl, the crew advanced the thrust levers and initiated a go-around.

“In post-incident interviews, both incident pilots stated that, during their first approach, they believed the lighted runway on their left was 28 Left and that they were lined up for 28 Right,” the NTSB said in a factual update on the probe. “They also stated that they did not recall seeing aircraft on taxiway C but that something did not look right to them.”

The FAA’s alert emphasized using monitoring and CRM as risk-mitigation tools. The agency also underscored the importance of pre-flight briefings to cover topics such as notices to airmen and expected airfield configurations, and monitoring ATIS messages while approaching the airport.

“If something does not look correct, the observing crewmember bears the responsibility for communicating what they see,” the FAA said. “The key behind successful CRM is being receptive, informative, proactive, and persistent. CRM also delineates job functions and the expectation of support.”

The captain, who has accumulated about 20,000 total flight hours, served as the pilot flying. The first officer has flown about 10,000 hours.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... toring-crm

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4342
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Cleared to land?

Postby 3WE » Tue Aug 29, 2017 9:09 pm

There is much talk there on how we should solve this, with the normal call that FMS HAL-9000 MUST monitor the stupid pilots and that we need better type specific training and procedures.

The blue line of silence seems rather firm- this only happens one in a bazillion times (like the overly-long takeoffs).

Still...is there a trend?

I continue to state two things:

1. It sure seems like those runway lights are dim. (One real departure from reality on MSFS is how the bright runway lights show up miles upon miles away and even cut through clouds). But being more realistic, the black hole appearance of an airport is always amazing, and I don't see much contrast between taxiway and runway lights, yeah, the blue vs. white thing is apparent from 50 feet out the side window, but 3 miles out with an ever-so-shallow 3-degree view surrounded by street lights and store fronts and billboards and....

2. Somehow we must almost TOTALLY ABSOLUTELY 100% eliminate landings without some sort of electronic navigation confirmation. I know ILS's go out of service but Magenta lines seem to be a heck of a backup...and if you aren't going to have a backup what do we need in the way of an extra safety check to be sure we are on the right place.

One other sad thing. In the 1970's there used to be all sorts of side steps given out from the Flyover control tower. And until 2000, there was an LDA-DME side-step approach in use...maybe it's not analogous, but we seem so fixated on a long stabilized approach that we can't think about a side step if you happen to choose the wrong line of lights 5 miles out...If the guys could have noticed 3 miles out, the side step would have been nothing (don't tell Evan)...then again, with the other runway dark, the guys had the traditional mental picture that THE runway was the LEFT runway, and THE taxiway, the right runway.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
ocelot
Posts: 306
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:26 pm

Re: Cleared to land?

Postby ocelot » Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:59 am

The colors of incandescent lights become surprisingly indistinct at a distance. I wonder how much LED lighting improves this, if any.

That said, it's easy to do this: you expect to see two runways, you see two runways, even if one of them isn't. Especially somewhere you've been a zillion times before. They did at least notice that something was off... what happens with the same setup and Captain Ding Bang Ow?

Maybe inactive runways should get lit up red instead of turned off.

User avatar
reubee
Posts: 682
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:36 am
Location: AKL

Re: Cleared to land?

Postby reubee » Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:22 pm

Thought this page might have been referring to this recent incident http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4accb6aa&opt=0 Read the report http://knkt.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_avia ... Report.pdf and check out the ages and experience levels of all concerned.
Image

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4342
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Cleared to land?

Postby 3WE » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:37 pm

Thought this page might have been referring to...
To be honest, I forget exactly what this was referring to. I recall some discussion at JetPictures with the normal enthusiastic outsider recommendations as to how the industry really needs to change it's landing clearance procedures.

...perhaps some incident where the tower forgot to clear someone to land, or some brief CRM haggling on whether clearance was obtained- rather minor deal.

Nevertheless- this thread still beats the heck out of the discussion, there.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
J
Posts: 1171
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: South of Canada

Re: Cleared to land?

Postby J » Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:48 pm

Those Wacky Canadians Are At it Again

FAA probes second Air Canada landing flub at San Francisco International

An Air Canada flight missed a crucial landing instruction — delivered multiple times — as it touched down at San Francisco International Airport on Sunday night.

The incident triggered yet another Federal Aviation Administration investigation into the airline, months after the airline just missed a major crash there.

Air Canada Flight 781 from Montreal was six miles away from SFO when air traffic control cleared its landing. “The Air Canada crew acknowledged the instruction,” said FAA spokesman Ian Gregor. The plane was supposed to land on Runway 28R.

However, the tower controller was not sure that the runway would be completely clear by the time Flight 781 hit the ground, so he told the crew — repeatedly — to execute a “go-around,” a strategy pilots use to buy time on landings by circling the airport.

“Air Canada 781 go-around,” an air traffic controller said six times, according to a radio recording posted by the San Jose Mercury News.

According to Gregor, the instruction was given “repeatedly,” but the crew didn’t acknowledge the order. So a traffic supervisor used a red light gun — which Gregor called “standard protocol” for an unresponsive aircraft — to make sure the crew got the message. The crew did not circle the airport — it simply landed on the original runway.

Luckily for the plane, the runway was clear of traffic by the time it touched down at 9:26 p.m. After landing, the crew told the tower they had a radio problem.

Air Canada is investigating the incident, airline spokesman Peter Fitzpatrick said. “Upon landing the crew was informed the tower had attempted unsuccessfully to contact the aircraft, however the message was not received by the crew,” Fitzpatrick wrote in an email.

This weekend’s incident comes not long after an Air Canada flight on the same runway came within 100 feet of smashing into two planes waiting to leave.

In July, the pilot flying Air Canada Flight 759 from Toronto to San Francisco lined the plane up with a taxiway that ran parallel to runway 28R. According to the FAA, four full planes were lined up and awaiting approval to take off.

Canada’s Transportation Safety Board said in a preliminary report that the flight flew over the taxiway for a quarter-mile. Pilots told investigators “they did not recall seeing aircraft” on the taxiway but “something did not look right to them,” a National Transportation
Safety Board report stated.

One of the planes queued up on the taxiway turned on its lights as the crew saw the Air Canada jet draw near.

Air traffic control helped stem the collision by ordering the pilot to abort the landing and circle the airport. “Where is this guy going?” an unknown voice said on the air traffic control recording that day. “He’s on the taxiway!”

“Air Canada, go around,” traffic control said.

The Air Canada plane then successfully landed, about 50 minutes later than scheduled.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4342
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Cleared to land?

Postby 3WE » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:20 pm

I have been parlour talking there where they also cite this: http://avherald.com/h?article=4b016414&opt=0

At the time that I read the avhearld, there was no real statement as to exactly what the issue is that called for a go-around. I can imagine that the prior landing aircraft might have violated some required clearance from the runway...but then again, there is evidence that the prior plane could have properly cleared the runway.

Additionally, I tend to believe that the pilots saw a runway that was clear for all practical purposes, and landed with no risk- and this is regardless if the prior plane wasn't technically clear of the runway...

So largely, a non-event, IMHO (Acknowledging that the controllers might have gotten their panties in a wad as the pilots ignored their total authority).
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1690
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Cleared to land?

Postby Gabriel » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:51 pm

For the record and for what it's worth, I am against it being permitted that ATC clears an airplane X to land when there are other airplanes that will land or take-off in the same runway before the airplane X. I know that it is permitted in the US, it is not permitted in many other places of the world.

To clear an airplane to land, the RWY should be clear and expected to remain clear unit such airplane lands.

Yes, you can always order the go-around later. But you can also let the plane keep approaching and withheld the landing clearance until later. If the plane is about to touch down and have not received a landing clearance they must go around.

Remember the La Guardia accident where an MD-80 went off the side of the RWY? It was disabled with no radio for several minutes, and ATC didn't know because of the fog. It could have been TOTAL AIR DISASTER. Someone on the ground eventually saw the wreckage, advised ATC, and ATC told the plane on final, THAT WAS ALREADY CLEARED TO LAND, to go around.

User avatar
ocelot
Posts: 306
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:26 pm

Re: Cleared to land?

Postby ocelot » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:29 am

Also it seems to me that what they did was in accordance with the usual NORDO procedure.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4342
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Cleared to land?

Postby 3WE » Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:01 pm

Gabie: ***I am against it being permitted that ATC clears an airplane X to land when there are other airplanes that will land or take-off in the same runway before the airplane X. I know that it is permitted in the US, it is not permitted in many other places of the world.***
Yes, fact ( based upon reading aviation fora) the US handles "Cleared to land" differently from other countries.

Part of me blames Evan. You must legally be cleared to land, and if you land without being cleared, then paperwork will occur.

Therefore, let's dole out that landing clearance early, to let the pilots focus on operating the aircraft (seems like a good idea).

One key issue to your argument, is that there is NEVER a situation where you might not have to make a last-second go-around.

And, rather than changing the rules and stuff, I run (as usual) to situational awareness...the landing plane should keep track of traffic, ATC should really help the landing planes keep track of traffic.

Ok, in clear conditions- a big nothing.

In nasty IMC when you run your MD-80 off the side and pilots don't have a great view- ATC does need to step it up and 'guarantee' that the runway is clear for landing... Foul on the tower that night when they didn't check ground radar/whatever to confirm the plane had properly cleared the runway...

Of course, there's the tough part....WHAT'S THE BACKUP to help the pilots when ATC drops the ball?

I guess if clearED to land really meant clear TO land, the tower might get a mental reminder/be forced to be aware of runway status instead of legal status...then again, do we really want to unnecessarily be waiting for what, 99% of the time, is a legal technicality...and which forces the pilots to be making last second clearance checks, and preparing to go-around less the face the wrath of Evancrats with enforcement powers?

This is corny as heck, but it always killed me on sunny days when guys called the unicom to say "xxx is clear of the active"...Oddly, we do not do that in big planes at big airports...in the day- it's a bad joke....in hard IMC....do we need to do that?

Finally, and most importantly- Our friends who REALLY do this for a living are notably silent...is this one more case of "it ain't broke, so quit trying to fix it with your parlour ass-hattery"?

So, I don't know Gabie...I can see the advantage of consistency and the advantage of 'forcing' ATC to really monitor the runway (a little bit more than what they might do otherwise)....but I also see the disadvantage of holding this nit-picky-legal-technicality to the end where it may be unnecessarily distracting? Is it reasonable for a landing plane to "call clear" in IMC or is that a stupid outside ass-hat idea?


Footonte: I still do not remember the specific incident, but I now remember that I posted this thread here, when this very topic- clearED to land versus clear TO land- was being beaten to death there.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1690
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Cleared to land?

Postby Gabriel » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:51 pm

One key issue to your argument, is that there is NEVER a situation where you might not have to make a last-second go-around.
I totally agree with the underlined part, I fail to see how is that a key issue to my argument.
In nasty IMC when you run your MD-80 off the side and pilots don't have a great view- ATC does need to step it up and 'guarantee' that the runway is clear for landing... Foul on the tower that night when they didn't check ground radar/whatever to confirm the plane had properly cleared the runway...
In that case, the problem is that the airplane behind the disabled MD-80 had already been cleared to land. In other parts the ATC could not have cleared the plane to land without confirming first that the 1st plane had already cleared the RWY (which, in no vis conditions, normally comes as "ABC on TWY X for the gate" what the tower would reply with ABC contact ground on 123.4, DEF cleared to land".

In VMC it is different, since pilot can establish and maintain visual separation. "DEF, you are #2 for landing, #1 is an MD-80 just landed" "DEF, has the MD-80 in sight" "DEF, with the MD-80 clearing the runway, you are cleared to land" (I don't know how would be the phraseology in English, that was a sort of translation from Spanish)

Of course, there's the tough part....WHAT'S THE BACKUP to help the pilots when ATC drops the ball?
do we really want to unnecessarily be waiting for what, 99% of the time, is a legal technicality...and which forces the pilots to be making last second clearance checks, and preparing to go-around less the face the wrath of Evancrats with enforcement powers?
The go-around awareness and readiness must be there anyway, as you very well explained yourself but then seem to contradict.

Take the VMC example, you are landing behind another plane ant it will be tight. Aren't you going to be ready to go around, cleared or not? Now say that you are in IMC so you CANNOT know by yourself the whereabouts of the plane in front of you and you are already cleared to land... The set up for the disaster is there. It has nit hit hard so far, in a similar way than wrong take-off performance. The gap is there and the clock is ticking. And this one is so easy to fix!!!! I don't see any disadvantage of withholding the landing clearance until the RWY is clear and expected to remain so, at lest in IMC and night.
Is it reasonable for a landing plane to "call clear" in IMC or is that a stupid outside ass-hat idea?
Is it not the case already???
Footonte: I still do not remember the specific incident, but I now remember that I posted this thread here, when this very topic- clearED to land versus clear TO land- was being beaten to death there.
http://avherald.com/h?article=482b659f/0004&opt=0

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4342
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Cleared to land?

Postby 3WE » Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:11 pm


Issue Uno:
One key issue to your argument, is that there is NEVER a situation where you might not have to make a last-second go-around.

I totally agree with the underlined part, I fail to see how is that a key issue to my argument.


[Deletion]

Issue Dos:
do we really want to unnecessarily be waiting for what, 99% of the time, is a legal technicality...and which forces the pilots to be making last second clearance checks, and preparing to go-around less the face the wrath of Evancrats with enforcement powers?

The go-around awareness and readiness must be there anyway, as you very well explained yourself but then seem to contradict.


[Deletion]
Note: Blue font is NOT_there for sarcasm!

Well, don't we have a circular argument...

I think the answer is that we are both right?

Issue Uno: Given that the pilots ALWAYS have to be ready for a go-around, clearing them early does not_ prevent them from a late go-around...that somewhat invalidates your argument that you should WAIT till a busier time to clear them because there is no benefit.

Issue Dos: Ok, I agree that you successfully twisted my own argument and stuck it back in my face.

BUT

I stick with the bottom line (and it's one risk versus another risk).

To me it all centers around the NOT_RARE incident of forgetting to clear someone to land- That adds stress and adds the EVER SO SLIGHT distraction that Evan worries about.... I think my key point is that it's not rare to FORGET to clear someone, so doing it early, reduces the forgetfulness and the net is an improvement in safety.

...I don't totally disagree with you on any of this, but it's a very tough proposition where we see a system that isn't broken.

AND- Late landing clearance would not guarantee that ATC would have caught the MD-80 that went off-roading...MAYBE it would have...but you have to balance that versus a whole lot of guys on a 1.5 mile final fretting over their landing clearance, when there is absolutely no reason to fret.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
ocelot
Posts: 306
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:26 pm

Re: Cleared to land?

Postby ocelot » Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:21 am

http://avherald.com/h?article=4b1fa4f6&opt=0

I agree with Gabriel: it's only a matter of time before enough swiss cheese lines up and something serious happens.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4342
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Cleared to land?

Postby 3WE » Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:53 pm

http://avherald.com/h?article=4b1fa4f6&opt=0

I agree with Gabriel: it's only a matter of time before enough swiss cheese lines up and something serious happens.
Let me say this...

Go ahead and change the rule.

I still say that "it's only a matter of time before enough swiss cheese lines up" (EXCEPT in this manner): someone's gonna be on short short final and farting around trying to get or confirm a landing clearance and the distractions are going to lead to a botched landing or go-around or something...

Rather than the this OR that argument, I prefer 'tweaking' something that guarantees that pilots-themselves- are into absolute full situational awareness of the runway status.

'Tweaking' is the word- I imagine Flyboy and his like are damn near always aware of the runway status- but it seems that "we" are not always aware of things.

Some kind of RADAR (or TCAS tracks the roll out(and maybe it does already))...some requirement that you call 'clear of the runway' (in IMC and light).
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.


Return to “Aviation Safety Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests