Upset Pilot TURNS ON HIS OWN WITHOUT CLEARANCE at San Francisco!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ก.ย. 2024
- Your support is really important and appreciated to keep these videos coming! =)
-- / vasaviation
-- paypal.me/VASA...
Become a VIP member of VASAviation! -- / @vasaviation
Flying Eyes 10% OFF: flyingeyesopti...
Join VASAviation's Discord -- / discord
Twitter/Facebook/Instagram -- @VASAviation
Audio source: www.liveatc.net/
![HIWWHEE | OHM [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OJJLtTLqLag/mqdefault.jpg)
Thoughts?
Prayers?
@@VASAviation I don't get it why the United's pilot had to call the number, which he never did anyway, as for the AirCanada, I get why they stopped, even if it caused a go-around
@@IOU242the United turn on his own without a clearance head on into traffic on final . Pretty stupid
Feels like S.F is a very strange airport to land on. Alot of late go around from the atc. So im guessing as a pilot you will get annoyed at some port
Deviate ACA765 instead rofl
The Air Canada guy said they stopped because a tow was looking like it was going to cross in front of them, ATC said you were told to cross so you should have crossed - but if the tow was in the wrong it wouldn't have helped to be in the right when you t boned him.
I would rather T-bone a tow truck over having a Hawaiian Heavy crash into me. I think the issue was that they did not contact the tower when the situation occured and rather sat on the runway causing a much more dangerous situation.
@@hsmedsvik
Lol.I guess AC don't like to talk too much.Just like the one who landed and was not answering the atc.
@@hsmedsvik Good point.
Tower: Advise when ready to copy number. Number is..
Pilot: Number has been copied, that will be all. Goodday.
lol
If he doesn’t he can watch it go from an unpleasant phone conversation to 30 days on the beach.
@@efoxxok7478 They are trying to make it 50% diverse at United so they might just terminate his employment
@@Johnny-Michael Ahh the ol' DEI boogeyman
@@danielmoser1024 Ahhh good ole right wing propaganda. God help us if there’s ever anyone besides a straight ⚪️ male that is employed, otherwise it HAS to be DEI-related. 🙄 Keep on using your master’s buzzwords!
@@efoxxok7478 They are not required to phone the number. It's a request not an order. They can file a report through their ALPA attorney with their Chief Pilot.
United was clearly perturbed after seeing how messed up the spacing was going to be with the tailwind. The Canadians, however...yikes.
Air canada pilot probably thought the strike started already
I side with Air Canada. If you don't know what the vehicle in front of you is doing, it's best not to approach...ask Delta how that worked out in Atlanta #NoTails
Those Air Canada pilots can fugg up a wet dream!
Good on the United Flight crew for standing their ground and not accepting a chaotic and potentially dangerous approach
…..says the lardass, with absolutely zero flight experience, sitting on his well-worn couch.
It was better to have ATC shuffle things around a bit and be safer than an unsafe approach. Was it against rules? Maybe technically, but at the end of the day the FAA would rather have safety over rules followed I’m sure.
I mean... If they expect pilots to maintain visual sepatation then the pilots are gonna do things they can't anticipate. It's an idiotic system.
Good example of the many problems at SFO. ATC instruction to “maintain visual separation” is legally vague in this situation. United 1603 assumed ( incorrectly?) that instruction gave him the right to keep adequate separation from the traffic for 28R. ATC actually meant “ stay away from the parallel traffic for runway 28R” never contemplating that 1603 would deviate to the right- because that not only turns him into oncoming SFO traffic- but into San Jose departures as well. Should U-1603 have declared an emergency and then turned? That Probably would have kept him clear of an adverse situation, but what a mess that would have created. The airlines, the FAA and the pilots union should get together and work together to prevent this situation from happening again.
I think so. Either ATC separates aircraft by vectors, speed and levels, or not ( just providing traffic info, visual rules) but that mix between the two is in a grey unsafe area. I cannot tell you to fly this level, this speed and this heading, and expect you to separate yourself “visually” from the precedent aircraft.
I believe it's to circumvent rules regarding tcas warnings but don't quote me on that.
Atc: keep visual separation
Pilot: *keeps visual separation*
Atc: what? He can't do that?
But the united could have just slowed down to the bars if they were not happy with spacing. They were not super close yet.
@@ThatNathDude couldnt slowing right down mess up their stablised approach criteria forcing another go around?
The United pilot did the right thing. He maintained visual separation as requested and notified ATC of his actions in a timely manner. The pilot in command is the final authority, after all. He probably should have called the number, though, after speaking with his company.
I can't be sure from watching the radar simulation but, judging from how the relative bearing appeared to be changing, it looked like United would have passed behind Air Canada, but it would have been _really_ close.
Yes
NORCAL didn't make correct use of the PRM landing system (see my longer comment)
Sorry johnopalko5223 you are wrong. See either my comment or Grimm’s comment below
Your wrong Sir.
Yeah, I would have thought this was one time the pilot WANTED the number to call! He was told to maintain visual separation, and did just that.
It's always Air Canada at San Francisco
"...he's on the Taxi Way... What the HELL is this guy doing!?..." [Looks like you were lined up on the on the TaxiWay for landing Air Canada.] OUCH!!!!!
Except this time Air Canada is probably right. He reported stopping to avoid collision with a tug.
Maintain visual separation... and United did that. No deviation in my opinion. United pilot likely filed a safety report instead of calling.
You don't have to talk to them. Compelled speech is not part of the USA. ATC is just trying to cover up for their incompetence.
@@AquariusTurtle lol
@@AquariusTurtlethere should be some sort of test so people as dumb as you aren’t allowed to comment on the internet
@@AquariusTurtleyeah, no that’s not how it works. For several reasons I have already posted about it was in fact a deviation. It will most likely end with a conversation with the pilot and probably the chief pilot, but if he ignores the call it will be processed as a pilot deviation which would end up in a suspension of his license.
@@efoxxok7478Not every deviation ends up in a suspension…
If you're turning to San Francisco... 🎶🎶
🎵🎶🎵 You'll see crammed airspace all over the place
@@maxb301 Airplanes in motion 🎵
🎶🎵Be sure to wear . . . some extra underwear 🎵🎶
San Francisco seems to either be understaffed, under trained, or under water. There seem to be more close calls here than anywhere else.
As a dog, I’d say this pilot has a giant set of balls.
ATC: “Maintain Visual Separation”
United: *Maintains Visual Separation*
ATC: “No not like that”
FAA has had a huge diversity hire push in the past 10 years or so. Use to hire about 90+% x military now days... not so much. The NAFTA union is only making things worse
@@shadowsrwolf That's no excuse, training and QA must be equal to everyone.
@@jamesbartholomew1481 that’s not how that works
@shadowsrwolf there was never a time they hired 90% ex military. Absolute lie
@@shadowsrwolf oh shut up about dei
Sounds like a proper use of ADMs and made the right choice to avoid possible collision. Didn't want to take the chance. Getting the number doesn't mean he fucked up and is fired sometimes just to explain why you did what.
FAR 91.3: The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
They may have to justify their actions, but if they deviated because they thought something was unsafe, they won’t get into trouble unless it was something outlandish, which this wasn’t.
Thanks for this. The question is would this be an emergency, and I think there is a strong case here to say it would have been close had he not done the evasive maneuver.
The SFO controllers don't seem to know their own airport layout... D is not after T exiting left from 28L (it is from 28R - T is a diagonal taxiway).
And Air Canada was right - you can't cross on T and clear the runway without knowing where you are going. The hold bars are at the very end of T. If you cross the hold bars, you are in the middle of the K, T, A intersection. They need to give the next bit of the taxi clearance at the same time as the clearance to cross or it doesn't work.
100% 🎯
The taxiway layout changed after the recent construction. You are referencing the old layout.
@@NathanielFleming1 I'm looking at the airport diagram on the FAA website...
@@thomasdalton1508 aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2409/00375AD.PDF Landing on 28L, the sequence of exits to the left is clearly E, T then D
@@thomasdalton1508 So am I (published 9/5/24), and the delta exit from 28L is clearly after tango.
Pilots are not required to call the number. My guess is the UA crew filed an ASAP report and moved on
Yeah, sometimes best to push it up a level - kind of like when a cop accuses you of BS in a traffic stop: let the judge sort it out (if you decide to fight the BS, which many cops calculate you won't).
@@markmaki4460 That’s why it’s important to have a dash cam. Almost every lie or claim can be completely rejected when there’s a dashcam recording both the front and interior cab.
Why was a controller that was not on duty that day reporting the incident?
Not a pilot so my opinion doesn't count for much, but seems like 1603 felt that turn was unsafe so rejected it. Isn't that a pilot's prerogative?
Sure, but still a deviation and not allowed unless an emergency is declared. Why he got the number to talk it over.
He’s IFR so it’s not. Unless he’s declaring an emergency or avoiding a collision. His justification was not valid
That's not true, you don't have to declare an emergency. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.
You turn if that's required for safety and you tell ATC "unable, ".
(Student pilot)
@@xenadu02 again, no. He’s IFR. He is under atc control. He’s not vfr doing whatever he feels like. Are y’all not getting how crazy this is? What if someone was following him from the east? It’s an immediate head to head
@@a2j3 "Maintain visual separation" will save UA's bacon on this one. Without that instruction, I'd agree with you. It was IFR, but not IMC.
I've always wondered how often people don't call the number. Why am I not shocked that this pilot decided on his own to not call the number? He did everything else on his own already that day.
I don't think they have to call since the tower is going to file the report with their tail number regardless. The call is just to give their side of the story and talk it out vs on frequency.
Most pro pilots call their union rep or lawyer. Only private pilots call.
An airline pilot should NEVER call the number., you call your union and they’ll call the number for you,
There is no requirement to actually call the number. It is similar to voluntarily calling the police. Calling the number can result in a conversation ending in no action taken or the controller can submit a report to the FSDO for further action. It is a good idea to call your legal plan before calling the controller.
This is correct, the call is just to avoid tying up a busy radio frequency.
Things like this happen all the time, it's normal.
Not a pilot, just a mechanic with an eye for details. United pilot comes in, IFR (meaning hes got good visual along with all the safety gear on his aircraft) goes around due to his aircraft being made unstable by preceeding craft. He tells atc this, far as i saw. Atc does this exact same stunt to him again; stacking his aircraft too tight to another that makes his aircraft unstable. Seeing that, as pilot, his aircrafts safety is his #1 responsibility, takes action to protect his aircraft while telling ATC about it.
Seems to me, ATC is at fault here: they are stacking aircraft too tight to each other; in particular not leaving room for these aircraft to 1. Not disrupt each other, and 2. Not leaving room for them to make escape maneuvers should the need arise. I presume that 'the tapes' of the aircraft would show on both approaches the craft got disruptive; ergo - pull the tapes, send em into the appropriate authorities with the note: "we are being stacked too damned tight".
Interestingly, the air Canada craft supports the problem of aircraft too tight: again, a pilot takes action to protect his craft over something literally in his view, and ATC getting a bit snarky about it. In both cases, this is painting picture we are seeing hundreds of times throughout this channel: ATC is stacking too hard, too tight, then getting pissy with pilots that are trying to cope with it all. Signals a serious problem brewing not with the pilots but with ATC.
Now, i could be entirely wrong here, but based on whats presented that's the conclusion i get.
I don't see a scenario in which Air Canada's decision to not fully cross the runway makes sense. Especially without any communication from them. If safety was his concern he should have notified ATC that they were stopping before clearing the runway as a plane was landing, and that seems more dangerous than a tow that may or may not cross in front of them.
You're probably onto something since good chunk of the videos in this channel are goarounds in SFO because of separation issues
UAL didn't go around because of wake turbulence (proceeding AC) but because they got a TCAS RA, which in SFO, is almost always from the AC NorCal puts you nose to nose with on base.
At my airline, if we get an RA in the landing configuration, complying with the RA guidance is mandatory and takes precedence over ATC instructions.
I don't know what UAL's policy is.
It's also interesting that UAL doesn't seem to have runway specific guidance on selecting TA Only on their TCAS.
@@CanyonBlue737Capt If I understand what I am reading correctly, what you are saying is in fact *worse* than just turbulence, is it not?
@@MichaelJM I think he tried, but his broken (french) english was giving a bit of grief -- that said, we didnt hear all of it as his transmission was a mess to hear.
I totally get why united refused that spacing. They probably saw the other plane on their TCAS, and decided that they were unable to maintain separation with the tight vector and a tailwind pushing them into the traffic on the right. It was a good response to the situation.
Yes but should have been handled with an "unable" or similar instead of turning themselves.
@@Haarschmuckfachgeschafttadpole I disagree, they had to turn some direction. Continuing North (not turning) would have been the worse direction.
@@tedsaylor6016and I disagree with that. Turning into other arrivals was the worse thing they could do. Both pilots had visual on each other, 1603 was 1500ft lower, and AC was already turning on the localizer, so straight ahead would have in fact been the safest way.
The problem here is that he decided to make a right turn into the teeth of departing San Jose traffic. He was fine to refuse the approach, but not to decide how to deal with tan in the middle of an area with four airfields in a row up that side of the bay. So what happens if you don't call the number? Does it get escalated to the FAA? Does United get a call about their pilot blundering about, ignoring directions, in controlled airspace?
As an commercial pilot, you NEVER. Call that number.
You talk to your union or legal advise.
You’re not forced to call it either way, the report is filed regardless
SFO needs to stick to the charted visuals when conducting parallel ops. I’ve had some concerning experiences there, one of which is in the ASAP/ATSAP system already, but these vectors to final combined with speed restrictions that are also furthered hampered by “maintain visual separation” criteria make these approaches run higher risk than many others. We’re flying airliners, not fighter jets with bubble canopies and the ability to see behind us as we try to comply with a speed restriction and a “maintain visual separation” command. Add to that the ability of some operators to be able to utilize TCAS in TA only while others are in TA/RA can make for some spicy go arounds when one aircraft is receiving commands and another is not.
Ahhh, just learned, thought all TCAS equipped had to obey all RA was not optional to disarm/disable.
@@tedsaylor6016 if you get an RA, you still have to comply with RA guidance first and foremost. But… there are a few airlines that have SFO specific and approved procedures to allow (not mandate) the pilot in command to select TA ONLY when certain criteria are met. So, if an aircraft with TA ONLY selected triggers an Resolution Advisory with an aircraft utilizing TA/RA, only the aircraft with TA/RA selected will get escape guidance.
@@thorn543 PRM (required at SFO for closely-spaced parallel landings) and TCAS were developed at Allied Signal (formerly Bendix) by overlapping engineering design teams. They are designed to work together. (see my longer PRM comment.)
@@KennethAGrimm there are no more PRMs at SFO. My apologies if I didn’t make it clear earlier, but my comment applies to visual approaches only.
@@thorn543 The original studies for the PRM system were conducted based upon the VFR final part of the approach. The angled-in pattern developed for SFO was dependent upon there being sufficient visual conditions under the muck for all aircraft to be in VFR approaching the point where the 28R aircraft makes the final slight turn to line up with 28R. The VFR studies showed that there is only two sequences (big separations or 28L leads on a long final) which work. Any other sequence results in the kind of pi;lot decisions 1603 made. Has the FAA decided to totally ignore all that was learned in those studies?
Air Canada causing chaos at SFO once again.
Ah yes, my weekly dose of reading comments from non air traffic controllers and non airline pilots educating people about what ATC did wrong. The world is healing
Appeal to Authority Fallacy
Fr
@@TimAlcoser What's wrong with appealing to authority? 😁LOL! As a member of the design team that developed the PRM landing system they were using that day at SFO, I am the authority here.😉 (P. S. - NORCAL ATC wasn't following procedure.)
@@TimAlcoser Not sure if that really applies here, its just a bunch of dudes talking outta their asses lol
Het zogenaamde proffesionele niveau valt vaak tegen bij vele beroepen. Een behoorlijk arrogante reactie gebasseerd op aangenomen autoriteit.
Love these dilemma discussions!
If the pilots FOLLOW the instruction, he might creates an unsafe condition (another RA, another go around).
If he DOES NOT follow the instruction, he might run into different aircrafts, which creates another unsafe conditions.
It is true that the pilots don’t have the full pictures of all the traffics in the airspace. It is also true that ATC doesn’t have the full pictures of what’s going on inside of the aircraft.
What would you do if you are the United pilots?
What would you do if you are the ATC?
The pilot wasn’t responding to an RA the second time, he just didn’t want to be next to the parallel final again because he was thinking he may have to go around again. There was no issue with the turn, it was the final portion he was thinking of
The pilot wasn’t responding to an RA the second time, he just didn’t want to be next to the parallel final again because he was thinking he may have to go around again. There was no issue with the turn, it was the final portion he was thinking of
I guess if i am SFO ATC, i will get territorial and give a number to call so i make the pilots sweat for a couple minutes.
Meanwhile Air Canada didn't get a phone number?
Just some typical SFO rude condescending comments
I see this more as a good example of good ADM and less about defiance. The pilot made a call to turn for the safety of the flight. That is admirable and respectable. Probably should have called the number after consulting with company first though...
His reasoning was that he had a tailwind turning that base that would have pushed him close to the traffic coming from the NE. However, ground winds were 010 at the time so unless there was a big shear somewhere, I think he was BSing. I think he called his union representative instead of NorCal
@TiagoSeiler potentially, I can only speak on what I am presented in the video, so I'm not sure. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt here. I don't think that this was career ending, though (like some other comments implied)
No it was dangerous and stupid. He could have turned into other traffic on final . He SHOULD have requested a longer final rather than just do what he wants . It's idiotic
@@TiagoSeiler there's quite a bit of terrain around SFO. It's very plausible that upper level winds are a totally different direction than winds at the field.
Pilot did nothing wrong. He's the boss of his airplane, and if he thought the turn wasn't safe, it's his call. He shouldn't (and probably wasn't) concerned about the phone call. That's why it's called a POSSIBLE pilot deviation. Deviations are justified if they are for safety reasons. ATC isn't god.
The pilot is in charge of his airplane NOT the airspace he is participating in, being cleared to land means that the safest option would to have been to go around again as a go around is anticipated and the controllers keep that in mind when shuffling planes. Electing to head directly in the opposite direction everybody else expects you to go is reckless and arrogant.
Deciding not to land with the spacing is one thing. Turning without notice when there could be other traffic around is quite another. It's the rough equivalent of cutting across traffic on a highway; may make your life easier, but you just created havoc for everyone else.
@@Glofilter you and the 26 supporters are dead wrong.
@@firefly4f4 No, the pilot has eyeballs, and he saw that the parallel airplane was possibly in his turn path. He then used his eyeballs (and ADSB) to see that there were no airplanes in the direction he turned, then he told ATC that he was turning in an empty space. It is not remotely close to crossing across traffic.
@@BobBob-u2v Again, no, the pilot has 100% authority to change his direction if ATC is putting him into a dangerous situation as perceived by that pilot no matter what airspace he is in. He has eyes, and can see other traffic, and he presumably has ADSB IN, which will tell him where every airplane around him is, so he pointed his airplane in a safe direction. He then told ATC, hey, you guys put me in a dangerous spot, so I'm deviating from that. If they want to talk about it later, more power to them, but the FSDO will not ding the pilot for this one, I promise. I've been flying for almost 30 years, and what he did is 100% fine.
He should have made the call. He was told to maintain visual separation and he did.
Well, why should a pilot call in his own deviation? Would that not be self destructive? (Conflict of interest)
This has to change as there are simpler ways.
ATC, & Tower ATC, should be able to call in an incident directly to the manager of a given airline to report an incident of pilot deviation.
The same is true when ATC makes mistakes (they do from time to time)
The pilot who experienced the ATC deviation should have a number to call that ATC manager or Tower manager to report an incident to be investigated.
The way it stands now, no one is following up, and when given a choice the pilot or ATC controller simply neglet calling it in.
This makes the industry less safe as other pilots and controllers miss these opportunities to learn what to avoid and what not to do.
Deviation calls are not about punishing the pilot
SFO's got to figure something out here. Yes, it's busy and tight, but it's even busier when you've got to bring the same aircraft in multiple times for them to do it safely because of spacing. TCAS go-arounds seem to be routine there, and on top of adding to the traffic, it's a hole in the cheese just waiting for more to join in.
Not sure I would want a 180 turn belly up and blind to another aircraft I'm supposed to maintain visual with while managing a tailwind either. Thinking a request for wider vectors around onto the apch course would have been in order rather than self-navigating a course into oncoming apch traffic. Getting "slammed in" with a tight turn on an approach esp. with parallel traffic is never fun. Smart by ATC to save the number until the ground to avoid escalation during a critical phase of flight.
I picked the wrong week to stop drinking!
I am siding with 1603. He was to keep visual separation and he felt it going to turn into something unsafe.
Wasn't imminent, wasn't an emergency. You don't change heading without clearance, that's IFR 101. Explain the situation and expect alternatives. His frustration got the best of him...
they had vertical separation.
@@AirTCOAir Canada was descending..that vertical separation was disappearing
@@sailingeric they were BOTH descending with constant 1500ft separation. MORE than enough.
The biggest problem with SFO is 28L & 28R have non Standard spacing between both runways. In IMC conditions the Controllers can't approve side by side IFR Approaches for 27L & 28R.
Im guessing RA Alerts require immediate response of conflict resolution. Failure to do so, might be challenged by the oversight bean counters who monitor all the data from each flight.
A go around would definitely trigger a report. Everything is about time and money for the airlines finance department.
my understanding of a tcas ra is that it's the same kind of priority as the ground proximity alert - you initiate that maneuver first, then try to figure out what caused it. because if you don't, you might not have the chance to do anything at all anymore.
tcas ra beats controller instructions btw. that, too, is a rule written in blood. see the 2002 überlingen mid-air for a situation where one pilot followed their sop and did what the controller told them, while the other followed their job and followed the ra. imo, when it comes to the point where a ra comes into play, it's a situation that the controller had messed up beforehand, and no longer get any say in regards to what happens till that ra is resolved
also, not sure why a go around would trigger a report. air travel depends on a safety culture, and if you criticize pilots for going around when they feel its warranted, then you're pressuring them into trying to land when it's not safe. a tcas ra however is, afaik, a mandatory report item to the faa or appropriate national air safety agency.
Because SFO has non-standard spacing 28L-28L, SFO has the PRM system to allow simultaneous IFR Approaches for both 27L & 28R, but NOT exactly side-by-side. NORCAL was not following the proper PRM procedure, either to allow him to squeeze more landings into SFO, or to make departures from Santa Monica easier. (see my longer PRM comment).
What a mess. Even on a low-quality online simulation network like IVAO you'll fail your exams if you control like this, but in real life in San Francisco this type of cowboy controlling is ok?
I am a layman, but these U.S. ATC recordings seems to get more messy each year. I hope there will be some change before a major midair or catastrophic runway intrusion that will force it.
Is that the same guy who got in a pissing match with ATC for a double go-around?
Is there anyway to highlight the aircraft that is "talking"? I frequently have to pause the video otherwise I get distracted looking for the correct plane and miss the audio. This is a small thing, but trying to offer a suggestion that may make these great videos ever better!
7:59 If I read the chart right, Air Canda was holding on T south of 28L. They got crossing clearance only for 28L and not 28R.
The question is, is there enough space between the hold bars of 28L and 28R?
This part of the taxiways is marked as "HS3" (Hot spot 3), so it looks like there have often been problems here.
I’m agreeing with the pilot…doesn’t look safe then he makes the decision. ATC is not the final authority if the pilot sees a safety issue.
I would assume pilot is not calling anyone until they speak with attorney or union rep lol
ATC was definitely going to slip Captain Seatofhispants their number.. What you talkin bout Willis?!
As others have said you are not required to call the number especially if you have an ASAP program like united.
Essentially he files a report and later the United ERC (Event Review Committee and ASAP working group will discuss. An FAA representative is part of that group. The ASAP report provides legal protection from any enforcement actions against a pilot who files a timely report.
United should not have gotten a pilot deviation but the Air Canada should have. UA was in contact with NorCal when they turned. The PIC has ultimate responsibility of his aircraft and he thought it was unsafe.
Armchair pilot here, but it sounded to me like 1603 didn't like the set-up / thought it was dangerous. My impression is that the pilot gets to say "nope" when he or she thinks it is appropriate.
As a fellow armchair enthusiast, I understand that noping out is absolutely fine, but there are ways to do it, and turning back into the oncoming traffic isn't it. I suspect completing the manoeuvre into the landing queue and then requesting a loop to clear the perceived conflict would have been safer: both avoiding a second go around, and getting the controller's approval before doing his own thing.
As a retired controller I can say sorry you are wrong. Pilots don’t have the big picture and turning to the right in this kind of situation would be directly into the face of oncoming traffic. Kind of like driving the wrong way on a freeway.
@@efoxxok7478 Continuing that left turn wasn't safe. What do you expect him to do?
@@joshuahudson2170 I would argue the following
1 it was safe, the pilots words he didn’t like the spacing
2 Air Canada has him in sight as well
3 if the radar depiction was even close to accurate he was behind, so turning behind him would have maybe not given him the space he wanted but would be safer
4 since he was 1500ft below flying straight ahead crossing behind and below would be even safer.
5 had he done that the controller would have likely vectored him back to the approach and in the process given him additional spacing
6 I can’t emphasize this enough. The most dangerous thing he could do would be to turn head on with additional arrivals
And finally
7 this was done to make a point, not out of safety concerns.
@@efoxxok7478(Im a non aviation person so please forgive my ignorance) If 1603 was getting TCAS warnings, doesn’t he have to follow the instructions he’s receiving? Or did he just make a decision to make that turn on his own? Thanks!
Why people arguing? Doesn't matter who was in the wrong, that's what an NTSB investigation is for. Looks like most people (even some aviators and tower people in the comments) contend that the tower failed its duty to the pilot, so the pilot fkd off.
He is likely safe from punishment.
I guess at SFO if you use judgement to avoid a collision that is contrary to ATC instructions, you get in trouble.
Another SFO video, must be a day that ends with "Y". SFO is a tough ATC job, there's too much traffic for the airport. Who wants to go to San Francisco nowadays anyway?
A lot of us.
I have not figured out which is safer for landing, side by side approach or staggered approach. Seems like ATC at San Fran intentionally tries to set up all flights on parallels runways for side by side approaches telling pilots to maintain visual separation so that ATC does not have to take responsibility. I might have lost my job as a pilot, but I would have called the number and reamed ATC a new one. Pilot in command has ALL the responsibility and ATC is to be giving the safest recommendations possible.
I can't see where 1603 did anything wrong. turned in a safe direction to avoid conflict repeat.
Very simply... they are trying to process too many aircraft through the airport and they have marginal to unsafe spacing.
@@fhuber7507 he can’t turn on his own. He’s IFR
@@a2j3:
What does “maintain visual separation” mean to you with a tailwind?
@@denverbraughler3948 nothing
Air Canada needs to be banned from SFO.
The atc should be banned.
You guys are all missing the point. Visual conditions in SFO require turning off the RA function of TCAS due to close proximity parallel approaches. 1603 didn’t do this, if they had it would’ve never happened in the first place.
If they wanted more room for the turn they should have planned AHEAD and advised ATC of this, especially on the second approach.
I'm not a pilot but I would think that turning when you have not been authorized to turn by ATC is very dangerous, especially in a busy approach corridor like SF.
As for the AirCanada pilot, he probably did the right thing. If it looks like you might collide with another vehicle you should probably stop.
It would be helpful to separate the two things going on here (not counting the Canadians):
1. The cause
2. The response
The cause is poor planning of approaches
The response showed poor communication betwen pilot and ATC
Both need to be addressed
Do the pilots hear the commercials in your streams too? 😮
Would love to know the outcome here. But IMHO, the pilot is safe. He was told to maintain visual separation, and that spacing wouldn’t have permitted it. So he turned back on his course and told ATC.
In fairness, he could have seen the the eventuality before accepting the term, and could have handled it differently and better. But in the midst of the moment, it’s also understandable why he accepted the instruction.
Sorry but the PIC has the ultimate authority. He’s the one in the air looking out the window. If he sees something unsafe it’s his duty to make a call and deviate as necessary. ATC especially in the Bay Area will fly you to the scene of your death. Deviate as necessary then call the number or file a report end of story.
Pilot did not make the maneuver for safety of his aircraft but because he didn’t like the spacing. At the time he was 1500ft below AC and was in no danger. If you allow your statement to stand the chaos reigns. Pilots can only disregard clearances when an immediate threat to the aircraft. And in this case the decision he made was far more dangerous than the feeling of lack of spacing he had
Don't turn without permission or you turn to heaven😂
Nothing wrong with the pilot’s action, an assertive pilot trying his best not to go around again, which might creates a low fuel conditoon. He did it in a way not causing any unsafe conditions to other aircrafts. Kudos to the United pilots!
@@wtfudcabsolutely not. What if someone was following him inbound from the east? Head to head. He’s IFR, not allowed to do that unless he is avoiding a collision or emergency situation
All I can say is, I am not looking forward to flying to this busy ass airport, at least here they're nicer than JFK or LGA lol
It's always Air Canada... What is it with these guys?
What happens when a pilot receiving a pilot devision doesn't call the phone number? is there a way for them to track them down? how does that work?
Nothing really. If the FAA wants to investigate they can find out via the airline.
Calling ATC after a PPD is more of an opportunity than a legal requirement. The FAA generally prefers to resolve issues with education and process improvement rather than with punishment. When a pilot calls the number, admits his or her mistake and promises not to continue doing it, usually that's where the matter ends. If the pilot doesn't call the #, that shows that the pilot isn't yet invested in fixing the issue, and may result in the FAA requiring remedial training or taking a certificate action.
All that being said, it could also be that the pilot didn't call ATC *yet*, because he needed to speak to his company or union-provided attorney first.
1603 wouldve been very close to that plane on approach if they didnt take action
Ouch ..."Stand by when ready to copy a number"
Normal procedure. Nothing to “ouch” about.
@@wtfudc Well, as a pilot..."copy this number" is never something we want to hear... is the point :)
@@MarcPagan Doesn't matter too much if you aren't going to call anyway.
@@c200d45e95
As a pilot and instructor, I can verify that not calling the FAA when they want to talk is a super bad idea.
Why is SFO always so messed up?
I would love to hear from a pilot or controller on the following question: given that he didn't feel he had sufficient separation to be able to turn final, and he is required to maintain visual separation, is the appropriate move a) fly the missed approach procedure, even though he is well before the airport b) maintain the last heading that ATC had given him before the approach clearance c) what he did (turning as far away from the other a/c as possible) or d) something else I'm missing?
I don’t know who’s in the wrong, as pilots and controllers have commented with different thoughts, but what I do know is that, this pilot sounded like he didn’t want to be flying on that day. Right from the start I believed it was going to be him getting the number to call. Something going on in his life outside of work?
Ahhh… another day of fun times at SFO… 🙄
So you can do a visual approach as well as a localizer approach ?😭 What's the story with the spacing anyway ? We see plenty of parallel landings and takeoffs at SFO every day
Visual separation. Localizer guidance.
It is a visual approach. They still use the localizer to line up to the runway, instead of visually line up to the runway. The pilots can turn on their full ILS on the plane to guide themselves down to the runway if they choose to. But it is still a visual approach, doesn’t mean they cannot use other instruments to help them.
1603 had some concerns about the winds, and didn’t like the spacing.
Basic rule is, don't send two aircraft not established on the approach and not altitude separated towards each other. I'm guessing United would have settled in with about 500-600 feet vertical spacing there, bit too little for comfort.
03:58 - "we are turning to a heading of 090 right now"??? At 330ft in the pattern, running against the traffic? What is going on? I get if United said Unable to make the turn, and asked for instructions, but just to unilaterally decide to fly the opposite direction to traffic - I've never seen that before.
why is SFO in so many of these videos? lol
"Are you goiing to San Francisco? Be sure to wear flowers in your hair."
SFO is notorious for stacking airplanes on top of each other. The amount of go arounds they have is incredible. The flightcrew turned for spacing, informed the controller of the turn and their reasoning. It didn't mess up their flow, and the only harm done was to the controllers ego. I wouldn't have called them either.
Ummm no it is idiotic of any pilot to turn on his own without a clearance head on into other traffic on final . Pilots don't know where the traffic is , ATC does . It's a PILOT DEVIATION
this stacking you mention doesnt happen. You clearly dont understand how airports work. You cant make a turn when you're IFR unless its and emergency. plain and simple. please read the FARs.
@@rowanyoung7927 you get it. Bunch of aviation experts in the comments today huh?
Exactly.
Unsafe spacing is causing a lot of go-arounds.
In the quest to land more airplanes, they are actually landing FEWER.
@@fhuber7507 I’m pretty sure nobody has crashed recently at SFO, so definitely not fewer
Turning when you have to, okay, but did we miss some chat? It seems really strange to never express concern or ask beforehand, and just immediately take action? It seemed like there was time for him to see the situation he didn't like developing and ask?
Why is San Francisco always a problem?
Because it is very busy, was built to standards that do not match current needs and procedures, and the airport layout cannot be changed without significant environmental impacts. So, they make do with unusual procedures to get as many planes as possible in at the desired times. But that results in more conflicts, errors, misunderstandings, redos, etc. - especially when things are even more restricted due to airport maintenance, equipment problems or bad weather.
Very space constrained (parallel runways are only 750’ apart which requires VFR for simultaneous landings) and fairly busy airport in a busy airspace (SFO, OAK, & SJC all using approaches, departures and holds over San Francisco Bay).
What are the ramifications if the pilots do not "call the number". Seems likw it's pretty easy to just ignore it after you get it. Is anyone responsible for policing this?
Seems like visual separation was used more than once and not applies correctly by the controller.
@@Scotts865 I’m pretty sure the guy vectoring planes into SFO knows a thing or two about visual separation. Considering they do it every day
Im a 1603 fan
Why is SFO on here, it seems, every week?
"Here comes the flash" is the coolest way of saying they're hitting ident I've ever heard.
I was just thinking how corny and unnecessary it sounded 😂
It's a fairly unnecessary call regardless of how it's phrased. Pilots need to acknowledge important instructions, but they don't necessarily need to do so verbally. Assuming he heard the instruction clearly and pushed the button, he can see on his transponder that the ident was sent, and the controller can see the indication on his screen.
It's not quite as bad as "got him on the fish finder", but it's in the ballpark.
The pilot was concerned about the possibility of another go-around and not traffic separation. I don't think the FAA is going to feel that is adequate justification for ignoring ATC instructions in a busy Class B.
As ATC stated afterward, if you need a longer final he should have told them ahead of time rather than making a unilateral decision to change course, potentially putting his aircraft in conflict with others.
At the beginning of the video VAS notes that the screen is only showing SFO traffic. In reality there are likely dozens of other aircraft, in the immediate vicinity (San Jose, Palo Alto, San Carlos, Moffet airports) that could have caused a mid-air. IMO this is a very serious pilot deviation and the FAA is not going to let this go.
All the general aviation VFR traffic is below him. No risk of collision with them.
They didn't need a longer final, ATC needs to space these aircraft in a way that they don't get RA's all the time.
A longer final IS a safety of flight consideration. He doesn't necessarily need 12 miles if he wasn't going faster than expected. He can't know what speeds they are going to be granted and when (note the calls for "slow to final approach speed"). Turning the airplane into a situation that ends up being a go around when the standard procedure is to start 15 DME... It doesn't make a lot of sense to ask for LESS than the standard as your minimum.
Once again, the controllers at SFO need to stagger the arrivals better, or just dedicate 28R to arrivals and 28L to departures. I think the second is necessary
@@gawebm finally, someone gets it
What happens if the pilot never calls the number?
Yet ANOTHER disaster by SFO ATC. How is this airport still operating? They need to consider winds and not just the distances/KIAS they lazily use in their heads. Shortcuts don't always work. Good job United. Never let these ground pounders fly the aircraft.
@@AquariusTurtle didn’t realize we had an expert in air traffic control here
Why they got an RA in first place? lol the visual approaches require turning off the RA on the TCAS or planes would get RAs all day long into SFO.
Those IFR approaches are pretty close together. SFO and a few other airports will end up triggering TCAS when planes are landing on the parallel runways. There really should be a way to fix that.
Static
More SFO gash 🙄
Shoutout to that NorCal controller for not absolutely lighting up that United pilot. If you’re IFR, you don’t turn on your own and this video shows exactly why. Pilots don’t know the controllers airspace, minimum vectoring altitudes, arrival/departure routes, other traffic not on frequency, and so on and so forth. Anyone who thinks it was “safe” doesn’t understand how quickly that aircraft could have found himself face to face with an arrival that was suppose to follow him. Props to NorCal for being professional through it
You have a point, but making that turn as instructed might create another RA with Air Canada, which creates another go-around, which might creates a low fuel condition. In UA1603’s perspective, he is avoiding an unsafe condition with Air Canada.
I disagree. The United pilot could’ve been more assertive and said “unable”, however at the end of the day they had safety concerns with the controlling they were receiving and declined it. The issues it causes the controller is the controllers problem. United pilot should never be criticised for ensuring safety, and they had good reason as similar vectoring on the previous approach caused a TCAS RA which is a serious issue and will be noted/investigated by the FAA.
@@wtfudc that would be completely reasonable as long as the pilot tells atc and works together. Doing stuff like that in their own without knowing the full picture like atc does is dangerous.
@@BenBen-vk7vq as a controller this is pretty cut and dry.
Was he IFR? I thought he was visual? Don't they do visual at SFO to get more traffic in? He should have told them ahead of time, but he was told to maintain visual separation. I don't know, just curious how that all works.
SFO has major problems with thier controlers... this type of problem is hapening too often , I suggest replacing them all while they are retrained as per requirements particular to the airport at SFO. 1603 made no infraction, deviation was for safety reasons and he notifed the controler as required.
2416 was trying to land on the same L as 1603, based on the tracks.
Someone help a non aviation person out, please: what plane would 1603 have been too close to if he had followed the ATC instruction? If it was wrong for 1603 to take that action, what would the correct action have been? Thanks!
Air Canada presumably. UAL was going to 28L, Air Canada to 28R. Typically, NorCal Approach has you pretty much nose to nose with the other traffic on base and has you both turn final abeam each other. Lots of nuisance RA's there because of that. UAL was unwilling to risk another RA or possibly even blowing through the 28L final approach course, so they turned right. Personally, I'm not sure I understand their reasoning for turning away from the 28L final rather than just turning into it earlier than NorCal wanted. But I wasn't there so I don't know what their decision was based on.
1603’s “mistake” was his attitude, taking spacing into his own hands at the wrong place and admitting he turned on his own. Sure seems like he could have handled his spacing concerns once inbound. And communicated more professionally with atc. Ask for what u need.
What do you think maintain visual separation means?
@@Benny0388 he was also told that atc would call his base
So now pilots get to be their own ATC and call the shots huh? This guy has one heck of an attitude, he sounded cold and grouchy! GG on the controller for keeping things safe
What are you talking about? 1603 was concerned that he couldn’t turn tight enough to avoid the other inbound aircraft. A pilot always has final discretion about his aircraft.
What's RA?
That pilot was an a’hole. He wants the world to revolve around him. Sorry sir, not in one of the busiest Class Bravo’s in the world.
- Not calling the number, if true, is definitely not a good idea.
- Seems reasonable to me on the surface to want to bail out of a tight approach after just having an RA, but should've done so earlier _before_ the turn.
- Air Canada not clearing the runway when told to cross the runway without immediately reporting their intentions seems to me as being as problematic.
Call the number to talk about it.. or expect the FAA to hear about it.
And the pilot can make his own separate report without listening to the controller who was stacking aircraft too tight for safety.
The pilot already said what he needed to say as he made the turn. (Paraphrased) "This won't work, you're putting me too close behind the same kind of aircraft you put me too close behind before." That's on the tape and it's a call that the controller was telling him to do something unsafe. Pilot wins this argument EVERY time.
"maintain visual seperation" does not equal "radar service terminated". Dude was on a vector and turned OPPOSITE direction from the field...flying towards inbound traffic and a departure from the southeast. Pilot is absolutely in the wrong here. You wanna deviate from ATC instructions? Best declare an emergency first...he did not. UAL pilot put many others at risk over his bruised ego.
If I was Air Canada 765 I am not risking damage to my 600 million aircraft because some ditz on a tow is possibly going to run into me. PIC has a valid reason so.
When was this?