As an aviation geek, I spend way too much of my free time tracking flights on Flightradar24, and listening to air traffic control audio. Along those lines, here’s an interesting exchange between a United Airlines pilot and an air traffic controller. We sometimes hear audio of air traffic controllers losing their patience with pilots, but in this case it’s the other way around…
In this post:
United Boeing 737 has two go arounds at SFO due to traffic
VASAviation does a great job posting videos to YouTube with interesting air traffic control audio, as well as a visualization of what happened. An interaction that I find particularly interesting was just uploaded, whereby a pilot was angry after having to perform two (probably unnecessary) go arounds.
This incident occurred on May 12, 2023, and involves United Airlines flight UA1390 from Seattle (SEA) to San Francisco (SFO). The flight was operated by a roughly 14-year-old Boeing 737-900 with the registration code N75428.
The aircraft was cleared to land on runway 28L. Shortly thereafter, while the 737 was on a four mile final, the air traffic controller cleared another United aircraft to line up on the runway and wait. That aircraft had to wait for another jet to clear the runway before it could take off, and at this point the 737 was on a final of less than two miles.
Unfortunately there didn’t end up being enough spacing, so the 737 had to go around. Okay, fair enough, sometimes that happens. Air traffic controllers have hard jobs and there’s quite a bit of variability, so spacing isn’t always going to work out exactly right.
The United 737 then initiated its second approach to runway 28L, and basically the same thing happened. The jet received landing clearance, then another plane was told to line up on the runway and wait, and then another aircraft had to clear the runway. There didn’t end up being enough spacing, so the 737 had to go around… again.
United pilot lets air traffic controllers have it
After having to go around for a second time for the same reason, the United pilot called out the tower controller, saying “you guys gotta do better than than this, that’s twice.” The tower controller responds with ” alright, talk to NorCal about that.” In other words, the tower controller is blaming this on the approach frequency, even though the tower controller is clearing the departing aircraft to taxi onto the runway.
When the pilot then talks to NorCal departure, here’s how that goes:
Pilot: “What’s going on, that’s twice?”
Controller: “I’m not sure.”
Pilot: “This is unacceptable, come on, well, let’s not do this again.”
Controller: “We don’t work in the tower, sir.”
Pilot: They told me to talk to you.”
Then when the pilot switches to NorCal approach, here’s how that goes:
Pilot: “Can we make sure we don’t put anyone on the runway anymore?”
Controller: “We’re wondering the same thing, we’ve got a few over here, and we’ll make sure you land this time.”
Pilot: “Yeah, definitely file a report for this, this is just unacceptable.”
Controller: “We are 100% in agreeance with you, sorry for it.”
Pilot: “Thanks. I know it’s not your fault, but unfortunately you’re the only one I’ve got to vent to. He told me to talk to you guys, that’s the funny part.”
Controller: “That’s great. Apparently aircraft on the ground have priority over aircraft in the air. Again, just for your information, we’ve had issues with the tower here for a while as far as some of these go arounds, things like that, but I think it’s more fit for an official report because we’re hearing now that they’re trying to blame us for our speeds, but I don’t know what’s wrong with what we did.”
Pilot: “Yeah, I’ll fill one out for sure. I mean, it’s just unacceptable, two go arounds for the same issue, something’s gotta happen with that.”
Controller: “I agree with you 100%.”
On the third attempt, the United 737 finally landed, after a roughly 30 minute delay from the two go arounds.
Bottom line
There’s some interesting air traffic control audio of a United 737 being subjected to two go arounds at San Francisco Airport. Both go arounds were due to lack of spacing, and in both cases it was because an aircraft was cleared to taxi onto the runway for takeoff, but there wasn’t enough separation.
I of course understand that air traffic controllers are overworked and under a lot of pressure to avoid delays, and they also can’t perfectly predict how long it will take aircraft to clear the runway, start their takeoff roll, etc.
At the same time, from the pilot’s perspective, I can also appreciate the frustration of having two unnecessary go arounds in a row for the same exact reason. It’s interesting that the tower controller then blames NorCal, but the NorCal controller is 100% in agreement with the pilot.
What do you make of this interaction between the United pilot and air traffic controllers?
It’s common in split facilities. I worked up/down TRACON. 4 days radar room last day tower. I hated the tower. We had noise abatement procedures that caused “squeeze plays” to be run like what was described in this event. The problem is the final controller many times is so busy trying to maintain the accordion on final that what the tower has is meaningless. It comes down to this. Aircraft in the air have priority....
It’s common in split facilities. I worked up/down TRACON. 4 days radar room last day tower. I hated the tower. We had noise abatement procedures that caused “squeeze plays” to be run like what was described in this event. The problem is the final controller many times is so busy trying to maintain the accordion on final that what the tower has is meaningless. It comes down to this. Aircraft in the air have priority. Waiting a few extra minutes is always better than a go-around. Critical phase of flight with aircraft in close proximity. A bad mixture when the facility is split.
He should try flying into Landon’s Heathrow on a Monday morning.
Educating the public on ATC seems to be a futile endeavor. Around 10 of 145 comments here have any semblance of coherence. The rest are about as informed as "oh, you're ATC! You guys have the wands, right?"
I guess being faux epidemiologists got dull, so now everyone has decided to be faux air traffic controllers.
And another round of eye rolls for everyone.
Couldn't have said it better
A simple review of FAR 91.113 should be in order. It's all spelled out right there.
Imagine trying to critique controllers by referencing a part of a FAR. My comment above is again reinforced.
Landing aircraft has right of way!!!
When an aircraft takes off, he has a scheduled landing...
Abide by it!!!
When an aircraft takes off,,, he has his whole trip to meet that schedule... lots of ways to make up on that padded time schedule!
So if he leaves late, NO BIG DEAL...
GET THE AIRCRAFT ON THE GROUND!
Not a pilot but- seems to me that an aircraft aloft is in a more fuel-critical state, than one on the concrete and is using it a lot faster? Safer all around to prioritize the one aloft?
ESPERCIALLY one on final within 2 miles...
but then, what could go wrong?...
I have flown UAL 737s to that same runway hundreds of times. You don't know how right you are. UAL moves heaven and earth to take as little fuel as possible, and they always plan for everything going perfectly. If this guy drank the company Kool-Aid and accepted the company prescribed fuel load, they landed on fumes. This is exactly why I always fought for MY fuel load.
One go around when is necessary, take off should wait. I'll give priority to the aircraft in the air.
I always learned the aircraft in the air has right of way over an aircraft still on the ground. The one on the ground should not have been told to line up and wait. The second time definitely not. I’d file a NASA report on this and call the tower manager to discuss.
SFO has always been a “challenging” airport for both pilots and controllers.
The geography of the runways, ever increasing congestion, and weather/visibility issues are some of the the main reasons.
The same pilots who complain bitterly about the double Go-Around, will complain even louder if SFO tightens up their procedures and increase their "in trail separation.” Adding hours to "ground stops" for flights destined for SFO!
Pilots must also pay very close...
SFO has always been a “challenging” airport for both pilots and controllers.
The geography of the runways, ever increasing congestion, and weather/visibility issues are some of the the main reasons.
The same pilots who complain bitterly about the double Go-Around, will complain even louder if SFO tightens up their procedures and increase their "in trail separation.” Adding hours to "ground stops" for flights destined for SFO!
Pilots must also pay very close attention to the very important note on the ATIS that says there could be last minute runway change and have “numbers” ready for both runways.
As the controller tells the Delta pilot who was not ready, “we must be honest with each other” and "help each other out." (Latter, my advice.) We really need to work with each other to prevent this thinly stretched system from falling apart. Quick reactions and occasional go-arounds are part of the job, and that is what we are trained and get paid for. Arguments on the busy frequency only add to the frustration. Passengers must also understand going into their favorite airport may include occasional go-arounds, otherwise they would have to go to the less congested OAK.
I blamed the fast talking controller for the last week's mishap, but I would have to blame my fellow pilots for the two occasions this week.
My fear is that as more of these incidents occur, the FAA or the lawmakers may step in with some draconian measures, rendering SFO basically unreachable!
Just like with the lack of qualified pilots placing pressure on airline schedule expansions, ATC has problems with the exudes/retirements of their experienced controllers. There are days that other major airports like DEN or EWR are only using half of their available runways, due to lack of qualified controllers.
Just wait till they have to fix the sinking runways!!! at SFO
As a current controller that works both tower and approach, there has been a significant difference in pilot abilities the last three years. Most of my go-arounds in that time frame have been pilots missing the first high speed exit and not keeping thier speed up to exit quickly at the next one. They slow way down and "walk" down the runway like it's a nice Sunday drive. Too many variables are going on in...
As a current controller that works both tower and approach, there has been a significant difference in pilot abilities the last three years. Most of my go-arounds in that time frame have been pilots missing the first high speed exit and not keeping thier speed up to exit quickly at the next one. They slow way down and "walk" down the runway like it's a nice Sunday drive. Too many variables are going on in this situation to conclude whose fault this was. Winds also play a huge role.
I'm just a little GA pilot, but I deal with this all the time at very crowded training airports. All though the spacing and timing is different, the concepts are the same.
What no one addressing is the pilots rolling out long or not making their departures quick enough. 2 Runways are currently down at SFO and it's packed causing all kinds of havoc with landings and departures. ATC is just trying to move...
I'm just a little GA pilot, but I deal with this all the time at very crowded training airports. All though the spacing and timing is different, the concepts are the same.
What no one addressing is the pilots rolling out long or not making their departures quick enough. 2 Runways are currently down at SFO and it's packed causing all kinds of havoc with landings and departures. ATC is just trying to move the line as best they can.
They need support from every cockpit to make it happen and unfortunately not everyone has their head in the game. Nail your landing and get off the runway. Line up short and release the brakes when you start to hear your number called and this tight little dance works for everyone.
Otherwise you get multiple go arounds. The cockpits own their side of this problem too.
36 years in ATC. One go-around happens sometimes, especially running a squeeze play, but two in such rapid succession is unacceptable and points to the local controller's control judgement.
The Local controller position in the tower (Works the runways) is one of the single most complex positions in the country because they can’t split it off due to the airport configuration (age). Those people are magicians most times expediting you out of one of the most delayed airports in the NAS. That being said, (I’ve worked in both places) the tower supervisor should have made the call to just keep a clear runway on...
The Local controller position in the tower (Works the runways) is one of the single most complex positions in the country because they can’t split it off due to the airport configuration (age). Those people are magicians most times expediting you out of one of the most delayed airports in the NAS. That being said, (I’ve worked in both places) the tower supervisor should have made the call to just keep a clear runway on the second one 7-8 miles out even if it meant delaying one aircraft or another.
I had a similar situation with 3 Delta flights at Boston Logan. Difference was the first guy skidded off the runway in snow which caused me to abort the guy rolling for departure and send the guy on final around. It was clearly my fault for trying to thread the needle. I immediately wrote down the go around call sign so I’d remember to make sure I gave him plenty of room. Oh yeah. One more difference. Mine happened in 1980.
“ The flight was operated by a roughly 14-year-old Boeing 737-900…”
Aircraft don’t operate flights.
Hi Ben are you allowed into a control tower to do a review for us as that could be interesting from an aviation view ?
Unless you were an SFO ATCS at some point, working traffic as a local controller, on a 28/28 configuration, I think you probably don't have much to say, accurately anyway, about what the controller "should" have done. Sorry, but the ignorance in many of these comments is staggering. That said: is this story cringe-worthy? Yes - I don't know of any controllers who would say it isn't. But working this configuration, when you are busy,...
Unless you were an SFO ATCS at some point, working traffic as a local controller, on a 28/28 configuration, I think you probably don't have much to say, accurately anyway, about what the controller "should" have done. Sorry, but the ignorance in many of these comments is staggering. That said: is this story cringe-worthy? Yes - I don't know of any controllers who would say it isn't. But working this configuration, when you are busy, means cutting a very fine line between a plan that "works", and a plan that doesn't. There isn't much room between legal separation ("6000 and airborne") and 5999 or less. You can't work at a busy air carrier airport and not have to push that limit. And if you can't ensure it, then the go-around is your safety valve. If you don't have everyone (pilots in particular) working closely with you, slow-taxiing for example - you are going to have problems. One go-around for one aircraft is not something anyone wants, but it isn't unusual. Two go-arounds for the same aircraft? Like I said- cringeworthy. Why did the tower controller blame NorCal? Well, maybe he should have and maybe not. The approach controller was telling pilots to maintain 170 knots to the marker; speed after that is somewhat up to the pilot. And if you are inside the marker, you hear the LC put an aircraft in position in front of you, especially a heavy, you'd better be "stepping firmly on the brakes". If I had to send an aircraft around though, due to a departure not being out of the way, I would have been more conservative next time he came back, and left him a little extra room, even if it meant missing another departure hole. But I would bet a large part of my retirement that this didn't happen because the LC wasn't on the ball, even if he was pushing the envelope. It was two separate situations (yes, similar) that went sideways. A shame, and very unfortunate coincidence that it was the same arrival both times. (How many aircraft arrived and departed during that hour without any incident? Probably all of them.) And please spare me the "4 miles," "3 miles," etc., "rules" (that you are making up) about when you should and shouldn't line up departures. If you weren't there, or have never been there (working LC) then you probably shouldn't be making those naive statements.
People just don't understand how imbicilic it is to comment on these matters when they haven't been in those shoes. Even controllers have a hard time getting it right when it's someone else's airspace/configuration they're commenting on.
"OMG, I'm a pilot, and so I can tell you how ATC works!" -- no, no you can't. A pilot has about as much understanding of ATC as ATC has about flying a plane.
Cheers to being basically the only comment not worthy of an eye roll!
Thanks JoePro. You clearly get it.
My first rule in these situations: Keep my mouth shut unless I know firsthand what I'm talking about. And if I don't know for sure that I DO, then that means that I don't. So I sit back and listen (read) and maybe I will learn something. That said, some of the things that some experienced air carrier pilots are saying are valid from their perspective... but that...
Thanks JoePro. You clearly get it.
My first rule in these situations: Keep my mouth shut unless I know firsthand what I'm talking about. And if I don't know for sure that I DO, then that means that I don't. So I sit back and listen (read) and maybe I will learn something. That said, some of the things that some experienced air carrier pilots are saying are valid from their perspective... but that perspective is still limited. When I was working (admittedly more than a few years ago) we had a robust "fam" program - it was great when used the way it was supposed to... allowed for some good interaction between ATCs and flight crews. And it was also great when pilots would come to the tower to visit (as long as they weren't mad about something...).
Anyway, it is always interesting (sad?) how little people do know about ATC. As my mother said, though, "stop rolling your eyes, they might get stuck up there"....
The big failing of US ATC. In the rest of the world, when you’re “Cleared to Land”, then the Runway is yours. Lining somebody else up in front of an Aircraft cleared to land would be a suspension and investigation.
Tower Controller seriously guilty of poor judgement, and needs re-training.
Incorrect on all fronts, but thanks for playing.
The best pilot and controller comments Come from Chicago's ORD airport. They are hands down the best controllers anywhere! I know as flew in there many times. I wish I had taped the exchanges! Ask any commercial pilot that has flown there.
You would think that airplanes in the air would take priority as you'd want to get them down safely as soon as possible. Planes on the ground ain't gonna crash land, .
I’ll bet tower made sure there wasn’t even a mouse occupying 28R when they finally gave the United flight visual landing clearance that third time.
How many airline flights are there daily in the US? 20k? 30k? Every day? And they can’t predict how long it will take for an aircraft to take position and depart? Hello statistics?
Don’t have the full story but a lot of time someone crossing downfield are too slow to cross or has an issue
Secy of Transportation: Stupid partisan bashing. Not fit for OMAAT.
Go-Around in general: No penalty for pilot or tower, should be initiated when procedure cannot be accomplished safely.
HOWEVER in this case Tower made an error, and compounded it by making the same error again. You do not put an aircraft on the runway in front of an incoming aircraft INSiDE the minimum separation unless he's ready to go. If he's going to line up...
Secy of Transportation: Stupid partisan bashing. Not fit for OMAAT.
Go-Around in general: No penalty for pilot or tower, should be initiated when procedure cannot be accomplished safely.
HOWEVER in this case Tower made an error, and compounded it by making the same error again. You do not put an aircraft on the runway in front of an incoming aircraft INSiDE the minimum separation unless he's ready to go. If he's going to line up and wait... that's unacceptable. He should have been told to wait at the hold-short line. PERIOD.
THERE IS NO EXCUSE for Tower to tell AC to contact NORCAL TRACON. NONE. Tower put the obstacle on the runway after already having granted clearance to United to land.
WHO AND WHAT: SFO tower is 100% responsible for this one. A formal report should be filed. Tower procedures should be reviewed and amended. That controller should be part of the re-education process.
The pilot was mad cause he actually had to do some work for a change. Instead of the autopilot doing the work for him.
Chris you are clueless
Sometimes the squeeze plays work, sometimes they don't. It's a bummer that it happened. And ULTRA rare that it happened to the same flight on consecutive approaches. It could also have been a trainee on position. It's a bummer, but not a huge deal.
Slotting a departure to wait for traffic to clear with a jet on 4 mile final was stupid. Clearing the departure for takeoff with a heads up about traffic on short final should have been his only option. That controller needs to be reevaluated.
As an Air Traffic Controller for 32 years, at DCA, and CVG I can tell you without a doubt this was a pissing match between the tower and approach control. Also possibly some inexperience on the local controller's part. A four mile interval on final with
normal conditions is adequate for a departure all day long. I say normal means, arrival lands, turns off the runway, departure rolls. Sometimes 3 to 3 1/2 works...
As an Air Traffic Controller for 32 years, at DCA, and CVG I can tell you without a doubt this was a pissing match between the tower and approach control. Also possibly some inexperience on the local controller's part. A four mile interval on final with
normal conditions is adequate for a departure all day long. I say normal means, arrival lands, turns off the runway, departure rolls. Sometimes 3 to 3 1/2 works with a lot of wind and a skilled controller. Use to do it at National all day long. Four was a gift! Of course the pilots need to know what's going on and need to help make it work
You aren't taking into account the departing aircraft was cleared to lineup and wait, not take off. A widebody taxiing onto the runway is never going to give you 4, or even 3.5 miles. Aircraft cleared onto the runway when arrival was at 4 miles, and an aircraft rolling out that the departure had to wait for. 3.5 is easily doable as an interval between landing traffic, not squeezing in a departure that has to wait for first arrival to clear.
Huh? First time around there was no mention of a wide body. Traffic told to LUAW with traffic four mile final. Normal.
Second time, UAL1390 was 5 miles at 150kts and UAL948 heavy told to LUAW. Also normal.
The “pilot” is just as much fault as Atc.
Not the time or place to chew out Atc on an active radio freq in busy airspace.
Write it up after you land and in your hotel room.
That is true, but pilots are human too. A half hour delay. And shutting up risks less attention to preventing another go around. Also, that may be considered incorrect feedback, if you like, but that's different from being "at fault" for the problem.
I am convinced that priority should be for aircrafts landing rather than those on the ground, life is more important than money but anyone can see that money is the priority instead of the risks of lives whether to let planes approaching the runways first than let the money(airplanes) take off first. Love for Money first, Huurrah!
If money was priority then it makes sense to prioritize landings instead of takeoffs because airliners in the air spend more fuel.
There is no threat to life in any scenario (unless an aircraft declares a fuel problem/emergency).
Anti-Dander and anyone else who somehow saw this as a political thing, I think you may need immediate surgery to prevent your political views from becoming the only part of your personality. There’s never been anything more damaging in this country than the 2 party system and their attempts to make everyone join teams to have neighbors argue against neighbors.
SFO has two runways shut down, so they are only landing on 28l/R and departing from the same runways. This creates a lot of congestion and tower is trying to squeeze as much traffic to depart as possible between arrivals. What this probably comes down to is aircraft landing 28R taking too long to cross 28L when cleared and then tower doesn't have time to launch the aircraft waiting on 28L and the go around...
SFO has two runways shut down, so they are only landing on 28l/R and departing from the same runways. This creates a lot of congestion and tower is trying to squeeze as much traffic to depart as possible between arrivals. What this probably comes down to is aircraft landing 28R taking too long to cross 28L when cleared and then tower doesn't have time to launch the aircraft waiting on 28L and the go around occurs. They'll have to adjust their procedures some to try and keep the go-arounds to a minimum.
This publicity is unwarranted. More importantly, let me offer a heartfelt eye-roll to the commenters here. Even the self-described 34 year ATC vet didn't adequately assess this situation.
Plane should be instructed to hold short of runways. Planes arriving on a 2 to 5 mile final should be given priority. There are risks involved in go around procedures.
Glen, here's an eye roll just for you:
You earned it!
"2 to 5 mile final" is meaningless.
You simply don't launch planes when there's one at 2 miles. Normally takes 1.5 minutes to get a commercial narrowbody off the ground from short of the runway. Even at 120, A/C on a 2 mile final would be there in 60 seconds.
At 4 miles, under normal conditions you're expected to get narrowbodies out...
Glen, here's an eye roll just for you:
You earned it!
"2 to 5 mile final" is meaningless.
You simply don't launch planes when there's one at 2 miles. Normally takes 1.5 minutes to get a commercial narrowbody off the ground from short of the runway. Even at 120, A/C on a 2 mile final would be there in 60 seconds.
At 4 miles, under normal conditions you're expected to get narrowbodies out in front. At 5 miles you can get heavies out.
A ton of nuance involved, and no two scenarios are the same, but nothing depicted in the video is out of the ordinary, save for the pilot/controller exchanges, and the shitty happenstance of it happening twice in a row.
Nobody mentioned runways 1L and 1R were closed due to construction. All flights forced to use 28L and 28R for takeoff and landing. The line to takeoff could be up to an hour long and 20 planes long...
Over in Europe, if you’re cleared to land, the runway is exclusively yours. Nobody is getting lined up in front of you. That’s just asking for trouble.
I don’t understand the desire in the US to clear people to land when they’re not number one on approach.
"I don’t understand the desire" -- what "desire"? This is SOP at SFO (does not apply to most towers). Reduces verbaige and lets them work faster.
Honestly, I think Europe will eventually have to change to match the U.S. on this point, at least for their busier airports. The way Europe does it isn't very safe for busy airports with tight spacing. Pilots need to be getting their landing clearance earlier than this unnecessary waiting allows, so that they're completely focused on actually landing the airplane rather than talking to ATC or worrying about whether they have a landing clearance on...
Honestly, I think Europe will eventually have to change to match the U.S. on this point, at least for their busier airports. The way Europe does it isn't very safe for busy airports with tight spacing. Pilots need to be getting their landing clearance earlier than this unnecessary waiting allows, so that they're completely focused on actually landing the airplane rather than talking to ATC or worrying about whether they have a landing clearance on short final. Sure, there will be times where your clearance gets cancelled and you need to go around, but that's going to happen sometimes anyway.
Of course, the procedure is different (more spacing) when there's poor visibility where the landing aircraft can't see the one in front of it. But on clear days with tight spacing, waiting to give the landing clearance until very short final reduces safety by distracting the pilots during the busiest phase of flight that needs the most focus and can also lead to unnecessary go-arounds due to delay in delivering the clearance.
The "Line up and wait" contol instruction is biggest isue for runway incursion. Not only for separation, but "Expaectation bias" in the high workload environment.
With the lack of competent controllers it seems that FAA has adopted the no one
fails attitude. It didn't work in the school system and it won't work
for them. Maybe it's time for private contracting, and get inept government officials out of the system.
There was no "incompetence" involved in this scenario, so your opinion is moot. Keep out of ATC discussion, it clearly isn't your strong suit.
@Joepro
Nope….as a 20 yr airline pilot 2 go arounds in a row not due to weather IS 99% of the time incompetence, whether the blame is with ATC or pilots.
You didn't describe any incompetence here, Dan, you just made a general statement.
LUAW in both instances is routine, narrowbody with UAL 4 miles 150kts, widebody UAL 5 miles 150kts. Ask before you can conclude: were the winds and players considered? Was it the same controller in both instances, and with the workload present were they keenly alert to that UAL1390 had gone around once? What was the lineup on the ground and the expectation...
You didn't describe any incompetence here, Dan, you just made a general statement.
LUAW in both instances is routine, narrowbody with UAL 4 miles 150kts, widebody UAL 5 miles 150kts. Ask before you can conclude: were the winds and players considered? Was it the same controller in both instances, and with the workload present were they keenly alert to that UAL1390 had gone around once? What was the lineup on the ground and the expectation placed on the controller for running departures.
If in the controllers best judgment the scenario should work and it's a routine operation and he's neck deep in a line of departures, it still might've been the best call. It sucks that it didn't work out both times, but in general you don't make decisions based on what could go wrong, you make them based on all the factors in the moment.
Of course, if UAL1390 was ME or MF, I wouldn't be taking this position.
All the dumb politics in the comments now - what is this, Gary's page??!?
Some training on communication between approach and tower may indeed avoid a nasty acciden
Landing and departing the same runway isn't rocket science. As long as the arrival is at least 4 miles out at final approach speed, its a simple operation. Once the previous arrival clears the runway you have to start rolling the departure immediately. If the arrival is 2 mile final the departure will be at least 6000 feet down the runway and airborne by the time the arrival crosses the threshold. Did this for years...
Landing and departing the same runway isn't rocket science. As long as the arrival is at least 4 miles out at final approach speed, its a simple operation. Once the previous arrival clears the runway you have to start rolling the departure immediately. If the arrival is 2 mile final the departure will be at least 6000 feet down the runway and airborne by the time the arrival crosses the threshold. Did this for years at St Louis Lambert and it was a safe and expeditious.
I write this as a former controller, so i can see both sides. You don't tell an aircraft to taxi into position and hold in such a case. There's another aircraft on short final. If you can almost immediately change to cleared for takeoff, fine. You may have saved yourself 30 seconds max.
I don't get how you're a former controller yet you think that 4-5 miles is akin to "short final".
Hopefully someone got fired
I was expecting to hear from that skirt in the tower that screwed up last week and tried to blame the pilot. Though plenty of worthless controllers working at SFO.
DEI in ATC. It's gonna get a lot of people killed.
Unacceptable, yet no accountability.
Well, all those superior white brains are busy fighting the good fight against Bud Light and The Little Mermaid, so I guess we gotta make do with what we got.
Saving that missing N for a special occasion?
You can understand the pilot's frustration. Despite sometimes what might be thought crew often carry the frustration of passengers being late and missing connections. This means the gate agents are going to be forced to deal with a bunch of angry misconnects (as most passengers simply don't understand the nature or have been through go rounds), with the passengers being told this is something the airline would cover hotel and meal costs if forced overnight.
Why does someone always have to bring up politics? Leave it out on f here for it has nothing to do with this story
Tower: "United, Go Around" (again)
United: "Roger, going around. We are declaring Min Fuel."
Problem solved....
I thought the same thing. I might have actually declared an emergency due to low fuel rather than minimum fuel. That would get somebody’s attention.
What about the passengers who were delayed? Missed flights?
In my opinion that guy from the Tower should be degraded to janitor, ‘cause this is absolutely stupid decision to line up aircraft while there’re one on short final and another didn’T cleared the runway yet.
4 mile final is enough spacing to get a departure airborne as long as all partys involved are hustling. Previous arrival has to expedite off the runway and the waiting departure has to roll immediately when cleared. Its usually a problem with one of those two not hurrying that causes a go around
We used to have a thing called "remedial training" when a controller really f's up. This would fit into that category. The controller should have had his ticket removed until the remedial training was complete and he was recertified to resume his position. That usually fixed a lot of competency issues since the pay was also usually reduced.
It's my opinion that you should never comment on ATC matters again, since nobody with a shred of knowledge on ATC would ever call 4-5 miles "short final".
twice, that's just unacceptable, 30minutes delay caused by 2 go arrounds fo the same reason.. just insane
Hey Guys, at 3:41 in the video, what does "United 1390, can you take a sidestep?" mean?
Is the tower asking the pilot if he wants to make a voluntary go-around?
@tony, no he’s asking him if he’s willing to land on the nearby parallel runway.
ok, thanks. maybe he should've asked that a little bit earlier
One occasional Go Around is acceptable. The Second one for same reason is not. The ATC should be made to pay the airline costs.
Compliment to the pilot for remaining extremely professional in their use of language.
(a surprise given the headline)
I was also very surprised to read that "aircraft on the ground have priority over aircraft in the air".
I thought the opposite was a fundamental principle?
An aircraft on the ground is in a stable condition - one in the air is not.
As with ships outside/inside harbours?
If you missed it, that was sarcasm.
I was on another SFO bound flight earlier in May that needed to go around, albeit once. So, this is definitely NOT an isolated incident.
Filling positions in the Towers and the cockpits based on things other than skill and aptitude. Lots of political pressures at play.
34 years ATC veteran with dual runway ops experience here.
No Controller in their right mind would allow a situation in which there’s a landing aircraft on the runway yet to vacate with the following less than three miles out and then think you can vacate the lander, line up the “heavy” from a standing start at the holdi and get it airborne before the next landing crosses the threshold..
At 138kts, those...
34 years ATC veteran with dual runway ops experience here.
No Controller in their right mind would allow a situation in which there’s a landing aircraft on the runway yet to vacate with the following less than three miles out and then think you can vacate the lander, line up the “heavy” from a standing start at the holdi and get it airborne before the next landing crosses the threshold..
At 138kts, those last three miles of final approach disappear in just over 2 minutes.
This is how catastrophic accidents happen.
It's not only about spacing, it is also about speed. If Norcal do not reduce aircraft speed, and Tower has a lot of departures, they start at some point to sqieeze them out.
At many airports you have that problem, approach thinks that aircraft in the air are more important, and Tower things aircraft on the ground are more important. But in the end all aircraft are important and they need to work better...
It's not only about spacing, it is also about speed. If Norcal do not reduce aircraft speed, and Tower has a lot of departures, they start at some point to sqieeze them out.
At many airports you have that problem, approach thinks that aircraft in the air are more important, and Tower things aircraft on the ground are more important. But in the end all aircraft are important and they need to work better together.
An then there are pilotd who report ready for an immediatr takeoff, but need another 15sec before they start rolling after recieving the take off clearance.
Clearing planes for takeoff and landing as well as having planes cross the runway is the responsibility of the tower, not NorCal Approach. Shame on the tower for blaming it on NorCal
Pilot is right, shouldn’t have happened. At our facility there’s no way anyone lines up an aircraft in a 4 mile gap knowing it had already gone around. Also, sounds like the tower were trying to make a point that the landing traffic was either being sequenced with too little spacing for a departure or their speeds were too high. I’ve done the opposite where I haven’t lined up for AGES, until approach finally got...
Pilot is right, shouldn’t have happened. At our facility there’s no way anyone lines up an aircraft in a 4 mile gap knowing it had already gone around. Also, sounds like the tower were trying to make a point that the landing traffic was either being sequenced with too little spacing for a departure or their speeds were too high. I’ve done the opposite where I haven’t lined up for AGES, until approach finally got the message that their spacing was bad. Either way, 4 miles ain’t a gap to get a 737 landed with traffic to roll ahead of them.
of course slowing down the whole operation to allow a little extra margin to squeeze flights in will most negatively impact United which is the largest operator at SFO.
well...I guess you guys (especially the pilot) should be really thankful to the c/tower and whole system. What would you do if you live in a third world country with all the hassel and yet they shut you up...U can never complain. I believe the U.S people are kind of sisi ... They take things for granted !
I used to work in aviation safety. I can guaranteed you that the safety record of US pilots and operations far, far, FAR exceeds that of other countries. The way other countries take short cuts wound horrify you and it shows in their safety&fatality records. You can thank the over carefulness of US aviation which you incorrectly spelled as sisi as the primary reason.
It's called having standards bud
4 mile final is enough spacing to get a departure airborne as long as all partys involved are hustling. Previous arrival has to expedite off the runway and the waiting departure has to roll immediately when cleared. Its usually a problem with one of those two not hurrying that causes a go around
Declare a fuel emergency due to numerous go arounds. That generates lots of paperwork. No paperwork and ATC forgets the whole event happened. And yes, Petie needs to be booted and replaced with a COMPETENT leader not just another woke spewing leftist.
Let's leave the partisan bashing elsewhere.
It’s actually relevant in that time and money are being spent on policies that remove terms such as “cockpit” and “airman”. That time and money is not being spent on more productive activities such as training and infrastructure.
Let’s stop allowing political agendas to replace skill and aptitutude in our societies vocations. We’ve dumbed down our schools and now our aviation industry to please the wokes. More bashing needed until the elections stsrt to reflect what’s best for our welfare. Wokism is arguably not in the best interest of aviation safety.
Right, because replacing someone up top because of a operational problem down low that did not result in fatality is absolutely the rational thing to do. If so, I guaranteed that means every single ceo, Upper mgmt of any company in the usa would be replaced on a daily basis.
The world has changed irrevocably ..
Are travel blogs still relevant in 2023?
Will they be obsolete in 2024?
What value do they add to readers?
10%
20% etc?
To me sounds like it's the controllers fault I get there understaffed and overworked but that's not just in aviation it's everywhere in other jobs as well. Controller shouldn't be blaming others. The safety of passengers should be priority and to me the controller disregarded that 2 times. The controller obviously knows an aircraft is on "short" final and shouldn't be clearing aircrafts to line up and wait on the runway while another is crossing...
To me sounds like it's the controllers fault I get there understaffed and overworked but that's not just in aviation it's everywhere in other jobs as well. Controller shouldn't be blaming others. The safety of passengers should be priority and to me the controller disregarded that 2 times. The controller obviously knows an aircraft is on "short" final and shouldn't be clearing aircrafts to line up and wait on the runway while another is crossing due to how long it may take to cross. And if a runway is being used for landings and takeoffs that should always be considered and an airfield such as SFO would have experience with that since I'm sure it happens alot due to the unpredictability of the weather
Wasn't there a recent change in hiring policies at the FAA?
I was on this flight. I fly 100000+ miles a year and I have never had two go arounds in one flight and maybe only 3 in 3 million miles flown.
In and out of SFO every other week and it seems planes normally land to the North and depart to the West, but if winds aren’t favorable and departures/takeoffs start using the same runways I can see how tower would fail to adjust sequencing to accommodate. It takes much more time for a plane to clear an entire runway vs cross the intersection point of one.
Not justifying the problem, just trying to understand why...
In and out of SFO every other week and it seems planes normally land to the North and depart to the West, but if winds aren’t favorable and departures/takeoffs start using the same runways I can see how tower would fail to adjust sequencing to accommodate. It takes much more time for a plane to clear an entire runway vs cross the intersection point of one.
Not justifying the problem, just trying to understand why there is one. I’ve been victim to a few go arounds at SFO compared to few if any elsewhere (none come to mind), so it does seem to be an SFO issue.
The Main Issue Here Is NumBer One ( Safety ) Going Around Once Or More Shoudnt Matter.pilot Controllers Doing Their Job To Land Us Safely That's All What Count.Thanks Both For Job Well Done.
Runway 1L was shut down for maintenance between March and end of May, so all takeoffs and landings were taking place in the east-west facing runways 10/28.
Actually normal west flow was arrivals on the R28’s and departures on the R 1’s for San Fran and departures and departures on the R 27’s and R 29 at OAK
Odd because they pack them that tight every day at DCA. Traffic will be 2 out when the plane on the runway is given takeoff clearance.
Odd that most of the traffic at DCA is narrow bodies and regional jets. SFO at certain times a day can be a majority of heavy wide bodies. A lot more work coordinating the heavy traffic. DCA also doesn't have A/C taxiing across parallel runways.
ATC is hiring unqualified controllers, they need retraining or the door!
The job of the local (which is what you think of as "tower") controller is to sequence access to the runway. They're obviously trying to play too much of a squeeze play on mixed departures and arrivals on the 28s, which is leading to these issues. I'm much more inclined to blame SFO than NCT on this, as the NCT controllers actually work a pretty reasonably paced sequence into all of their airports. Unless NCT...
The job of the local (which is what you think of as "tower") controller is to sequence access to the runway. They're obviously trying to play too much of a squeeze play on mixed departures and arrivals on the 28s, which is leading to these issues. I'm much more inclined to blame SFO than NCT on this, as the NCT controllers actually work a pretty reasonably paced sequence into all of their airports. Unless NCT is giving super tight release times for departing aircraft, I don't see why the tower isn't clearing off arrivals more efficiently when they have a LUAW and a stream of arrivals.
SFO tower is in bad shape. They are either ignorant, or careless. Then the tower ALWAYS blames the pilots. While controllers have a hard job, the ones at SFO are simply trying to cram too many planes into a small space. A plane taking off, with one on a 4 mile final, then you try to have another take off in between? That is cutting it dangerously close.
That’s what they do at DCA on the daily at it works. A better question is why they aren’t using the 1s for departures for everything that’s not a heavy?
Hello Austin. I'm interested to know, aside from this event, what is the SFO tower doing that would make you think they are in "bad shape?"
Secretary Pete needs to know about this!
SFO: 1 cloud, 2 airplanes, 3 hour delay… It has been that way for years.
This all started LONG berfore the current administration was in place. Look at the Obama Administration and how the standards for ATC hires and training were deminished in order to make the FAA more diverse.
This started in 1981 when virtually the entire workforce was fired and replaced. The government had diversity long prior to Obama. That is not the problem.
I'm a retired military controller and I've had this happen a few times in my 23 year career. I do sympathize with the United pilot, that should not have happened twice. While the judgement of the tower controller is worth questioning, there is another angle to consider, based on MY experience in similar situations. The pilot instructed to lineup and wait HAS to know the situation is tight based on what he hears and what...
I'm a retired military controller and I've had this happen a few times in my 23 year career. I do sympathize with the United pilot, that should not have happened twice. While the judgement of the tower controller is worth questioning, there is another angle to consider, based on MY experience in similar situations. The pilot instructed to lineup and wait HAS to know the situation is tight based on what he hears and what he's told, and he should be cocking the airplane to roll the moment he gets his takeoff clearance. But a few times I observed pilots take their sweet time and not roll for 20 seconds or more after getting the t/o clearance, seemingly having an attitude that it's HIS runway and he can take as much time as he wants, regardless of any traffic bearing down on him. I've been retired for many years now and I don't know if this is still acceptable, but perhaps the tower controllers in this situation should, in addition to the lineup and wait instruction, tell him to be ready for an immediate departure as soon as he gets the clearance.
I had for in klga for “spacing”!
Classic situation of passing the buck. If you mess up own it, you'll gain much more respect by owning your mistakes. It does require you to swallow your pride.
Pilot should given the tower "a number to call".
The pilot was right
Quite a few of us have the number of our most visited tower(s) programmed already, specifically to call them in case there is an issue.
God is punishing SFO for her wickedness.
It's fun to weaponize the Bible for your own narrative.....
Keeping in mind that we've known, for over 30 years, that the runway layout simply isn't adequate at SFO.
It's all built on "infill" anyway, so the specious "environmental" arguments are just ludicrous.
We allocated (and passed) $800 Billion for "infrastructure" in the 2008-9 cycle and never fixed SFO. Our hired nitwits just passed another $3 Trillion of pet projects-- and "fixing SFO" almost certainly won't get done this time either.
They can built...
Keeping in mind that we've known, for over 30 years, that the runway layout simply isn't adequate at SFO.
It's all built on "infill" anyway, so the specious "environmental" arguments are just ludicrous.
We allocated (and passed) $800 Billion for "infrastructure" in the 2008-9 cycle and never fixed SFO. Our hired nitwits just passed another $3 Trillion of pet projects-- and "fixing SFO" almost certainly won't get done this time either.
They can built all the nice coffee shops they want, for billions, in the SFO terminal-- but until they fix what's actually broken there? It's going to be a place to avoid in the months of April-October.
Marine layer season really isn't the problem. It is rainy/Santa Ana season that causes the major problems.
SFO should have dedicated landing runways and dedicated takeoff runways as does LAX.
This is a training issue. It’s perfectly legal
To put a plane on the Rwy when another aircraft is on a 2 Mile final. I complained that I didn’t like in in dfw a few weeks ago and I got a nasty response. While procedurally it follows their rules, if there’s any undue delay it doesn’t work. Normal it’s just fine.
If the tower is going to put an aircraft on the runway with another on 4 mile final, " he" needs to tell departing aircraft "cleared for immediate takeoff I have traffic on four mile final." Unless departing aircraft is heavy jet, then it will not work.
I don't claim to be an aviation expert by any stretch of the imagination but I have had a few flying lessons myself and I was always under the impression that the airplane still flying waiting to land, had a higher priority than the airplanes that are STILL ON THE GROUND! I MEAN, GIVE ME A BREAK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! I thought safety was more important than keeping efficient schedules.
It’s not politics, bonehead….it’s the tower.
Hard to blame the current SecTrans for staffing shortages, because training takes time. Dollars to donuts this is the same thing that bit the airlines; during the pandemic, there were fewer flights, so less work for controllers, so some of the senior ones retired early.
And just like the airlines didn't lean forward on recruiting new pilots, the FAA didn't recruit and start training new controllers. Blame the previous SecTrans for that (Mrs McConnell, a/k/a...
Hard to blame the current SecTrans for staffing shortages, because training takes time. Dollars to donuts this is the same thing that bit the airlines; during the pandemic, there were fewer flights, so less work for controllers, so some of the senior ones retired early.
And just like the airlines didn't lean forward on recruiting new pilots, the FAA didn't recruit and start training new controllers. Blame the previous SecTrans for that (Mrs McConnell, a/k/a Elaine Chao)...
VASA does a good service. He used to work entirely from the LiveATC interesting recordings forum, but since has branched out, and now has years of experience combining audio and transcriptions with visualisations. Here a passenger sends him the link, and someone has mocked up a scope for him.
Regarding the exchange, two things come to mind:
First, "tell it to NORCAL" has a double sense: on the one hand, the tower controller could be...
VASA does a good service. He used to work entirely from the LiveATC interesting recordings forum, but since has branched out, and now has years of experience combining audio and transcriptions with visualisations. Here a passenger sends him the link, and someone has mocked up a scope for him.
Regarding the exchange, two things come to mind:
First, "tell it to NORCAL" has a double sense: on the one hand, the tower controller could be complaining that the approach controller is packing them too tight. On the other, once they're in the go around, the next call is usually to contact NORCAL departure. So the controller could also just be saying "I don't have time for your whining". In this case, the controller had already handed off to NORCAL, and was clearing the frequency.
On the first final, tower tried to slip a departure in front and got burned.
On that second final, tower got the handoff at a bad moment: there was an aircraft rolling out, and a heavy lined up. While VASA edits for time, and I can't be sure, it sounds like the controller:
A. Slows the approaching aircraft to minimum speed immediately.
B. Asks repeatedly for the aircraft on rollout to expedite.
C. Asks the lined-up flight to be ready to go as soon as possible.
D. Tries to get our approaching aircraft to switch runways ("sidestep"): SFO parallel runways are non-standard close to each other and a sidestep happens on approach (and on departure crews are asked to have the numbers for the parallel runway ready).
The only thing that could have been done was maybe a "Change to, clear to land, runway 28R" a little sooner.
Other interesting facts: SFO is the eighth busiest airport in the US, and the busiest that has single-frequency tower ops.
The 1s were not in use, so all that traffic was on 28L/R.
And, just maybe, someday we'll use the (now trillions) of "infrastructure" money to actually fix this steaming mass of bad airport layout and regrettable weather?
I sometimes wonder if the SF City officials are flying, private of course, out of OAK which has less of the issues that have plagued SFO since LBJ was in office?
If 28R was open, why not give it to them from the beginning? If it's that busy, why not use one runway for arrivals and one for departures? Or were they both in use and the other traffic was trimmed from the video?
FAA staffing has been a major problem ever since the Bush 42 administration imposed the "White Book" contract, which severely hurt recruiting until Obama came in and paid controllers a bit more fairly. They've been catching up for 20 years
Instead of ATC prematurely positioning an aircraft for departure at the end of the runway, ATC should have had it hold short of the runway and wait for clearance. Once clear, instruct departing aircraft to make turn onto runway and immediately advise it "You are cleared for takeoff."
Would that work?
I think it is worth adding that there had been runway construction on the 1/19 runways at SFO during this time, where planes normally take off from, so they were trying to squeeze in as many planes as possible on 28L/R for both take offs and landings. It doesn't excuse it necessarily but I don't think this is usual or hopefully like to repeat any time soon again.
Doesn't fully excuse it, and airports like BOS and JFK seem to have mastered the cleared for takeoff on 2 mile final working most of the time, but yes it is an important consideration.
out of curiosity what configuration (DEP/ARR) is BOS/JFK so efficient at this. When BOS is DEP/ARR 22's...usually its depart 22R land 22L. JFK is the same......landing on the inners happens but it isn't very common.
I think ATC should take into consideration giving the landing pilot priority on a 4 mile final approach and have those hold short pilots wait for their turns to take off on the same runway! Stack em and rack em, guys!! Thanks, Ms. Vlasta
Airline Enthusiast and former CA resident.
Being a former pilot ( private) and having flown into many commercial airports I side with the 737 pilot. After he was on final and cleared to land, that was his runway. ATC should not have cleared any other aircraft to enter and hold short on that runway.
Much of this blame (understaffed ATC etc.) can be blamed on the Secretary of Transportation. Dude needs to lose his job.
Yeah, when Secretary Pete sits down on Monday to write the duty schedule for the SFO Tower, he is really missing the big picture of the unique challenges they face...
SFO's been broken since the 1960s-- And Pete's party's insane pandering to "the environmental causes" will ensure this shyteshow of an airport NEVER gets fixed. The BART connection is a joke. billions wasted on "new terminals" without fixing the layout are a joke... and, yeah, the refusal to re-align the runway mess is a joke.
Even as crazy-corrupt as Chicago is? They eventually started to fix the World's Dumbest Big Airport Runway Layout.
SF fixes...
SFO's been broken since the 1960s-- And Pete's party's insane pandering to "the environmental causes" will ensure this shyteshow of an airport NEVER gets fixed. The BART connection is a joke. billions wasted on "new terminals" without fixing the layout are a joke... and, yeah, the refusal to re-align the runway mess is a joke.
Even as crazy-corrupt as Chicago is? They eventually started to fix the World's Dumbest Big Airport Runway Layout.
SF fixes this about the same time they get the bums to stop pooping in the park across from city hall. Which means-- "never".
Sounds like you’re promoting to spend big bucks to “fix” one airport instead fixing many others. No problem.
Actually… they wanted to shift 28R out into the bay and put it on stilts. Incredibly expensive as you can guess. Please help make that plan come true. Thanks.
So I guess till 2 planes crash when someone drops the ball nothing will change. Just keep pointing fingers. Air Traffic controllers are over worked. Working with systems that are older then I am, just a accident waiting to happen.
If you were kidding, I'd laugh. Unfortunately, I think you're serious. Did the last 10 Transportation Secretaries also deserve to lose THEIR jobs too, since they didn't fix the problem either? What a ridiculous comment
yes. that's the point.
That’s right!! The Secretary of Transportation was in the tower that night and the other nights that NorCal referred to.
He needs to learn how to be a better air traffic controller. Why don’t you send a letter to him in Washington DC and tell him that the days when he’s not in DC and is he working that tower, he needs to stop doing go around’s so much. He would appreciate your expert advice.
You realize that you're completely and totally wrong about this, right? Pull out of your garbage partisan tribalism for a millisecond and realize this is a much more complicated, longer lasting issue.
Go arounds make a lot of extra work for approach controllers. I imagine the controller was just as upset as the pilot.
ATC issues go-arounds without any consideration to pilot stress, potential safety issues, checklist demands, passengers anxiety, and/or costs. Once upon a time, a tower cleared a Citation for takeoff when I was 1mile final. I keyed the Mike and told the Citation pilot to hold short landing traffic. Atc was furious with me. I was furious at him. He made a serious separation error and asked why didn’t I go around. I told him I was cleared to land!
I was a Navy Air Traffic Controller and even though I haven't done the job in over 30 years. I caught both times when the Local (Tower) Controller cleared United 1390 to land then placed another plane onto the runway. That always was a very big NO NO!!! Once that plane is cleared to land the runway is theirs!! If separation permits, you can allow traffic to cross the runway, but you still have to...
I was a Navy Air Traffic Controller and even though I haven't done the job in over 30 years. I caught both times when the Local (Tower) Controller cleared United 1390 to land then placed another plane onto the runway. That always was a very big NO NO!!! Once that plane is cleared to land the runway is theirs!! If separation permits, you can allow traffic to cross the runway, but you still have to be careful. Never know what might happen to cause that plane to foul your runway for the landing traffic!! That guy, trying to do to much at one time! Should learn not to give the arrival aircraft a 5 mile clearance if he wants to get a departure out in front of it. Give the departure their clearance, and as they're rolling, give the arrival their clearance and advise of the departing traffic rolling. Might be different nowadays, but that's how I did it.
That's not the way it's done today in the real world.