While go arounds happen all the time, here’s an interaction you don’t often hear…
In this post:
United Express CRJ-700 blames go around on United 777
Airline Videos Live has both video and air traffic control communication of an unusual interaction that happened shortly after 12PM on Thursday, January 29, 2026, at San Francisco International Airport (SFO).
Specifically, a United Express Bombardier CRJ-700 operated by SkyWest was coming in to land after a short flight from Reno (RNO) as UA5899. At the last minute, the pilots performed a go around, which isn’t unusual as such.
As the plane was climbing out, the air traffic controller asked the pilots to share the reason for the go around (a standard question). One of the pilots responded “the 777’s tail was way over the line for 28L,” referring to a United 777-200ER that was queuing for takeoff on runway 28R. For those not familiar, runways have a “hold short line,” and if a plane is landing, every part of the runway needs to be clear, for obvious reasons.
However, in this case the air traffic controller immediately snapped back — “no, it absolutely is not, we can see it, but thanks for that report, contact departure 135.1.”
The United Express plane ended up coming back around for another landing, and touched down at 12:22PM, after a total flight time of 67 minutes.
That was quite the sassy interaction!
While pilots and air traffic controllers having disagreements is nothing new, this is quite unusual, given how authoritatively both parties express themselves:
- Pilots should always err on the side of caution, so if they see any potential conflicts, going around is the right course of action
- The air traffic controller sure snapped back right away, insisting that what the pilot was saying wasn’t true, because the tower also has a view of the runway, though admittedly from a different vantage point
It’s hard to know what exactly to make of this interaction, since none of us were there. The pilots of the United Express jet had no incentive to make up a fake reason for the go around, and at the same time, the air traffic controller presumably just responded with what he saw. So this is very much a “he said, he said” situation…
Bottom line
A United Express CRJ-700 performed a last minute go around while on approach to SFO. When the air traffic controller asked about the reason for the go around, the pilot responded it was because a 777’s tail was over the runway line. The air traffic controller quickly snapped back, and insisted that wasn’t the case, “but thanks for that report.”
What do you make of this SFO ATC interaction?
The other take on this is the CRJ went around because on final the 777's tail Was over the line and by the time ground control asked and looked the 777 had moved forward.
Kudos to CRJ. Both for safety and then for NOT CONTINUING the response when control tower got snippy long after the event had passed making his delayed response irrelevant and probably incorrect.
"The pilots of the United Express jet had no incentive to make up a fake reason for the go around,"
If they were 1000 feet too high and 25 knots too fast, no one would care if that was the real reason?
No, honestly, no one would care if that was the reason, and if you listen to any ATC with any frequency you'll hear that reason a lot. Although you'll hardly hear it with that specificity, but a general response of unstable.
Although this is an interesting placement for the article right after one talking about pilots concerned with cockpit voice recordings being leaked as invalid.
The pilot carried out a dynamic risk assessment upon approach. His decision to abort the landing on safety grounds is 100% is unquestionably valid. For ATC to question the pilots call, in my opinion, brings that ATC action into question.
What would be really interesting to hear is the 777/ATC conversion.
Is it just me or did the 777 start to inch forward in the last 2 seconds of the video? Wish video was just a tad longer.
The edge to edge distance between 28L and 28R is 550ft enough to fit two 777s. If this 777 was correctly holding short of the line to 28R, it would be quite a bit away from 28L. May be it wasn't quite up to the hold line in...
Is it just me or did the 777 start to inch forward in the last 2 seconds of the video? Wish video was just a tad longer.
The edge to edge distance between 28L and 28R is 550ft enough to fit two 777s. If this 777 was correctly holding short of the line to 28R, it would be quite a bit away from 28L. May be it wasn't quite up to the hold line in front and left the tail hanging out just a bit where both ATC and RJ pilot could have been right seeing from their perspectives.
I wonder why he was sitting there. Why didn’t he takeoff on 28L rather than cross it? I assume there are hold short lines in both directions. Could he have stopped at the hold short line for 28L rather than 28R? Probably not but I don’t fault SkyWest for going around.
@FlyerDon
No. A runway "hold line" is actually 4 lines, 2 solid lines followed (or preceded by) 2 dashed lines.
As you start to cross over these lines ...
... if the 2 dashed lines are closer (IE: exiting the runway), you may cross over w/o explicit permission
... if the 2 solid lines are closer (IE: entering a runway) you may NOT crossover until explicate permission is granted.
Thus a...
@FlyerDon
No. A runway "hold line" is actually 4 lines, 2 solid lines followed (or preceded by) 2 dashed lines.
As you start to cross over these lines ...
... if the 2 dashed lines are closer (IE: exiting the runway), you may cross over w/o explicit permission
... if the 2 solid lines are closer (IE: entering a runway) you may NOT crossover until explicate permission is granted.
Thus a pilot approaching the runway in front can't confuse the hold line for the runway behind them (for a plane going the opposite direction) as being the hold line for a runway in front.
I agree with you that is how it should work but these days there is a lot happening that shouldn’t be happening. Their are a lot of new captains taxiing their first widebody!
What is this, bash-the-pilots day at OMAAT? Mistakes happen. Glad everyone’s alright.
@ 1990 -- I don't think there's any bashing of pilots or air traffic controllers in this post. As I explained, I think it's an interesting interaction, and I don't know which side was in the right.
You’re good, Ben. Nice to report on what’s happenin’. Just bustin’ balls ova’ere. Sowie.
I certainly don’t think the article bashed the pilots, but “gets schooled by ATC” in the headline made me think that the story would indicate wrongdoing by the pilots. Always happy to see anyone err on the side of caution.
WhoIsRS — Yeah, the titles don’t always match the conclusions of the posts, but, I suppose it’s one way to get us to click, read, and find out. I’m thoroughly amused, either way.
President Trump will sort out this problem.
Greatest US President EVER.