Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 28, 2016, 04:37:27 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: No coverage in your area? If you are near your local airport contact us to learn about becoming a volunteer


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  SFO Tower vs. UAL479
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: SFO Tower vs. UAL479  (Read 24330 times)
eastern tristar
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #25 on: April 01, 2011, 11:31:46 AM »

Just looked at the airport diagram for SFO, not a lot of extra space to move aircraft around.  Was surprised to see how close together the parallel runways are...I can see how the pilots can get stressed out flying in and out of this place, even without the fog.
Question, what is it about "the numbers" that are so different between 28R and 28L?  From an ATC perspective, I can see how useful it is to be able to side step them to get them out if they have the spacing.  Is it difficult to have the numbers ready for both runways?
Logged
Robert Larson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113



« Reply #26 on: April 01, 2011, 09:10:03 PM »

The difference is 1,268 feet.
Logged

KRDU & KTTA http://d.liveatc.net/krdu2.m3u
Private Pilot
landis
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #27 on: April 04, 2011, 01:55:55 PM »

SFO does this all the time.  They'll send you out on whichever 28 is best for traffic at the time you get to the end of the runway.  The ATIS even usually says "have numbers ready for both 28 L and R upon departure".

And when an aircraft can't do it or needs a delay, I've heard them a number of times just say to "call back when you're ready".

SFO controllers are extremely professional and efficient.
Logged
Paosql
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #28 on: April 06, 2011, 06:38:15 PM »

Ok. It's pretty obvious from this discussion that there is little understanding about what a runway change means to a crew of a fmc equipped plane.  The problem is not that the crews don't have performance data (numbers) for the new runway, but that loading the new runway in the FMC requires not only reentering the performance data but also both pilots verifying that the new route is in the FMC. In many instances a new runway will completely change the departure procedure and route after takeoff. There may also be a different engine out procedure for the new runway.  All of this information needs to be briefed and verified before accepting a clearance onto the active runway.

The UAL crew could have been a bit friendlier, however the squeaky wheel gets the grease and sometimes pilots need to voice their displeasure to keep ATC from continually issuing last minute changes.
Logged
canyonblue737
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #29 on: April 12, 2011, 11:53:27 AM »

The UAL crew is in the wrong here. (I am a 121 pilot who flies out of SFO). When departing 28L/R it is common to run the performance numbers and brief them both, but yes you do need to reprogram if they switch you at the last moment which takes time. Problem one was not being ready at 28L. That can happen, it isn't common to "need 3 minutes" to program when you are first in line but that's life sometimes. When they stated they needed more time the controller did a normal, normal thing and asked them to cross and hold short of the next runway so the airport could continue departures. In that case the UAL should have simply stopped programming, gone heads out, crossed the runway, and then resumed preparations on the other side even if as they later said it would take more time. What wasn't appropriate is denying a clearance and trying to imply it was in the interest of safety etc. when the real truth is they didn't want to give up their number #1 in line spot.

If you aren't ready, sorry "next please!" If you listen to the recording you can see the controller remained super professional throughout the exchange.

Logged
Paosql
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #30 on: April 13, 2011, 08:53:41 PM »

If they are doing an FMS departure, there is more to it then just entering the performance data. I agree that the UAL crew should have crossed and held short but being that I wasn't in the cockpit I'm not comfortable stating that they were in the wrong. It would be interesting to see if they were given a runway change (and how many) prior to switching from ground.  There are too many factors hear to play judge and jury. ultimately it comes down to the Captain deciding what's safe and what isn't. I'll side with the captain as refusing to cross the runway would not compromise safety whereas crossing it may have (in his opinion).

Logged
Hollis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


« Reply #31 on: April 15, 2011, 01:02:21 PM »

Sort of reminds me of when one of my college classmates used to pull tricks.
One was that whenever he was at a busy street intersection while driving his new car, and he was first in line at a red light, he would get out and go open the hood and stare down at the engine. Lights turned green, not once, but twice before he got back in and moved ahead. Lots of horns honking in the meantime.
He was also a PP and owned an old T-craft with which he used to do out of the ordinary things. His favorite was to touchdown on the left wheel, then feed in left aileron until the wingtip touched the runway surface during the rollout. But he later got a very somber message that flying is not only fun, but dangerous as well. While on a sightseeing flight,  a large portion of top fabric on his right wing peeled back causing a substatial loss of lift. Luckily, by having to use full left aileron and some opposite rudder, he managed to 'crab' in to the nearest airport and made it OK.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!