A United Airlines pilot got angry after they were forced to perform two go-arounds due to inadequate traffic separation.
A go-around happens when an aircraft that is approaching the ground or has already touched down discontinues the approach and landing due to operational reasons.
The event occurred on May 12, when United Airlines flight UA1390 arrived at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA). The flight was operated by a Boeing 737-900 jet with the registration code N75428.
Although the aircraft was already cleared to land on runway 28L, the air traffic controller decided to allow another United Airlines aircraft to line up on the runway and wait. The decision was made while the UA1390 flight was four miles from the threshold.
The other aircraft was forced to wait for another jet to vacate the active runway before it could be allowed to take off. At this point, UA1390 was less than two miles from the threshold.
UA1390 was instructed to go around and receive vectors for the approach again since there was not enough spacing.
However, the same thing happened when flight UA1390 attempted its second approach to runway 28L. Even though the jet had already received permission to land, another jet was allowed to enter the runway and wait. This meant that flight UA1390 had to postpone its landing again due to a lack of spacing.
The pilot ended up losing their temper after being forced to avoid the runway twice. They called out the air traffic controller, stating that "you guys gotta do better than this, that's twice."
The air traffic controller responded by saying that there were issues with the approach frequency. They stated this even though their responsibility is to clear departing aircraft to taxi onto the runway.
Details of the conversation between the pilot and NorCal departure are below:
- 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."
The pilot later spoke to NorCal approach, with the conversation going like this:
- 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%.”
The UA1390 flight finally landed on the third attempt after being delayed for approximately 30 minutes due to the two go-arounds after a visual approach to 28R.
3D Printed Aircraft Might Fly Sooner Than You Think » ANALYSIS: Iran's Airstrikes Have Destroyed its Aviation Industry » The World's Top 5 Most Breathtaking Airport Designs »
Comments (15)
Ian Greig
I don't understand how an aircraft can be cleared to land until the runway is clear. Shouldn't the instruction from the tower controller be "continue approach #1" or "continue approach #2" for following aircraft. When the runway is clear the first aircraft can be given "clear to land" Only one aircraft can be given "clear to land" at a time and that instruction should virtually never have to be withdrawn. I think this is normal practice in Europe and it certainly is in UK.
Jim S
“Cleared to Land” means “CLEARED TO LAND”. Pilots have enough to do bringing these enormous aircraft in for a landing, to abort a landing and “Go Around.” as a common procedure. It should only be withdrawn in an emergency. The entire system is out of control if an aborted landing is issued once, much less twice. This is a red flag of danger. This cannot continue. Air Traffic Control is no longer in control Has anyone been suspended or fired? The system must be audited and redesigned from top to bottom. This mis management cannot be allowed to continue. What is the FAA waiting for?
San Francisco must build new runways, decades ago, and certainly now.
Jim S
“Cleared to Land” means “CLEARED TO LAND”. Pilots have enough to do bringing these enormous aircraft in for a landing, to abort a landing and “Go Around.” as a common procedure. It should only be withdrawn in an emergency. The entire system is out of control if an aborted landing is issued once, much less twice. This is a red flag of danger. This cannot continue. Air Traffic Control is no longer in control Has anyone been suspended or fired? The system must be audited and redesigned from top to bottom. This mis management cannot be allowed to continue. What is the FAA waiting for?
San Francisco must build new runways, decades ago, and certainly now.
Jim S
“Cleared to Land” means “CLEARED TO LAND”. Pilots have enough to do bringing these enormous aircraft in for a landing, to abort a landing and “Go Around.” as a common procedure. It should only be withdrawn in an emergency. The entire system is out of control if an aborted landing is issued once, much less twice. This is a red flag of danger. This cannot continue. Air Traffic Control is no longer in control Has anyone been suspended or fired? The system must be audited and redesigned from top to bottom. This mis management cannot be allowed to continue. What is the FAA waiting for?
San Francisco must build new runways, decades ago, and certainly now.
Doug B
At least the first approach is reported to be a visual. That means neither the approach or tower controllers have the ability to sequence the approaching aircraft as it depends how tightly he/she flies the approach. As a Captain experienced at one of Europe’s busiest airfields I find it incredible that US airports persist in allowing pilots to ‘self navigate’ on a visual approach at busy airports. Had the controller sequenced the approaching aircraft with appropriate speed requirements neither of these events would have occurred . Ban visual approaches at major US hub airports!
Fred
In introduction you may have mistakenly confused go around and touch & go. When performing a go around the aircraft is still in the air but did not touch the ground yet compared to a touch & go.
ShadowMerlin
Are there no standard methods for dealing with incapable air traffic controllers? It sounds as if someone there either needs to be re-trained or fired.
Charlie
Never heard or experienced this in my 38 years of flying anywhere in the world, and landing at SFO many times. If this happened in crappy weather, two go arounds would cut into being short on gas to an alternate airport, then everyone would be pointing fingers to get out of the shit storm.
Boyd
Sounds like a turf war between the tower and approach control. They can and do talk to one another to coordinate spacing and traffic flow. Sometimes their separate responsibilities take on a competitive nature and they “communicate” by making a point of trying to embarrass one another.
Ron R
The local controller taxied aircraft into position and hold on his landing runway twice knowing that he has aircraft approaching , sounds like he needs a performance review.
James
First, why is someone who is “not in the tower” directing traffic on the ground? The correct instruction for the aircraft approaching 28L would have been to “hold short” of RWY 28L. Additionally, due to wake turbulence issues, spacing should only be determined by tower personnel.
Clarence
Up set ya, but no bad words and no political etc. Thank you. Clear and to the point...
Tai
Any reason why they couldn't have them hold short rather then enter and hold on the runway?
Jeffrey
No. The controller was putting undo pressure on all pilots involved. The plane departing the runway, the plane lining up and the plane trying to land. And the controller did this twice. It's almost as if the controller was doing this in purpose.
Mark R.
Forced to go around like that is occasionally understandable. Twice, no, for the same situation.
Add Your Comment
SHARE
TAGS
NEWS United SFO San Francisco Go-Around Delays Boeing 737RECENTLY PUBLISHED
The World's Top 5 Most Breathtaking Airport Designs
Airports are more than just places for planes to land and take off; they serve as ambassadors of the communities they serve. In many cases, they provide the first impression of a city or country to passengers passing through.
INFORMATIONAL
READ MORE »
New Data Suggests a Rise in Aircraft Near-Misses
While it is true that plane collisions occur quite frequently, recent events may be overstating just how often they may occur. Accidents themselves do not occur as often as many believe and it is incredibly rare for a plane to experience difficulties during the flight itself.
NEWS
READ MORE »
These 5 Tiny Countries Don't Have Any Airports
There are multiple nations around the world that are almost impossible to fly into. Although some offer heliports, none of the listed have any airports to access their nations.
INFORMATIONAL
READ MORE »
