Unable to land due to TERRAIN WARNINGS | Delta Boeing 767-300 | San Francisco, ATC

[@johnyves1246]

Many here perhaps don’t realise how heavy the workload is in the cockpit : double go arounds, aircraft configuration changes, radio frequency management, after TO vlists, Pilot landing briefings, Pax coms, company coms, FMC loading, Before landing checklist, Missed approach procedures, Minimums reset, fuel management, diversion preparation to alternative airport, ATIS report, Weather briefings, new approach preparation…bla..bla..bla and all of this whilst monitoring TCAS for heavy traffic , talking nicely with ATC …and having to make critical decisions…those flyers up there get my highest admiration…

[@YouCanSeeATC]

Probably the best comment here👍 Thank you.

[@nk7155]

So well said!

[@airplanekp]

Absolutely being a pilot is not to be taken lightly

[@tlpessanha26]

And the industry still work to keep only one pilot onboard... that's insane!!!

[@travisb5866]

can confirm, it's a lot of work. Especially into SFO of all places. Each departure/arrival procedure is in close proximity of crossing traffic. There's VFR targets everywhere, parallel approaches, cross traffic taking off and departing north and turning every which way. SFO is a well oiled operation. And then combining go-arounds in a heavy, which are stressful by themselves, these boys did a good job keeping their calm. And as I listen, I'm not happy with Oakland Approach's controller getting snippy on the repeats... They're working.

[@hamletksquid2702]

What a difference a coast makes. JFK: ask for a repeat, ATC rattles it off faster than humanly possible to avoid wasting any more time. SFO: Ask for repeat, ATC carefully enunciates each word, pilot uses "niner" in readback to prevent confusion, and no snark gets exchanged.

[@stevenpayne3707]

Yup. Kennedy controllers go out of their way to be douchebags.

[@fhowland]

So true. Big difference

[@nadernowzadi1]

@@stevenpayne3707 Of course Kennedy Steve was an exception to that rule.

[@msjdb723]

@@nadernowzadi1 Love that guy 💗

[@highflyerl23]

@@stevenpayne3707 They are just stressed out all the time. You HAVE to be on your A game going into JFK. It can be difficult for non native English speakers to deal with them.

[@TheTravelingCyclist1]

The terrain on approach for 10L is very diverse, there is not much room for error if you are truly receiving a terrain warning out there, especially considering it was at night and there tends to be a ton of fog out there depending on the time of year. Nice to know Delta procedure makes the pilots go around without second-thinking the error.

[@sharlesleglerc]

in the 121 environment even a "sink rate" is a reason to go around never mind GPWS warning.

[@rickymunoz9389]

I remember this day. I was at work in OAK. Was wondering why DL311 landed. Anyway, very rare for flights to be landing on the 10s in SFO. NORCAL had traffic coming in from the east following the 19L approach and once over ROGGE at 7,000 NORCAL vectored traffic to fly over downtown SF and do the GPS approach to runway 10L.

[@SpicyFaceActual]

I’ve only seen RWY 10 arrivals twice in the 8 years I’ve been at NorCal. When we go to tens we expect a lot of go arounds from terrain. These guys weren’t the only ones to do so. There’s a lot of different controllers working different sectors in a large radar room, who have to coordinate a ton with each other. Especially while using unfamiliar airspace and procedures. We have to transfer communications before we let an aircraft under our control enter another controllers airspace. That’s why you’ll talk to a controller for 10 seconds before being switched again… Definitely a high workload for the pilots and they did a great job. Most people don’t hear the other 1/3 of what the controller is saying or coordinating off frequency as well. This isn’t an ideal scenario for anyone, but we get through it by working together as professionals and move on to the next flight. Well done. 👍

[@tigersfan14]

Gotta be hard for ATC too because it's an arrival plate that controllers don't often see and may have only had during training scenarios. It's the same for LAX when they depart to the east.

[@SpicyFaceActual]

@@tigersfan14 Yes and no. We definitely aren’t as comfortable with the 10s as we are the 28s. But there’s only one final approach fix for each approach, and the turn on headings are just 30 Degrees either side of 100. So you get a few under your belt and figure out the winds and compression and you’re good to go. We also have a screen above the scope that we can pull up any approach plate we need.

[@tigersfan14]

@@SpicyFaceActual Appreciate your view. I had done a deep dive a while ago into the Eva Air incident at LAX... One of the key factors was an over-stressed fatigued controller dealing with a rarely used departure route due to weather that she hadn't had much experience with (despite being a veteran controller). Your mention of an unusual arrival made me think of it. Anyways... appreciate when someone shares a perspective that is unique in the comments. That's also rare.

[@dragon32210]

If this were during the day without marine layer, this would be an awesome Bay Area tour

[@mar_man813]

ATC: For RW 19L, there will be quite a delay DAL311: We have a way to expedite that Hahahaha!

[@aaronbarnes2148]

I thought for sure he was about to declare and request 19.

[@vbscript2]

@@aaronbarnes2148 If they had decided that 19 was the best option for them, I'm guessing that's exactly what they would have done. And, of course, they'd be completely justified in doing so in this situation, since they didn't know why they were getting the GPWS warnings and wouldn't have had any way to know whether or not they'd need to go around again, so needed to conserve fuel.

[@Techie1224]

@@vbscript2 they didn't update their plane google maps 😆

[@AEMoreira81]

I am surprised they would even think of requesting the 19s, with the winds from the northeast. I’m surprised they didn’t request 1R.

[@PInk77W1]

I caught that too. LoL

[@RonPiggott]

It is always better to be inconvenienced than in a hospital bed trying to recover if there were an accident.

[@gregorybennett6684]

That's not where plane crash victims typically end up

[@vbscript2]

@@gregorybennett6684 Really depends a lot on the type of crash. For example, the only fatal crash to occur in a mainline airliner on U.S. soil in the last 20 years (Asiana 214) had 3 fatalities out of around 300 people on board... and one of those was from being hit by a fire truck after the fact. Every other mainline crash in U.S. airspace in the last 20 years has had no fatalities at all. Even when including the regional airlines, there hasn't been a fatal crash on a U.S.-flagged airliner since 2009. The only other passenger fatality to occur as a result of an aviation incident on a mainline airliner in the U.S. in that time was a woman who was hit by high-speed debris following an engine explosion, but that aircraft landed safely with no other injuries.

[@virginiaviola5097]

@@vbscript2 GA on the other hand is out of control. The accidents and fatalities of both those in the aircraft, plus people on the ground with the destruction of the aircraft and ground property has never been higher. As for the major airlines, it’s only going to be a matter of time. The Southwest incident, where the poor woman got sucked up through the window was horrific...but the # of commercial airlines that are returning with slat and flap issues, engines out, lost cowling and such is also at an all time high, and one can’t help to wonder what is going on with maintenance? The airlines have been struggling financially because of CV-19...so are they cutting corners on maintenance in order to save money?

[@vbscript2]

@@virginiaviola5097 Is there any evidence at all of such incidents being "at an all-time high" relative to the number of flights being performed and/or flight-hours flown? I haven't heard any. Anecdotal evidence of what shows up on KZbin isn't evidence of the incidents being more common, but rather just that it's much easier for the general public to find out about them than ever before. Such things are pretty routine and are quite rarely reported outside of KZbin aviation channels. The past decade was, by a wide margin, the safest decade in the history of U.S. airline aviation. And the one before it was the next most safe, also by a very wide margin.

[@jenniferbart3060]

It’s true 92 percent of aviation accidents happen during takeoff/landing.Slow speed and low altitude.If you have you seatbelts on you have a good chance of survival,Even higher if you are there is time and if you get the command to brace.Putting your head closet to what is front of you that your head will hit first.About 72 percent of crashes are survivable.That along with all the other saftey precautions is why flying is so safe.

[@robertthompson5084]

Glad to hear they're going around. So many pilots want to try and do anything they can to get the aircraft on the ground. Best to err on the side of caution. Ignored alarms/alerts cause fatalities.

[@drcroll]

Well Handled by Both The Pilots And The ATC

[@YouCanSeeATC]

👍

[@dcooper5982]

Great teamwork between the flight crew, the dispatcher and ATC!

[@BayAreaTraveler]

This DL 767 was approaching to land on the 10's at SFO which is very rare. This occurred in December when we had our record rainfall with frequent storms in the Bay Area. So approach to land on the 10's do pass through some low lying hills. Maybe the GPWS was way too sensitive or something.

[@Jalu3]

Right, south of Daly City through the break north of San Bruno. But there are not many tall buildings down that valley between South City and San Bruno on that approach. But better safe than sorry, especially when one is unfamiliar with the terrain or does not have visuals of the terrain.

[@MarcosElMalo2]

@@Jalu3 Always better safe than sorry! I imagine there might be some marine layer from coast inland towards the bay, depending on time and season. So SFO might have clear sky, but terrain on the approach gets obscured. One of the things I remember from living in SF is the “micro climes”. It can be cold and drizzly in one place, and sunny and mild five minutes away.

[@imaPangolin]

@@MarcosElMalo2 it was night. Correct decision. Something was off. Be it the GPWS database, or uncertain aircraft position. Doing the full ILS at OAK was wise. Removed the GPS from the equation - on the RNAV GPS was being used.

[@ailivac]

I wonder if their true altitude was lower than expected due to pressure changing from a nearby storm (assuming they weren't on glideslope already)? At one point he asks ATC to confirm the altimeter setting, and the readback sounded like he was noting it had changed.

[@pkorns1892]

Flight team sure earned their paycheck that day!

[@rockkitty100]

Runway 10 L & R are strange approach as runways 28 L & R are the normal landings. Coming in on 10 you are coming in over the hills.

[@ayaowzaa]

exactly, as a native from the bay area who constantly flies from/to SFO, I was surprised they were using that runway for landing that day.

[@AEMoreira81]

There was a 10 knots tailwind landing for the 28s.

[@patcat75011]

Co pilot did an amazing job. His voice was very clear and his read backs were spot on . He sounds young but I would say he has good experience under his belt . All involved handled this very well . Side note back in the day you would pop the breaker so the warning would not go off on certain approaches that you know it would but now we live in different times .

[@msjdb723]

Interesting. Makes it a bit more relatable for a non-pilot.

[@SukhithaAmarakoon]

After a couple of high profile crashes and some major changes to TAWS everybody stopped doing that

[@warriplayer]

Don’t assume that’s the FO talking…It’s common now to have the FO fly and the Captain manage to include talking to ATC…

[@burtonrider316]

@@warriplayer that is SOP usually depending on the situation.

[@warriplayer]

@@burtonrider316 That's what I just said 😂

[@gazman7030]

What a clear & concise pilot, excellent.

[@jerryli6763]

This is actually really interesting because I was flying out of SFO the same night around 2.5 hrs earlier. Thanks for a good video as always

[@jpoconnor5744]

Regarding all the comments about 5G interference: The new frequencies in question are not yet in use by the mobile services, so not a factor in this case. That could change very soon, however.

[@OfficialSamuelC]

5G won’t affect it. Airports have already accounted for this, as have those behind 5G. They wouldn’t take such risks and have already tested it fully at many airports.

[@ChattanoogaDave]

@@OfficialSamuelC I think Blancolario will disagree with you. FCC doesn't care about FAA. They just care about 5G and money. You might want to watch his video. He shows the actual studies done. 5G is very close in frequency. It interferes a lot even with LTE.

[@KaneYork]

This could easily be leakage from a test lab in the city.

[@zeroone8800]

@@ChattanoogaDave The FCC only cares about transmitters not receivers. The FCC determined that a well designed receiver would not experience interference, so their job was done. It is the FAA's job to make sure the receivers are well designed. It should be noted that as a safety of life system the airplane radar altimeters should have well designed receivers to prevent bad actors easily causing interference. The fact this was not addressed in 2002 is dereliction of duty by the FAA. The altimeter frequency band has not changed. The old users of the new cell frequencies are fixed satellite services. They had to replace filters on every satellite dish in 46 metro areas in the same time frame.

[@BLAMBERRY]

This would be a great sim scenario… Actually-it probably will be.

[@YouCanSeeATC]

👍

[@jonesjones7057]

True only in the sim they'd throw an engine failure in there after the second go around for good measure and maybe knock out some steep turns in there somewhere too haha.

[@EdOeuna]

Turn off GPWS for the second approach. Easy.

[@brianszymanski5236]

To all the people suggesting 5G interference: no, this is not possible. No carrier was using C-band at the time of this incident (or, indeed, today). AT&T and Verizon won't be starting with C-band until January 19th, and T-mobile doesn't use C-band at all.

[@homomorphic]

Do you honestly think that the first time they ever run a tower is the day the service goes live for the public? Of course this was C band interference, as the tower was being tested pending the initiation of service in 5 days.

[@infinitelyexplosive4131]

@@homomorphic but no other aircraft reported issues _and_ this is an aircraft with an FAA approved altimeter?

[@homomorphic]

@@infinitelyexplosive4131 all altimiters are FAA approved and RA failures never happen as they are critical flight instruments.

[@infinitelyexplosive4131]

@@homomorphic approved for use in areas that have deployed C-band 5g, sorry

[@homomorphic]

@@infinitelyexplosive4131 what makes you say that? Because it is entirely incorrect.

[@roddy2753]

Do the passengers have to pay extra for the Bay tour?

[@YouCanSeeATC]

😂

[@FlyingMaxFr]

Middle of the night unfortunately!

[@kenhurley4441]

@@FlyingMaxFr Wouldn't that be a "light" fare then?

[@kisstune]

Only if your on one of those airlines that have super cheap tickets but charge for EVERYTHING.

[@vbscript2]

@@kisstune Thankfully Delta generally isn't like that.

[@shreddder999]

We used to get this all the time, but we knew the cause and it was only during a visual approach. One time I actually had a passenger ask me what the voice was saying. Good ears!

[@windanthonystream]

I’ve landed at SFO at least 150 times and never landed runway 10….

[@YouCanSeeATC]

They use 10's really rare. I noticed that as well.

[@davidbeckenbaugh9598]

Would someone please explain something to a non-pilot? I certainly understand the go-around for the ground proximately warning. What I do not understand is why they are getting it on a known, good approach vector and altitude. As an aside, I think landing in Oakland is far better than trying to land in the street on Telegraph Hill.....

[@0xclyon]

@HistoryNews10 5G interference? :)

[@OfficialSamuelC]

@@0xclyon Nope. 5G isn’t active there yet.

[@LSUtiger607]

@HistoryNews10 That approach is an RNAV, not an ILS. No ground equipment involved. Somehow, the GPWS was not aware of the approach and gave warnings when approaching the airport. My guess would be a database issue on the jet’s FMS. Just a guess.

[@jepmd88gmail]

@HistoryNews10 they have ILS, gps, and INS. they knew where they were. Something was up with the database of the terrain module

[@EdOeuna]

@@LSUtiger607 - the GPWS database knows where airports are and each airport has a descent profile associated with its runway elevation.

[@trentgilliam5192]

This flight was landing 10L? Forgive me if I’m incorrect but landing that direction is pretty rare. I’ve flown out of SFO for over 15 years and only landed that direction 1 time while coming in from ICN. San Bruno “mountain” would be to the right of the flight plan.

[@YouCanSeeATC]

Yes, they use those runway really rare.

[@cessnaflyer]

ATC with people skills! thanks!

[@boc7477]

I wonder if it was possibly San Bruno Mountain that triggered the GPWS.

[@LHR777]

Excellent comms coming out of that flight deck. Nice work. Just one thing....the unnecessary use of "is with you" every time they do a frequency change. It's not required.

[@Crafting_Through_Life]

Some pilots use that phrase as a form of doing a radio check to ensure both ends can hear each other loud and clear. Typically it’s the old school pilots and if younger it’s because an old school pilot most likely trained them. I’d rather hear something irritating over and over then them not check at all and suddenly collide midair with another plane or crash into the side of a mountain.

[@LHR777]

@@Crafting_Through_Life ... because the TCAS and eGPWS don't work?

[@MSRTA_Productions]

Kudos to all! 🙌🏼

[@YouCanSeeATC]

👍

[@BangaloreAviation]

The additional experience of wide-body pilots shows in the additional information the pilots transmit to ATC without their asking.

[@mohammedrazzaki335]

wise decision and nice job guys 👍

[@YouCanSeeATC]

👍

[@flyerdon3116]

After deplaning the passengers in Oakland, Delta sold the 767 to Amazon.

[@michaelfoster5745]

Are u for real

[@deanhibler3117]

@@michaelfoster5745 As of today that plane is still in service with Delta, flying to Accra in the morning.

[@msjdb723]

I think he was kidding? 🤔

[@flyerdon3116]

I see Amazon 767’s flying over my house a lot. They seem to love used 767’s. I figured they might make an “as is” offer to Delta, saving Delta the trouble of fixing it and getting it back to SFO. It was kind of an airline insider joke.

[@MCMXI1]

Close, the plane was jacked and taken to an East Oakland chop shop

[@Jimmietwotimes]

It's interesting to me that a major airport is built in a way and an area where the approaches would have the possibility of alarming a terrain warning. I'd have guessed all approaches were straight and flat on the runways way past the actual airport, even the mountain ones like Denver. I wonder how many approaches a day they get from planes having the same warning? I'd fix that.

[@holylee30]

this pilot... is amazing.. I mean so good!

[@sampathsris]

Just realized that the map is tilted about 10 degrees to the right. (For example when they're flying 360 it's noticeable). Is that because true north differing from magnetic north?

[@MartyMitchell92660]

In San Francisco, magnetic north is 15 degrees east of true north.

[@ronaldfischer1195]

Yeah, it was confusing me a lot at first.

[@jrvanwhy]

It's primarily magnetic variation, but wind is also a factor. "Fly heading 360" means to point the airplane towards magnetic north (and therefore move that direction relative to the wind), not to travel in that direction relative to the ground.

[@MartyMitchell92660]

@@jrvanwhy I agree.

[@douglasdever3522]

"Ok, well we have a way to expedite that..." lol, yes you do.

[@jadawo]

"We have a way to expedite that" lolol

[@jonesjones7057]

I laughed at that too. Nice little jab there.

[@Live.Vibe.Lasers]

sorry..why? implying he would declare an emergency and thereby expedite a landing?

[@jadawo]

@@Live.Vibe.Lasers yes. It’s silly that the controller is acting like a plane that has gone around twice is going to be a low priority to get into 19L

[@jonesjones7057]

@@Live.Vibe.Lasers correct. This crew was weighing all of their options and he was just giving ATC a heads up that that was one option they had. Ultimately I think the only reason they didn't do it was because of the tailwind.

[@mar_man813]

@@jadawo Exactly. It's not like SFO was his alternate. He tried twice to go to the primary and the uncommon approach contributed to his missed. Surprised ATC wasn't more accommodating, but perhaps that ATC wasn't too aware.

[@wouldntyouliketoknow9891]

Did they ever figure out if it was a malfunction or an incorrect setting in their GPWS? I'm presuming the approach is not supposed take them through a hill...

[@burtonrider316]

gpws is automatic. so it has something to do with the system malfunctioning or the radio altimeter having issues. this could relate to the whole 5G thing too.

[@erauprcwa]

@@burtonrider316 It doesn't relate to the 5G thing.

[@ridernotrunner]

@@erauprcwa is that you, Verizon?

[@davec3226]

Interesting they get multiple (false) ground proximity warnings just as the FAA is fighting with the FCC over 5G frequencies that could interfere with ground proximity sensors (radar alt).

[@aigtrader2984]

I was thinking the exact same thing. If only the rollout of 5G was something that airlines could have prepared for.

[@mixedupmenopausaladhd3999]

That’s uh…concerning

[@unimatrixx001]

I was wondering why there was no reason given for the false proximity warnings so thank you for posting it was probably 5G that caused that! That is scary and seems FAA and FCC need to talk eh?

[@zeroone8800]

@@unimatrixx001 5G did not cause that. The C-band 5G was not turned on until today. It is just that the radar altimeters are in the news because the FAA did not get any cleared to work with 5G (C-band) until yesterday, and are still working on more models including all 787s.

[@cwg73160]

Stop.

[@mikelp72]

Maybe if you are in clear skies and can see the ground, it shouldn’t be a mandatory go around?

[@LSUtiger607]

Correct. We can only assume they were IMC.

[@Croatiair]

If I remember correctly on Airbus the procedure was if you receive Pull Up warning you have to execute the terrain escape manouver no matter if in VMC or IMC... Not sure if Boeing 767 has the same..

[@phuketexplorer]

So the ground proximity warnings were due to pilot error in their approach, or equipment malfunction?

[@jjsifo1]

They did good.

[@donaldgrump5393]

ATC: runway 19L will take an hour to prepare Pilot: PAN-PAN, PAN-PAN ATC: I meant it’ll be an honour to prepare

[@carsonfran]

My bladder is having OCD after watching this.

[@AguadillaCGN]

was it already dark, if not why is it mandatory to go around

[@YouCanSeeATC]

It was around 9 PM

[@TheTheboss175]

I wonder what was the visibility at KSFO?

[@YouCanSeeATC]

Someone has already asked the question about the weather. Try to find my answers in the comments. There is a METAR for that time.

[@highflyerl23]

That's a bit odd...

[@jarbitro94]

Three hours later they flew empty "DL311" from OAK to SFO and landed on 10L. So they figured out how to turn it off :)

[@msjdb723]

😁

[@12345fowler]

@@msjdb723 Yep I guess they have different policies (think MEL) depending if PAX are there or not.

[@marcospark2803]

Passengers get a special flight from Oakland to SF or a bus or something?

[@davidmoser3535]

4 am bus trip

[@caseyedward2890]

This was insane

[@Doctor_klausmartens]

with you? where else

[@AEMoreira81]

Was landing on Runway 1R ever an option? The winds would have dictated that as best, since one likely was taking off on the 1s.

[@BayAreaTraveler]

I don't think landing on the 1's on that day would have been an option. Approach to the 1's involves regular approach to the 28's with a circle to land to the 1's. So that means that takeoffs and approaches would have been on a collision course.

[@Gspeezy13]

What does "heavy" mean

[@YouCanSeeATC]

A heavy airplane, as classified by the FAA, is any airplane with a maximum takeoff weight of 300,000 pounds or more

[@dixonleong4664]

Pilot: We cannot land with terrain warning Cathay Pacific 780: Disregard the terrain warning!

[@ScottDLR]

I worked for the manufacturer of EGPWS systems. Heard one pilot (FDR recording) who ignored the warning. He flew into a hillside and killed everyone on board. You never ignore ground prox.

[@dixonleong4664]

@@ScottDLR of course, just do you know that incident?

[@MrTurbohampster]

@Scott not entirely correct, we're allowed to ignore it if visual with the ground and its obviously a spurious warning

[@ScottDLR]

@@dixonleong4664 It was 20+ years ago. All I can remember is that it was a Mexican pilot of a commercial jet and the last words heard on the FDR were "Shut up gringo" and then he pulled the breaker for the GPWS and crashed.

[@AEMoreira81]

@@ScottDLR -- Actually Avianca Flight 11, then an FRA-CDG-MAD-BOG flight. AV still uses AV11, but it's an MAD-BOG only flight.

[@PInk77W1]

Passengers got they money’s worth

[@Williamb612]

Seems to me there is a lot of shit going down on planes regularly which passengers never know about…close calls in the cockpit while passengers disembark at the gate with smiles

[@msjdb723]

👍

[@YouCanSeeATC]

👍

[@indyracingnut]

Very bizzare....

[@ghostrider-be9ek]

"with you" is a common waste of air comm, not sure why the american pilots think its normal? also a lot of excessive words, 'go ahead and formally request' instead of 'request' and this is the busiest time of the night

[@martincook3201]

This doesn't make any sense to me. I get that they have procedures that mandate a go around on a terrain warning. But then they did a go around over the highest terrain in the area!

[@jepmd88gmail]

It’s a published missed. You do what the procedure says. Other constraints of traffic flow may determine why it goes the way it does

[@PInk77W1]

Years ago a Spanish 747 was landing in the fog They got a “too lo” terrain warning The pilot thought it was a comp. error. He said “Shut up u stupid gringo” They all died.

[@jamescollier3]

Wonder what the weather was that day

[@YouCanSeeATC]

Just found Metar. KSFO 210356Z 07012KT 10SM FEW050 SCT150 OVC180 09/06 A3010 RMK AO2 SLP193 T00940061

[@jamescollier3]

@@YouCanSeeATC Haha awesome! lol

[@YouCanSeeATC]

👍

[@gabeich4303]

@@jamescollier3 with the approach coming over the coast, that area may very well be covered by a marine layer while the airport is reporting fairly clear

[@cedarkey]

@@YouCanSeeATC ATC were describing how it was busy at that time of NIGHT, so despite clear skies or heavy fog, the fact that it was dark would mean a mandatory Go Around for almost all commercial airliners worldwide.

[@Dfpijgyt564s65sgt]

The comment pilots are in abundance for this one 😂

[@JJBpilot]

Someone has to have something mis-set, or wrong approach in the box....altimeter?? Definitely something...

[@YouCanSeeATC]

They had time to check everything. Who knows what was that.

[@hamletksquid2702]

Calibration, maybe? Or a gum wrapper stuck to an antenna, a mouse chewing a wire, or some equally hole-in-the-Swiss-cheese thing.

[@YouCanSeeATC]

👍

[@df446]

Yeah it was something . . . 🙄🙄🙄

[@MrTurbohampster]

Not necessarily certain approaches are on close to the limit of triggering the warnings, if you're heavy/tailwind etc (increased descent rate) The warning can be triggered even if everything is normal

[@wahswolf88]

Wow, real pros. You have no idea what is going on in first class let alone coach.

[@danielv3933]

The “with you” makes me cringe every time.

[@Astinsan]

What a pain

[@tchevrier]

I didn't think the hills were that high coming in from the northwest

[@typhoon2827]

Blancolirio needs to do a video about this and 5G

[@aaronbarnes2148]

So was this a false warning or were they actually in danger of hitting terrain?

[@jrmyl]

Probably a false warning. Could have been an outdated database or a position error in the system. Either way, it thought they were somewhere they weren't or lower than they were. I looked at the approach chart and where they were getting the warning is right where the highest terrain is located, but they were at the recommended altitude according to the flight track.

[@kseright9184]

@@jrmyl Could it be 5G issues.

[@N1120A]

@@kseright9184 no it couldn't.

[@sapede]

Could it be 5G Interference with the radio altimeter?

[@JimLatp]

No. Enhanced ground proximity uses GPS and a worldwide database of terrain and obstacle altitudes. It's not the basic old style radio altimeter.

[@kimcelarmycx229]

We're talking about a 767-300 though, isn't it possible it could use both types including a radio altimeter? Delta has not done an avionics retrofit, their 767s still have the original 80's avionics systems

[@kimcelarmycx229]

Upon further research the 767-300 is indeed equipped with a radio altimeter

[@charlessne9350]

GPWS, depending on model has various modes and inputs. Radio Altimeter is one of those inputs. Looks at database, flap/gear setting, DH/MDA setting, closure rate with ground, etc. An instrument approach will keep you clear of terrain, but an unstable decent on a critical phase of the approach could set it off. Part 121 operations have to follow their company guidance. May have been different if they where VFR and could positively determine GPWS was a nuisance warning. Certain airports also may have special GPWS procedures. Look at decent rate required for Aspen, CO. Curious about 5G interference. FAA has published warning about interference with RA.

[@OfficialSamuelC]

One of THE worst aural warnings you wanna hear as a pilot when flying.

[@spelldaddy5386]

There are some other bad ones too. Fire bell, smoke indication, depressurization. You can order them how you want, but I wouldn't necessarily put terrain much above those. It also depends if it's a caution warning or a pull up warning. The pilot did not specify on the radio

[@paddyohenry6428]

Socal, lol

[@YouCanSeeATC]

It happens.

[@satguy]

Doesn't 5G mess with this type of radar approach?

[@N1120A]

Not when it isn't on...

[@gavinsingh4450]

Probably the double breasted suit and hat that caused all this!!!

[@nuneze23]

How?

[@kenhurley4441]

With a college degree!

[@gavinsingh4450]

@@nuneze23 Guarrrrrrddd!!!

[@nuneze23]

@@gavinsingh4450 meowwwww

[@A.J.1656]

When the radar altimeter pings the ground it reflects up to the boat captain's hat then ricochets off all 47 buttons on the dinner jacket creating a false return. It's science.

[@Glideslopes]

C-Band 5G interference.

[@gregorybennett6684]

Caution...there is land below you. When landing that's a good thing!

[@ikellay]

terrain warning, not land warning

[@gregorybennett6684]

@@ikellay when "terrain" means "a stretch of land" and the warning is being issued by the Ground Proximity Warning System, I'm not sure I understand the distinction

[@A.J.1656]

The EGPWS has a database that knows where the airport is. It won't bark at you if you are making a normal descent to a known runway.

[@jepmd88gmail]

Look up American Airlines flt 965 in Cali Columbia. These rules are written in blood

[@mrtedao2]

Its 5G ?

[@rffarms]

I bet Delta had great 5G signal.

[@msjdb723]

😁

[@Spyke-lz2hl]

5g?

[@mikeperry2814]

Could be an example of 5G cellphone tower interference!

[@anishannayya1]

Why do people insist that cellular transmissions interfere with avionics? The only reason why this is even an issue is because dumb pilots have reported "suspected" issues. Nothing is proven, and never will be, just like they weren't for phones the decades prior. Ya'll are just butthurt you can't use your phones because they're a distraction in the cockpit. The only way a 5G signal can cause issues is with an unshielded ground system, not the plane itself. Even then, I highly doubt it's something worthwhile being concerned about, even as an abundance of caution.

[@gsdalpha1358]

@@anishannayya1 It's not cell phones, it's the 5G bandwidth encroachment issue. On some older aviation equipment, 5G can interfere with electronics. The blancolirio channel talked about this at length recently - since the channel founder is a *very* experienced jet liner pilot, I'd kinda believe him. The FAA is holding hearings on exactly that issue.

[@anishannayya1]

@@gsdalpha1358 Okay, I only have multiple engineering degrees and work with embedded radar devices and telecommunications equipment. What do I know...

[@andy5478-MTB]

@@anishannayya1 you certainly don't write like someone whom has even one engineering degree.

[@anishannayya1]

@@andy5478-MTB Yeah, I don't give a flying fuck, what you think, lol. Engineers curse a lot.

[@cheapercharlieiii]

Crew seemed overwhelmed or distracted at times. Lots going on 👍

[@YouCanSeeATC]

👍

[@donschwartz1118]

I didn't see that. It sounded to me that the company had to make the choice and to me that's what I thought there actions were based on. On the other hand you could be right.

[@donschwartz1118]

That's their actions were based on

[@jonesjones7057]

Not sure if you are in the business or not but as an airline pilot I can tell you, you are right, they did have a ton of things to do but I wouldn't say they were overwhelmed. Communicating with the company, passengers and flight attendants plus dealing with vectors while deciding on a new course of action, getting the KOAK weather (atis), programming and briefing a new approach to a different and nearby airport, running checklists and getting runway performance data for the new airport is very busy indeed. That's after two go arounds and a long flight which is tiring in itself. I don't work for delta, I'm at a different airline, but from what I know they were dealing with, I give them an A+ and that's not easy to do because I know I'm just feeding their egos haha. But its just the truth. They did everything right. The couple missed calls was most likely because they were briefing the approach or verifying some things with limited time, which is usually done at a quiet, less busy time of the flight. All the best.

[@a24396]

They seemed fine to me. In fact, despite their workload, you probably noted they were careful to confirm speed, heading, or altitudes at a couple points when it wasn't specifically mentioned. They even confirmed they had the barometric pressure set properly after the first missed approach. All in all, these guys were in a massively complicated situation and handled it well enough to sound bored.

[@Frogs114]

This smells suspiciously like 5G

[@N1120A]

Except that C Band wasn't active.

[@JimLatp]

I got a Ground Prox warning landing at ECP a bunch of years back "Too Low Terrain". We were full on VFR. It was clear the warning was erroneous so we landed. Turned out it was due to the fact that the airport was new and our EGPWS hadn't yet been updated. Glad we showed common sense and didn't just blindly follow a computer.

[@johnpollard4158]

Sounds like they were blindly following company rules. I guess they like their jobs.

[@A1FAHx]

@@johnpollard4158 For the record we don’t know what the marine layer weather was at San Fran. Plus it was night. This was a very professional crew, excellent communications with ATC, I’d want these guys as my pilots.

[@johnpollard4158]

@@A1FAHx I was simply replying to the assertion that they blindly followed a computer and should have been smart enough to land anyway. Obviously company rules dictate their response to the warning, erroneous or not.

[@a24396]

When I'm SLF I don't mind a ccompany policy that protects me, even if it's not 100% always the best choice. We're talking about the terrain alarm, if that isn't supposed to trigger an automatic response then what's the point of having it? Or to put it another way: how many crashes have resulted from following the EGPWS vs. how many have occurred from ignoring it? Also, we don't know the alarm they were getting: the "too low, terrain!" isn't quite the same warning as "terrain, terrain, pull up! Pull up!" Would be. In fact, I think there might be an inhibit based on gear position for some of the EGPWS alerts.

[@maxmaxmaxmaxmaxmaxmaxmaxmax1]

Edit: Had the METAR for LAX instead of SFO. Otherwise my point remains the same. Where I work, if you are in VMC and can ascertain that there is no terrain or obstacle conflict before the terrain warning, you can consider it cautionary. In this situation (night VMC), we would be required to run the terrain avoidance procedure. Good on these pilots for following company procedure put in place to prevent CFIT.

[@RLVTECHUSA]

That's what happens when you have crappy equipment on the planes

[@jepmd88gmail]

Crappy equipment ? They can land that without see anything until after touchdown, can you ?

[@DevileInside]

5G interference possibly?

[@N1120A]

C Band wasn't active when this happened.

[@EdOeuna]

After the first GPWS warning and go around you’d be suspicious about the behaviour of the system if you’re confident the approach was stable. In that case you are fully justified in turning it off in order to make a second approach more successfully. Returning for another approach without changing anything is pretty pointless.

[@MCMXI1]

So you fly for Delta?

[@EdOeuna]

@@MCMXI1 - do in need to fly for Delta to have common sense?

[@MCMXI1]

@@EdOeuna Nope, you just have to follow their rules if you want to keep flying for them. But hey, be justified all you want.

[@EdOeuna]

@@MCMXI1 - rules cannot be written for every eventuality. That’s why there are specific rules for Captains to make decisions based on the safety of the aircraft. No pilot would ignore a TCAS RA because they know better, or fly through a stall warning because “I’ve got this”.

[@MCMXI1]

@@EdOeuna Indeed, which is why Delta requires a GA on all GPWS alerts and no Delta pilot would "be fully justified in turning it off in order to make a second approach."

[@huypt7739]

Too much relying on computers and not enough hand flying. Visual approach. Pilots got eye balls. SFO runways are well lid

[@spelldaddy5386]

That's not how it works. GPWS is supposed to be programmed to know all the terrain worldwide, and has sensors to determine how close the aircraft is to the terrain. Pilots have to trust that it is correct if it says to go around, because there could be terrain that the pilots don't notice, or can't see because of clouds

[@emerald3331]

This is where the 5G network can be doing havoc to the internal flight systems.

[@Josiah_X_737NG]

Maybe 5G antennas....jajajaja!

[@leeoldershaw956]

As a long retired airline jet captain I'm going to dissent from the "atta boys" for this captain and crew. I flew with GPWS and autoland. The first go around was appropriate, the second was not. GPWS is designed to save crews who have made a navigational error and are somewhere they should not be. The second approach should have been continued. The most obvious cause of the first glitch was altitude error, GPWS malfunction ( including database ) or G5 interference. There are many cross references for altitude that I'm sure the crew had checked prior to the second approach. Multiple pitot/static inputs, no terrain warning from approach control which now would also include ADS B, perhaps INS on the 767 and possibly visual clues as it appears they may have been VFR. It looks like they may have been on initial before the final approach fix but if past it had electronic vertical guidance from the RNAV. This is an example of over-reliance on pretty dumb A.I. It cost a lot of money and inconvenience to divert because of equipment malfunction. I'd like to know how much fuel they landed with.

[@TB-um1xz]

As a current part 121 pilot, I'm glad I've never flown with you. If we were in IMC conditions and you tried to pull a stunt like that. I'll take the controls from you. Then we'll have a nice talk with pro standards.

[@12345fowler]

@@TB-um1xz Good call. And if it is company policy you have no choice really. Just apply the SOP of the company that feeds you and you will be safe.

[@993er]

An older airplane, radar altimeter, approaching a hill loaded with 5g towers (no doubt), two false alarms in the same spot…. you simply can’t rule out 5g interference.

[@joseluislopes3956]

There is no 5G deployment in altimeter used frequencies. Either defective altimeter or other source or interference

[@Winglets68]

Doesn’t gpws use your actual altimeter though and not the RA?

[@natelong852]

@@Winglets68 GPWS is RA

[@N1120A]

C Band wasn't active when this happened. Pay attention.

[@993er]

@@N1120A sorry about that

[@homomorphic]

Sounds like a textbook case of 5g interference with the radar altimeter

[@N1120A]

Except the obvious - that C Band wasn't active when this happened.

[@homomorphic]

@@N1120A are you another person who believes that when deploying a new wireless infrastructure that you just flip the switch on the day of public availability and hope it works?

[@alexisdeville3605]

Sounds like 5G interference with Radar altimeter proximity warning! Which most air lines Require a mandatory go around!

[@N1120A]

You are wrong.

[@edwardhale4294]

slow down...speak clearly....stop being so rushed