Upset Pilot TURNS ON HIS OWN WITHOUT CLEARANCE at San Francisco!

[@VASAviation]

Thoughts?

[@outermarker5801]

Prayers?

[@IOU242]

@@VASAviation I don't get it why the United's pilot had to call the number, which he never did anyway, as for the AirCanada, I get why they stopped, even if it caused a go-around

[@MrJONES925]

​@@IOU242the United turn on his own without a clearance head on into traffic on final . Pretty stupid

[@kungOlaf]

Feels like S.F is a very strange airport to land on. Alot of late go around from the atc. So im guessing as a pilot you will get annoyed at some port

[@AzureAlliance31]

Deviate ACA765 instead rofl

[@caahacky]

The Air Canada guy said they stopped because a tow was looking like it was going to cross in front of them, ATC said you were told to cross so you should have crossed - but if the tow was in the wrong it wouldn't have helped to be in the right when you t boned him.

[@hsmedsvik]

I would rather T-bone a tow truck over having a Hawaiian Heavy crash into me. I think the issue was that they did not contact the tower when the situation occured and rather sat on the runway causing a much more dangerous situation.

[@maanmohammad8459]

@@hsmedsvik Lol.I guess AC don't like to talk too much.Just like the one who landed and was not answering the atc.

[@caahacky]

@@hsmedsvik Good point.

[@lloydfeng5716]

It wouldn't have been a problem if the pilot alerted ATC about this. But they just stopped and sat there.

[@NicStage]

"We plowed over that tow, but at least we didn't get a PD"

[@JDrapic]

SFO's got to figure something out here. Yes, it's busy and tight, but it's even busier when you've got to bring the same aircraft in multiple times for them to do it safely because of spacing. TCAS go-arounds seem to be routine there, and on top of adding to the traffic, it's a hole in the cheese just waiting for more to join in.

[@AquariusTurtle]

You're absolutely right. The problem is the beurocrats that want bigger numbers for an outdated airport, while the FAA (an agency for hire by political agenda) enables it. If San Francisco's leftist mindset and agendas restrict their ability to run a safe modern operation, they should shut the airport down rather than squeezing in as many aircraft as possible at the expense of safety. This airport is such a mess that there are special go-around procedures while doing SOIA approaches because of the possibility that two simultaneous aircraft going around at the same time may crash into each other, so pilots have to do special procedures where they vertical obey TCAS (unless its commanding you into the ground) while obeying ATC in terms of what heading to fly. Now what could possibly go wrong when you have tons of international flights who aren't familiar with this? Reading about it is one thing, but doing it to 100% accuracy every time will probably one day result in a crash.

[@KukosEQ]

Absolutely right. Its one biga chaos there due to constant clearance for visual what in the end causes multiple go arounds. Luckily aircraft has TCAS, so major disaster is less likely to happen. I am still amazed how on earth there is no midair in USA

[@jhsevs]

@@KukosEQ yet

[@lloyd28khz43]

Maintain visual separation... and United did that. No deviation in my opinion. United pilot likely filed a safety report instead of calling.

[@AquariusTurtle]

You don't have to talk to them. Compelled speech is not part of the USA. ATC is just trying to cover up for their incompetence.

[@a2j3]

@@AquariusTurtle lol

[@qwerty112311]

@@AquariusTurtlethere should be some sort of test so people as dumb as you aren’t allowed to comment on the internet

[@efoxxok7478]

@@AquariusTurtleyeah, no that’s not how it works. For several reasons I have already posted about it was in fact a deviation. It will most likely end with a conversation with the pilot and probably the chief pilot, but if he ignores the call it will be processed as a pilot deviation which would end up in a suspension of his license.

[@MikeGranby]

@@efoxxok7478Not every deviation ends up in a suspension…

[@thornament367]

ATC: “Maintain visual separation” Pilot: *turns to avoid a dangerous situation* ATC: “hey you weren’t supposed to do that” How does that make sense? UAL maintained visual sep and had to turn away

[@parlaydave154]

Tower: Advise when ready to copy number. Number is.. Pilot: Number has been copied, that will be all. Goodday. lol

[@efoxxok7478]

If he doesn’t he can watch it go from an unpleasant phone conversation to 30 days on the beach.

[@danielmoser1024]

@@Johnny-Michael Ahh the ol' DEI boogeyman

[@TitaniumTurbine]

@@danielmoser1024 Ahhh good ole right wing propaganda. God help us if there’s ever anyone besides a straight ⚪️ male that is employed, otherwise it HAS to be DEI-related. 🙄 Keep on using your master’s buzzwords!

[@ZombieKiller1965]

@@efoxxok7478 They are not required to phone the number. It's a request not an order. They can file a report through their ALPA attorney with their Chief Pilot.

[@uhhello173]

@@efoxxok7478 lol. no

[@MrPsychopathYT]

Sounds like a proper use of ADMs and made the right choice to avoid possible collision. Didn't want to take the chance. Getting the number doesn't mean he fucked up and is fired sometimes just to explain why you did what.

[@TheTiktok4321]

San Francisco seems to either be understaffed, under trained, or under water. There seem to be more close calls here than anywhere else.

[@AquariusTurtle]

They are unqualified. They are incompetent. They are probably diversity hires too being California. Remember years ago when the FAA hired people as controllers who couldn't pass the tests so they gave them the answers or forgot to test them altogether? Yeah... it really happened.

[@davidchmelir]

the fact they get RA's on visual approaches in 20mile visibility blue sky days is pure stupidity. I know the airport was built before RA's existed, but damn, what a shit design if they cant have 2 places next to each other on perfectly clear days

[@AquariusTurtle]

@@davidchmelir exactly

[@_Tommmmmm_]

They need to file a grievance against these San Fran controllers at this point. Put their union membership to use for this kinda crap, not just when they want more money lol.

[@wcolby]

It’s just a popular airport lots of stuff happening same thing happens at smaller airports but nobody cares.

[@Cunningstunts23]

Every time a pilot says “here comes the flash” an angel loses their wings

[@ianshere8899]

I guess they think it sounds cool. I always taught my students, when talking about coms, be succinct to the point of rudeness (without being rude obviously). Four words when one would do...

[@bocefusmurica4340]

I dont say anything at all. They see it.

[@JeshuaFlores-du1xv]

I IDENT as I make initial contact them

[@taupehat]

Honestly, this was a complex enough situation that I'd love to hear from someone like Juan Browne chime in on it. With an added bonus of Air Canada doing something (right or wrong) that led to a go-around. Because Air Canada and SFO get along like stray cats in a bag.

[@markg7963]

@@taupehat Juan would hopefully challenge united 1603 to a duel.

[@joed9908]

It's always Air Canada at San Francisco

[@jasonwillis4819]

"...he's on the Taxi Way... What the HELL is this guy doing!?..." [Looks like you were lined up on the on the TaxiWay for landing Air Canada.] OUCH!!!!!

[@joshuahudson2170]

Except this time Air Canada is probably right. He reported stopping to avoid collision with a tug.

[@markmaki4460]

I'm thinking of the notorious South Park song.

[@AquariusTurtle]

It's always SFO at SFO.

[@glowbugVT]

Somewhere, there's still someone calling to go around

[@johnopalko5223]

The United pilot did the right thing. He maintained visual separation as requested and notified ATC of his actions in a timely manner. The pilot in command is the final authority, after all. He probably should have called the number, though, after speaking with his company. I can't be sure from watching the radar simulation but, judging from how the relative bearing appeared to be changing, it looked like United would have passed behind Air Canada, but it would have been _really_ close.

[@bdcochran01]

Yes

[@KennethAGrimm]

NORCAL didn't make correct use of the PRM landing system (see my longer comment)

[@efoxxok7478]

Sorry johnopalko5223 you are wrong. See either my comment or Grimm’s comment below

[@markairman8041]

Your wrong Sir.

[@HitechProductions]

Yeah, I would have thought this was one time the pilot WANTED the number to call! He was told to maintain visual separation, and did just that.

[@josh3771]

Good on the United Flight crew for standing their ground and not accepting a chaotic and potentially dangerous approach

[@mikek5298]

…..says the lardass, with absolutely zero flight experience, sitting on his well-worn couch.

[@paulstejskal]

It was better to have ATC shuffle things around a bit and be safer than an unsafe approach. Was it against rules? Maybe technically, but at the end of the day the FAA would rather have safety over rules followed I’m sure.

[@josh3771]

@@mikek5298 Fly more than a couch, but not a ATP or in US airspace. That was dog shit sequencing in an ever increasing effort to push capacity limits without investing in new infrastructure or with regard to safety

[@daltoncooper4927]

@@josh3771 I gotta give you credit for not stooping to his level with worthless insults on a freaking youtube page

[@codemonkey2k5]

@@mikek5298 Do you know him or are you just being an asshole because that's the kind of guy you are? Just curious.

[@andreww3803]

Not sure I would want a 180 turn belly up and blind to another aircraft I'm supposed to maintain visual with while managing a tailwind either. Thinking a request for wider vectors around onto the apch course would have been in order rather than self-navigating a course into oncoming apch traffic. Getting "slammed in" with a tight turn on an approach esp. with parallel traffic is never fun. Smart by ATC to save the number until the ground to avoid escalation during a critical phase of flight.

[@wtfudc]

Love these dilemma discussions! If the pilots FOLLOW the instruction, he might creates an unsafe condition (another RA, another go around). If he DOES NOT follow the instruction, he might run into different aircrafts, which creates another unsafe conditions. It is true that the pilots don’t have the full pictures of all the traffics in the airspace. It is also true that ATC doesn’t have the full pictures of what’s going on inside of the aircraft. What would you do if you are the United pilots? What would you do if you are the ATC?

[@a2j3]

The pilot wasn’t responding to an RA the second time, he just didn’t want to be next to the parallel final again because he was thinking he may have to go around again. There was no issue with the turn, it was the final portion he was thinking of

[@a2j3]

The pilot wasn’t responding to an RA the second time, he just didn’t want to be next to the parallel final again because he was thinking he may have to go around again. There was no issue with the turn, it was the final portion he was thinking of

[@markmaki4460]

I guess if i am SFO ATC, i will get territorial and give a number to call so i make the pilots sweat for a couple minutes.

[@mskucherawy]

I agree that the PIC is the final safety authority for the flight, but you should expect to have to talk to someone about it when by exercising that authority you self-vector into another departure.

[@danc3488]

United was clearly perturbed after seeing how messed up the spacing was going to be with the tailwind. The Canadians, however...yikes.

[@internet146]

Air canada pilot probably thought the strike started already

[@stephenhenley7452]

I side with Air Canada. If you don't know what the vehicle in front of you is doing, it's best not to approach...ask Delta how that worked out in Atlanta #NoTails

[@rubenvillanueva8635]

Those Air Canada pilots can fugg up a wet dream!

[@boahneelassmal]

so if you're on the road, you have a green but you see a semi approaching from the crossing street at a speed you're not sure whether they stop or not..... would you just be like "eh f*ck it, I had the green light, if they hit me it's their fault" or would you maybe think "I really don't want to end up at the hospital, I don't want to have the trouble of getting a new car or get my car fixed. I really don't want that hassle with the insurance.... let's just slow down and see what they are doing... just in case."? Air canada did the right thing. you know very well, that if ground had f*cked up ground would've been the first to blame air canada how they couldn't see the tow, and why they continued. What ground did is aiding malicious compliance and that is not helpful in aviation

[@khosrowzare8301]

Air Canada has been trying to stay out of SFO taxiways for years now.

[@legofreak3204]

7:59 If I read the chart right, Air Canda was holding on T south of 28L. They got crossing clearance only for 28L and not 28R. The question is, is there enough space between the hold bars of 28L and 28R? This part of the taxiways is marked as "HS3" (Hot spot 3), so it looks like there have often been problems here.

[@johnthompson5741]

Air Canada 765 landed 28R and vacated to the left towards 28L on T. The clearance there was to cross 28L to head towards the gates so they were already past the space between 28L and 28R. They didn’t clear the hold bars on the south side of 28L which caused that go around. And yes the HS3 is for the 2 sets of hood bars on T, they just say to make sure the tail is clear when vacating 28R

[@Mountain-Man-3000]

I mean... If they expect pilots to maintain visual sepatation then the pilots are gonna do things they can't anticipate. It's an idiotic system.

[@jimosborne2]

Good example of the many problems at SFO. ATC instruction to “maintain visual separation” is legally vague in this situation. United 1603 assumed ( incorrectly?) that instruction gave him the right to keep adequate separation from the traffic for 28R. ATC actually meant “ stay away from the parallel traffic for runway 28R” never contemplating that 1603 would deviate to the right- because that not only turns him into oncoming SFO traffic- but into San Jose departures as well. Should U-1603 have declared an emergency and then turned? That Probably would have kept him clear of an adverse situation, but what a mess that would have created. The airlines, the FAA and the pilots union should get together and work together to prevent this situation from happening again.

[@jusancan8021]

I think so. Either ATC separates aircraft by vectors, speed and levels, or not ( just providing traffic info, visual rules) but that mix between the two is in a grey unsafe area. I cannot tell you to fly this level, this speed and this heading, and expect you to separate yourself “visually” from the precedent aircraft.

[@David-um8tb]

I believe it's to circumvent rules regarding tcas warnings but don't quote me on that.

[@ThatNathDude]

Atc: keep visual separation Pilot: *keeps visual separation* Atc: what? He can't do that? But the united could have just slowed down to the bars if they were not happy with spacing. They were not super close yet.

[@llamathrust8646]

​@@ThatNathDude couldnt slowing right down mess up their stablised approach criteria forcing another go around?

[@Sugah_J]

I’m a pilot for a US airline and operate in and out of SFO often. It says in our SOP that if we’re flying into a specific list of airports (SFO is one of them) we can, at the captain’s discretion, turn our TCAS system to TA only (it will inhibit Resolution Advisories and thus prevent us from going around when it’s not needed). That being said, we must have the preceding aircraft in sight at all times, be able to maintain separation from them AND we can only turn off the RA function when we’ve been vectored onto a visual approach and have been told to maintain visual separation from the aircraft we have in sight. Going around is always an option, but from my experience if you go around every time you have an unjustified RA into SFO you’d go around more than you’d actually land.

[@N1120A]

Pilots are not required to call the number. My guess is the UA crew filed an ASAP report and moved on

[@markmaki4460]

Yeah, sometimes best to push it up a level - kind of like when a cop accuses you of BS in a traffic stop: let the judge sort it out (if you decide to fight the BS, which many cops calculate you won't).

[@TitaniumTurbine]

@@markmaki4460 That’s why it’s important to have a dash cam. Almost every lie or claim can be completely rejected when there’s a dashcam recording both the front and interior cab.

[@herestoyoudoc]

Controller gave 1603 a "get out of jail" card with "maintain visual separation", so there's likely no trouble for him here. Also, you don't HAVE to call the number if you get a Brasher notice, Airline pilots have another program called ASAP where they can self-report a problem and deal with the FAA in that way. It generally reduces the probability of an enforcement action if they take that route. Pilot will likely give his account of the situation through ASAP and that will likely be the end of it.

[@WillyGrippo]

Not a pilot so my opinion doesn't count for much, but seems like 1603 felt that turn was unsafe so rejected it. Isn't that a pilot's prerogative?

[@a2j3]

He’s IFR so it’s not. Unless he’s declaring an emergency or avoiding a collision. His justification was not valid

[@xenadu02]

That's not true, you don't have to declare an emergency. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. You turn if that's required for safety and you tell ATC "unable, ". (Student pilot)

[@a2j3]

@@xenadu02 again, no. He’s IFR. He is under atc control. He’s not vfr doing whatever he feels like. Are y’all not getting how crazy this is? What if someone was following him from the east? It’s an immediate head to head

[@JulianShagworthy]

​@@a2j3 "Maintain visual separation" will save UA's bacon on this one. Without that instruction, I'd agree with you. It was IFR, but not IMC.

[@jaywung7616]

No, once you accept an instruction you're obligated to follow it. The time to say "unable" is before you accept it, rather than after. If you're unsure, you say "stand by" or ask for clarification or other options

[@thorn543]

SFO needs to stick to the charted visuals when conducting parallel ops. I’ve had some concerning experiences there, one of which is in the ASAP/ATSAP system already, but these vectors to final combined with speed restrictions that are also furthered hampered by “maintain visual separation” criteria make these approaches run higher risk than many others. We’re flying airliners, not fighter jets with bubble canopies and the ability to see behind us as we try to comply with a speed restriction and a “maintain visual separation” command. Add to that the ability of some operators to be able to utilize TCAS in TA only while others are in TA/RA can make for some spicy go arounds when one aircraft is receiving commands and another is not.

[@tedsaylor6016]

Ahhh, just learned, thought all TCAS equipped had to obey all RA was not optional to disarm/disable.

[@thorn543]

@@tedsaylor6016 if you get an RA, you still have to comply with RA guidance first and foremost. But… there are a few airlines that have SFO specific and approved procedures to allow (not mandate) the pilot in command to select TA ONLY when certain criteria are met. So, if an aircraft with TA ONLY selected triggers an Resolution Advisory with an aircraft utilizing TA/RA, only the aircraft with TA/RA selected will get escape guidance.

[@KennethAGrimm]

@@thorn543 PRM (required at SFO for closely-spaced parallel landings) and TCAS were developed at Allied Signal (formerly Bendix) by overlapping engineering design teams. They are designed to work together. (see my longer PRM comment.)

[@thorn543]

@@KennethAGrimm there are no more PRMs at SFO. My apologies if I didn’t make it clear earlier, but my comment applies to visual approaches only.

[@KennethAGrimm]

@@thorn543 The original studies for the PRM system were conducted based upon the VFR final part of the approach. The angled-in pattern developed for SFO was dependent upon there being sufficient visual conditions under the muck for all aircraft to be in VFR approaching the point where the 28R aircraft makes the final slight turn to line up with 28R. The VFR studies showed that there is only two sequences (big separations or 28L leads on a long final) which work. Any other sequence results in the kind of pi;lot decisions 1603 made. Has the FAA decided to totally ignore all that was learned in those studies?

[@MidEx216]

This is a weird situation where I think both parties have valid arguments. The UAL is obviously flying under IFR and under ATC control. They do still always have final say as to the operation of the aircraft. On top of that, the UAL reported ACA in sight, and was told to maintain visual. This is puts them in something of a grey area. You see, the UAL can say unable to a heading, or they can maneuver to avoid a collision. What happened here was too late to be an “unable”, and it wasn’t to avoid a collision. The UAL knew about the ACA aircraft, knew what they were doing, and it seemed they changed the plan because they weren’t happy with the sequence. They could argue that they were using their PIC authority, or that they were maintaining visual, but I think it’s murky. Best would maybe have been to tell ATC they were going to alter their heading to be behind ACA, rather than alongside. That would have been a less drastic alteration, and wouldn’t have caused additional conflicts. That said, I always remind people that the phone number is never the end of the conversation. After giving that phone number, they might discover that the controller said something wrong, or that the pilot didn’t do what they thought he did. It’s all about talking to hash it out - just like we do here - and then the appropriate action will follow.

[@Tianton1]

In all my days of flying into busy airports, I have never taken a heading on my own accord because I think I can do a better job than the controller. They can see your ground speed.

[@flyboy1945]

I totally get why united refused that spacing. They probably saw the other plane on their TCAS, and decided that they were unable to maintain separation with the tight vector and a tailwind pushing them into the traffic on the right. It was a good response to the situation.

[@Haarschmuckfachgeschafttadpole]

Yes but should have been handled with an "unable" or similar instead of turning themselves.

[@tedsaylor6016]

@@Haarschmuckfachgeschafttadpole I disagree, they had to turn some direction. Continuing North (not turning) would have been the worse direction.

[@efoxxok7478]

@@tedsaylor6016and I disagree with that. Turning into other arrivals was the worse thing they could do. Both pilots had visual on each other, 1603 was 1500ft lower, and AC was already turning on the localizer, so straight ahead would have in fact been the safest way.

[@markg7963]

Sorry. I’m a pilot and I do this for a living. And I’ve flown into SFO a LOT! United 1603 absolutely cannot turn to an arbitrary heading into facing traffic (or in any direction) without declaring an emergency. Not on an ifr clearance. You are being controlled by ATC for a reason, that reason is for separation, and when you don’t follow ATC instructions, you aren’t separated. I get that they didn’t like it, but that was not the proper way to handle things. You could declare emergency fuel, and obtain traffic priority, or go around again and have a better chat with ATC about what you need, it you aren’t allowed to just make shit up. And WTF with air Canada and SFO. They just can’t figure out how to get along there. I feel the same way when I fly into Toronto. 😂

[@Azchk]

Maintain visual separation is the pilots responsibility, ATC is not providing the separation in that case.

[@markg7963]

@@Azchk negative sir. That does not remove him from his requirements on an approach. He can adjust speed, but he cannot deviate from his clearance. He is required to do what this statement says, maintain a visual with traffic. If he cannot do that, his responsibility is to advise ATC and then comply with their solution. It does not give the pilot carte Blanche to make stuff up, and certainly not turn in the opposite direction of traffic. Unsafe!

[@Azchk]

@@markg7963 We can agree that it was unsafe from all accounts. From the pilots perspective he has only information about the traffic he's maintaining a visual on. It is a gray area what he's allowed to do, which I will not pretend I know the law for. But by my logic if he is instructed to maintain his own separation, he should be not only allowed, but expected to manuaver as necessary to achieve that separation. It's obvious that the way he turned was not what ATC intended, expected or wanted. Which is a mistake om the controllers part in two ways because firstly, according the pilot it wouldn't have worked the way it was intended to go to begin with. And secondly, even though he was following the confines of his clearance, it still resulted in a conflict. I am not a professional or an expert so these are mye opinions, but no matter what the lawful correct way this was supposed to be done, I can't for the life of me understand why it has to be done in this way that just brews mistakes.

[@Azchk]

@@markg7963 But we will learn nothing from pointing blame and taking sides. Air safety can only improve through seeing this through all sides and trying to understand excactly whay happened, why it happened and how we can prevent it. So I respect your opinion, but I will end ny discussion here. Good day sir

[@markg7963]

@@Azchk You are absolutely correct. This entire scene is a gray area. And yes this will all dig out and get looked at. But the vast majority of aviators and controllers will not learn from this, just the ones involved or the ones watching it here. There is a particular breed of pilot that occasionally shows up with a cob up his butt about how atc does this or that. And there are also controllers that will engage them, with or without an attitude. In this case, what you hear is a calm and rational exchange on the radio, but the pilot on the radio is NOT the pilot flying the airplane. It’s a 99% educated guess that the captain was flying, and the FO was being forced into this shit show and was just trying to do his best at being courteous on the radio about it. But likely the left seat behavior was of an agitated, nervous, and inexperienced captain that was starting to have his decision tree melt down around him, and probably at the same time had a handful of airplane he was trying to slow down and configure yet couldn’t. And he was teetering on overload. If it were me. I could maintain a visual on another airplane, but at least continue in the direction of the traffic flow,and execute a go around, better yet coordinated with atc about how to do just that and maintain their version of separation, but in 1000 years I NEVER would have turned into facing traffic flow. Closure on traffic would go from a few knots, instantly to HUNDREDS! But you are correct, there isn’t a perfect answer here, and neither of us were there to witness the exact conditions. I’m speaking from about 25000 hours of experience, flying into every major US airport hundreds of times, and yes, there are occasionally some times when you get pretty choked on what a “good” decision or a “good” outcome can be. Trust me when I say I’ve made plenty of mistakes, and only by the hand of luck, my fellow crew members, the grace of ATC, and quite a bit of fate that I haven’t been violated or worse. I am anything but perfect myself. And I agree with you, that ultimately that captain can do literally ANYTHING he feels is in the best judgement in the interest of safety., but he also has the obligation to make that action under “emergency” circumstances, which he did not declare. Thank God nobody got hurt here, but it’s my opinion he needs some serious training. Which he WONT get. Because he will file an ASAP, and this thing will likely get settled before it gets that far. The only reason I’m writing all this, is not to argue with you, or anybody else, but hoping that some young inexperienced pilots read this, put themselves mentally in the same situation, and arrive at a safe decision pathway out of it,before it turns into an accident. So please don’t take offense if I have a different opinion. I respect any input as it always creates great discussion.

[@MoparNewport]

Not a pilot, just a mechanic with an eye for details. United pilot comes in, IFR (meaning hes got good visual along with all the safety gear on his aircraft) goes around due to his aircraft being made unstable by preceeding craft. He tells atc this, far as i saw. Atc does this exact same stunt to him again; stacking his aircraft too tight to another that makes his aircraft unstable. Seeing that, as pilot, his aircrafts safety is his #1 responsibility, takes action to protect his aircraft while telling ATC about it. Seems to me, ATC is at fault here: they are stacking aircraft too tight to each other; in particular not leaving room for these aircraft to 1. Not disrupt each other, and 2. Not leaving room for them to make escape maneuvers should the need arise. I presume that 'the tapes' of the aircraft would show on both approaches the craft got disruptive; ergo - pull the tapes, send em into the appropriate authorities with the note: "we are being stacked too damned tight". Interestingly, the air Canada craft supports the problem of aircraft too tight: again, a pilot takes action to protect his craft over something literally in his view, and ATC getting a bit snarky about it. In both cases, this is painting picture we are seeing hundreds of times throughout this channel: ATC is stacking too hard, too tight, then getting pissy with pilots that are trying to cope with it all. Signals a serious problem brewing not with the pilots but with ATC. Now, i could be entirely wrong here, but based on whats presented that's the conclusion i get.

[@MichaelJM]

I don't see a scenario in which Air Canada's decision to not fully cross the runway makes sense. Especially without any communication from them. If safety was his concern he should have notified ATC that they were stopping before clearing the runway as a plane was landing, and that seems more dangerous than a tow that may or may not cross in front of them.

[@kopazwashere]

You're probably onto something since good chunk of the videos in this channel are goarounds in SFO because of separation issues

[@CanyonBlue737Capt]

UAL didn't go around because of wake turbulence (proceeding AC) but because they got a TCAS RA, which in SFO, is almost always from the AC NorCal puts you nose to nose with on base. At my airline, if we get an RA in the landing configuration, complying with the RA guidance is mandatory and takes precedence over ATC instructions. I don't know what UAL's policy is. It's also interesting that UAL doesn't seem to have runway specific guidance on selecting TA Only on their TCAS.

[@MoparNewport]

@@CanyonBlue737Capt If I understand what I am reading correctly, what you are saying is in fact *worse* than just turbulence, is it not?

[@MoparNewport]

@@MichaelJM I think he tried, but his broken (french) english was giving a bit of grief -- that said, we didnt hear all of it as his transmission was a mess to hear.

[@brettbreet]

Is there anyway to highlight the aircraft that is "talking"? I frequently have to pause the video otherwise I get distracted looking for the correct plane and miss the audio. This is a small thing, but trying to offer a suggestion that may make these great videos ever better!

[@thomasdalton1508]

The SFO controllers don't seem to know their own airport layout... D is not after T exiting left from 28L (it is from 28R - T is a diagonal taxiway). And Air Canada was right - you can't cross on T and clear the runway without knowing where you are going. The hold bars are at the very end of T. If you cross the hold bars, you are in the middle of the K, T, A intersection. They need to give the next bit of the taxi clearance at the same time as the clearance to cross or it doesn't work.

[@johnny310xx]

100% 🎯

[@NathanielFleming1]

The taxiway layout changed after the recent construction. You are referencing the old layout.

[@thomasdalton1508]

@@NathanielFleming1 I'm looking at the airport diagram on the FAA website...

[@NathanielFleming1]

@@thomasdalton1508 aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2409/00375AD.PDF Landing on 28L, the sequence of exits to the left is clearly E, T then D

[@NathanielFleming1]

​@@thomasdalton1508 So am I (published 9/5/24), and the delta exit from 28L is clearly after tango.

[@jamesbartholomew1481]

ATC: “Maintain Visual Separation” United: *Maintains Visual Separation* ATC: “No not like that”

[@shadowsrwolf]

FAA has had a huge diversity hire push in the past 10 years or so. Use to hire about 90+% x military now days... not so much. The NAFTA union is only making things worse

[@beyondinsanitybr]

@@shadowsrwolf That's no excuse, training and QA must be equal to everyone.

[@a2j3]

@@jamesbartholomew1481 that’s not how that works

[@winitforal]

​@shadowsrwolf there was never a time they hired 90% ex military. Absolute lie

[@Apollo580]

@@shadowsrwolf oh shut up about dei

[@A.J.1656]

SFO RA's can easily be avoided by slowing to final approach speed and keeping the traffic ahead of you so you can keep them in sight. I do it all the time. I've never had SFO tower or NorCal approach deny the request for slower to do this. As far as exiting the runway, I had a similar situation just last trip. Turn right on Bravo and they'll loop you back around to join Alpha.

[@whuangjaison6931]

The pilot made the right decision for the safety and he did tell ATC right away after he made the change. He saw the instruction was going to end up in a unsafe landing and possible accident and he avoided that. A good pilot and foresee things in enough advance.

[@icebox829]

“For the safety” what about more than 1000 ft of vertical speration with the other aircraft having him insight is dangerous… absolutely nothing…

[@whuangjaison6931]

@@icebox829 Have you ever flown a jet? A 1,000 ft vertical separation is not safe enough for a jet, as their altitude can be lost or risen rapidly. To the point, it is not only about vertical separation. The pilot mentioned that the spacing with the other aircraft ahead of him on final approach would result in an unsafe landing, especially considering the tailwind. This is the decision of that aircraft made by the PIC, who is experienced and responsible for the safety of all passengers. I would trust his decision over the judgment of that ATC controller or yours. This is why he holds his position and why his airline company pays him for his expertise.

[@icebox829]

@ 🤣 if 1000ft wasn’t good enough the FAA wouldn’t have deemed it the minimum for vertical separation GENIUS… and like i said it was MORE than 1000FT.

[@whuangjaison6931]

@@icebox829 Yeah... that PIC was thinking the horizontal separation distance and wind factors, and you are here talking about vertical separation, maybe that's why he flies his jet and you fly your keyboard.👍

[@icebox829]

@ kinda hypocritical when you’re sitting there running your keyboard pretty hard with absolutely zero ties to aviation… 🤣 you’re brain dead

[@FreezeMaster5]

I’m not sure where I can let you know, but KSLC had an emergency Tuesday September 17 at KSLC at 13:00-13:30 utc on tower frequency. Not too big of an issue but left engine lost.

[@andrewdstokes]

03:58 - "we are turning to a heading of 090 right now"??? At 330ft in the pattern, running against the traffic? What is going on? I get if United said Unable to make the turn, and asked for instructions, but just to unilaterally decide to fly the opposite direction to traffic - I've never seen that before.

[@aarohivijh]

3300 ft

[@thibault5484]

If you're turning to San Francisco... 🎶🎶

[@maxb301]

🎵🎶🎵 You'll see crammed airspace all over the place

[@Entroper]

@@maxb301 Airplanes in motion 🎵

[@sbdude82]

🎶🎵Be sure to wear . . . some extra underwear 🎵🎶

[@mdr48371]

I picked the wrong week to stop drinking!

[@Danzinger2010]

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit taking amphetamines!

[@danielblumenthalhoffman2585]

I would love to hear from a pilot or controller on the following question: given that he didn't feel he had sufficient separation to be able to turn final, and he is required to maintain visual separation, is the appropriate move a) fly the missed approach procedure, even though he is well before the airport b) maintain the last heading that ATC had given him before the approach clearance c) what he did (turning as far away from the other a/c as possible) or d) something else I'm missing?

[@jaymonty6530]

In this case, the safest and most appropriate move, given that the pilot didn’t feel comfortable with the separation, would have been to communicate concerns to ATC and, if necessary, initiate a missed approach (option A). Missed approaches aren’t only for when you’re close to the airport-they’re also used when something isn’t right, whether due to weather, traffic, or, in this case, perceived separation issues. If the pilot didn’t feel they could maintain safe visual separation, the missed approach would’ve been the safest option, and ATC could have immediately given new vectors to ensure proper spacing. Flying the missed approach would allow the pilot to get out of the traffic flow and give both aircraft clear instructions without introducing unpredictability. What the pilot actually did (option C-turning away from the other aircraft without clearance) created more danger by introducing self-vectoring into controlled airspace. It increased the risk of a conflict, especially in such a busy airspace, and even resulted in a departing aircraft needing to be turned early to avoid a potential collision. Option B-maintaining the last heading given before the approach clearance-is also not ideal here. While it might seem like a safer option than turning without clearance, it still leaves the aircraft in the flow of traffic without clear instructions. The safest and most straightforward action would’ve been to communicate concerns to ATC and execute a missed approach. At the end of the day, communication with ATC is crucial. If the pilot had expressed concerns about separation, ATC would have immediately taken steps to provide the necessary instructions. The missed approach is the built-in safety net for these kinds of situations, and it’s always better to use it than to go rogue and create new risks.

[@Alabar3000]

Id argue turning onto final was far safer. The spacing may not have been adequate to land, but it would be for continued flight. ATC would be able to accommodate while not losing hair over an unexpected deviation. AC, well... If the pilots were unfamiliar with SFO, they may have wanted to clear onto A towards their gate, but in reality unless ground has you right away, clearing westbound onto B is what you gotta do

[@DarthEvilicus]

The parallels in SFO are notoriously close together and generate many Resolution Adversaries.

[@davexb6595]

I'm a non aviator so there's a lot I don't understand/appreciate, but I'm concerned that they have large aircraft turning towards each other and then running close and parallel to 2 runways beside each other. With what seems like little separation. I would have imagined they would have them lined up more in series further out. As in, start the queue further away from the approach. Allow left and right traffic to separate a little more during a long straight decent. Are there noise issues further out?

[@mendel5106]

Well, why should a pilot call in his own deviation? Would that not be self destructive? (Conflict of interest) This has to change as there are simpler ways. ATC, & Tower ATC, should be able to call in an incident directly to the manager of a given airline to report an incident of pilot deviation. The same is true when ATC makes mistakes (they do from time to time) The pilot who experienced the ATC deviation should have a number to call that ATC manager or Tower manager to report an incident to be investigated. The way it stands now, no one is following up, and when given a choice the pilot or ATC controller simply neglet calling it in. This makes the industry less safe as other pilots and controllers miss these opportunities to learn what to avoid and what not to do.

[@KannabisMajoris]

Deviation calls are not about punishing the pilot

[@markg7963]

@@mendel5106 the deviation call is not made by the controller. The phone call is a discussion about perspective. What happened from both sides, so both sides can learn and proceed as best they can from their perspective. You can have a discussion without giving any information that would harm you further. In the old days we would ask the controller for his personal number so it wasn’t on a recorded line.

[@mendel5106]

@@markg7963 I hear you.

[@officerlawnmower]

Why was a controller that was not on duty that day reporting the incident?

[@spinkid2000]

Nothing better to do than listen in on ATC on his day off and its not his weekend to see the kids, waiting on that girl from Tinder to text back (She said she was gonna!!!!) and bemoaning his 5 day suspension for using inappropriate language in the break room.

[@JohnDoe-wg2hn]

My guess is they just wanted to have a chat that night and not make a report based on having a convo. It's not uncommon for numbers to be copied, called, and after hashing it out not making a report. Since no one called that controller was probably off by the time they realized it wasnt coming, and potentially for the next few days, so someone on shift did the paper work per someone's request. Aka not on shift during the incident, but on shift later to push the paper.

[@thomasdalton1508]

I think he means reported it to VAS, not to the authorities.

[@AquariusTurtle]

@@spinkid2000 Certified to be true!

[@mrplowjrezv]

Is that the same guy who got in a pissing match with ATC for a double go-around?

[@TheGospelQuartetParadise]

I often wondered how many times pilots copied the number but never made the call. Maybe there needs to be pilot-atc workshops so everyone is on the same page when it comes to communicating and anticipating.

[@jcl410]

As soon as UA1603 realized they couldn't / didn't want to do the parallel visual approach, they should have stated that and asked for a heading. Simple .... As it was, they turned right towards the SWA flight leaving SJC

[@kehreazerith3016]

For safety of flight, a pilot can legally make any change to heading and altitude to remain clear of traffic without asking ATC

[@jaymonty6530]

@@kehreazerith3016This is only true if there’s an emergency need to avoid an imminent situation. Which is not the case here.

[@kehreazerith3016]

@@jaymonty6530 it's better to avoid getting too close to traffic and preventing an emergency from happening in the first place. The pilots can submit a report later if ATC is being fussy about it and the FAA won't say a thing about it because it's better to not take unnecessary risks

[@jaymonty6530]

@@kehreazerith3016 Your perspective seems to misunderstand a fundamental aspect of the air traffic control system and the roles of both ATC and pilots in maintaining safety. ATC’s primary responsibility is to ensure proper separation between aircraft, which includes the 1,000 feet vertical and 3 miles lateral separation in the terminal environment. Pilots are trained to follow ATC instructions unless an emergency situation dictates otherwise. In this case, there was no emergency, and the pilot’s decision to deviate from ATC instructions created a far more dangerous scenario. By turning contrary to ATC directions, they not only violated controlled airspace boundaries but also compromised the safety of aircraft departing from SJC. To clarify, it is not within the pilot’s discretion to unilaterally decide that the established separation criteria set by ATC isn’t sufficient. Doing so undermines the entire safety system in place. While pilots have the authority to act in emergencies, they do not have the authority to choose their own course of action when there is no imminent threat, especially when it places other aircraft at risk. Your statement about ‘preventing an emergency’ in this case is flawed. The pilot’s actions did not prevent anything; rather, they exacerbated the situation by introducing new conflicts and disrupting carefully sequenced traffic, requiring ATC to divert other aircraft to maintain safety. Furthermore, to suggest that the FAA would have no issue with this is simply inaccurate. The FAA takes incidents where a pilot deliberately deviates from ATC instructions very seriously, especially when it results in a breach of separation or creates a direct conflict with other aircraft. The investigation will likely determine the full scope of this incident, but rest assured, this is not something the FAA overlooks. The safety of the National Airspace System is a shared responsibility, and it relies on both ATC and pilots adhering to established procedures. In this case, the pilot failed to follow those procedures, putting not only their aircraft but others at significant risk.

[@skyjourneyman9237]

"Turns on his own" LOLOL Sounded like a pilot-on-pilot violence teaser. Glad it wasn't anything like that. Big iron, tailwind, parallel runways with unfortunate timing of an oncoming bird, and right after a frustrating go around. Plenty of pucker factor to abort the inbound turn. Good call despite the pucker factor of turning right!

[@spelldaddy5386]

While I agree that it is the pilot's responsibility to maintain the safety of their aircraft, I don't think the pilot was justified in taking that turn without clearance. From my understanding, the pilot was concerned with the spacing on final, not towards lining up at all. That is standard for SFO, and as a United pilot, he should have known that. It was his responsibility to tell NorCal "I don't want that approach, give me more spacing" and let them vector him around. Had he been in immediate danger, I agree that he has the right to make any maneuver to keep the aircraft safe. But at the point he was at, he can take the intercept heading and even roll out toward the runway, and knowing he's going to go around again, he doesn't even have to descend (maintain altitude) or track the centerline (offset to increase distance from other approach). Just don't deviate in dense airspace until cleared.

[@AquariusTurtle]

That's not the right attitude. You don't do special gymnastics just because you have the corporate knowledge. That's going back 80 years in aviation. Today you do things based on procedure. SFO doesn't even follow standard FAA procedures... it has exemptions and special procedures like SOIA, which the FAA enables for government beaurocrats to make their metrics. If the normal instrument procedure separation doesn't work out, then too bad, SFO can't do that many takeoffs and landings. End of story.

[@Adam-vx1ib]

What happens when a pilot receiving a pilot devision doesn't call the phone number? is there a way for them to track them down? how does that work?

[@saxmanb777]

Nothing really. If the FAA wants to investigate they can find out via the airline.

[@gottesma]

Calling ATC after a PPD is more of an opportunity than a legal requirement. The FAA generally prefers to resolve issues with education and process improvement rather than with punishment. When a pilot calls the number, admits his or her mistake and promises not to continue doing it, usually that's where the matter ends. If the pilot doesn't call the #, that shows that the pilot isn't yet invested in fixing the issue, and may result in the FAA requiring remedial training or taking a certificate action. All that being said, it could also be that the pilot didn't call ATC *yet*, because he needed to speak to his company or union-provided attorney first.

[@ropefreeze1660]

To be fair, his reasoning was perfectly logical. He got an RA due to the parallel aircraft last time (he probably knew whether it was due to altitude or separation or whatnot) and knew that he was getting ready to do Einstein's definition of insanity. Doing the same thing and expecting a different result!

[@PmdgLover237]

Every single one of the last 5 times I have flown into SFO I have seen at least one go around each. One time I saw two. One appeared to be the pilots issue and all of the others seemed to be spacing issues. Almost had to do one myself.

[@cageordie]

The problem here is that he decided to make a right turn into the teeth of departing San Jose traffic. He was fine to refuse the approach, but not to decide how to deal with tan in the middle of an area with four airfields in a row up that side of the bay. So what happens if you don't call the number? Does it get escalated to the FAA? Does United get a call about their pilot blundering about, ignoring directions, in controlled airspace?

[@BlueSky_fur]

As an commercial pilot, you NEVER. Call that number. You talk to your union or legal advise. You’re not forced to call it either way, the report is filed regardless

[@thomasdalton1508]

What other option did he have at that time? He didn't have enough space to complete the left turn. There was a plane straight ahead. So turning right is the only option. Ideally, he would have realised the problem before starting the left turn, but it's difficult to judge how the wind will affect the turn until you start making it.

[@kewkabe]

(I'm an FAA controller but don't represent them and am not a lawyer) -- you're not required by FAR to call, but if separation was lost or airspace violated, the facility quality assurance department reviews the radar and audio recordings. If they decide it was a pilot screw up, it gets put down as a pilot deviation and is reported to FSDO who may take action against the pilot (for non air-carrier pilots). If it's an air carrier then it gets reported to their chief pilot since they're delegated authority to handle it. In this case since it was a clear safety decision by the pilot, not a screw up, it was probably just filed away as pilot safety authority over ATC instructions and never reported.

[@Adair9800]

Excellent comment from kewkabe. (Retired 787)

[@icebox829]

@@thomasdalton1508they had vertical speration… he was gonna be fine.

[@margaretmathis4775]

This is off-topic, but seems like a good place to ask this question. I have done internet searches, but everything I find is from the POV of the flight crew……and isn’t helpful to me at all. QUESTION: from the POV of a passenger, looking out the window [say, on descent], how can I gauge appropriate distances from the ground (altitude) based on what size the things are below? Rough distances. Like, at what point are highways recognizable, on to when you can spot individual buildings, and vehicles on the roads, etc. Whenever I have a window seat, I’m trying to imagine the descent and where we are altitude-wise (yes, I could turn on my Flight Radar apps……but “airplane mode”). TIA❣️

[@markg7963]

@@margaretmathis4775 first 500 feet. Things clear as day. 1000 feet. Hard to tell bushes from trees. 5000 feet. Hard to make out cars on the road. After that, it’s pretty hard to guess an altitude unless you have known objects relative to you. Mountains, known cloud layers, etc The runways at sfo are pretty close, I want to say maybe 500 feet apart. So on final next to another aircraft you can almost make out the pilots in the cockpit. To my knowledge, SFO operates dual runways as closely spaced as any in the world. Most dual runways are separated quite a bit further. And if not, usually not used for simultaneous approaches. Which is why sfo makes the aircraft maintain “visual” separation with each other. At that distance it’s close, but nothing anywhere near what the military does, at 3 feet apart (or less, go Blue angels).

[@Danr657]

When I heard “here comes the flash” I knew this guy was going to be a problem

[@mediocreman2]

Can you put the date and time in the description or in the video please?

[@joetheairbusguy1813]

The last time I called that number it lead to a very unproductive conversation. I think next time I’ll just leave them waiting by the phone and call my safety committee rep instead. I mean think about it: their minds already made up, they’re just trying to do what?

[@jaymonty6530]

It sounds like you’re misunderstanding the purpose of that phone call. The number isn’t there to “get you in trouble”-it’s about communication and clarification to improve safety for everyone involved. When ATC asks a pilot to call, it’s not because we’ve “made up our minds” or are out to get you. It’s a chance for both sides to exchange information and understand what happened. Sometimes, it’s about explaining why we did what we did; other times, it’s an opportunity for controllers to learn and improve based on pilot feedback. By refusing to call, you’re not solving the issue-you’re becoming part of it. The goal is to avoid these situations in the future, and without that conversation, misunderstandings remain unresolved. In fact, many calls don’t even escalate to the FSDO level. They’re simply opportunities to improve safety and clarify procedures on both sides. Your mindset of “I’ll just leave them waiting by the phone” does nothing to enhance aviation safety, which is supposed to be a collaborative effort. If you’ve had an unproductive call in the past, I get the frustration, but that doesn’t mean all conversations will be the same. In fact, many productive calls have led to real changes and improvements, both for pilots and controllers. So next time, instead of avoiding the call, consider it a chance to make the airspace safer for everyone-including yourself.

[@muzingwenya64]

I knew somehow, that Air Canada will have done something as I was watching, while yall were focused on United

[@dougcarlisle7557]

Seems to me the PIC of United felt he was being vectored in too close to the right hand traffic and widened out his turn slightly- isn’t that what we pay him for? After all it was a visual approach and he is the one responsible for separation if I understand the FARs correctly.

[@Buchwaldjc]

I totally thought he was going to get away with that one without getting the phone number

[@TrentEngineFan]

SFO's layout and runway patterns is a disaster waiting to happen.

[@alaskanbehrens244]

What’s ra?

[@boahneelassmal]

San Francisco being san Francisco again, sadly. tbh, i am with united here. having a tail wind and then turning them onto final on a 90° angle facing directly other traffic... not great. And ffs ground... maybe we learnt from that that we are going to give pilots some contextual information. like "the tow is giving way to you".... but it being SFO i highly doubt that was a learning experience for either controllers...

[@Saab34O]

When was this?

[@vaporized1000]

As others have said you are not required to call the number especially if you have an ASAP program like united. Essentially he files a report and later the United ERC (Event Review Committee and ASAP working group will discuss. An FAA representative is part of that group. The ASAP report provides legal protection from any enforcement actions against a pilot who files a timely report.

[@themensch2003]

SFO seems to be a favorite on your channel. I wonder why.

[@hornetgamer8980]

Assuming the very end of the video is correct, that's tbh the only thing wrong with this on either end. It's for the PIC to decide what is and isn't safe for his aircraft to do in the circumstances, it's for ATC to manage from there, it's for both parties to communicate in the air in a pragmatic manner (sometimes it's tense, sometimes it's not, but "what do I need to do/say to resolve the current lack of alignment" is the necessary mentality), and it's for a phonecall on the ground if there's more to be spoken about over and above what's necessary to resolve the immediate matter. Were ATC justified in instigating the phonecall? 100%. If the on-duty ATC is in the slightest of doubt as to whether a pilot's actions might have compromised safety, they should instigate it so that the conversation can be had between the pilot and their supervisor. That phonecall can lead to the big and scary, but it's not the big and scary in and of itself.

[@shaneandbellareviewchili5346]

As a dog, I’d say this pilot has a giant set of balls.

[@michaeld8443]

Pilots must be like, Oh no I have to deal with inept SF controllers

[@jaymonty6530]

It must be what it’s like reading these comments. I know you won’t. But I’d love for you to tell everyone one thing a controller did wrong here. We’ll wait….

[@michaeld8443]

@@jaymonty6530 about 100 videos showing it. Waiting....

[@jaymonty6530]

@@michaeld8443 Then it should be no problem for you to come up with an example. Let’s stick to this video to make it easy. What did the controller do wrong?

[@jaymonty6530]

@@michaeld8443…Still no real argument, huh? Another case of someone talking just to talk, without actually knowing what’s going on. Maybe next time, save the judgmental comments for topics you actually understand?

[@monocogenit1]

That last vector, the left heading 310 to final, looked like a pretty tight turn, specially for a B737. Can't blame the United pilot for not wanting to accept that call.

[@VASAviation]

That's not a tight turn at all

[@patrickturgeon2575]

When was that ? The date please

[@oldRighty1]

I've always wondered how often people don't call the number. Why am I not shocked that this pilot decided on his own to not call the number? He did everything else on his own already that day.

[@Haarschmuckfachgeschafttadpole]

I don't think they have to call since the tower is going to file the report with their tail number regardless. The call is just to give their side of the story and talk it out vs on frequency.

[@mmayes9466]

Most pro pilots call their union rep or lawyer. Only private pilots call.

[@thomasaltruda]

An airline pilot should NEVER call the number., you call your union and they’ll call the number for you,

[@hewhohasnoidentity4377]

There is no requirement to actually call the number. It is similar to voluntarily calling the police. Calling the number can result in a conversation ending in no action taken or the controller can submit a report to the FSDO for further action. It is a good idea to call your legal plan before calling the controller.

[@xenadu02]

This is correct, the call is just to avoid tying up a busy radio frequency. Things like this happen all the time, it's normal.

[@IOU242]

So you can do a visual approach as well as a localizer approach ?😭 What's the story with the spacing anyway ? We see plenty of parallel landings and takeoffs at SFO every day

[@wtfudc]

It is a visual approach. They still use the localizer to line up to the runway, instead of visually line up to the runway. The pilots can turn on their full ILS on the plane to guide themselves down to the runway if they choose to. But it is still a visual approach, doesn’t mean they cannot use other instruments to help them.

[@willer3399]

1603 had some concerns about the winds, and didn’t like the spacing.

[@chrisschack9716]

Basic rule is, don't send two aircraft not established on the approach and not altitude separated towards each other. I'm guessing United would have settled in with about 500-600 feet vertical spacing there, bit too little for comfort.

[@jaymonty6530]

@@chrisschack9716Basic rule at normal airports. Not at SFO. They pair them up intentionally on final hundreds of times a day. The runways are 750ft apart, you have to converge at some point. The controllers will maintain standard separation until both pilots get each other in sight. Then once they apply Visual separation they can reduce below standard.

[@babygrrlpc5057]

Controlled chaos

[@noahpalmieri941]

So you're telling me off duty controllers listen to ATC stream in their spare time to report pilots? Wow haha

[@michaellibiez1386]

I see this more as a good example of good ADM and less about defiance. The pilot made a call to turn for the safety of the flight. That is admirable and respectable. Probably should have called the number after consulting with company first though...

[@TiagoSeiler]

His reasoning was that he had a tailwind turning that base that would have pushed him close to the traffic coming from the NE. However, ground winds were 010 at the time so unless there was a big shear somewhere, I think he was BSing. I think he called his union representative instead of NorCal

[@michaellibiez1386]

@TiagoSeiler potentially, I can only speak on what I am presented in the video, so I'm not sure. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt here. I don't think that this was career ending, though (like some other comments implied)

[@MrJONES925]

No it was dangerous and stupid. He could have turned into other traffic on final . He SHOULD have requested a longer final rather than just do what he wants . It's idiotic

[@justinburstein5349]

@@TiagoSeiler there's quite a bit of terrain around SFO. It's very plausible that upper level winds are a totally different direction than winds at the field.

[@DeltaEntropy]

He turned into traffic… That’s not admirable…

[@hanoverbill8174]

What are the ramifications if the pilots do not "call the number". Seems likw it's pretty easy to just ignore it after you get it. Is anyone responsible for policing this?

[@mijo3642]

Interesting response. What they should have done is continued the left turn to final but, climbed or at least not descended preventing conflict with AirCan. Then initiated either a 'missed' approach or a 'discontinued' approach. That way he wouldn't have turned in front of San Jose traffic (which if it had taken off a few minutes earlier would have been disastrous), or potentially into inbound SFO traffic that he had NO IDEA about on the many arrival routes/transitions. But, it is DEI United ...Didn't Earn It. I would like to be able to see the altitude they received the RA at.. The Transponder should be on TA only that close in and you will always get a conflict alert if you are not flying parallel, ie joining from the left or right as the TCAS doesn't know you are going to turn onto the rwy track. It only knows if you stay on the path it sees you will collide. SFO is a bit odd with the Vis approaches when you cannot see the airport. I NEVER accept it instead do the RNP with the autopilot to minima. They used to have breakout frequency for parallel ops where if you got an RA you followed the TCAS for Climb or Descent but the controller for breakout.

[@JoshSmith-pb8rw]

All class B airspace is positive control airspace. Good job by the united pilot for avoiding a second dangerous situation when ATC couldn’t control their own airspace. Hopefully, the phone call and reports leads to an investigation into the controller.

[@jaymonty6530]

I know you won’t answer but I’ll ask anyway.. how exactly is this an example of ATC not able to control their own airspace?

[@razorseal]

I would assume pilot is not calling anyone until they speak with attorney or union rep lol

[@msmeredith]

ATC was definitely going to slip Captain Seatofhispants their number.. What you talkin bout Willis?!

[@chrisg6893]

You guys are all missing the point. Visual conditions in SFO require turning off the RA function of TCAS due to close proximity parallel approaches. 1603 didn’t do this, if they had it would’ve never happened in the first place. If they wanted more room for the turn they should have planned AHEAD and advised ATC of this, especially on the second approach.

[@Anytus2007]

Do you know for sure that United allows pilots to select TA Only on their TCAS for SFO approaches under these conditions? My understanding is that only certain airlines allow this, and only under certain conditions.

[@jamesmcguire9164]

Visual conditions don’t require turning off the TCAS. This may be the procedure at individual airlines. It is not allowed to be turned off at United. And in 17+ years flying the 737 with hundreds of visual approaches in and out of SFO, I have never once gotten an RA in this scenario. Does not mean it won’t happen one day. But our procedures require TCAS to remain in TA/RA and yes, comply with the RA if shooting these visual approaches in SFO.

[@chrisg6893]

@@Anytus2007yes I know this for sure, it’s on UAL company pages

[@chrisg6893]

@@jamesmcguire9164I have hundreds of approaches there as well over the last 12 years, with a regional airline and major. Both have the same policy on “TA” only. I have never received an RA or TA there either. My friend is a 737 captain at UAL and told me the pages say “TA” only.

[@jamesmcguire9164]

@@chrisg6893 There is a bit of confusion for both of us to be honest. I am a 737 captain as well. The company pages for SFO do not say selection of TA-only is “required.” It says selection of TA-only is acceptable under certain conditions and is at the discretion of the captain. The pages also say nuisance RAs must be complied with if the RCAS was left in TA/RA prior to the approach and pilots cannot turn it to TA-only after an RA on these approaches. The UAL ALPA MEC Safety Committee advises against selection of TA-only for safety reasons (and similar history at DEN for 16L/R with even further apart runways). I will admit I goofed on what the exact wording was, but your insistence that visual conditions “requires” going to TA-only is incorrect, too. In all my years flying, no captain I flew with ever selected TA-only (nor do I) going into SFO. A quick check with other friends and check airmen colleagues say the same thing. Our company may allow it but it is not standard practice on the line.

[@manifestgtr]

The pilot was right but he kind of went about it the wrong way. Going into business for yourself in one of the world’s busiest bravos, without an imminent threat, just isn’t a great idea in my estimation. I’m sure he knew where everyone was…I’m sure he wouldn’t have just blindly yanked off to the right but telling ATC that you can’t accept this spacing and need a vector before they turn you into the parallel traffic…that’s the 100% “right” way to do things, even when you’re perturbed at the situation.

[@byronhenry6518]

If ATC gives me a clearance that I don’t deem safe to do as PIC I not only have the authority, but also the responsibility to NOT comply with that clearance. United didn’t do anything wrong here. Approach said maintain visual separation. United did just that. Should’ve called the phone number though. I hope they filed an ASAP report on that one, I would have.

[@jaymonty6530]

This argument seems to confuse what actually happened and what the pilot should have done as PIC. You’re right that a pilot in command (PIC) has the authority and responsibility to reject a clearance if it’s genuinely unsafe. But let’s be clear-this was not that situation. In this case, United did do something wrong. The separation was standard: 3 miles and 1,000 feet, with both aircraft maintaining visual separation as instructed. That’s routine, not unsafe. The pilot’s decision to deviate from that clearance wasn’t about safety-it introduced unpredictability into controlled airspace and almost caused a major incident with a departing Southwest flight that had to be vectored early off its SID to avoid a potential collision. The pilot didn’t “maintain visual separation”-they went rogue, self-vectoring without justification and creating more risk. As PIC, you absolutely have the responsibility to refuse a clearance if it’s unsafe. But this wasn’t that scenario. The clearance given by ATC was safe and standard, and the rogue maneuver made it more dangerous for everyone involved. If the pilot had real concerns, the correct response would have been to communicate those to ATC-not to go off-script and endanger other aircraft. And yes, they should have called the phone number to explain their actions and filed an ASAP report. But let’s not pretend that failing to comply with a safe clearance is acceptable under the guise of PIC authority. This wasn’t about safety-it was a poor decision that put others at risk.

[@EffSharp]

Someone help a non aviation person out, please: what plane would 1603 have been too close to if he had followed the ATC instruction? If it was wrong for 1603 to take that action, what would the correct action have been? Thanks!

[@LauraCamp-z2w]

Air Canada presumably. UAL was going to 28L, Air Canada to 28R. Typically, NorCal Approach has you pretty much nose to nose with the other traffic on base and has you both turn final abeam each other. Lots of nuisance RA's there because of that. UAL was unwilling to risk another RA or possibly even blowing through the 28L final approach course, so they turned right. Personally, I'm not sure I understand their reasoning for turning away from the 28L final rather than just turning into it earlier than NorCal wanted. But I wasn't there so I don't know what their decision was based on.

[@Anytus2007]

@@LauraCamp-z2w I am not sure if it applies here, but turning earlier may not have been an option due to stabilized approach criteria. There is a minimum length of final that the airlines will allow the pilots to accept, or to put it another way, within a certain distance the plane must already be on a runway heading, on the appropriate glide path, and configured for landing.

[@LauraCamp-z2w]

Assuming the video graphics are accurate, NorCal had them well outside San Carlos (9ish nm) when he gave them the 310 heading to join final, and descent clearance to 3000. Typically they give you the turn to join 28L somewhere around HEMAN (12DME). They were showing 3400 and nearly to Palo Alto (18ish nm) when they reported turning to 100 degrees. I don't know how much of a tailwind they had on base but assuming they were something like 180kts and flaps 5, there was plenty of spacing to get fully configured and stabilized. The video doesn't say if they had a speed assignment, but NorCal gave the SkyWest RJ 160 to the bridge. To get a 739 down to 160, they'd have to be really. really light to have less than gear down, flaps 15. (You can't go past flaps 10 with the gear up in a 737NG, but flaps 10 doesn't change the min maneuvering speed vs flaps 5) Like I said previously, I don't know what their reasoning was for turning right, but it doesn't seem like getting configured and stabilized would have been an issue given where they were when they made that turn. IMHO it was more likely they were concerned about getting another RA. (Which could have then resulted in not being in a position to meet stabilized approach criteria)

[@vitorg.delduque367]

What's RA?

[@persistentwind]

Resolution advisory. TCAS provides direction for aircraft to climb or descend in order to avoid a collision. Usually this happens when something went wrong.

[@vitorg.delduque367]

@@persistentwind Thanks!

[@billfly2186]

Another SFO video, must be a day that ends with "Y". SFO is a tough ATC job, there's too much traffic for the airport. Who wants to go to San Francisco nowadays anyway?

[@goldenstateaviation2861]

This guy. 😂 same can be said for LA although that area is a bigger dump than SF

[@Clarkstonlife]

Why is SFO on here, it seems, every week?

[@Ethan2xm85]

Man, SFO is just a hub for total cluster-bucks

[@ddnmkun]

If UA1603 pilot monitoring press the TA only button when paired up on the first approach this clip won’t exist.

[@ropefreeze1660]

I told yall not to cover my vatsim flights!

[@Habu12]

Sooooo....the pilot never called the number...and then? Aaaaaaand theeeeeeeen?!? Did Norcal approach just stop looking into the matter? That's not how it's supposed to work.

[@GWNorth-db8vn]

He should have made the call. He was told to maintain visual separation and he did.

[@BostonBuzz]

United 1603 Cappy seems super uptight..........

[@fhuber7507]

I can't see where 1603 did anything wrong. turned in a safe direction to avoid conflict repeat. Very simply... they are trying to process too many aircraft through the airport and they have marginal to unsafe spacing.

[@a2j3]

@@fhuber7507 he can’t turn on his own. He’s IFR

[@denverbraughler3948]

@@a2j3: What does “maintain visual separation” mean to you with a tailwind?

[@a2j3]

@@denverbraughler3948 nothing

[@DeltaEntropy]

It wasn’t a safe direction. SJC’s flight path is right there.

[@rallyden]

If he felt he needed to get out of the pattern, he shouldve turned hard left to either join final or offset final to the outside. By turning back towards downwind from base, he threatened the final approach course for both runways. MR COMMAMD DECISION was not very bright and not smart

[@wjatube]

Meanwhile Air Canada didn't get a phone number?

[@TrevorWofford]

Just some typical SFO rude condescending comments

[@thomasvlaskampiii6850]

Why does the pilot of 1603 sound so much like the guy that declared an emergency in a bad storm and said that he was in a spiral descent and such a few years ago?

[@Taylor314T5]

Would love to know the outcome here. But IMHO, the pilot is safe. He was told to maintain visual separation, and that spacing wouldn’t have permitted it. So he turned back on his course and told ATC. In fairness, he could have seen the the eventuality before accepting the term, and could have handled it differently and better. But in the midst of the moment, it’s also understandable why he accepted the instruction.

[@DeltaEntropy]

He can’t just make a full turn, even to maintain visual spacing. If he was trying to maintain visual spacing he should either as able slow down, climb, descend, or make parallel heading. Maintain visual spacing doesn’t mean you can fly wherever you want, it means you can fly as necessary to not collide with other aircraft. Making a full turn is very unsafe as it can easily turn you into traffic you are unaware of and into areas that ATC/other aircraft are not expecting you to be in (Like San Jose’s flight path, in this case).

[@MrRubenjwz]

I think its absolutely crazy that at an airfield like this pilots need to visually remain seperation.... in my opinion that is the controlers task, that's why they are there. Pilots have other things to do when landing a large commercial aircraft.