Asiana Airline's High Rate of Go Arounds at SFO

Ole Braniff Airways had an unblemished record flying DEEP into South America for years and years with nothing more advanced than an NDB.

Everyone put on your big boy/big girl pants already.

Sheesh.

Richman
 
amorris311 said:
I know of a few people who would love to have cameras in the cockpit. The things they would do just to make the people, who wanted them there in the first place, squirm would be priceless.
Click to expand...

Google glasses?
 
dasleben said:
New York: The only damn set of international airports in the world still operating with backward-assed circling approaches. Newark is the worst with those circling approaches to 29.
Click to expand...


The Circle to 29 is fun but then again Im based there and have done it a few times. Its always fun to be paired with a IAH CA that hasnt done it in years and see them start sweating it. When they had 22L/4R closed a British Airways screwed the approach up badly. I was told they went miss and climbed over the cranes.
 
Seggy said:
Do you know the reason for the go arounds Asiana supposedly had in SFO? Maybe it was for traffic on the runway? Maybe it was weather related? Mechanical issues? ATC spacing?

Once again the number of go arounds are pointless. The number of unstabilized approaches an airline has are the number we should be focusing on.
Click to expand...
My $.02 as someone who monitors tower and ground 10 hours a day and see's a lot of these go-arounds, most of them with Asiana usually start with me looking out the window and thinking "Wow that guy is high/low". And they usually end with dramatic turns and changes in pitch before the call.

ATC spacing go-arounds happen a few times a day here and can happen to any carrier, but I think theres more to this one. China Airlines has less but they're usually equally as dramatic, and Lufthansa's A340-600 from Munich goes around damn near as much as Asiana. I've read elsewhere that the A340 pilots just have a real hard time getting down in time with the time ATC allows them as they overfly the airport at 11,000 feet or so on downwind. Asiana and China Airlines do a pretty much left base entry or left 45 type approach from over the Pacific to the 28s.
 
Report I read said that sfo twr called the go around because Asiana was way too low. (Not the first time aside from the accident) Apparently now the FAA is no longer allowing the visual approaches at SFO for any foreign carrier.
 
Ziggyfuzz said:
Report I read said that sfo twr called the go around because Asiana was way too low. (Not the first time aside from the accident) Apparently now the FAA is no longer allowing the visual approaches at SFO for any foreign carrier.
Click to expand...
What is interesting about that is since the accident, many foreign carriers are landing very long. They're coming in high and touching down well past the touchdown zone, which is out of character for most of them, especially the British carriers. If they're all flying instrument approaches now, how is this possible? Since the ILS is down on 28L, but many foreign carriers still arriving on 28L, obviously the "recommendation" is not being followed.
 
I have a close friend who flies at BA. SOP for them is to always fly an ils even in visual conditions, if one is not available then they are to use a vnav approach vdp.which is generally flown/coupled just like an ils, just without the dh. My guess would be that they are flying a vnav approach in lieu of the ils there, or the vor approach, which may explain the high/long landings. The way I understand it now is that atc is not permitted to issue a visual approach clearance to a foreign carrier at sfo, so it is not merely a recommendation.
 
dasleben said:
New York: The only damn set of international airports in the world still operating with backward-assed circling approaches. Newark is the worst with those circling approaches to 29.
Click to expand...

yeah, because a straight in ILS 29 into EWR that would go over the city, and across the LGA and JFK finals is feasible. There is a reason those backward-assed circling approaches exist, and that is so that all 3 airports can run simultaneously.
 
Ziggyfuzz said:
Report I read said that sfo twr called the go around because Asiana was way too low. (Not the first time aside from the accident) Apparently now the FAA is no longer allowing the visual approaches at SFO for any foreign carrier.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the accident airplane? Because I'm fairly certain that tower never called a go around for them.
 
N90-EWR said:
yeah, because a straight in ILS 29 into EWR that would go over the city, and across the LGA and JFK finals is feasible. There is a reason those backward-assed circling approaches exist, and that is so that all 3 airports can run simultaneously.
Click to expand...

No doubt. It's all fun if you're proficient. Domestic bubbas get more landings before lunch than the rest of us get in a month. :)

Guys make fun of long-haul pilots coming into JFK or EWR and jacking up circling approaches, but I get it. This month is 3 years now for me of being out of the short-haul domestic segment, and I guarantee my skills now, while still safe and within standards, are nowhere near the "Firebreather" status I had when I was getting multiple landings per day.
 
N90-EWR said:
...so that all 3 airports can run simultaneously.
Click to expand...
you know you're on the east coast when they're trying to run three international hubs out of two national airports and a reliever airport. For examples of proper international airports see ATL, DEN, DTW, DFW, LAX... You get the idea. More than two parallel runways...
 
Hammertime said:
you know you're on the east coast when they're trying to run three international hubs out of two national airports and a reliever airport. For examples of proper international airports see ATL, DEN, DTW, DFW, LAX... You get the idea. More than two parallel runways...
Click to expand...

blah blah blah. Do you have any bright sugestions on how to fix the problem? Tell me exactly how are you going to build a modern airport like ATL, DEN, DTW, DFW, LAX have in NY? Are you forgetting that they built those airports way after the NY area ones? Its very easy to do a gazillion parallels spread out far enough to run simultaneous approaches when you have wide open real estate all around. I'm all ears to hear how you would go about that. Then try figuring out how much it would cost to buy out the land, and then build that mega NY airport. A trillion dollars probably wouldn't be enough, but hey.....what's another trillion or two to the national debt?
 
BobDDuck said:
Are you talking about the accident airplane? Because I'm fairly certain that tower never called a go around for them.
Click to expand...
No, I need to locate it, but the article came out just the other day about this since the accident...see my previous posts on this and the last page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top