Oh SFO tower

[derg]

I get the impression that the Delta crew might have been expecting 2 minutes from the time they pulled into line up and wait. And ATC might have been thinking the 2 minute time hack started when Delta accepted the line up and wait before they had even crossed 28L to go to 28R. Hence the “more than 30 seconds” quip (that was wholly unnecessary). Even with this benefit of the doubt for both ends here, it still emphasizes not to take the runway, not to cross the hold line onto the runway, and not to accept a takeoff clearance, until completely ready to do so.

I'd teach my CA OE students that if they're not ready, the call is "Tell him we need X minutes, we will hold short of the runway (whatever)" so it takes the operational pressure off.
I can't remember the airport, but I was flying a slowly-spooling NEO, we're told to line up and wait. We're probably on the runway for three minutes then tower says "TRAFFIC ON A THREE MILE FINAL, CLEARED FOR IMMEDIATE TAKEOFF".

*woooo….woo woo woo woowowoowowoowowowowwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWTHRUSHHHHHHHH*

Well I can't stay spooled up for three-plus minutes and I certainly can't go zero to hero with catlike quickness on high bypass geared turbofans.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

I mean you all have points, but I think this ATC was trying to prove HER point. I got the real sense from the outset that she was expecting for this to happen, and that's not an adult way to operate. I agree that the crew should have declined and held short, but there's a "pushing tin" mentality at these bigger, more crowded airports (esp. domestically), and they (flight crew) probably thought that they were just trying to keep the efficiency up and stay in the good graces of the powers that be.

She gave the option to be old short 28R. They declined.

As to the contention that "Oh you know, it's basically the same runway, same engine out, why not punch it and go?", that is DEFINITELY peak CC. The same guy who thinks every 135 or 91 airplane is an inflight emergency the second it takes off because they're uh "all cowboys". The cognitive dissonance is leaving sonic rings, somewhere.

Nowhere did I say “just punch it and go.” That is a complete mischaracterization of what I wrote. In our TPC model, I hit the highlights as a consideration part of that model for the other runway. SFO would be no different. We would still change the runway in the box, the data was already in the system so it loads and we accept it. Verify it. Verify EO SID, accel height / engine clean up on BARO and the FMC for VNAV, verify first fix and the SID, MCP set, FMC set. Once verified, runway change items in challenge response.

Nowhere did I say “punch it and go.”

 

[🦈💜]

Ehh, I'm with the crew on this one. I've been in that exact situation at SFO before an I insisted we hold short, especially because what I think would have taken a few minutes ended up being well north the time estimate and traffic was ten miles out, which created an operational threat in my cockpit.

It's not a matter of a simple brief, it's re-entering the appropriate numbers, confirming runway/departure/first fix and then running a runway change checklist and if the other pilot isn't 100% sharp on it, it's well north of two minutes.

Editorial comments should be saved for a phone call.

We're paid by the minute.

Normally I'm with you, but not here. The ATIS in SFO always says be ready for 28L or 28R when they're departing west.

This snowballed when the crew accepted the clearance to cross 28L and LUAW 28R. The controller offered them the opportunity to hold short if they thought it would take longer. They said that they would be fine with two minutes.

It took longer. No harm, no foul, but understandably annoyed controller, especially when the Delta crew seemed extremely slow to exit the runway.
However, at the snarky comment from the Delta crew ("Next time, more than 30 seconds notice please.") the situation devolved.

I 100% agree that snarky comments should not be transmitted, and that's a good reason why.

Controllers don't understand what we do, and we demonstrate regularly that we don't understand what they do. That said, the ATIS at SFO does always instruct you to have the numbers for 28L or 28R. And if you say you need two minutes, and accept a clearance accordingly, and then don't comply with it, I think the controller has a good basis for sounding a little grumpy with you. It doesn't give you license to get into a pissing match with them when you screw it up.

Just my stupid opinion

 

[MikeD]

Agree that they should have. Disagree that she wasn't halfway hoping they'd take it and fail.

I don’t know. Only because I’d be very surprised if any local controller would risk either a landing traffic go around (creating more work for themselves), or a potential unheard go around call on landing traffic and they end up overflying the line up and wait traffic, or worse, impacting it; just so the controller can teach some object lesson to some random flight crew. Especially nowdays when ATC, and especially local controllers, are under the high scrutiny they are currently, due to several high profile ATC related events.

 

[🦈💜]

Nah, there's a method to the madness on the bus in our operation. I've flown that flight number so I assume it's a bus in the scenario.

If you get a runway change, the other pilot announces that he's "heads down" and unable to help with the taxi. Change the runway, all performance data dumps, re-enter uplinked performance data, adjust and verify the runway/departure/first fix, then run the "boxed items" from the checklist.

That's IF you're a well-oiled machine. Runway changes, especially during my days in Flight Standards, is something simple, but can be the Achilles Heel of the flight deck, but we're trying to mitigate the threat/shock factor of the bus freaking out if the wrong performance data is in or missing (USAirways Accident) or taking the incorrect lateral path off the runway and creating a loss of separation.

Now with the newest 321 NEO software, ehh, it's lunch time and I'm hungry. Maybe more later.

But if a pilot says it would be two minutes and it's not, have them clear the runway. It's as simple as that.

Line check? I'd certainly debrief the crew on "why did you take the runway with a plane on a ten mile final and an unresolved performance data issue? You underestimated the amount of time you would need, tower overestimated the amount of time they had, the aircraft is traveling at probably 3-ish miles a minute, 10 miles out? Your job is to make time, hold short run the procedure, run the checklist, circle back to your copilot and see where they are operationally and mentally for the takeoff".

This, I fully agree with.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Normally I'm with you, but not here. The ATIS in SFO always says be ready for 28L or 28R when they're departing west.

This snowballed when the crew accepted the clearance to cross 28L and LUAW 28R. The controller offered them the opportunity to hold short if they thought it would take longer. They said that they would be fine with two minutes.

It took longer. No harm, no foul, but understandably annoyed controller, especially when the Delta crew seemed extremely slow to exit the runway.
However, at the snarky comment from the Delta crew ("Next time, more than 30 seconds notice please.") the situation devolved.

I 100% agree that snarky comments should not be transmitted, and that's a good reason why.

Controllers don't understand what we do, and we demonstrate regularly that we don't understand what they do. That said, the ATIS at SFO does always instruct you to have the numbers for 28L or 28R. And if you say you need two minutes, and accept a clearance accordingly, and then don't comply with it, I think the controller has a good basis for sounding a little grumpy with you. It doesn't give you license to get into a pissing match with them when you screw it up.

Just my stupid opinion

Not a stupid opinion. You are dead on, 100%.

 

[🦈💜]

I don’t know. Only because I’d be very surprised if any local controller would risk either a landing traffic go around (creating more work for themselves), or a potential unheard go around call on landing traffic and they end up overflying the line up and wait traffic, or worse, impacting it; just so the controller can teach some object lesson to some random flight crew. Especially nowdays when ATC, and especially local controllers, are under the high scrutiny they are currently, due to several high profile ATC related events.

I was based at SFO for a long time. The local controllers are top notch, IMO.

 

[Boris Badenov]

How complicated are your runway change checklist items? Can't be that hard/different, both runways are similar length with - what I imagine- similar engine out procedures.

Are your runway change checklist items somehow mitigated by the fact that the runways are of "similar" length or have "similar" engine-out procedures? I'd really like to know how that works. Like which parts can you skip?

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Are your runway change checklist items somehow mitigated by the fact that the runways are of "similar" length or have "similar" engine-out procedures? I'd really like to know how that works. Like which parts can you skip?

You don’t “skip” anything. It was briefed and covered in the considerations part of the brief. You still change everything, verify it’s correct, and run the runway change triangle items.

 

[MikeD]

I was based at SFO for a long time. The local controllers are top notch, IMO.

Most of the large airport ones seem to be. And as far as SFO specifically I’ve only been in there twice, and both times……one jet and one helo….the local controllers seemed to be just as you’ve described here.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

I was based at SFO for a long time. The local controllers are top notch, IMO.

Agreed.

 

[Boris Badenov]

You don’t “skip” anything. It was briefed and covered in the considerations part of the brief. You still change everything, verify it’s correct, and run the runway change triangle items.

I don't know what triangle items are, but in what way does that speed things up?

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

I don't know what triangle items are, but in what way does that speed things up?

We don’t have a separate checklist for a runway change. We have one normal checklist.

The items that have a triangle next to it are the ones we run after a runway change.

What helps is the Yoke checklist has ONLY the change triangle items on it. So then you don’t even have to pull out the normal checklist. Just read the yoke checklist.


So in the Before Start:

For a runway change, only the 3 triangle items need to be read for challenge/response.

On the yoke checklist under before start, ONLY these 3 items appear.


The Before Takeoff checklist also has some ch age triangle items. Similar idea.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

And same thing, 3 items on before takeoff if a runway change happened after before takeoff was already done.

6 total checklist items to read and challenge / verify for a runway change.

 

[Boris Badenov]

OK, but your initial claim seemed to be that it would be faster to change runways in this case because they were "similar". Not seeing that here.

 

[🦈💜]

OK, but your initial claim seemed to be that it would be faster to change runways in this case because they were "similar". Not seeing that here.

I think you're being a bit obtuse. He's shorthanding briefing and the runway change checklist, and saying "You shouldn't need to rebrief the departure at the runway end if you're expecting both, just plug the new runway in, make the magic box go, touch on any salient differences (that you've already briefed), then run the checklist."

That's my read.

 

[BobDDuck]

I can't remember the airport, but I was flying a slowly-spooling NEO, we're told to line up and wait. We're probably on the runway for three minutes then tower says "TRAFFIC ON A THREE MILE FINAL, CLEARED FOR IMMEDIATE TAKEOFF".

*woooo….woo woo woo woowowoowowoowowowowwwwwwwwwwwWWWWWWWWWTHRUSHHHHHHHH*

Well I can't stay spooled up for three-plus minutes and I certainly can't go zero to hero with catlike quickness on high bypass geared turbofans.

One of the DCA controllers used to tell you to spool up about 15 seconds before giving an actual take off clearance. Wasn't really helpful in a CRJ at the time, but I'd have loved that heads up when flying a 321NEO.

 

[MikeD]

Anyone remember this one from 2 months ago at PDX? UPS 767 vs UPS MD-11. Caught on film by a spotter.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDNK0tg38lk

 

[zmiller4]

If this is @Cherokee_Cruiser ’e best attempt at dunking on Delta, he just needs to give up.

Don’t take the runway if you’re not ready.

Don’t tell someone they have traffic 5mins out, have them line up and wait, and then freak out way before that.

 

[Boris Badenov]

I think you're being a bit obtuse. He's shorthanding briefing and the runway change checklist, and saying "You shouldn't need to rebrief the departure at the runway end if you're expecting both, just plug the new runway in, make the magic box go, touch on any salient differences (that you've already briefed), then run the checklist."

That's my read.

How complicated are your runway change checklist items? Can't be that hard/different, both runways are similar length with - what I imagine- similar engine out procedures.

I don't see how these two line up. It appears to me that the claim is that it is less "hard/different" to change runways when they're of "similar length" and have "similar engine out procedures". Like I have to run the numbers for the new runway, whether it's exactly the same length or 6000 ft. shorter. And I will brief the entire engine-out procedure whether it's exactly the same or not. It's in the FOM, I'm pretty sure. Probably in bold. Probably for good reason.