ANGRY PILOT REPRIMANDS ATC after 2 Aborted Landings at SFO! 

More than tight. Irresponsible

Maybe United shouldn't schedule so many flights at the same time in a constrained airport. Not FAA/ATC fault that a greedy Wall Street corporation overloads the airspace.

Why ground aircraft have more priority than aircraft in the air? Isn't that like, less safe?

@@MiGujack3, sounded like it was irony from ATC.

I thought construction on the 1s would have been completed by now. Nobody is happy about the situation at SFO: With capacity cut in half and no reduction in demand, this is the natural result. That said, putting the LUAW aircraft in front of a second landing attempt was a questionable choice on the part of local control, but understandable when there is a line of 15 departures on the ground.

Tower egos wouldn't like that haha

Unable

Dream on losers

Hahaha!

I would asked for number anyway just to get on them.

I've said it before so many times they need to stop doing this

Two planes cleared full use of the runway for landing or takeoff purposes, imagine the shit show when both have an engine failure at the same time. Good thing the odds are so low, but not 0, and if it ever happens a whole lot of lives are absolutely fucked

@@bigblue207 Yup I agree... Back in 2005 when I got my private pilot's license and worked as a controller for a about a year I don't remember this being a thing. I was shocked when I first heard it somewhat recently. I don't think an aircraft that is cleared to land should have an aircraft ahead of it cleared for takeoff as well.

Only in the US. I've flown to Third World countries where ATC try to kill you with incompetence. In the US they try to kill you with arrogance.

"UAL 1390,just steer around those other aircraft "

You are hired at SFO. You start Monday 😀

Yep. I don't mind tower trying to get people moved the first time, but trying the same thing with nearly the same timing twice in front of the same plane is just asking for trouble.

Especially a heavy on the second one! That was lame.

Unfortunately you are not qualified to work SFO. Their SOP requires a certain degree of...licentious planning, that won't fit your style. Also, from other SFO vids, you apparently need to exhibit a certain degree of anger and denial that you don't seem to have. Maybe you'd be better off in Topeka, or Florida? :)

@@FamilyManMoving I thought you were being serious for a while

My first thought as well, and why I believe tower was in the wrong.

File on them. It's the only way they'll learn. I filed on a tower in Ohio twice in three weeks- never had a problem again...

@@Glofilter But if the pilots don't take off quick, what can tower do? Someone already pointed to the pilots in the comments.

⁠@@AxMiha3DNot put planes on the runway after clearing someone else to land?

​@kirsten mills if you are counting on pilots to expedite its gonna get you in trouble.

While here it's Dad's fault it seems 😂

Perfect. And boy do I remember that.

How did you know about my childhood?

@@r.b.4009 It is gonna to be Dads fault anyway

Mom is lying: it’s NEVER the lady’s fault EVER

You can take off on those too, I saw it in the last Top Gun movie!

AirCanada already tried that once on 28R!

Sounds like LAL during sun n fun. 😂

@@_mball_ lol

@@_mball_you mean charlie

Yeah, Ive read a lot about ATC staff being overworked way too much, which explains some of those poor reactions. But you really cannot screw up like this, let alone shift blame or spamming the frequency. Feels like ATC management is still way too primitive and basic with stuff like this happening.

President Reagan broke the ATC Union. Such a good idea. ???

Yes I was thinking that as well, when rutine stuff become a regular problem it sets you up for stuff to go really wrong when it becomes non rutine.

@@termitreter6545 Being overworked is one thing, blaming someone who has nothing to do with it an entirely different thing. It's not like blaming NORCAL will change THEIR situation at SFO. If they at least owned up, there's a chance that the airlines put pressure on the management and the FAA to do something about the situation. But what's blaming NORCAL going to achieve other to make NORCAL p***ed, too?

san francisco airport has historically had lots of problems without organizing things like a trop to the toilet.

Even approach was getting annoyed with tower, so I suspect that there was a specific request to prevent that.

yeah I was a bit dissappointed

I was waiting for that too😅

hahah :P

The passengers were in a Groundhog Day movie. Aren't going to land anytime soon.

They give me content indeed haha. Thanks to pilots who report it to me too

I know right, it's so thoughtful of them!

Lol!!

🤣🤣🤣

Until... someone cries. :(

He gave a takeoff clearance when they were two miles out on final. It's about a two-mile runway, and one plane is slowing down to landing speed while the other is speeding up to takeoff speed. Seems like a geometry problem a twelve-year old could solve without a pencil.

@@loupgarou-dj3tm What if the plane taking off has a problem and has to reject the takeoff?

@@janeryan2709 That's why they said "no delay", problems will not be accepted lol.

@@logicplague2077 What if a tire blows during the takeoff roll? ATC provides a clearance for a takeoff - not an order. Taking off is pilot discretion - pilots have the authority to reject a takeoff (before V1) if there is any cause for concern. Same with landing - pilots receive a landing clearance, not an order to land. Pilots can go around if there is any cause for concern. Giving two different clearances that involve the same runway when both aircrafts now have discretion to proceed as they feel is appropriate is dangerous.

@@janeryan2709 I know, sarcasm.

@@dethray1000 I would say laughable, not funny.

Because who would want to land?

@@TankEnMate isn't it common Knowledge that aircraft are perpetuell motion machines manned by immortal unsleeping crews that can time travel? So why would the tower give priority to infinite flight length machines over those that are not yet at Infinity. (for those who did not catch on, the above is not meant to be serous as you, the reader, no doubt picked up by me claiming that aircraft can fly indefinitely without the need for fuel.) Edit: corrected an to can, fricking autocorrect...

Agreed: That was the most scathing remark. And it was broadcast to anyone that was listening... 🤣🤣🤣

@@pompeymonkey3271 Blurted out like that was clearly very wrong. But their is little point in landing, if the taxiways are blocked with aircraft waiting to take off and your arrival gate is blocked with an aircraft waiting for departure. For ATC, this can become a serious safety issue. The real problem is the airport authority allowing a number of slots that are unrealistic in the real world.

what's up with that one woman we hear on here all the time that has no business handling aircraft with her terrible ability and attitude?

@@fangs_out8879 I wish I knew her exact problem, but she gives pilots anxiety

@@fangs_out8879you already know.

I have experienced more go-arounds at SFO over the years than at any other major airport. In the late 90s the IFALPA named SFO the most dangerous airport in the U.S. and it still seems bad even with the tech improvements since. The whole config needs a redesign with an additional runway, but local environmentalists won't have it.

@@bradowen761 This has been one of the airports I avoid when booking a flight and it's nice to see it hasn't changed.

I would think it's easier for a plane on the ground to hold short rather than keep a plane in the air doing circles and tying up the airspace.

that "tower" lied to the pilot.

Sorry, yes you can blame TRACON. I forgot to get bagels at the grocery store yesterday. I put the blame squarely on TRACON.

Also, the whole procedure of having pilots have to brief both 28L and 28R and then switching planes between 28L and 28R is stupid. Give them a runway in the clearance and stick with it. Don't taxi them to 28R just to have them cross 28R and take off from 28L.

4mile final you can clear someone for takeoff, not line up and wait for a CRJ creepin down the runway. Asinine

@mrpielover615 right? Why not just land on 28R & depart 28L? Not have planes holding short. Then rushing over between arrivals and departures. Trying to squeeze a plane out after you've cleared on in. Then asking a plane cleared to land to side step late on short final.

​@@jaykay6412 you can absolutely hit a 4 mile hole, you just have to have everyone prepped and ready

i think he doesn't have the skill to controla big internationnal airport like KSFO

Depends on what pronouns are desired.

Someone understands how the FAA works

Perhaps a promotion to airline customer would be the the most fitting position for them.

He's such a dope, he could be a cop

Pretty sure ATL recently finished a new bypass taxiway for that exact reason (to not cross the threshold of a different runway to get to a separate one)

They can't because of environmental regulations related to building on fill into the SF Bay. SFO has been trying for decades, but local politicians have always said "nyet."

@@gregheyheyhey So have federal politicians lean on them. Isn't aviation safety a federal issue?

@@tin2001 You must not be from California… ;)

@@tin2001 Yes, but airport expansion is a very local, regional and state issue, especially around the SF Bay.

A more appropriate tone would've been a bit more professional, but true nevertheless.

@@bulletbling it was perfectly appropriate

@@bulletbling I would have agreed with you but after listening to the way many atc have spoken to pilots with their tone during issues I'd say he was professional.

@@bulletbling You could hear the frustration in his voice and I can't blame him. We've all been there at some point. At least he apologized and acknowledged that it wasn't the ATC's fault, but he was the recipient of the venting. Heck, I've done the same thing with gate agents! 🤣🤣

@@bulletbling Sorry, it was 100% appropriate

That's taking ramming and jamming too far. retired faa

I know! It makes no sense at all.

They, um... attended "diversity" training in lieu of something operational it seems? At some rotten, horrible point there will be a body count. I sure hope pilots stay aware enough to survive Peak Stupid. The next three years [at least] are going to be rough.

"apparently aircraft on the ground have priority over aircraft in the air" that just seems so... backwards? Planes on the ground can afford to wait. They're not burning up jetfuel every moment they're waiting around. They're not going to find themselves out of position if theres a delay.

@@teelo12000 he was being sarcastic

Can cause panic and confusion. Yes most rational people know a go around isn't a big deal. But fun fact, most average passengers are not rational. They know nothing, and the media does a whole lotta scare mongering. So a go around can and does cause anxiety amongst the passengers.

the flying dutchman (funny enough thats’s what they write on all KLM planes :D)

"talk to norcal, yes i know. this is the 500th go around"

That will need infinite fuel.

Tell " missed approaches are costing the airline" to ATC

Actually, it doesn't cost the airlines, it costs US, since those costs get punted to us through increased fares. This BS shouldn't be happening. I love the sarcastic comment how 'planes on the ground have priority over planes in the air', that perception should NEVER be allowed to happen, and a sit down with all the controllers is in order IMHO.

@@jonathanparle8429 you change processes as necessary to reduce this stuff. You shouldn’t be rushing pilots to take off, mistakes are more prone to happening when you do that

I don’t know about aviation. But I can recognize signs that ATCs are being ordered to do something for “efficiency” or some sort of desired outcome. An ensconced manager maybe?

Pilots had every right to be upset. Glad the pilots filed a report.

It got the pilot off his frequency, which is all he really cared about, as he obviously had more to do than he could cope with already.

I'm guessing Norcal was supposed to be giving adequate spacing on final amd wasn't doing so. Thats why the tower said that. You could tell the tower controller was frustrated just by the tone of his voice. He never sounded like he didn't have control of the situation

@@winitforal The fact he was putting planes on the same runway he just cleared someone to land on suggests he does in fact NOT have control of the situation, especially as he then had to twice get the landing aircraft to go around.

@@jsw11984 just say you have no idea what you're talking about and move on. If you only knew how dumb what you just said was, you wouldn't have said it

@@winitforal The tower was clearly prioritizing aircraft on the ground. They didn’t need to clear a takeoff right after giving landing clearance to the United. I understand SFO is tight and they need to keep traffic moving, but causing two aborted landings just to save at most a minute is ridiculous. Airborne aircraft should always have runway priority.

And the cockpit's quickness in that response was like they were expecting Tower to ask that question

He was being sarcastic...

Did ATC think he was in a Cessna 150?

@@FollowTheJohn I think he thought he was playing Microsoft Flight Simulator and lowkey told him to Slew Mode

Like wth dude cmon you gotta be smarter then that😂

@@kevinsoto15 that controller needed to ALT + F4

@@alexdoby6049 Honestly😂

How do you know they didn't coordinate for more space and the tracon just wasn't giving it to them?

and EVERYTHING aside, he can just make the departure traffic wait 1 more minute and have the UAL landed, it's so simple.

@@cptalpdeniz this replay doesn't show anything but the arriving United. There were definitely more aircraft involved. So who knows what was behind or in front of this United

We never really know the whole story. I just hate sending itinerant traffic around. I feel like I become somewhat liable if something happens to the flight. I have done it though. Never twice. Shit happens. Everyone lived.

@@freakfly23 you can hear it in his voice that he's not thrilled about it either. He offered the side step, albeit late. A bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks in these comments though.

No, if you knew anything about aviation he would know they use battery power for back up.

@@atomicboy8972 engines don’t run with battery power though

@@atomicboy8972 “if you knew anything about aviation” thinks that you can run a JET engine on only battery power

On another channel, a student pilot was made to do a go around in deference to other aircraft, his engine failed, and he landed in the river.

@@atomicboy8972 RAM air turbines provide limited power to work essential control services, that does not mean that there is engine power as the generator is normally powered by one of the main engines. When you are out of fuel you are out of fuel leaving you with one very large unpowered glider that actually drops like a brick, take a look at the Hudson incident to see how far they got after they lost both engines.

I had 3 go arounds flying into MCO 3 years ago

Give me a few, I love flying lol

maybe weather go arounds....VFR day the pax are gonna have to deal with it

Yeah, I'd be wondering why we were flying in circles trying to burn off fuel. 😮

That depends on the Captain's PA to the passengers.... Keep pax in the loop...

Pilot is bringing this to public, tower is playing to tight, this will end in an accident.

One more go-around and he is current for the next 90 days.

Not a safety issue, but a company expense issue burning all of that extra fuel.

@@Chihuahuauno1 It's definitely a safety issue. Pilots are consistently being put in situations by the SFO tower where they need to perform go arounds to avoid a collision. This is not normal. That's like saying following someone on the highway too closely isn't a safety issue because they have automatic emergency braking. Safety nets are meant to be last resorts not normal operations.

I don’t blame him for going off … he just took the bait for tower and blamed someone else 😂😂

One hundred percent THIS^

It’s a nightmare, they should be used to train towers what not to do

Absolutely. I've been in there a couple of times recently and it's not a good situation. It looks like they were only using 2 of the 4 runways, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me unless the winds were super strong. But even still, if a plane goes around because of tower's mistake, they'd better be 100% certain they don't make him go around again. That's completely unacceptable.

What do you call AC759 ?

@@jaredhageman4986 1L and 1R were closed for renovations when this happened, but now they have all of the runways open again.

Yeah they were in a period where 2 of their runways were closed. 1L and 1R (the main departing runways) we’re getting repaved meaning 28RT which is one of the less efficient flows into SFO

Well that escalated quickly

@@terryboyer1342 Other than in the City of San Francisco (which is north of SFO), the rest of the SF Bay Area is still doing pretty well.

stop filing complaints to the FAA, call/write your congressmen and report the issue to them. tell them the FAA is not doing their job and putting lives at risk.

@@terryboyer1342 SFO doesn’t just serve SF. The Bay Area as a whole is a lot different than just the city of SF. Do some research on that next time

A slap on the wrist

What was unacceptable is giving a "line up and wait" clearance while an airplane is on 2 mile final. What could possibly go wrong?

And amount of fuel burn and reports pilots need to errrgh...

@@Flies2FLL and on top of that giving crossing runway clearence before clearing the aircraft for takeoff on the lineup....

@@Flies2FLL tbh I would take the visuals on the video with a grain of salt, there’s been a few in which, ex the FedEx one going around from a while back, that looked nothing like it did IRL

I was just waiting for him to declare "minimum fuel" or something ... going missed twice, it could have happened

@@chrisschack9716 yeah I wondered if he was gonna declare a fuel emergency. Now I see why every landing is flown as a go around

Lol..

A fuel emergency is supposed to change things, but one suspects that these controllers would still be tempted to push that barrier too. What does a pilot do when they've lost faith in the tower's ability to keep a runway clear and they have no choice but to land there next time? After all, even a normal landing is a matter of urgency, everyone and everything must work together carefully to ensure it happens trouble free. A normal landing demands the same level of attention from all as if it were an emergency, something this tower seems to have forgotten... I'm quite interested in what the divert rules are wrt fuel requirements are. If one gets two approaches bounced like this, is one supposed to still have fuel for a diversion? On a bad weather day one might assume two approaches followed by a diversion, and fuel for that. On a good weather day one may not. If one is repeatedly sent around and that causes a fuel emergency, has the pilot had enough fuel put on board in the first place? Should they have diverted before it gets that bad? Am not a pilot, so I don't know. However, the regulations are probably written around ATC sticking to the rules and letting aircraft land unhindered. If they're not doing that then the fuel quantity regulations are ineffective and you already have an unsafe industry (around SFO).

35yr commercial pilot here. If you've planned your flight so that you have just enough fuel to make your destination plus a couple of go-arounds, you probably shouldn't be flying. Regulations govern min fuel requirements. You're gonna have to trust me on this: most pilots have plenty of fuel by the time they make they're destination, at least enough to do a few go-arounds anyways - lol

@@engineerauthorpilot The important point is that there is a difference between "most pilots" and regulations. The regulations on minimum fuel are just one small part of how aviation as a whole achieves safe operations. Another part is the rules about ATC and traffic prioritisation, which I imagine have something like "aircraft cleared to land shall be given an empty runway on which to do so". So if just one part of aviation operations goes wrong, eg ATC get it into their heads that departures have priority (or push the boundaries too far) , the knock on impact is that the basis of the fuel regs is undermined. There's no such thing as a one off event in a safety system. If what is not supposed to happen does happen, all bets are off pending an investigation and it's actions being implemented. In this instance many would be tempted to dismiss it as a one off, ignore it. But that me that passes up the opportunity to ask, "Why?", and doesn't do anything to establish whether or not it or something worse is going to happen. And in this case, where you have a controller twice choosing to make a blatant error, the circumstances are probably ripe for something far worse. Accordantly, judging by comments around here, pilots have long had SFO tagged as problematic. Anyone taken the time to file concerns, other than this United pilot? This is also why sticking strictly to rules and procedures matters. Ignoring small breaks of rules starts breeding a tolerance for rule breaking, and before you know it people are making the rules up for themselves. As for SFO ATC, everyone seems to know that they're operating under high commercial pressure. Anyone reported that? They themselves know why this event happened. If the airport themselves aren't filing an incident report on themselves and / or being very public about taking rectification measures, that's rather a bad sign (a lack of a safety culture). If they are being open about it, good. The controllers themselves bear the moral responsibility. They know if they're being driven too hard by management, or one of their number is getting it badly wrong. If they don't do anything about that, they're complicit in everything that happens subsequently. Essentially, everyone who knows that all is not well with one part of a safety critical operation shares a responsibility for it. For example, if you're a pilot flying there, does the current event mean one should now worry about ATC putting traffic across the runway on a foggy day, and *forgetting* to tell your incoming aircraft to go around? If yes, why fly there at all?

Accusing the controller of "using go-around as a tool to increase the departure rate" is just intellectual laziness when it was quite clear that the go arounds were caused by the departing pilots who knew that an immediate takeoff was required, yet the first one took 23 seconds to begin moving after the TO clearance was received, the second one took 34 seconds. The arriving pilot should have been monitoring the airplane that was parked on the runway and noted that in each case they took an inordinately long time to begin moving which ate into the planned flow of traffic, instead of accusing the controller for something beyond their control. The departing pilots should have declined the line up and wait clearance if they knew that they would not have been able to execute the immediate departure. If it was something unexpected that delayed them their first priority was to notify the controller, not act as though ground traffic had priority over traffic on short final.

Yeah I totally agree. SFO is my home airport so I know the patterns. Pilots have also been taking their time on the runway so just makes it harder on everyone

This is great extra information and would make a good pinned post.

Yeah totally! While I agree 2 GAs is unacceptable, and there was likely a better way to handle this situation. It really does put context to the whole situation. I flew into SFO a couple of months ago when everything was being worked on. We landed 28R, we sat in between the two runways for quite a while, they basically filled up every crossing until they let us cross 28L like the pilots were playing frogger. Not upset about it, just how things go sometimes. #Context #nuance

How is the FAA/ATC responsible for UNITED's overscheduling a constrained airport like SFO?

​@@bhtooefr I skimmed the link just to check and I didnt see anything conclusive but AIUI the slots are allocated on an hourly basis so hypothetically eveyone can still try to land at more or less the same time.

There's just so much you can do with that runway setup. Either you put traffic into holds to give departures some room or you at least try to squeeze them in. The video is lacking all the other LOTS of traffic which apparently did not have the big issues and probably preferred trying to get them down with no delays with small risk of GA rather than being sent into holds. Was just unfortunate to hit one crew twice, I don't get the big fuzz about it.

@@copperx yeah. The multiple cross 28L commands to me sound like the taxiways between the 2 runways are pretty full, so they really needed those cleared so more can land on 28R. It really sounds congested.

Sfo is super congested bc of runway closure. Idk why ground keeps sending people to the wrong runway. Really feels like they should just depart from whatever side they start on

In this case, it's a clear violation of sequence priority and very dangerous. Aircraft in the air ALWAYS have higher priority, and this situation can get very dangerous, say if the go-around was called too late... A report have much heavier consequences and draws more attention from the management than just a phone call to the controller.

This is a pattern of poor planning. Not a one time mistake or misunderstanding.

​@@AaronShenghao not very dangerous but very inefficient for sure. Untied is visual on the runway so they'd notice. ATC however is behind the traffic and probably why they said Norcal was oversped the approach.

oh there will be calls and a report on this one im sure.

Once at the gate you call up the tower and say: "Possible ATC deviation, I have a number for you to call."

He definitely didn’t keep his composure, he threw his toys out of the pram!

​@@kickedinthecalfbyacow7549 Are you the tower controller?

Pilot would have likely gone nuclear.

at that point you're actually cutting really deep into your reserve fuel. IIRC, a single go-around uses more fuel than the entire cruise phase of many flights. That might be some kind of aviation urban legend, though.

@@TruFalco "Unable"

I know right, if an airliner is on a 2 mile final then they're gonna be on the ground in roughly 30 seconds or so. Do people really think that's enough time to depart in front of them?

​@Cam Ward I mean, this could be the same guy from KAUS that tried the same silliness with a heavy on 3 mile final and a departing 737.

@@elliothicks4747 This guy gets it ^^

Yep.

Yes. Which is typically not a problem but he's like less than 2 miles out and is lined up and there's no way to get his giant aircraft to move to the right, get lined up and still be ready to land. Those last 2-3 miles go fast and it's not a tiny Cessna he's got. It appears to be a B738 which isn't going to turn on a dime.

@@Suplyndmnd, true most of airlines have policy to be stabilized on final approach at 1000 ft AGL, otherwise you go around, so there is no way they decide to side step at 600 ft AGL.

That sidestep was requested at 500 feet. Nowhere near safe to execute, especially in a jet.

@@Alessandro--- The lineup clearances were issued FAR before 2nm final. The takeoff clearances were at 2nm final due to other traffic (landing traffic vacating not quickly enough and crossing traffic).

I was on this aircraft when it went around twice. May 12th from SEA to SFO. My boarding pass is still sitting in my desk because I wanted to call the FAA myself to file a complaint. It was complete bullshit. I’ve gone around a few times before because of aircraft on the runway so I know the feeling and what it looks like sitting at the window. It wasn’t scary or anything ( not like other of my go arounds). We were already a few minutes late in leaving SEA and by the time all was said and done we must have been about 45 min or so late. People weren’t as pissed as I would have expected. I chatted with the pilot for about 15 seconds as I got off. He was pissed and said he was filing a report for sure.

@@lylewaters6161 Yeah a go around due to winds or something wrong with the approach is understandable, but two go around due to over congestion is a bit much. It's happening more and more as we try and fit an increasing number of aircraft into the same sized ATC system. Glad people were not too upset, but it is understandably not an ideal outcome (especially for the same plane twice in a row!)

More planes = more salary

Good thing the new head of the FAA is prioritizing DEI

@@timothyrosman6371 “StOp MaKiNg iT AbOuT RaCe.”

He made decisions. Bad ones.

It wasn't a cop out by the tower. If you were more competent in this subject you'd realize that it wasn't even the tower's mistake. Perhaps not anyone's mistake. The tower alerted both departures to the arriving aircraft on short final so they were aware of the need for an immediate departure. Yet the first one took 23 seconds after getting their takeoff clearance before they began moving, the second took 34 seconds. If not for those delays there would have been no need for a go around. We don't know why those delays occurred but you can't blame the tower controller for issuing the go arounds. In fact, the tower was fully on the ball, monitoring the airplanes waiting to cross runways, waiting to take off and approaching to land, and he controlled them well. He also showed great wisdom in not engaging in an explanation of the situation with the complaining pilot. He probably has experience with pilots who think they know everything and proceed to make accusations on the basis of that fallacy. A pilot on the ball would have been monitoring the airplane on the ground and noted that it didn't move for a ridiculously long time. It would likely have been a waste of time and endangered other airplanes to try and correct the arriving pilot's misperceptions, twice. Shame on the Norcal controller for exacerbating the situation by casting blame with sarcasm without knowing the facts. Very unprofessional.

@@petep.2092 i think you are the only one here thinking it was "nobody's" fault

@@ursodermatt8809 I don't think it was nobody's fault.

He didn't. A professional pilot on a visual approach would have monitored the airplane that was a potential obstacle and noted that it didn't move for 23 seconds after it was given the takeoff clearance. The second airplane didn't move for 34 seconds. Both departing flights knew that an immediate departure was required yet both took a ridiculously long time to start their takeoff roll. The arriving pilot thought he was a know it all and began ranting to the tower controller as though it was the controller's fault. The controller was on the ball, monitoring all the traffic under his control and issuing the go arounds when they became necessary. He also wisely shunted the complaining pilot off to another frequency rather than waste time and endanger other airplanes with an on-air argument with a boorish pilot.

IND trains just as much as any other tower. Nothing comes from an ASAP report for a go around, I can assure you.

What kind of report did you file? And how does it work?

apparently Republic's LIFT flight school operates out of IND too, was shocked to learn a flight school is operating out of an state's main international airport

@@thetechdudemc That is true in Daytona Beach as well, where I went to flight school at ERAU. That's not unusual, and in fact it is a positive.

@@giacomopelos6770 ASAP or Aviation Safety Action Program. This is something the FAA requires at airlines, and it is a way to improve safety by allowing airline pilots to explain mistakes made while flying. The results are de-identified and published to pilots in order to increase knowledge of potential problems. This isn't a "get out of jail card", if the mistake was unintentional. But usually this protects airline pilots from FAA license actions. In this case it is a way to point out an ATC failure. ATC persons have the same thing, and in this case, you can bet the controller put one in as well. Hey, people make mistakes. All this was was improper spacing by the controller who is trying to help pilots get passengers to their destination on time. There was no real danger here, just a bunch of wasted fuel.

The traffic wasn't on two mile final when he cleared lineup, it was lined up far before. It just took too long for other traffic to clear the runway for the takeoff clearance (partially tower's fault to issue cross clearance).

@@copperxI mean he had two perfectly good runways and was forcing everyone on to one including having general aviation crossing the other runway to use 28L. Tower was handicapping there own airport

@@Overthewingflight we don’t know that for sure.

@@SeligTiles in this video he clearly states to have aircraft to cross 28R to take off on 28L. Just working with what information I have

Imagine a third go-around hahah

​@Elias Neumayer Nah, the pilot might of gone to their backup airport if they were told to go around again.

It's cause 1L/R are offline. SFO was super congested for the last 6 months. Hopefully will be better now that their open

Completely underrated comment. Tower wasn't simply putting a departure on the runway in front of an aircraft on final... They were putting an aircraft on the runway *behind* a recently landed arrival that hadn't vacated, AND in front of an aircraft on short final. 🤦‍♂

@@YouveBeenMiddled I know it's hard to believe, but that has been SOP at SFO for decades and if the controller is sharp it's not an issue. This controller's judgement on how much space he needed was clearly off.

She was likely promoted to supervisor and lead trainer. It's the FAA way. ;)

I watched this video just to see if it was her again. Apparently a culture issue among multiple controllers.

They have limited fuel. They can’t keep doing go arounds. Airliners only give them enough fuel to get to destination and a few maneuvers like go around or diversions. It really does become an emergency when you don’t have enough fuel to do another go around.

If they really wanted to cause a ruckus they'd have diverted to an alternate and blamed it on an inability to land at SFO.

@@russell2952 Or declared and stopped on the runway at SFO...

That Controllers misplanning and actions twice made the pilot look totally incompetent in front of his Paxs wanting to get home. From their eyes 👀 it's most tantamount to him being like a 22 hour Cessna 172 Student Pilot driver encountering a slight crosswind and "not being able to ground track and align to centerline" on Final and blowing it at the end. WTF over.... 🤔😫 That's twice now. 😎👨🏽‍✈️✈👺🌍

And that's twice that you made an ass of yourself, demonstrating your ignorance too. First, by projecting your emotions on to the arriving pilot with no justification. A person as insecure as you, who worries that the passengers think go around = incompetent pilot has no business being a pilot. Fortunately passengers generally know that weather and unexpected obstacles can also cause a go around. Unexpected obstacles can be anything from an animal wandering on to the runway to other aircraft not performing to expectations. Which brings us to your second mistake-casting blame without knowing the facts or doing any analysis. The cause of both go arounds was the departing airplanes not beginning their takeoff roll immediately upon being cleared for takeoff even though both were made aware that there was traffic on short final. The first took 23 seconds before they started moving, the second took 34 seconds. If they had started their take off roll immediately as expected there would have been no reason for the go arounds. As they say: Little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Wondering the same thing, glad someone pointed this out. Heard that SFO is having a tower controller issues lately which is rather questionable.

From my very limited understanding, departures heading N/NE/E go off 28R and deps heading S/SW/W go from 28L so you can pump more out. The recipe is fine, so long as TWR isn't giving LUAW with aircraft on 4 mile final, especially a heavy. TRACON is spot on by saying TWR is giving priority to ground aircraft over airborne traffic, because it is almost always the exact opposite.

@@mitchmonette5282 Exactly. What costs more, a plane sitting at the hold short line for another minute or so, or a go around? Even if you take into account the extra fuel burn of all the planes that will have their departures delayed a bit by waiting for a plane to land, the go around still burns more. And that go around is probably going to cause missed passenger connections, especially if it happens twice!

I have a feeling that SFO has become not capable of accepting this amount of traffic. This kind of airport needs 3-4 active (not intersecting) runways to accommodate everyone safely. However there is not enough area for expansion.

@@andy-ally There is a whole bay right there to fill in and make more runways. However, the NIMBYs and Ecopeople are always the louder and get it quashed, along with probably monetary concerns... aka SFO is fiiine, what could possibly be wrong with it? /s

perhaps a bit more, if I may be so bold, sir...

@@jaylockwood5030 I agree with you Grady.

Sadly SFO has a deep bench of under trained questionable controllers.

Me too - she probably had the day off and was pulling wings off bees.