For those on that flight that got upset, the crew has 2 choices. This crew followed the rules: no clear view of the runway at DH (decision height which would be 200 feet AGL), then you go around. There are some brave pilots that did not follow the rules and have taken passengers and themselves to Heaven at a high rate of speed.
There are old pilots, & bold pilots. But there are no old, bold pilots. What’s forgotten is there’s the small matter of a high rise parking deck just across the street from the threshold
thats an optimistic way of looking at it , but they may not have had much choice actually , as far as the actual runway - visual - range was concerned ,
@@jonjma Awesome capture! May I feature these go arounds in one of my next episodes? Of course with a link back to your original video. All the best to you!
Great video! Our San Diego marine layer( fog ) can get crazy thick. Glad you made it somewhere safe. Respect to the camera owner for holding it still. 😊
SAN has always been a challenge to dispatch and fly into due a combination of the terrain and obstructions, both of which result in the poor approach minimums to runway 27 and to a lesser extent to runway 09. Runway 27 is used for arrivals most of the time, but there is no ILS approach to that runway due to the terrain. The LOCalizer approach has a MDA (not DH) of about 700-2, and when the marine stratus commonly rolls in, one usually has the reported surface visibility for 27, but with a ceiling below 700 feet, the descending aircraft never sees the runway and goes missed. The CAT-I ILS to 09 (no CAT-II or CAT-III available) is better, with minimums 300-3/4 RVR 4000, but it’s a far cry from the various CAT-I mins at LAX (200-1/2 RVR 2400, and the RVR can go lower if the particular airline has it authorized in its Ops Specs.) Complicating SAN matters further is that airport can be below landing mins for 27 about above mins for 09. Takeoff performance weights are lower for 09 due heading for the rising terrain, so a common practice by ATC in such situations is to put arrival traffic for 09 into holding (even though 09 is above landing mins) and use the time to flush the airport of departures, since 27 has better weights. Then they’ll freeze departures on 27, and land arrivals on 09, as long as it’s above landing mins. This situation can repeat as long as there’s still traffic, and the weather cooperates. There was some talk years ago about making Miramar MCAS (NKX) a joint-use base and moving all Lindbergh traffic over there, and redevelop the former SAN site into marina/condo use. For various reasons, it never happened, and it’s a shame, since would have been better operationally. Parallel runways, 24R at 12,000 feet in length, CAT-I mins of 200-1/2. Install RVR equipment, some better approach lighting and upgrade the ILS to CAT-II and CAT-III, and then you’d have a true all-weather airport.
Had the exact same happen to me about 25 years ago. Flew from London > Wash DC > San Diego. We hit heavy storms and severe turbulence as I’d never encountered before or since coming into SAN. We tried to land twice coming in from the west and couldn’t do it. At one point I thought we were goners, it was terrifying. We couldn’t see a thing but yes, items shifted in flight and overhead bins popped open, stuff fell in the galley, carts rolled. Luckily just small injuries. Someone’s camera fell on my head after one bad bounce. Eventually we were diverted to Ontario. Same situation - didn’t know if we had a gate, the fuel, etc., so we parked on the tarmac for a long time. First question everyone had: “Are the dogs ok?” (2 large dogs had been loaded in cargo in DC). They were. But people were badly shaken up. My boss and I were on that flight, we both worked in aerospace and so went up to talk to the pilots while we waited forever (of course, this was pre-9/11). Essentially they relied on autopilot a lot because of the turbulence. But they got us down safely. AND flew us back to SAN! They ran a movie all the way down, through landing and into the gate to calm people down cuz was still bumpy! We got into SAN well after midnight. Felt like I’d been on a plane for days. Never was so glad to see my own bed that night!
Fantastic and very informative! I listened on a scanner to a United Airlines pilot do at least two go-arounds trying to land at Guatemala City and then eventually divert toward San Salvador. Yes, good job holding the camera still.
Grew up in San Diego. And out of all my years of flying in and out of Linbergh Field I only landed on runway 9 a few times. And only experienced maybe 2 go arounds at minimums and 0 diversions. That was a pretty rare experience you had there. But that turned into a long flight Newark to San Diego to Ontario.
Lived in SD 33 years and never landed on runway 9. That inversion layer, causes many planes to divert to Ontario or Phoenix. Not all airlines, like SWA are equipped w/the avionics to land in poor visibility. Seen quite a few aborted landings but not 2 from the same plane. Super video.
SAN doesn't have anything resembling an approach that would require special avionics. The lowest minimums approach is the ILS 9, which can be achieved in a steam gauge light single with a VOR Nav radio with glideslope.
SAN actually (Now) has two ILS approaches to RWY 09, the ILS-Z and the ILS-Y. The ILS-Z has better minimums (200-1/2mi RVR1800) but entails having a minimum climb gradient in the event of a missed approach. If one can't meet that climb gradient, the minimums for the ILS-Y are 300-3/4mi RVR 4000. If you can't manage the ILS-Y approach due to the weather, you're likely diverting somewhere like ONT, LAS, PHX, or LAX (the latter assuming they're also not fogged in). In 30+ of dispatching flights to SAN, if I had a buck for everyone I've diverted somewhere, I'd be rich! ;)
As an aircraft dispatcher (now retired) I always found SAN ops during "fog season" to be among the most challenging and problematic. First, fuel load calculations are made in advance of departure from XYZ, thus making fuel and alternate selection heavily reliant on the TAF for SAN, which was commonly proven inaccurate by the time of actual flight arrival into the SAN terminal area. Monitoring the trend of satellite airports in the area like NKX, CRQ, SDM, MYF, SEE, and most of all, NZY and NRS, was imperative. Depending upon what the winds/baro pressures were at any airport(s) that were "upwind" of SAN, the arrival of cigs/viz going below at SAN itself was often predictable (but not always.) Another issue was the disparate landing mins between the LOC to 27 and the ILS to 09. At the time, I recall the LOC 27 was 600-1-3/4, and ILS 09 was 355-1 RVR 5000, which was nowhere near the "normal" Cat-I ILS mins of 200-1/2 RVR RVR 1800 or RVR 2400. Complicating the scenario further was the fact that one could below 27 mins, ABOVE 09 mins, but encounter arrival holding for 09. Why? At the time. takeoff weights off runway 09 were much lower than those of 27, fue to 09's takeoff path towards rising terrain and obstacles. SAN ATC's solution would be to shutoff arrivals to 09 while they flushed out departures that needed 27. Then they'd stop 27 departures (until a que built up) and run arrivals to 09 (as long as it was still above landing mins. I've been retired for going on 5 years now, and I still miss the challenges.. ;)
@@jonjma Awesome stuff! May I feature these go arounds in one of my next episodes? Of course with a link back to your original video. All the best to you!
Great video! Not unusual weather for SoCal airports near the water. Pilots did a great job - especially since they were doing a low energy/high drag go around from minimums which are just 200' and RVR 1800' on the ILS 9 Z approach. Agree with commenters that other aircraft could have made it in if they were equipped and qualified to use lower minimums. Ontario is a pretty common alternate for San Diego, Van Nuys, and Burbank.
@@1101sapphire Actually, that is Ontario. If they were on approach to runway 9, Liberty Station would have been on the left side of the plane. P.S. Liberty Station is still in the city of San Diego, just like La Jolla.
I flew on a British Airways 747 from New Delhi to London in 2013. We had to do 4 go arounds due to how bad the weather was. After the fourth attempt, the pilots told us that we were diverting to another airport. We landed at Dublin and I will never forget that crazy day.
Great video with a rare runway 9 approach and not one but two go arounds at SAN. Nice view of the city under the marine layer at night before finally diverting to ONT. nice job 👍🏻
Rare that no announcements made by the flight crew. Or perhaps just edited in the video. Ontario seems a strange diversion, but then again, perhaps that was the best option.
Used to live in San Diego. I was once on a United flight that took of towards inland (runway 9). It was in bad weather and I didn't get the sensation that we were climbing quickly. But we made it to Denver.
Thrust reverser sleeve opens to divert large amounts of air laterally, which hits the fuselage of the plane. the sound you hear is air hitting the fuselage walls really hard.
Does the airport not have facilities for CAT IIIB?I would of thought that would be the obvious choice for a second attempt if they lost of sight of the RWY at DH on the first.
it’s interesting because the pilot said that the aircraft on final behind us was able to successfully land, but there was another Delta 737 that was in the same boat as us that evening (diverted). Both our United flight and the Delta flight ended up in Ontario…I do have a feeling that there was some pilot discretion made on the approach, but can’t speak on whether there actually exists CATIII equipment. I’d think KSAN would have something of sorts considering they were coming in on rnwy 9 instead of the usual rnwy 27.
If an approach just says "ILS" that is Cat 1. They have to use Runway 9 anytime the ceiling drops under 600 feet, which is the limit on the RNAV RNP 27. 27 has terrible minimums because of the buildings and terrain.
What happens to the passengers when a flight gets diverted? I’ve been wondering about this for ages. Do they bus you back to your intended destination, or give you accommodation and get you on the next available flight back when the weather conditions are more favourable?
they didn't give any compensation since the situation wasn't in "their control." There was a Delta flight that was in line for approach after us, and also diverted to the same location. I am told that the airlines would compensate under some circumstances, but weather was not part of the criteria. We were on our own.
Jj Ma: Usually when SAN is foggy, LAX will likely be too. In diverting flights, other flights may have diverted too & there may not have been room to land @ LAX. By the way, ONT is in Riverside, which is even closer to SAN than LAX. U're lucky not to have diverted to PHX or LAS!
Dam...that sucks that U got diverted to Ontario. For the Record Ontario is in the Inland Empire which is not part of Los Angeles County. Nice Video. Thanks for Sharing. 😎✌️
Any other videos in my channel look like knockoffs to you? you’ve noted two already 😎. I guess my camera holding abilities are just so good, that you are confused.
I haven’t followed the latest flight sim graphics for years. So if flight sims are looking like this nowadays, then that is amazing! unfortunately I don’t have a sim setup at all, let alone one like this. I shot this in 2015 on a Canon DSLR. the video is only in 8-bit 1080p, which I know by today’s standards doesn’t really yield a lot of detail especially in low light. I’ll be sure to invest in a better camera just for you next time 😉.
They did it on purpose because they had a legitimate reason, that being the cloud everywhere that did not allow them visibility of the runway at minimum altitude.
What I don't understand is why they automatically think, oh we lost the runway lets go around, there's a reason they fly an ILS approach, and minimums go all the way down to 250ft on runway 9. I had a flight cancelled because of this bullshit.
RHCP9181 Yea considering it was rnwy 9, definitely ILS..in this case I think it was just a matter of personal judgment on the captain's part, and what he was comfortable with. I'm not a pilot though so I don't know the exact protocol. And yes the whole experience was rather inconvenient.
You're absolutely right, except on the ILS for runway 9, minimums go down to a couple hundred feet, which is way past Point Loma, the problem is like the fellow above said, it's personal judgement. A lot of pilots will not even bother going to minimums because they think they won't see the runway, in which they actually would, of course you wouldn't know until you fly it down to minimums. There's no safety hazard going to minimums, thats why each runway has it. So in this case like you said, twice, this crew saw the fog hovering in between Point Loma and Mt. Soledad and decided twice before even hitting minimums to break the approach. Probably not something you want to hear but most pilots get nervous flying into San Diego when runway 9 operations are in use, because the only time they use it is when the marine layer comes in during June Gloom or during certain seasons when the ocean is warmer. So when pilots don't think they can continue, even though they could, they decide to divert and cost the company more money, and people's time.
ILS isn't an automatic get out of jail card. Depends what type of conditions are around and how heavy and low the fog is. My airline has a very detailed list of what we have to do in a case like this. Just be glad that you cans tep out of the aircraft is what I say to passengers who complain about my decision of diverting or going around.
For those on that flight that got upset, the crew has 2 choices. This crew followed the rules: no clear view of the runway at DH (decision height which would be 200 feet AGL), then you go around. There are some brave pilots that did not follow the rules and have taken passengers and themselves to Heaven at a high rate of speed.
Usually for a CAT III ILS the minimums would be around 50' instead of 200 on a CAT I. But SAN is only a CAT I ILS for RWY 09, and no ILS for 27.
@@PilotBossify Actually the aircraft also needs to be able to do a CAT III approach.
@@PilotBossify American's don't have autoland either. The HUD is considered the replacement.
@@tedsaylor6016 CAT I only, no autoland.
There are old pilots, & bold pilots. But there are no old, bold pilots. What’s forgotten is there’s the small matter of a high rise parking deck just across the street from the threshold
to hear those beautiful CFM engines roar back to back is symphony for me :)
The pilots must’ve loved the CFM roar so they went around twice :)
To be fair I would have done it too, but 4 ;)
thats an optimistic way of looking at it , but they may not have had much choice actually , as far as the actual runway - visual - range was concerned ,
This is the most beautiful go around video on youtube..
Thanks!
Blair Group wait what 😂
@@jonjma 😃hey I saw my house from up there!
@@jonjma Awesome capture! May I feature these go arounds in one of my next episodes? Of course with a link back to your original video. All the best to you!
Great video! Our San Diego marine layer( fog ) can get crazy thick. Glad you made it somewhere safe. Respect to the camera owner for holding it still. 😊
great job by the pilots, safety always has to come first regardless of any inconveniences
The roar and the cloud lit up by the city, perfect! 😎
SAN has always been a challenge to dispatch and fly into due a combination of the terrain and obstructions, both of which result in the poor approach minimums to runway 27 and to a lesser extent to runway 09. Runway 27 is used for arrivals most of the time, but there is no ILS approach to that runway due to the terrain. The LOCalizer approach has a MDA (not DH) of about 700-2, and when the marine stratus commonly rolls in, one usually has the reported surface visibility for 27, but with a ceiling below 700 feet, the descending aircraft never sees the runway and goes missed. The CAT-I ILS to 09 (no CAT-II or CAT-III available) is better, with minimums 300-3/4 RVR 4000, but it’s a far cry from the various CAT-I mins at LAX (200-1/2 RVR 2400, and the RVR can go lower if the particular airline has it authorized in its Ops Specs.) Complicating SAN matters further is that airport can be below landing mins for 27 about above mins for 09. Takeoff performance weights are lower for 09 due heading for the rising terrain, so a common practice by ATC in such situations is to put arrival traffic for 09 into holding (even though 09 is above landing mins) and use the time to flush the airport of departures, since 27 has better weights. Then they’ll freeze departures on 27, and land arrivals on 09, as long as it’s above landing mins. This situation can repeat as long as there’s still traffic, and the weather cooperates.
There was some talk years ago about making Miramar MCAS (NKX) a joint-use base and moving all Lindbergh traffic over there, and redevelop the former SAN site into marina/condo use. For various reasons, it never happened, and it’s a shame, since would have been better operationally. Parallel runways, 24R at 12,000 feet in length, CAT-I mins of 200-1/2. Install RVR equipment, some better approach lighting and upgrade the ILS to CAT-II and CAT-III, and then you’d have a true all-weather airport.
SAN has character though, it's pretty much the only airport in the USA where you are landing literally in the center of the city.
Had the exact same happen to me about 25 years ago. Flew from London > Wash DC > San Diego. We hit heavy storms and severe turbulence as I’d never encountered before or since coming into SAN. We tried to land twice coming in from the west and couldn’t do it. At one point I thought we were goners, it was terrifying. We couldn’t see a thing but yes, items shifted in flight and overhead bins popped open, stuff fell in the galley, carts rolled. Luckily just small injuries. Someone’s camera fell on my head after one bad bounce.
Eventually we were diverted to Ontario. Same situation - didn’t know if we had a gate, the fuel, etc., so we parked on the tarmac for a long time. First question everyone had: “Are the dogs ok?” (2 large dogs had been loaded in cargo in DC). They were. But people were badly shaken up.
My boss and I were on that flight, we both worked in aerospace and so went up to talk to the pilots while we waited forever (of course, this was pre-9/11). Essentially they relied on autopilot a lot because of the turbulence. But they got us down safely. AND flew us back to SAN! They ran a movie all the way down, through landing and into the gate to calm people down cuz was still bumpy! We got into SAN well after midnight. Felt like I’d been on a plane for days. Never was so glad to see my own bed that night!
Do you remember what kind of plane it was?
Fantastic and very informative! I listened on a scanner to a United Airlines pilot do at least two go-arounds trying to land at Guatemala City and then eventually divert toward San Salvador. Yes, good job holding the camera still.
That roar! Great vid.
Ontario? No wonder they tried twice.
California not Canada 🇨🇦 lol
Oh. I misread that.
Ontario, California is still a pretty far-away diversion.
@@kingstonbadman I think that makes it worse…
Those CFM's sounded beautiful.
Grew up in San Diego. And out of all my years of flying in and out of Linbergh Field I only landed on runway 9 a few times. And only experienced maybe 2 go arounds at minimums and 0 diversions. That was a pretty rare experience you had there. But that turned into a long flight Newark to San Diego to Ontario.
Lived in SD 33 years and never landed on runway 9. That inversion layer, causes many planes to divert to Ontario or Phoenix. Not all airlines, like SWA are equipped w/the avionics to land in poor visibility. Seen quite a few aborted landings but not 2 from the same plane. Super video.
SAN doesn't have anything resembling an approach that would require special avionics. The lowest minimums approach is the ILS 9, which can be achieved in a steam gauge light single with a VOR Nav radio with glideslope.
Actually, no glideslope, so it's only a localizer approach. That's the problem.
Whoops ... I'm wrong ... the localizer is to 27
Landed on 9 twice in the last 15 years, 27 a few hundred times.
Lived in SAN since 2013, took off from 9 once. All other flights were 27.
SAN actually (Now) has two ILS approaches to RWY 09, the ILS-Z and the ILS-Y. The ILS-Z has better minimums (200-1/2mi RVR1800) but entails having a minimum climb gradient in the event of a missed approach. If one can't meet that climb gradient, the minimums for the ILS-Y are 300-3/4mi RVR 4000. If you can't manage the ILS-Y approach due to the weather, you're likely diverting somewhere like ONT, LAS, PHX, or LAX (the latter assuming they're also not fogged in). In 30+ of dispatching flights to SAN, if I had a buck for everyone I've diverted somewhere, I'd be rich! ;)
As an aircraft dispatcher (now retired) I always found SAN ops during "fog season" to be among the most challenging and problematic. First, fuel load calculations are made in advance of departure from XYZ, thus making fuel and alternate selection heavily reliant on the TAF for SAN, which was commonly proven inaccurate by the time of actual flight arrival into the SAN terminal area. Monitoring the trend of satellite airports in the area like NKX, CRQ, SDM, MYF, SEE, and most of all, NZY and NRS, was imperative. Depending upon what the winds/baro pressures were at any airport(s) that were "upwind" of SAN, the arrival of cigs/viz going below at SAN itself was often predictable (but not always.) Another issue was the disparate landing mins between the LOC to 27 and the ILS to 09. At the time, I recall the LOC 27 was 600-1-3/4, and ILS 09 was 355-1 RVR 5000, which was nowhere near the "normal" Cat-I ILS mins of 200-1/2 RVR RVR 1800 or RVR 2400. Complicating the scenario further was the fact that one could below 27 mins, ABOVE 09 mins, but encounter arrival holding for 09. Why? At the time. takeoff weights off runway 09 were much lower than those of 27, fue to 09's takeoff path towards rising terrain and obstacles. SAN ATC's solution would be to shutoff arrivals to 09 while they flushed out departures that needed 27. Then they'd stop 27 departures (until a que built up) and run arrivals to 09 (as long as it was still above landing mins. I've been retired for going on 5 years now, and I still miss the challenges.. ;)
Wow that sounds like a logistical nightmare! the SD sloping terrain definitely does not help.
@@jonjma Awesome stuff! May I feature these go arounds in one of my next episodes? Of course with a link back to your original video. All the best to you!
Double go roun is rare! Subscribed
Racked my brain for a sec. Runway 9 is rarely used, 9 means 90° East heading to Runway
Better safe than sorry. Good going United pilots.
I was honestly surprised that they attempted that a 2nd time. From the looks of the first attempt, looks like the fog had just beatin y'all there.
Great video! Not unusual weather for SoCal airports near the water. Pilots did a great job - especially since they were doing a low energy/high drag go around from minimums which are just 200' and RVR 1800' on the ILS 9 Z approach. Agree with commenters that other aircraft could have made it in if they were equipped and qualified to use lower minimums. Ontario is a pretty common alternate for San Diego, Van Nuys, and Burbank.
United has no facilities at Van Nuys. No airlines do.
7:40 The city at night is so colorful and beautiful. Liked and Subbed done.
JetlinerSpotting SGN That’s not the city it is Liberty Station
@@1101sapphire Actually, that is Ontario. If they were on approach to runway 9, Liberty Station would have been on the left side of the plane. P.S. Liberty Station is still in the city of San Diego, just like La Jolla.
I flew on a British Airways 747 from New Delhi to London in 2013. We had to do 4 go arounds due to how bad the weather was. After the fourth attempt, the pilots told us that we were diverting to another airport. We landed at Dublin and I will never forget that crazy day.
Lived in SD 22 yrs and landed on Rwy 9 tonight for the 1st time. Weird coming in over Pt Loma.
Rob Weber runway 9 has ILS, 27 is All RNAV. These pilots had to perform a 9 approach due to Low-IFR
Great video with a rare runway 9 approach and not one but two go arounds at SAN. Nice view of the city under the marine layer at night before finally diverting to ONT. nice job 👍🏻
Rare that no announcements made by the flight crew. Or perhaps just edited in the video. Ontario seems a strange diversion, but then again, perhaps that was the best option.
loved the max reversie thrust
They did at the end of the video.
City looked absolutely stunning
Used to live in San Diego. I was once on a United flight that took of towards inland (runway 9). It was in bad weather and I didn't get the sensation that we were climbing quickly. But we made it to Denver.
Glad to hear you made it safely!
😕excuse me,why do planes roar when landing?
Thrust reverser sleeve opens to divert large amounts of air laterally, which hits the fuselage of the plane. the sound you hear is air hitting the fuselage walls really hard.
What was causing that whirring sound as the plane initiated the go-around?
It's just the high rpm buzzsaw sounding noise the engine makes at takeoff and go around. Only heard in front of the engine.
Dan Rodrigues toga power ( takeoff/go around)
Long live united airlines!
Thanks for this great video!
So what happens with the passengers? Do they have to all rent cars & drive 2hrs to SD? How does that work?
PokerRun388 wow, it’s almost as if you were there! Yep. That’s exactly what happened. Unfortunately.
Superb video
Epic video, that was amazing
Going once
Going twice
Sold to pilots for double go around
Does the airport not have facilities for CAT IIIB?I would of thought that would be the obvious choice for a second attempt if they lost of sight of the RWY at DH on the first.
it’s interesting because the pilot said that the aircraft on final behind us was able to successfully land, but there was another Delta 737 that was in the same boat as us that evening (diverted). Both our United flight and the Delta flight ended up in Ontario…I do have a feeling that there was some pilot discretion made on the approach, but can’t speak on whether there actually exists CATIII equipment. I’d think KSAN would have something of sorts considering they were coming in on rnwy 9 instead of the usual rnwy 27.
San Diego doesn’t even have an ILS for that runway
Must have made two go arounds and the third time got diverted to another airport?
yes!
no announcement from the pilot?
Joel T there was, but it got cut out in this video. It was a few minutes after the go-around.
Aviate, navigate, communicate
No CAT III equipment on this airport/aircraft?
There's no cat3 in sd. Too much terrain for such low minimums
Interesting situation! Cool video
Does San Diego have Cat II or Cat II capabilities?
good question. i have no idea.
Comments are wrong. San Diego doesn't even have Cat I. We have no such approaches.
Sketch I thought runway 9 had some sort of cat approach. Since they always use 09 when there’s low visibility
No, we have an ILS that goes down to DA 258 and an RNAV that goes down to DA 262. But no CAT approaches.
If an approach just says "ILS" that is Cat 1. They have to use Runway 9 anytime the ceiling drops under 600 feet, which is the limit on the RNAV RNP 27. 27 has terrible minimums because of the buildings and terrain.
Spooky stuff! Great video. Thanks for posting.
Amazing video! what camera & lens did you use?
Canon 5d3, 17-40mm
Why did he say welcome to ONT, if this is supposed to be SAN?
They diverted
The odds of being on a flight with a double go-around are roughly 1 in 10,000. Lucky you.
haha. i didn't feel very lucky at the time. But hindsight, yes it was definitely a rare event to be a part of!
What happens to the passengers when a flight gets diverted? I’ve been wondering about this for ages. Do they bus you back to your intended destination, or give you accommodation and get you on the next available flight back when the weather conditions are more favourable?
they didn't give any compensation since the situation wasn't in "their control." There was a Delta flight that was in line for approach after us, and also diverted to the same location. I am told that the airlines would compensate under some circumstances, but weather was not part of the criteria. We were on our own.
@@jonjma I wondered if that was the case...pretty rough for the passengers.
If you don't land on the 3rd attempt, it's mandatory to divert to another airport.
Wrong! The second approach is not San Diego.
Yes it is. You can see the lights on the path at Liberty Station. It was a Rwy 9 approach
nice video and wow a double missed approach!! How long were you on the ground in ONT?
we were diverted permanently
Jj Ma How did you guys go back to SD?
why ontario of all places to divert?
The pilot's original plan was LAX I believe, but tbh I have no idea.
Jj Ma: Usually when SAN is foggy, LAX will likely be too. In diverting flights, other flights may have diverted too & there may not have been room to land @ LAX. By the way, ONT is in Riverside, which is even closer to SAN than LAX. U're lucky not to have diverted to PHX or LAS!
Jj Ma LAX is the usual alternate airport plan but pilots will divert to ontario If KLAX has the same fog min conditions as KSAN at the time.
ONT is close to the desert, so usually there isn't any fog to adversely affect visibility.
When LAX, LGB and the rest off so cal are foggy I usually list ONT as an alternate. Alot of that fog is a marine layer. Ontario is farther inland.
Dam...that sucks that U got diverted to Ontario. For the Record Ontario is in the Inland Empire which is not part of Los Angeles County. Nice Video. Thanks for Sharing. 😎✌️
That ceiling seems to be like 200 ft agl damn
Noah Weston base must’ve been like 90’ AGL
Noah Weston pilots must’ve listened to ATIS before and drastically changed to well below minimums
Does United not allow cat iii
Noah Weston this is a CAT II Landing. Meaning runway has to be in sight above or at minimums if not it’s a missed app
kevin mere oh ok
Back in 2009, I was on a double go around from Phoenix and like you, we also diverted to Ontario.
That sounds absolutely terrible.
I rather be there late than dead. Good job by the pilots.
Damn great video
Incredible!
safe landing at alt better than no landing
wow what a f**ked up weather conditions
Since when do Pilots land on runway 9 at KSAN?
Always
not often. this was the only time I had ever experienced it in my life.
Great vid
GreatJob
Turn on the fog lights...LOL
Looks like xp11
Adrian Wulff not the other way around? 😛
Not even close.
Looks like a FS alright
Looks like a FS.
Any other videos in my channel look like knockoffs to you? you’ve noted two already 😎.
I guess my camera holding abilities are just so good, that you are confused.
@@jonjma I’m an old FS enthusiast and I know a FS when I see one. I must give it to you it’s an almost perfect FS. Setup though 😀
The texture close to the ground gives it up for me
I haven’t followed the latest flight sim graphics for years. So if flight sims are looking like this nowadays, then that is amazing! unfortunately I don’t have a sim setup at all, let alone one like this.
I shot this in 2015 on a Canon DSLR. the video is only in 8-bit 1080p, which I know by today’s standards doesn’t really yield a lot of detail especially in low light. I’ll be sure to invest in a better camera just for you next time 😉.
@@jonjma yeah sure 😉
On the go!
Magnificent!
Yeah, Ontario - sure didn't look like San Diego.
Yeah for someone who knows KSAN like the back of there hand I could tell.
pretty!
A part wants to believe they have a legitimate reason to go around, another part of me wants to believe they did it on purpose
They did it on purpose because they had a legitimate reason, that being the cloud everywhere that did not allow them visibility of the runway at minimum altitude.
@@mmtot You gotta admit it, the powering up of those engines are really satisfying... 😀
No ILS SAN
Oh wow! aborted landing :/
It’s called a go around
LOL@the one loser who started to clap and no one else did.
Nobody clapped
yea someone did try to clap. And immediately stopped. a lot of unamused folks that evening.
What I don't understand is why they automatically think, oh we lost the runway lets go around, there's a reason they fly an ILS approach, and minimums go all the way down to 250ft on runway 9. I had a flight cancelled because of this bullshit.
RHCP9181 Yea considering it was rnwy 9, definitely ILS..in this case I think it was just a matter of personal judgment on the captain's part, and what he was comfortable with. I'm not a pilot though so I don't know the exact protocol. And yes the whole experience was rather inconvenient.
You're absolutely right, except on the ILS for runway 9, minimums go down to a couple hundred feet, which is way past Point Loma, the problem is like the fellow above said, it's personal judgement. A lot of pilots will not even bother going to minimums because they think they won't see the runway, in which they actually would, of course you wouldn't know until you fly it down to minimums. There's no safety hazard going to minimums, thats why each runway has it. So in this case like you said, twice, this crew saw the fog hovering in between Point Loma and Mt. Soledad and decided twice before even hitting minimums to break the approach. Probably not something you want to hear but most pilots get nervous flying into San Diego when runway 9 operations are in use, because the only time they use it is when the marine layer comes in during June Gloom or during certain seasons when the ocean is warmer. So when pilots don't think they can continue, even though they could, they decide to divert and cost the company more money, and people's time.
ILS isn't an automatic get out of jail card. Depends what type of conditions are around and how heavy and low the fog is. My airline has a very detailed list of what we have to do in a case like this. Just be glad that you cans tep out of the aircraft is what I say to passengers who complain about my decision of diverting or going around.
It was an ILS due to fog where. Better be inconvenienced but be ALIVE
Rather BE ALIVE, go around 5 times than be diverted to ALRERNATE which in many cases is LAX