Narrative:

While on the locke 9 arrival we were given several vectors both toward and away from the airport. In addition, we were asked to maintain 180 KIAS which required 5 degree flaps and considerably increased fuel flow. Twice in the vectoring sequences we were reclred to altitudes which we had been maintaining for some time. At first, since we heard little other traffic, we felt approach clearance was imminent. When given the reduction to 180 KIAS while outbnd away from the airport however I requested 'for planning purposes, what # are we?' he replied, '16.' I was so taken aback I asked him to repeat, and when he confirmed '16' I requested an EAC time. After a short 'standby' he came back with an EAC approximately 9 mins later. To his credit this figure proved fairly accurate. Our total delay was approximately 18-20 mins at 180 KIAS. This sequence of events raises several questions which I request be answered if possible in writing by bay TRACON. First: why were we being vectored in apparent random fashion with 16+ other arrs rather than holding? Since most of the other traffic was an another frequency I had 0 information as to our relationship to one another. Is this practice merely a device to give the impression of 'no delays at sfo?' second: if in fact we are being delayed by means of the 'vectoring device' why do they not routinely have EAC's? I burn fuel whether I'm holding or vectoring. Third: if this 'device' requires that aircraft be reduced to speeds requiring the use of flaps, our planned holding time is reduced with increased fuel burn. Planned holding fuels should be increased for this possibility. Fourth: does the use of this 'device' increase the workload of controller to the point they forget our altitudes? Being cleared to an altitude you've been holding for several mins does not inspire confidence. Fifth: most importantly, I would like a written explanation as to bay's expectations of those 16+ airplanes in the event of a bay power failure, communications breakdown or possible facility evaluation due to earthquake or fire. If we (the aircraft) are in holding patterns we can manage an orderly dispersal to alternates, etc, with the knowledge that we have protected airspace from which to originate such action. No such option exists in the scenario employed by bay on this and many other occasions. This procedure does not meet the standards for safeguards. Our passenger deserve and should be abandoned in favor of the holding pattern concept. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter restated his concerns re: fuel burnout at reduced speeds and lack of contingency procedures in event of radio failure. Reporter feels he would be more comfortable in a holding pattern knowing what everyone else was doing. Alternative to keep him happy would be more communication with TRACON to keep him better advised of what they were doing and length of estimated delays.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: REPORTER STATES HE PREFERS HOLDING IN PATTERN AND STACK RATHER THAN DELAY VECTORS APCHING DESTINATION.

Narrative: WHILE ON THE LOCKE 9 ARR WE WERE GIVEN SEVERAL VECTORS BOTH TOWARD AND AWAY FROM THE ARPT. IN ADDITION, WE WERE ASKED TO MAINTAIN 180 KIAS WHICH REQUIRED 5 DEG FLAPS AND CONSIDERABLY INCREASED FUEL FLOW. TWICE IN THE VECTORING SEQUENCES WE WERE RECLRED TO ALTS WHICH WE HAD BEEN MAINTAINING FOR SOME TIME. AT FIRST, SINCE WE HEARD LITTLE OTHER TFC, WE FELT APCH CLRNC WAS IMMINENT. WHEN GIVEN THE REDUCTION TO 180 KIAS WHILE OUTBND AWAY FROM THE ARPT HOWEVER I REQUESTED 'FOR PLANNING PURPOSES, WHAT # ARE WE?' HE REPLIED, '16.' I WAS SO TAKEN ABACK I ASKED HIM TO REPEAT, AND WHEN HE CONFIRMED '16' I REQUESTED AN EAC TIME. AFTER A SHORT 'STANDBY' HE CAME BACK WITH AN EAC APPROX 9 MINS LATER. TO HIS CREDIT THIS FIGURE PROVED FAIRLY ACCURATE. OUR TOTAL DELAY WAS APPROX 18-20 MINS AT 180 KIAS. THIS SEQUENCE OF EVENTS RAISES SEVERAL QUESTIONS WHICH I REQUEST BE ANSWERED IF POSSIBLE IN WRITING BY BAY TRACON. FIRST: WHY WERE WE BEING VECTORED IN APPARENT RANDOM FASHION WITH 16+ OTHER ARRS RATHER THAN HOLDING? SINCE MOST OF THE OTHER TFC WAS AN ANOTHER FREQ I HAD 0 INFO AS TO OUR RELATIONSHIP TO ONE ANOTHER. IS THIS PRACTICE MERELY A DEVICE TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION OF 'NO DELAYS AT SFO?' SECOND: IF IN FACT WE ARE BEING DELAYED BY MEANS OF THE 'VECTORING DEVICE' WHY DO THEY NOT ROUTINELY HAVE EAC'S? I BURN FUEL WHETHER I'M HOLDING OR VECTORING. THIRD: IF THIS 'DEVICE' REQUIRES THAT ACFT BE REDUCED TO SPDS REQUIRING THE USE OF FLAPS, OUR PLANNED HOLDING TIME IS REDUCED WITH INCREASED FUEL BURN. PLANNED HOLDING FUELS SHOULD BE INCREASED FOR THIS POSSIBILITY. FOURTH: DOES THE USE OF THIS 'DEVICE' INCREASE THE WORKLOAD OF CTLR TO THE POINT THEY FORGET OUR ALTS? BEING CLRED TO AN ALT YOU'VE BEEN HOLDING FOR SEVERAL MINS DOES NOT INSPIRE CONFIDENCE. FIFTH: MOST IMPORTANTLY, I WOULD LIKE A WRITTEN EXPLANATION AS TO BAY'S EXPECTATIONS OF THOSE 16+ AIRPLANES IN THE EVENT OF A BAY PWR FAILURE, COMS BREAKDOWN OR POSSIBLE FAC EVALUATION DUE TO EARTHQUAKE OR FIRE. IF WE (THE ACFT) ARE IN HOLDING PATTERNS WE CAN MANAGE AN ORDERLY DISPERSAL TO ALTERNATES, ETC, WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE PROTECTED AIRSPACE FROM WHICH TO ORIGINATE SUCH ACTION. NO SUCH OPTION EXISTS IN THE SCENARIO EMPLOYED BY BAY ON THIS AND MANY OTHER OCCASIONS. THIS PROC DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS FOR SAFEGUARDS. OUR PAX DESERVE AND SHOULD BE ABANDONED IN FAVOR OF THE HOLDING PATTERN CONCEPT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR RESTATED HIS CONCERNS RE: FUEL BURNOUT AT REDUCED SPDS AND LACK OF CONTINGENCY PROCS IN EVENT OF RADIO FAILURE. RPTR FEELS HE WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE IN A HOLDING PATTERN KNOWING WHAT EVERYONE ELSE WAS DOING. ALTERNATIVE TO KEEP HIM HAPPY WOULD BE MORE COM WITH TRACON TO KEEP HIM BETTER ADVISED OF WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND LENGTH OF ESTIMATED DELAYS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.