Another unreported near-CFIT
 

UA1722 Maui-SFO 18th December:

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ede9750490.jpg

Wow,,,that was close ...

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-s...22-close-call/

Dang! It was a Boeing flown by US major with pilots having 25 Khrs combined so we cannot went our very strong feel... I mean: opin... I wanted to say: facts about how Airbus, everyone except the whi... I mean: first world aviators and youn... actually: inexperienced are just a menace to aviation. We can't rant about the weather either, lest we be mistaken as deluded non-thinking fools believing that global warming is real and not just what global conspiracy of lizard-people wants us to believe.

Provided FR24 data are reliable (which they have proven to be more often than not), that must've been a heckuwa rollercoaster ride. Were there any reports of "Scared passenger: we all thought we're gonna die!" in any of the local rags?

From another website,,

A message from a friend:
Gusty takeoff, heavy rain, heavy plane, short runway, and at night. Used flaps 20.
At accel height, CA (PF) called for flaps 5. FO went through the gate and selected flaps 1. When climb rate dissipated, CA looked over to see the lever and unknowingly banked over as well. CA became disoriented and neither pilot noticed the dive until the GPWS warning. 2.7Gs at 775’ AGL to recover.

avorite expletive

At least is was apparently reported to the company :ok:

According to Flight Radar the incident occurred at 1449 local time so daylight and there were no gusts reported in the metar.

Pilots 'received additional training'.

Ya think? >8000 FPM dive, waited to hear the GPW to recover, within 800' from the water. Finally, advanced technology saves one.

There's no appreciable variation in the track during the event, suggesting that there can't have been much in the way of a bank for any length of time.

The height quoted by FR24 is uncorrected for QNH - the actual minimum height would appear to have been around 150' lower than that.

2.75g, Jesus Christ, outside of the G Limits for any Passenger Jet and it continued to SFO?

.. 8000+fpm descend from 2200ft and recover by 800ft..?? Impossible in a B777. . Any pilot could tell that something doesn’t add up here..

Fly safe,
B-757

Vertical rate (RoD/RoC) is a second-order ADS-B parameter and should be treated with caution in any regime other than a uniform climb/descent.

That said, the elapsed time for the upset from 2200 feet, down to 775 feet and back to 2200 was approximately 28 seconds, so unless doubt is being cast on the instantaneous height values or timestamps, that does indeed appear to be what happened.

United 777 "dives" after takeoff from OGG
 

Haven’t seen much about this. United flight 1722 from OGG to SFO experienced a significant drop in altitude after taking off from Maui on December 18. Heavy rain at that time - pilots recovered about 800 feet over the water - then proceeded to SFO. Must have been quite a ride.

More here:

https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-s...22-close-call/


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....2513eb535.jpeg

I was reading the article and was surprised at how reasonable and informed the writing was. Then I saw it was Jon Ostrower; he knows his stuff and doesn't sensationalize.
2.7Gs in a 777 had to be exciting. Weather was bad -- windshear?

Why wasn't this reported on Dec 18 and why did the crew continue to SFO? What does the NTSB say?

For those interested, Juan's comments



This comment was posted below the video.

QUOTE:
jdorenbecher

Former pilot and I was on that flight on that day. Shortly after TO the pilot slightly retarded the engines. I noticed it but it was subtle. Then we started sinking. The aircraft did not nose over into a dive. It felt like we were hit with a downdraft. Many screamed and the crew increased thrust and recovered and climbed up to FL39 and smooth air. I normally don't get too bothered by turbulence but I knew we were very close to the water having only been in the air for slightly more than a minute.

Does Maui have non standard AA? Should be clean well before 2200ft. And selecting flap 1 instead of 5 might not even be noticeable - you’re accelerating anyway. In that weather why not use the autopilot?? Also, not unreasonable to continue the flight to destination. What advantage is there of doing a diversion back to bad weather and maybe even having to dump fuel?

A former pilot but calls it FL39?

I note that the Jon Ostrower account states that the aircraft arrived in SFO, did a two and a half hour turnaround and then departed to ORD. I have not read the MM for a triple but I would have thought that a 2.7g positive would have required more than a 2.5 hour inspection.

Reminds me of the cartoon of a ground engineer climbing over a farm fence into a field in which two pilots sit amongst a yard sale of smoking aircraft parts and shouts to them, "Don't put it in the book, it's due out in an hour"

I'd be interested to see the back of the envelope with the "2.7g" calculation, given that we know it didn't come from the FDR.

I'm not saying it's wrong, I'd just like to see the maths.

Well, the math for the vertical acceleration is simple: -8600 to +8600 fpm (diff = 94 m/s) in (13 s) squared needs appr. 0.6 g, + earth pull makes 1.6 g vertical ballpark. This is of course only a very rough avg. estimate because vert. speeds are secondary data derived from diff between individual ADSB altitude transmissions, therefore peak acceleration could be significantly more.

After a bit of pencil-sharpening, and subject to the aforementioned caveats about instantaneous vertical rates, a bit of smoothing produces an average vertical acceleration of 2.77g over the 7.2 seconds between 1050' on the way down and 1025' on the way up, so pretty close to the estimate from the unidentified analysts mentioned in the original link.

The AViation Herald take on the incident….”From my editorial point of view it is clear however, that the occurrence did not happen along the lines of the report that surfaced on Sunday.”

Just saw this in the NY Post. Scariest part about it might be that the pilots were both so experienced...

How do we know that the g figure didn't come from the FDR? I'm including FOQA/FDM/QAR data as equivalent to FDR.

Classic microburst - fortunately with enough altitude to recover.

Well I inferred that from the comment in the link from post #12.

But you're right, I could be wrong and those "people familiar with the incident" might be basing their comment on FDR data.

In that case, I'm going to have to try extra hard not to feel smug about the figure I calculated. :O

The Rate of Descent achieved is very close to that of AF447 when it was stalled. The published fact that both pilots have been retrained suggest that a stall occurred rather than Mother Nature interfering.

Why would you keep quiet about a microburst? :8

Here is one passenger's account of what happened - it is certainly described as a "nose down" event. Stall recovery?

"Rod Williams II said he was sitting near the back of United Flight 1722 with his wife and kids on December 18 when it suddenly came down. The plane, which had been headed to San Francisco from Hawaii when it found itself in an intense storm, proceeded to go into a 'dramatic, nose-down' dive for about eight to 10 seconds, creating mass pandemonium in the cabin, Williams said."

"About ten minutes later, and there was an announcement that assured the passengers the event had passed. "Someone from the cockpit got on the intercom and said, 'Alright, folks, you probably felt a couple G's on that one, but everything's gonna be OK,' said Williams, who is the first passenger to provide a personal account of the incident. ''We're gonna be alright,'' Williams credited the United staffer saying."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-ordeal.html

Wouldn’t there be some buffeting just before a stall? Just SLF here looking to be enlightened.

The data suggests the FPA was around -15°.

My read of Part 830 is that this event does not meet the definition of “serious incident.” Therefore, no reporting is required to NTSB unless NTSB initiates the request. Appears today’s Tweet documents such a request.

That's correct. Although the event certainly falls within the Annex 13 definition of a Serious Incident.

Annex 13 even provides, as an example of an event that would be so classified, "Controlled flight into terrain only marginally avoided".

Read previous comments. Cause is known

Hi, how about a date-and time check ?
Just 4 hours before this incident, HA 35 had the severe turbulence that injured many.

Both cases are weather related, I´d say.

NO. NOT AT ALL

Nice job bringing race into a discussion where it clearly doesn't belong. The Captain of this flight actually was not "whi", as you say, but the investigation will fortunately proceed without no attention paid to that.
They don't call it global warming any more, btw. Because it's hasn't been warming for awhile now. They call it climate change.

It was reported immediately after landing through the proper channels.

and many other typical prejudices that build a certain very ugly but well-known narrative.

Lost on you in the translation is the posted sarcasm, mocking that very mindset you cannot unsee and neither do we. All on the same team, peace.

</drift>