Near midair over SFO

[Piper_Driver]

Sounds like a clean miss on ATC's part.

Small plane just misses jet taking off from SFO (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/30/BACC1CNHPS.DTL)

[protectthehornet]

I've seen two different reports...the trouble is that the area I think that is involved is all part of the airspace formerly known as a TCA.

So, was the single engine plane cleared into the TCA/B airspace or not?

And we should all look out the window. I've seen one report the single as a C182 and one as an Aeronca champ.

[mm43]

Missing from the news report is the substantive information issued by the NTSB, i.e.

At about 11:15 a.m. PDT on March 27, the crew of United Airlines Flight 889, a B777-222 (N216UA) destined for Beijing, China, carrying 251 passengers and a crew of 17, was cleared to takeoff from San Francisco International Airport (SFO) on runway 28L and climb to an initial altitude of 3,000 feet. The first officer, who was flying the aircraft, reported that after the landing gear was retracted and the jet was at an altitude of about 1,100 feet, [when] the tower controller reported traffic at his 1 o'clock position.

Immediately following the controller's advisory, the airplane's traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) issued an audible alert of "TRAFFIC TRAFFIC."

The pilots saw a light high wing airplane, an Aeronca 11AC (N9270E), in a hard left turn traveling from their 1 o'clock to 3 o'clock position. The first officer pushed the control column forward to level the airplane. Both crew members reported seeing only the underside of the Aeronca as it passed to within an estimated 200-300 feet of the 777.

TCAS then issued an "ADJUST VERTICAL SPEED" alert, followed by a "DESCEND, DESCEND" alert. The first officer complied and the flight continued to Beijing without further incident. mm43

[rcl7700]

Class-B ends at the shoreline on the pacific side of the peninsula (or at least it used to), not very far from the departure end of 28 L/R. I don't recall exactly, but I remember you could fly at about 700 ft as long as you remained west of the shoreline and be clear of Class B by a few hundred feet. It was very common to see planes following the shoreline, especially on weekends. On 120.5 I once heard a Virgin pilot complain about a traffic alert during takeoff to the tower controller, only to be told that the traffic was outside of Class B and there was nothing they could do about it.

It sounds like this plane did bust Bravo.

[MU3001A]

1500'

RunwayFinder - Aeronautical Charts - Flight Planning (http://www.runwayfinder.com/?loc=SFO)

[protectthehornet]

our intrepid united pilot was at 1100 feet when tower called him and he pushed forward on the stick with the tcas...

I've flown the coastal route in pipers as a GA pilot and ''shot the gap'' as an airline pilot...until the actual position is displayed on a chart, I think they were darn close to the airport when this happened...and not near the pacific shoreline.

there is a mountain nearby on the departure, mount san bruno ( you might see the words : south san francisco the industrial city, on it). hill all around.

1100 feet is pretty darn low...I guess, at the worst they were two miles off the departure end.

[172_driver]

Shortly after United's Flight 889 took off, an air traffic controller warned the pilot of a single-engine Cessna 182 to "maintain visual separation" from the larger plane - which was climbing at 500 feet - and to "pass behind that aircraft," according to a recording of the incident at liveatc.net

If this is true, it sounds like the Single Engine was in contact with ATC and presumably cleared to be where he was.

[Dan Winterland]

So it was a TA and not an RA. Doesn't sound too dramatic to me!

[PA-28-180]

If the GA guy was talking to Oakland center, then he HAD to be under positive control. Maybe he was doing the 'bay tour'.....or transitioning to the GA airport south of SFO, whose name totally escapes me as I type :sad:(I'm sure that PTH remembers it). :ok:

[rcl7700]

I remember that VFR traffic in Bravo was usually coming or going to Palo Alto or San Carlos towards Downtown San Francisco. If there were no departures from 28 L/R, your clearance into Bravo included instructions to remain southwest of 101 at all times. If there were departures from 28 L/R the clearance was to overfly the field. I think in both cases the altitude to hold was 3000ft.

Controllers were usually pretty good at keeping everyone far apart.

[None]

ADJUST VERTICAL SPEED" alert, followed by a "DESCEND, DESCEND

Aren't the above commands those of an RA and not TA?

[Airbubba]

So it was a TA and not an RA. Doesn't sound too dramatic to me!

Sure looks like an RA to me:

TCAS then issued an "ADJUST VERTICAL SPEED" alert, followed by a "DESCEND, DESCEND" alert. The first officer complied and the flight continued to Beijing without further incident.

[ion_berkley]

.or transitioning to the GA airport south of SFO, whose name totally escapes me as I type
San Carlos (SQL)

The highest points through the gap are about 600', San Bruno mountain is about 1200'

[Sykes83]

LiveATC has audio of the incident here (http://www.liveatc.net/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7413.0;attach=3554). The Cessna (not Aeronca ... not sure how the NTSB got the N-number wrong) based out of PAO was transitioning southbound west of the 101 at 1500 on a bravo clearance (very typical on a bay tour). The controller started to point the traffic out to each other, but by the time he told the Cessna to maintain visual separation, the 777 crew was already maneuvering to respond to the TCAS RA.

[mm43]

The http://liveatc.net (http://liveatc.net/) tape(s) appear(s) to have a glitch or two in them, but it is quite clear the lady flying the B777 - UA889 was not impressed. The controller remained calm and quite professional, continuing on handling traffic. "That set off the TCAS ......", and "We need to talk!", was her final comment. Daresay the NTSB will do that on her behalf.

mm43

[PA-28-180]

Thank you Ion Berkeley!! San Carlos was the one I was trying to remember...and SHOULD have considering how often I flew into there! :ugh:

The AP report of this is showing a picture of a 73, and then talking about a triple 7!! :mad:

[Dan Winterland]

Quote: "The Cessna pilot confirmed that the United jet "is in sight" and that the smaller plane would "pass behind him."

But moments later, as the jet reached 1,500 feet, its automated traffic collision avoidance system issued an audible warning of, "Traffic traffic."

That's when the pilot and first officer saw the Cessna making a hard left turn to the right of the airliner, the safety board said.

The first officer promptly leveled off the jet, and both crew members watched as the Cessna passed 1,500 feet to the side and 200 to 300 feet overhead, officials said."

Seems there are two different reports.

[protectthehornet]

well, its already been answered...yes San CArlos or Palo Alto...I've flown them both.

I knew a777 girl pilot at united...I wonder...but my old computer can't do that ATC site.

anyway...looks like ATC should have been a bit faster on the pointout. and for some of you who don't know, "101" refers to the freeway on the ground and an easy reference point for visual/pilotage. The same freeway goes all the way to the LA area where it becomes the ventura freeway. (with some gaps in freeway status)

I remind all pilots how difficult this departure is with terrain and very heavy airplanes with high deck angles.

[Seat62K]

Wasn't there a midair collision between a PSA 727 and a small aircraft near SFO in 1977 or 1978?

[samuelmj1]

The female pilot can be heard confirming a "strong TCAS message" later on during the recording!

[renfrew]

Seat62K,

Think that was San Diego.

[Trolle]

In the past I have instructed out of San Carlos for years, and flown that stretch countless times.

Common ATC clearance is to remain west of the 101 freeway with an altitude restriction. The GA aircraft had a Bravo clearance if he was in that area. The other route southbound would be to hug the coastline and dip below 700 feet (if my memory serves me right), but that is so far north of the airport that any airliners climbing out would not be a factor.

I usually tell my students that the safest place in busy airspace is directly over the airport as most planes are usually near the ground. I've flown directly over SFO a number of times to stay well away from arriving and departing traffic; just had to keep an eye on a go-around. Listening to ATC, having a mental picture of what is going on, and anticipating ahead of the aircraft sure helps, It is busy airspace, but the controllers are often reluctant to give a Bravo clearance if it is too crowded.

Good thing nothing happened and it can act as a reminder to GA pilots to be careful when in busy airspace.

[GlueBall]

Only if the Cessna had a working TCAS, would the UA jet's TCAS be able to issue an RA. :ooh:

[Capn Bloggs]

Only if the Cessna had a working TCAS, would the UA jet's TCAS be able to issue an RA.
The Cessna only needed to have a transponder for the 777 TCAS to issue an RA.

[LEGAL TENDER]

Wouldn't a mode C transponder be required, rather than just mode A for the RA to be issued?

[PA-28-180]

Legal Tender - Yes. SFO class B airspace (and all class B airspace in the States) have a 20 mile mode C 'veil'. No mode C, no flying within these areas. :)

[411A]

Thirty mile.

[protectthehornet]

bearfoil

I've heard of emmy...but knew eileen.

and to the world, I have a feeling that too much is being made of this situation. the GA plane turned, the tower warned and TCAS sounded ( and yes, you get an RA even if the other plane doesn't have TCAS...but it does need mode C on and operating...even without mode C you would get a traffic advisory)

It is especially important for all planes to have their transponder on with mode C...unless specifically directed otherwise by ATC.

It is also important to have all lights on for increased visibility.

Initially, it sounds like the GA plane had a classb/tca clearance and that ATC just was late in warning the 777.. Is that everyone else's take?

I also think that the news media is making too big a deal out of this...now if they wanted one to report I remember when: fillin the blank

[Del Prado]

worthwhile to note also you may get TCAS warnings when 'standard' separation exists.

[Graybeard]

I'm pleased to see I'm not the only one who misremembers. Hope I don't screw this up:

1978 San Diego: PSA 727-200 on base leg to SAN overtakes C-172 in pattern. All lost. The quiet cockpit below 10K feet is one result.

1986 Cerritos: AeroMexico DC9-30 on long final to LAX collides with Piper Cherokee, reportedly at 6,500 feet. All lost. TCAS is one result.

GB

[11Fan]

Graybeard, affirm on both; time/place/aircraft. The Cerritos crash is about a mile from where I am sitting as I write this.

[Final 3 Greens]

and to the world, I have a feeling that too much is being made of this situation.

As a PPL, I can empathise with the United crew.

It must not be very pleasant to get an RA when low and slow and then to see a light aircraft closer than you wish for.

[JLWSanDiego]

Seat62K,

It was San Diego.

[ACARS]

1. Go to View Live Radar Tracks at SFO (http://live.airportnetwork.com/sfo/)
2. Run Java application.
3. Pause
4. Change date and time to 03/27/10 and 11:13PDT
5. Press play and watch it all unfold.

The height readout from the UAL jumps around a little but you get a good indication of what went on.

[Uncle_Jay]

Doesnt work very well with Firefox use IE instead
When you get to the SFO web site, wait a bit for the little airplane to appear on the left, then click it. (that is the 'java applcation')
Wait some more for the map to start. Maximize it to full screen.
Click the 'Playback Control' box lower right and PAUSE

The time should be set at 03/27/2010 11:13 not 11:18

Select the parameters you want like altitude, type etc. Click PLAY

You might notice a few minutes later N227UA and N1145M also had a close encounter of the 'We need to talk' variety. Like this is Dr Phil.

This thread is so rife with wrong information, and we blame the media for bad aircraft reporting ?

[protectthehornet]

I finally heard the radio transmissions involved. yes the " we gotta talk" sounded more like a romantic breakup than what I would have said:

I would have said: we are reporting a tcas evasive maneuver and a near mid air collision.


sadly, I can't view the radar track.

also, the san diego bit was a 727 on final for runway 27 while the cessna had just finished a practice ILS to runway9 ouch.

always be looking for traffic.

[Robert Campbell]

The typical SFO VFR Class B Clearance for VFR traffic traveling Northwest or Southeast bound is to stay west and south of Hwy 101 at or below 2000 ft. MSL. At this altitude, we're talking to SFO Tower. Above 2,500 ft. to 3,000 ft. we usually talk to NORCAL Approach.

Hwy 101 is the road that circles the left of the field in the top two photos.

Chamois Moon - San Francisco International Airport (http://www.chamoismoon.com/sfo.html)

The 28s are the runways running lower right to left.

The type of small aircraft is still in question. I have a Helio Courier, however, SFO tower often refers to me as a Cessna since it's the typical small high wing aircraft. Aeroncas and Helio Couriers are not as well known, but they both also have high wings.

When I transit the area, I'm ready for anything. I've been asked to descend to 1,500 ft. for opposing VFR traffic, or to do a 720 so that traffic can clear the 28s, or turn left and cross mid field passing behind the departing heavy.

The trick is to listen carefully and obey instantly.

The system usually works well.

[ACARS]

Only ever had class bravo clearance once through SFO. 28L/R active for arrivals and 01L/R for departures. On the return leg south we passed over the extended centreline for 28L/R at 2000ft and was asked to make a right turn to get clear of this line. Plus we were asked to keep highway 101 off to our left (you can hear the atc comms 0:30secs into the video).

YouTube - C172 San Francisco Bay Tour (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfIdjYDhSm8)

[bearfoil]

N9870E is a Cessna 182 R. But the radar track had United as 216ua.

Robert Campbell. very nice pix. Yours? Isn't that Otis Spunkmeyer's DC-3?

[Robert Campbell]

I was a Capt. on the Spunkmeyer DC-3s for 4 years. It was a part time gig. I kept my aerial photo biz going at the same time.

[mm43]

Bearfoil

from NTSB press release ...
United Airlines Flight 889, a B777-222 (N216UA).....
..... a light high wing airplane, an Aeronca 11AC (N9270E)Registered to DHM INDUSTRIES LLC.

Don't know where the Cessna 182R comes from.

mm43

[Capn Bloggs]

Protect the Hornet,
Initially, it sounds like the GA plane had a classb/tca clearance and that ATC just was late in warning the 777.. Is that everyone else's take?

I also think that the news media is making too big a deal out of this...now if they wanted one to report I remember when: fillin the blank
Sounds more serious than that. If the lighty was doing a hard left turn:
The pilots saw a light high wing airplane, an Aeronca 11AC (N9270E), in a hard left turn traveling from their 1 o'clock to 3 o'clock position.
that indicates he shouldn't have been there, especially considering they only missed by 200-300ft.

Had ATC warned the 777 earlier, what would/could they have done?

[kenhughes]

Registered to DHM INDUSTRIES LLC.

Don't know where the Cessna 182R comes from.

mm43

From an updated NTSB media release (last line, boxed out):

Note: The original media advisory indicated that the light high wing airplane was an Aeronca 11AC with the registration number of N9270E. Subsequent information received by the NTSB clarified that the aircraft involved was a Cessna 182 with a registration number of N9870E.

[p51guy]

Sounds like the press made a big story out of nothing again. They had each other in sight and were avoiding a major conflict. Arriving on the 28 runways at SFO is where it gets really interesting intercepting on a collision course to line up on the proper runway. One day I noticed the 747 coming from the north side was not intercepting so leveled off and he went below me a few hundred feet until he got his bearings. I just told tower we had traffic in sight and would continue our approach reference him. A total non event as this one.

[mm43]

kenhughes

Thanks for the update.

One would suspect the original info came from ATC!

Even the NTSB must be wondering who or what to believe.

mm43

[Capn Bloggs]

They had each other in sight and were avoiding a major conflict.
Ya joking, aren't ya? The 777 in an unplanned low altitude leveloff following a TCAS RA and the other doing a hard left turn to avoid, only to pass 200-300ft away? That is not a "total non event" in my book.

[p51guy]

It was a minor conflict that the cessna prevented from being a major conflict. They both had clearance to do what they were doing. The GA guy flying the little plane might be an airline pilot on his day off. Doesn't make him inferior. If you are heading for a cruise ship in your fishing boat are you going to insist you have the right of way or give way? That's what I thought. The press loves to make news with aviation stories because it sells. This was a non event.

[p51guy]

1500 ft horizontal and 200 to 300 ft vertical sound like they had things well under control. Less horizontal separation exists landing on the 28 runways on arrival to SFO. I always felt like I was in formation on final there.

[protectthehornet]

what concerns me is that the united pilots didn't see the GA plane before the atc advisory or the TCAS RA.

Too many pilots don't look out the window...and sholdn't there have been 3 pilots...this was a long haul flight probably with an augmented crew of some form....and all the pilots are on the flight deck for takeoff.

[Capn Bloggs]

What concerns me is that the crew of a heavy jet, at less than 1000ft AGL, HAS look out to save their arse. Crazy. Lookout is fair eonough, but this smells like a big stuffup to me.

[protectthehornet]

I can remember so many near mid airs that I've had....with ATC seperation and screwups.

I have a feeling that ATC cleared the GA plane...and forgot to warn the 777...and that the GA was watching it all unfold...

it was a high wing, with better look down vis...and when you are that close to this beautiful airport, you look down and watch the planes takeoff.

and what's a STUFFUP?

[Capn Bloggs]

what's a STUFFUP? :p
Ballsup, Messup, C@ckup, Screwup, you get the idea? :ok:

[Orestes]

Semantics! I guess this could be described as a "non-event", if only because thankfully no collision occurred. The question is how close they came to having a "major event" and whether they had things under control. As to the seriousness of the situation, I would defer to the opinions of those flying the planes in question, and after having listened to the Live ATC recording, I think the 777 pilot did not seem at all pleased with what had just transpired.

[RatherBeFlying]

1500 ft horizontal and 200 to 300 ft vertical sound like they had things well under control.I turned to get out of the way of a twin turboprop that ATC had helpfully descended me in front of. 100 yards was more like it; yes, that was a hard left turn.

Another twin turboprop nicked the side of the thermal I and another glider were in at an altitude between us.

Suspect they both were enroute YYZ-YXU at 5000 and 4000.

No xpdr, no TCAS alert -- keep those eyes open.

[GlueBall]

Too many pilots don't look out the window...

In steady cruise, in broad daylight, haven't you ever seen on your TV a target 1000' above or below, 25 or 30 miles distant, coming head-on, and you look and look and look, and still don't see him . . . until he's just about in front of your face...? :confused:

[protectthehornet]

there is a difference in spotting traffic at cruise altitude and at low altitude, against the background of hills/city background.

hey, how come we haven't heard the GA pilot's side of the radio transmission?

[By George]

I think it's important to remember that during climb with a pitch attitude of 12 degrees or more, even if you do look out, the view forward is like looking out the slit window of a Tiger Tank. This is why heavy jet traffic and VFR flights don't mix well. I have had two RA's out of SFO and have never liked the place for traffic. The Hallibut and chips down at the warf makes up for it though.

[Spadhampton]

That was San Diego.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Note the posts of one "Captain Bloggs", who is doing his best to inject an "Australian Perspective" into the comments.

Basically, the "Australian" approach, as preferred by "Bloggs", to any but IFR/RPT is "clearance not available, remain clear of controlled airspace" on the basis that even sighting a GA aircraft in the distance, from a heavy, is close to an emergency--- but, I hasten to add, a view confined to a small group who have been trying frantically for years, to prevent Australia adopting FAA style ICAO airspace management.

As another Australian pilot (LSA thro' B744), well familiar with operations around KSFO and the bay area, I support the view of those of you who believe this has been blown out of all proportion by the media.

In fact it could be viewed as an example of the system working, not the system failing.

Tootle pip!!

[Capt Sly]

Too many pilots don't look out the window...and sholdn't there have been 3 pilots...this was a long haul flight probably with an augmented crew of some form....and all the pilots are on the flight deck for takeoff. So what are you supposed to do when you are looking out of the window? Level off a 777 or 747 at 1000'? Have you no idea what it is like to fly a big jet?!? On departure for a flight like that you dont have much of a manouever margin - too low a speed and you stall into SF, too high a speed and you bust the flap limiting speeds. Handling is difficult and you are suggesting the pilots should level off to avoid a collision or even warning.... have you not seen the hills there?!?

1500 ft horizontal and 200 to 300 ft vertical sound like they had things well under control. Less horizontal separation exists landing on the 28 runways on arrival to SFO. I always felt like I was in formation on final there.On the 28s both aircraft are going in the same direction and at least one aircraft is visual with the other and is told to maintain separation. In this case the TCAS system is happy (even though the pilots may not be), and there are no warnings of impending collision.... except if the preceding aircraft goes around....


Note the posts of one "Captain Bloggs", who is doing his best to inject an "Australian Perspective" into the comments.Crikey - are you trying to flame a guy for being safe?!?

The systems used in the US are systemically unsafe. The fact that IFR traffic is only separated from other IFR traffic is unsafe in a busy environment. The fact that the Americans point aircraft on the approach at each other, and then use the "are you visual with the aircraft in front" and then the "maintain visual separation" or "remain behind the traffic in front" as a way of avoiding a collision raises the risk of collision. The fact that a GA aircraft thinks he is going to miss the 777 is not OK when all the bells and whistles in the 777 are going off. If the pilot is tired (ie 4am on the body clock as I will be as I climb out of KSFO next week) then you have terrain, TCAS, reconfiguration of the air, landing gear and flap systems to consider in the first 1500' and that is before you throw in an engine failure or fire - miss one of these out and you may have a smoking wreck.

It should be the case that in busy airspace (ie KLAX, KSFO, KJFK, KORD etc) that the airspace is designated class A, and therefore IFR traffic is sepearted from all traffic. It would be a shame for the GA folks, but how many of these near misses on the approach or climbout do we need before we get a hit?! Surely in modern human factors teaching this is a swiss cheese with the holes almost lining up.

[protectthehornet]

You make it out like I don't know SFO.

I was born in San Francisco. I learned to fly at one of the small airports in that area. I Have operated at SFO with General Aviation aircraft and as a pilot for four different airlines there (one very big, the other, so called regionals).

I know the hills having flown over them and walked them and bicycled them, let alone driven in an automobile.

I've shopped at the shopping mall benath the departure route (Tanforan...which, by the way was the sight of old MILLS FIELD, San' Francisco's first airport and the place where the first plane to land upon a ship took off from)

This was a non event. AS P51 guy mentioned, 300 feet vertical and 1500 feet horizontal...that is nothing. P51 guy is right...that is more than a side by side approach to landing at SFO. (though true side by's are less likely now)

AS to what a BIG JET can do or not. It is like any plane as long as the pilot knows what to do. But if you are overly dependent upon autothrottles and too use to just going: "do, dah do, I are a big airplane pilot just hanging on for dear life", yeah, you will exceed some limit if you aren't ready to fly the heck out of a plane.

Now, I do think ATC should have advised the 777: traffic , a GEN AV, along departure path, he has you in sight...prior to takeoff clearance.

I remember being instructed for a go around at La Guardia due to a plane on the runway. I went around, complying with published missed instructions...oh, the tower said, there is a gen av seaplane at 1500' so maintain 1000'...this at 800'. Yeah, I actually had to retard the throttles by hand to level off and not exceed flap speeds. heavens to betsy.!!!!!

Later I was awarded the distinguished flying cross and the cross de guere.

Come on, wake up and fly the damn thing.

(the above decorations are of course an exageration to make the point...pilots fly the plane and not the other way 'round.)

[RatherBeFlying]

hey, how come we haven't heard the GA pilot's side of the radio transmission?Perhaps PTH could inform us of the freqs the two a/c would be using at the time, but usually VFR and IFR are on separate freqs. It may be the same controller or they may be seated close to each other.

[Capt Sly]

Now, I do think ATC should have advised the 777: traffic , a GEN AV, along departure path, he has you in sight...prior to takeoff clearance.
But what do you do with a clearance like that? Our SOPs are to follow any clearance until it is unsafe to do so ie TCAS, WX or Terrain avoidance. In this case we would have been cleared for a SFO8 departure. We cant just plan to level the aircraft below the other traffic at 1500' - our performance calculations dont allow that. We cant just deviate from the SID - performance calculations dont allow that, and we may just exacerbate the situation with a WOOP WOOP pull up. Therefore we either have to wait on the ground, or wait for the TCAS RA (we shouldn't really act on the TA as the aircraft we see may not be the aircraft the TCAS is protecting us from).

We have different standards in the UK and Europe. Standard seperation is 3NM or approximately 18000 feet. This aircraft was within 1500' or 1/10th of the standard seperation if it had happened in the UK. This sort of VFR seperation issue doesnt happen at the big airfields in the UK. We do have heli's operating in the vicinity of the airfields but they are also seperated, but are much closer. They also dont hang around in the vicinity of the departure end of the runway.

So the problem I have is that aircraft are put in danger needlessly. Is it safer to have a Cessna at 1500' visually remaining clear, or no cessna in the take-off cone of a 777? Equally, is it safer to stagger the arrivals onto 28L/R or have them coming in wingtip to wingtip?

I understand your "Come on, wake up and fly the damn thing." sentiment, but passengers are paying for, and surely deserve their safety be put first. Surely we should all be striving for a safer system? We can all go and be gash, but a modern jetliner is not the place to practice chicken. (just eat it ;) )

In this situation I believe neither aircraft did anything wrong within the clearances they we given; Again it is the system that allows this to happen, so lets change the system so the aircraft dont get so close.

No personal digs meant.

[Capn Bloggs]

A non-event? Yeh, right...

<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7v5Hajk1jV8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7v5Hajk1jV8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="360"></embed></object>

[maxred]

Capt Sly, I am sorry but I do not think you have this right. Three weeks ago I flew the KLAX VFR North/South out of Van Nuys. I did it in a Cessna 182. I was totally impressed by the responsibility shown by all GA pilots, and the professionalism of the Heavy crews, mixing it together. P51 hits it spot on with the view that all fly the plane, and understand the routes. The classic UK view of make it ALL class A restricts, not broadens the experience of the GA fleet in the UK. That is a major reason for the huge amount of controlled airspace 'busts' here in UK. With a more free, and open minded approach to aviation/airspave/atc in UK/Europe, perhaps it would be a better experience for all.

[Robert Campbell]

Both aircraft were on 121.5. That's standard SFO tower freq.

I have to add that every time I've been given the 101 transit clearance, the controller has pointed out the traffic to me (often still just lined up prior to roll on 28R), and has also informed the heavy waiting for departure. More often than not the airliner has me in sight while still on the ground.

28R is used primarily for heavies heading for the orient or Australia, On a typical day, the runway is not that busy.

On the rare day that the wind is really blowing, all departures are on the 28s, and 101 corridor clearances are not permitted. With the the turbulence in the rotor off of San Bruno mountain in those conditions, I wouldn't want to be there anyway.

[KiloB]

There must have been high levels of stress for the Controller to have instructed the 182 to pass BEHIND the 777. Light A/C and heavy A/C wakes are not a good combination!

KB

[bearfoil]

Having listened to the audio, it seems the Tower controller was relying on the Cessna pilot to evade, Tower appeared to be avoiding advising the UA of the conflict, ("not a factor") by the tone of his direct to 70E "You will pass behind?"

the animation on utube is way too dramatic. Considering what happened on Saturday, one wonders why GA is kept West of the 101,the 182 was told to turn East, and climb, which he did.

Tone of voice is subjective, but I heard a strained note in this controller's patter, I think he handled the conflict fine, but he started too late. Of course it was too close, I think he'll get some days off.

bear

[sb_sfo]

Think you'll find more action on 120.5

[bearfoil]

128.65 had the Captain and Supervisor "discussing" things.

[Robert Campbell]

Sorry. 120.5, although I'd probably get plenty of action on 121.5

[protectthehornet]

look, the USA isn't the UK. Perhaps that is why so many europeans come to the USA to learn how to fly.

It would have been fine if the crew elected to not takeoff and to wait, if the information had been presented to them.

And you aren't allowed to deviate from a SID? So, if there was a thunderstorm on the SID and it was clear to the south, you wouldn't ask for a deviation? That's fine. motor on.

Chances are, no one was at the top of their game. The 777 crew was probably already in ''fat, dumb and happy'' mode and not ready to maneuver right after takeoff.

the controller probably had other things on his mind, and if the GA (until we know better what type, that is what I will refer to the little plane as) responded with something to the effect of they would maintain visual seperation, then that was enough for him.

I dare say that if a flap exceedence happened, the captain is making a big deal about trying to place the blame elsewhere.

Now, I don't know about you guys, but my TCAS works fine on the ground when properly selected. I would have glanced at it and if there was a target, I would have briefed the crew to keep an eye out...indeed the augmented crew, in the jumpseats, would have been instructed to look for the traffic. I do recall that united opted for the cheapest TCAS available and it might not be quite as good as mine.

And dear worrier about wake turbulence...if the little plane was above the big plane, that shouldn't have been a problem.

P51 guy...will you try to explain it to these aviators????????????

[SeenItAll]

At the risk of raising another issue, I am interested in the views of the pilots and ATC on this forum as to whether they believe that compliance with ATC instructions by GA pilots is as quick and assured as it is from commercial pilots. This would cast some greater light on the advisability or not of keeping GA aircraft completely out of the arrival/departure airspace around large commercial airports.

Another way of putting this question is as follows. Suppose you are on a conflicting course with another airplane, and suppose ATC issues a command to this other airplane to keep clear of you. Do you breathe easier if you know that this other airplane is a commercial rather than a GA? Or does it make no difference? Or do you breathe less easy knowing that it is commercial?

[protectthehornet]

it varys...indeed our airline pilot brothers who overflew MSP managed to show how not to handle the radio!

potomac heights...is that in maryland?

[Turtle Driver]

It should be the case that in busy airspace (ie KLAX, KSFO, KJFK, KORD etc) that the airspace is designated class A, and therefore IFR traffic is sepearted from all traffic.I don't know about other areas, but the class B airspace around KORD is more or less de facto class A. A VFR class B clearance is just not going to happen unless it's late at night.

[GarageYears]

Heh heh! ;)

Yep, basketball scores probably. Oh, wait wrong thread.... :ugh:

- GY

[Robert Campbell]

When I'm flying my Helio Courier, I'm GA; when I'm flying something with paying passengers aboard, I'm a commercial airline driver.

I try to remember which type of aircraft I'm in so I don't sound too professional in the baby airplane, or too stupid in the airliner.:ugh:

[eastsidewillie]

this is only my second post on this forum, so bear with me. i just have a few comments after following this thread, listening to the tapes (do people still use tape????), and trying to empathize with the situation from all sides.
1) i'm familiar with busy airspace, having lived in the nyc area all my life, and having run the busiest heliport (at the time) in the u.s. and possibly the world. having flown in that space (controlled and uncontrolled) countless times under just about every condition, i have to ask - why would anyone want to put themself and their pax at risk by going near any busy airport, unless it were for an emergency, or for some absolutely necessary reason such as commercial photograpy, inspection or the like? much better scenery elsewhere to my mind. so i agree with those who feel that general aviation, especially on vfr, should stay away, as far as is practical and practicable, unless you have a really good reason to be there. and back then, there was always an issue with cowboy floatplanes, or seaplanes just doing their thing.

2) i'm certainly not as technically proficient in flying the "big jets" as many of you are, but i can't imagine that having to do a major correction between 1000 and 1500 agl on takeoff would not make my sphincter tighten quite a bit - that's what makes flying so exciting - but again, if it were just me, well, that's my choice; with two or three or more hundred poor souls in the cabin behind me, i think the responsibility level rises. not to fault the ua pilot and especially the first officer, i think the upset is quite understandable, and i think they handled it very professionally - adrenaline makes you go "unplugged" sometimes, as long as you bring it back down, and do what you do.
at the prescribed attitude on their takeoff and climbout i doubt that anyone in that cabin could have seen the other aircraft with any degree of certainty until it was right there in the windscreen, and so it then comes down to the controller and his advisories. i couldn't enumerate the number of times i alerted a pilot to conflicting traffic he hadn't seen (both from a controller standpoint, and from being on an aircraft on a collision course when the pilot was distracted). the controller in this case probably should have added more info (somehow, they don't seem the same out there on the left coast as they do in this area), but he did what he's supposed to do, and rolled with it.....after all, it still comes up to "see and avoid", fortunately, or unfortunately.
just an aside, if you ask me about the buffalo incident a little more than a year ago, if you listen to the tapes, i feel that the controller in that incident was at least 50% responsible in not alerting the pilots to icing conditions at the altitudes they were flying through).

so.....a close call, some hairy seconds, and all is well again....just another incident to learn from. oh, and by the way, screw the media; nothing that i've ever been involved in has been reported truthfully by most of the media - the actual truth only sells papers maybe thirty years down the line, in the midst of the actual event, only bulls@@t rules. now why the f@@k did that get highlighted? what a world.

i wait to be corrected.
thanx:confused:

[p51guy]

Obiously the Cessna was at the base of the TCA altitude to be in the corridor. Turbojet aircraft are required to stay in the TCA and not fly below the lateral limits. I can see an RA TCAS alert conflicting with TCA altitude requirements but it is required to follow the RA alert. The SFO
8 departure requires a minimum of 300 ft per NM rate of climb. I am familiar with the LAX corridor but not SFO but you have some very good local talent on this thread. Sounds like the GA guy did everything right and had the situation under control. United had an RA or TA that took them by surprise. I'm sorry if they ended up exceeding flap speed dealing with it if that is what their beef is.

Had a similar experience getting my 767 FO check out in the late 80's with a check airman in LAX when he wanted the 30 minute leg to SAN. It was late and he missed his 2,000 level off to the shoreline for the VFR corridor. He tried to fix it with automation and busted by 300 ft and airspeed going way above max flap speed. I made the call outs but if a pilot insists on using automation you are along for the ride.

[Airspeedintervention]

Hornet,
I'm gonna have to disagree with your read on this completely. Seeing blips on the TCAS prior to departure from a busy field is normal. It is not really a red-flag event in my minds eye because I would just believe it to be the prior departing traffic. In the 777 TCAS aural alerts are inhibited until 1100' IIRC. I cannot speak for Untied but at my airline there is NO difference procedurally between a 500 RVR T/O and a CAVU one. Once the aircraft breaks the ground it's an inside manuever. This is and was an instrument rules flight and airspace should be protected as such regardless of any prevailing vis. or assumptions.

Sure we all can be John Wayne and slam the autothrottles and the stick around but in a ship with 300 people onboard a Red-Bull Air Race Ride is really not in everyone's best interest or appropriate given that ATC should be assuring a safe departure corridor in the first place.

[protectthehornet]

I remember meeting guys who flew their own king airs....and when on IFR clearances they would put on the ''hood'' to practice their instrument flying. But they didn't have a safety pilot looking out the window.

These pilots posed a danger to all.

And so does any policy which says that a takeoff is ''an inside maneuver'' .

I hope you think about looking out the window...it is a regulation in the USA to always be vigilant for other planes while in visual conditions. Mind you , you are still on an IFR clearance, but a non IFR plane might run into you. Or a misguided IFR plane.

[Robert Campbell]

There is no "formal" corridor through the "TCA" which we have referred to as "Class B" airspace for over ten years now. This route is inside the inner 7NM core airspace of SFO. It's not like LAX which has a formal VFR corridor along the coast.

This is a VFR route that has developed and been accepted by the SFO controllers and local GA operators as a shortcut from the City of San Francisco to the GA airports southwest of SFO. In order to enter the airspace, the GA aircraft accepts a discrete Transponder code, and must read back the clearance.

Depending on traffic and WX conditions, clearance is either grated or denied. Those of us who use this corridor accept these "rules".

When departing San Carlos Airport, a clearance can be obtained from Ground Control.

Denial of clearance means a detour to the coastline and, if you want to remain within gliding distance of the coastline, a descent to 700 ft. for about 5 miles. Not an awful detour, the view is beautiful.

As I said earlier, conditions change and SFO tower will change the clearance as they require.

I have to say that the controllers at SFO are some of the sharpest and most professional that I have ever run across.

Thread drift ahead!

I was shooting an aerial photo job in the Oyster Point area (in the SFO inner core) one day last year, I had co-ordinated the job with a phone call to SFO Tower. Traffic out of SFO was light, and the controller, who had been watching me work, asked if I would fly by the tower so he could take a closer look at my Helio Courier which is a rather unusual airplane. Here's a bit about the airplane -- Handley-Page leading edge slats, slotted Fowler Flaps and a very large wing:

Chamois Moon - Helio Courier (http://www.chamoismoon.com/helio_courier.html)

[p51guy]

I can guarantee you Hornet has not slammed the throttles around acting like John Wayne. He knows how to fly a nice smooth flight with or without automation. Looking out the window is good when you are traveling at high speeds no matter what vehicle you are in, especially an airplane because they have a tendency to fall when parts fall off because you were on the radio or cell in a car or staring at instruments. Birds don't have TCAS and can put you in rivers. Most of the time they can be seen and avoided but most here will disagree with that statement.

Try flying into the valley at Tegucigalpa, Honduras and not looking out the window. Those turkey buzzards can really fill up a windshield if you don't pay attention.

[mm43]

Airspeedintervention

ATC should be assuring a safe departure corridor in the first placeI would have to agree, and the FAA have apparently agreed that the controller was at fault. They will not be taking any action other than ensuring that some retraining is undertaken.

The NTSB may have another view, but I doubt if that will change much.

mm43

[CenAir]

[QUOTE][That set off the TCAS ......", and "We need to talk/QUOTE]

The Female Pilot should have told the Controller after the Incident, Tower let me know when you are ready to copy a Phone Number, as I need you to call me after I Land!!!

[protectthehornet]

thanks P51...but wasn't John Wayne Great in "Flying Tigers", and slapping Robert Stack in that DC4 in "The High and the Mighty"...but I digress.

I invite all of you guys to think about what you would do at 1000' if you had to level off to avoid traffic above you...I mean, exactly what you would do?

I think I would turn off all automation, throttle back to about half and point the nose towards level flight or a bit lower. then I would double check everything and make adjustments as needed.

I don't think some of you would know what to do. So think about it. Think about what percent N1 or what EPR would hold level flight at max weight at min safe speed. Now it is dependent upon you to know this stuff...you are the pilot.

Some of us had to learn ''drift out'' procedures at airports with very strict noise abatement procedures...You were on the edge of the stall for about a minute departing the airport with the same name as the movie star referenced above.

I've had ATC clear me for a takeoff with a fuel truck parked on my runway...and you think they might not miss a plane in the departure corridor????????

[p51guy]

John Wayne hated Orange County airport because his house on the Pacific was under the departure path. We went to his house by mistake one night to deliver a Mercedes to his neighbor. We were charter pilots then flying a Citation to Palm Springs to pick it up. He was a cool guy even though he was asleep when we got there so didn't talk to him.

He must have rolled over in his grave when they named the airport after him. That departure was fun. We always briefed the pax about the deep cut at 1,000 ft and the left turn down the creek.

That would be a marginal departure using all automation. It is amazing how your right hand and left hand can control an aircraft with precision by just holding the thrust levers and yoke. It is so magically simple while you are looking out the window. Kind of like your brain is connected directly to the controls without any button pushing. Wait, isn't that how the human body is supposed to work?

[protectthehornet]

p51 guy is right again

isn't it all about ''being one with the plane''?

Imagine...pressing buttons to activate your arm to stretch up to reach an itch.

[Graybeard]

How much play an incident like this gets is dependent on what else is in the news. News programs are fixed length, while life is variable.

I've heard the Orange County deep cut noise abatement departure called, "An FAA approved unsafe maneuver." It's BTFW to about 1,000 feet, then back to just above stall for stagger out to the coastline.

It's also nearly the shortest commercial runway in the US, at 5700 feet.

GB

[Tim Zukas]

"This was a non event."

Let's try to figure out what this means. I'm guessing he means "The pilot didn't like what happened, but you know what snivelers pilots are; obviously everything was hunky-dory. I know this because I was there and he wasn't-- or maybe the other way around, but in any case his opinion is clearly worthless compared to mine."

Have any passengers on the 777 been heard from?

[protectthehornet]

the faa has indicated that this incident did not result in a loss of seperation, due to instructions by ATC to maintain visual seperation.

its interesting to note that the FO pushed forward on the controls...but didn't pull back on the throttles.

[Tim Zukas]

"this incident did not result in a loss of seperation"

In other words, he didn't hit him. As long as he misses him, no "loss of separation" has occurred-- right?

[p51guy]

I would like to hear how the GA pilot felt about this whole incident. He turned slightly behind the departing aircraft so probably felt well clear of any conflict. If he had concern he would have made a much more aggresive turn. He was above the wake so he was fine. In the US maintaining visual separation removes minimum separation. I have had aircraft overshoot and reintercept the localizer below legal standards so just told approach I had the traffic and would maintain visual behind him to help the controller out. Now all you hope is he clears the runway for you when he lands.

[Locked door]

Which is why I dislike operating in the US. A TCAS RA is a non event? Visual separation removes IFR separation minima? Mixing GA a/c with big commercial jets?

Honestly, I can just see you all in those ten gallon hats and spurs on the flight deck.

[p51guy]

That is why we prefer our system of aviation. We can all enjoy flying our personal private aircraft without European restrictions. We get to fly unrestricted out of our private airstrips and not have to put up with restrictive rules unless we are in protected airspace.

We like it that way and the last guy I saw with a hat flying an airplane in the USA was Bob Hoover after his famous dead stick landing from ground level around to a landing after his roll on downwind in his Aero Commander Shrike at Reno. We are all professionals and the cowboy comment for US pilots was uncalled for.

I am proud of our aviation system and think it is the best way to let all fly as they wish without undo restrictions. The sky isn't just for commercial aviation the same as the highway is not just for buses.

[Pera]

Class B? Notwithstanding how close they got, did a separation standard exist (at all times)?

[Turtle Driver]

Class B? Notwithstanding how close they got, did a separation standard exist (at all times)? In class B airspace in the US, VFR aircraft are separated from aircraft weighing more than 19000 lbs or jets by:

- 1.5 miles horizontal, or
- 500 ft vertical, or
- Visual separation

(FAAO 7110.65 Sec 7.9.4)

[mm_flynn]

Class b separation is 1.5 miles or 500 ft or visual (simplified). Technically that seems to be seaparation maintained but not well communicated.

Given the likely relative speeds 1 o'clock is almost passing behind without the turn. But it is a bit surprising the turn was initiated that close.

[protectthehornet]

don't you have "maintain visual seperation'' in europe?

[barrold]

I usually tell my students that the safest place in busy airspace is directly over the airport.

As a working air traffic controller, I can only say. Sir, you are dangerous!

[protectthehornet]

as a pilot, the safest place to be is directly over an airport.

airplanes rarely climb vertically ( like a rocket).

if your engine quits, you are over a good landing spot...declare and emergency and everyone must yield to you.

Now, in some situations, other planes fly directly over the airport ( in an uncontrolled environment) to examine the wind sock, pattern indicators and the like, so one should watch out.

One should be outside the airport traffic area, or whatever it is called now, or with proper clearance from local ATC.

[DB64]

Sir, may I say to you and P51...you are dangerous! Visual separation, consider the speeds involved. PSA, Aeromexico and last year, the californian coast guard and US navy helicopter......

As for training in the good ole....methinks that is down to economics more than anything else.

[protectthehornet]

DB64

P51guy and I are not dangerous. We have both grown up in the system we have in the USA and survived it.

In an ideal world, everyone would be on radar with radar seperation and a visual backup, and a TCAS system on top of everything.

Your examples are a bit weak. PSA/San Diego...both planes were under radar control, and PSA made a poor radio call of: we had him there a minute ago. From that tragedy planes under my command answer: traffic not in sight...vector us away from traffic.

Aeromexico over Los Angeles involved a piper which was flown by a poor man who had a heart attack and stumbled into TCA airspace.

And military helicopters, at night, over the ocean...well that is a unique operation involving brave men doing difficult things.

I've been in aviation for 35 years...P51guy more than that...and you sir?????

[p51guy]

No sir, PTH and I are not dangerous. We grew up in a system that required looking out the window VFR or IFR. I have had as many close calls under full IFR radar control as cowboying around the skies, as you would put it, with no radar control. We have 40,000 to 50,000 hrs total of navigating our airspace with no accidents, incidents or violations.

I like our system just the way it is. Unless automation turns us into robots some day so we can't manually intervene if things are going wrong we will be just fine over here. If we are turned into robots then ATC will determine how our flight turns out. If I had followed every ATC instruction to the letter I probably would not be able to make the above claim of no incidents or accidents.

We understand our system and know how to make it work. When a controller gives us an unusual altitude we question it because maybe he changed sectors and got it wrong. One day we were cleared out of a major airport to an arrival altitude, not departure. My FO confirmed we were cleared to the higher altitude. I said verify it or I am not going to climb above the normal departure altitude. He did and sure enough the controller normally did arrivals and gave us the wrong altitude. We were opposite direction to an arrival 1,000 ft above us. We might be too informal by your way of thinking but we are safe and know what is going on and are looking out the window.

[cactusbusdrvr]

Man, what a bunch of whiners. You can get a TCAS RA without being in conflict. We get it all the time in busy airspace, particularly when traffic is coming in on a base leg to join you in a parrallel approach. If you guys wet you pants every time the TCAS lights up then please stay out of busy airspace. You won't make it to retirement age.

GA pilots flying in congested airspace are not an issue if they know what they are doing. The controller can tell by the initial call up if the guy he is talking to is a tool or has his stuff together. We can tell from the cockpit as well. Some of the international aircarriers you hear talking on the radio and see taxiing out of SFO and JFK and LAX inspire less confidence than most of the GA guys here.

UAL has some really weak pilots. They had a major screw up a few years ago on departure out of SFO in a 747-400. The F/O almost put it into the hill on departure when he couldn't handle an engine failure. If there is an error in this incident I would look to the UAL crew first, then the GA guy and the controller.

[411A]

Man, what a bunch of whiners. You can get a TCAS RA without being in conflict. We get it all the time in busy airspace, particularly when traffic is coming in on a base leg to join you in a parrallel approach. If you guys wet you pants every time the TCAS lights up then please stay out of busy airspace. You won't make it to retirement age.

GA pilots flying in congested airspace are not an issue if they know what they are doing. The controller can tell by the initial call up if the guy he is talking to is a tool or has his stuff together. We can tell from the cockpit as well. Some of the international aircarriers you hear talking on the radio and see taxiing out of SFO and JFK and LAX inspire less confidence than most of the GA guys here.

UAL has some really weak pilots. They had a major screw up a few years ago on departure out of SFO in a 747-400. The F/O almost put it into the hill on departure when he couldn't handle an engine failure. If there is an error in this incident I would look to the UAL crew first, then the GA guy and the controller.



Agree, 100%!!

[172_driver]

Busy US airspace (e.g. SoCal) works if everyone performs to high standard, but there are always some poor sods out there having troubles and ATC constantly yelling at them!!! I admit to driving around nothing bigger than a BE76, practicing multiple approaches in LA and SD area. The controllers are very efficient but every so often their are confusions/unsafe practices, imho.

Sometimes I don't even know if I am IFR or VFR anymore. You can be assigned a radar vector with no destination (lost com anyone??). You are asked to maintain visual separation to traffic that you see one second, but so easy to loose in the next distraction (incl. airliners). The controllers are so busy, you can't argue with them at that time... As I said, works if you are used to it but not fun for those who underperform.

[protectthehornet]

cactusbusdrvr

I didn't want to be the first one to say what you did, but it did cross my mind...esp after that 747 deal UAL had.

[p51guy]

YouTube - Near Miss Over San Francisco Skies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNVOS1HB7OA)

Just found this clip. Sounds like the GA pilot handled it properly and had the situation well under control. When they got the RA it probably said " don't climb". The visual presentation is showing almost a head on intercept probably to make it appear more dramatic for their viewers along with the newscaster hyping the event.

[Bluestar51]

411A,

Not in defense of UA, but when departing at MGW, rotating to a 18-20 degree deck angle, 200 agl, and maybe V2+10, you are just along for the ride and there isn't a whole lot that can be done in a hurry. About all they are going to do is get a good look at the belly of the traffic.

BS

[411A]

.... and maybe V2+10, you are just along for the ride and there isn't a whole lot that can be done in a hurry. About all they are going to do is get a good look at the belly of the traffic.


Yes, I understand, Bluestar, however, if we look back at the prior UAL incident at KSFO, the First Officer (flying pilot) used little if any rudder due to the engine failure...all aileron/spoilers.
As I recall, one hill was missed by about 100 feet.

CBDrvr is right, many weak sisters at UAL, from what I've heard.

[p51guy]

We are all wondering what the captain was doing on that departure. Two pilots forgot "dead foot, dead engine at the same time in a 747? Using aileron for an engine failure on takeoff sounds like 1st lesson in multiengine training in a Cessna 310. I thought of this episode too when the last incident happened wondering why an RA "don't climb" would generate this much media, FAA and NTSB attention. Leveling off a heavy 777 at 1,000 ft without exceeding any limitations seems fairly basic since the rate of climb isn't very high. Zoom climbing, I agree could be a problem. Of course you would have to be very fast with your fingers, and accurate, to do this simple task with an autopilot. Disconnect AP, AT and lower the nose while reducing power works quite well. Of course you have to possess basic piloting skills to do this.

[p51guy]

Does anybody know what the GA pilots report was on this? I feel it will be a lot more useful than the UA report on how this situation was resolved. If the UA flight didn't have TCAS they probably would never had noticed it even happened if they weren't looking out the window.

[criss]

Visual separation removes IFR separation minima? Mixing GA a/c with big commercial jets?

Honestly, I can just see you all in those ten gallon hats and spurs on the flight deck.

You might want to look into DOC 4444 for your answers...

[flatfilea4]

The terminology may vary in different ATC environments but visual separation has been, since the year dot, a part of 'IFR' separation. Its seems that some aircrew do not understand this.

IFR flights in the more controlled airspaces (again much varies country to country) should expect Standard Separation from other traffic - what this is will be expressed as:
the ATC or another pilot visually sighting the aircraft concerned and arranging flight paths so that no danger of collision exists (usually in the vicinity of an aerodrome), or
various radar separations (dependent on range, ground facilities, adjacent sectors/airspaces, etc.), or
position reports, or
distance and time separations that may have aircraft tens of miles apart for separation to exist.

The objective remains the same: to avoid collisions.

The tool (separation) that ATC or pilots use to achieve no collisions will vary with the circumstances.

I've listened to the RT on AvWeb and I suspect that the crew may not have had the capacity to appreciate the traffic situation during their departure. Hindsight suggests that ATC might have been better giving traffic information both ways, and more explicitly to the departing crew. But ATC did give traffic to the light aircraft and that pilot did alter course to avoid any chance of a collision.

A example of Visual Separation in the vicinity of a aerodrome (airfield) that worked as expected: no collision. Much to do about nothing.

Cheers

[LeadSled]

Folks,
There are two general divisions on the "meaning" of this incident.

While generalizations are not always helpful, I believe it is reasonable to say that pilots who have grown up with the US system, or of foreign pilots who have considerable experience of and understand the system ( such as 411A and myself) regard this as the system working, not a failure of the system.

The other group, not understanding the system, and in this case including some Australian pilots who, with a complete lack of understanding of the system, of experience in the system or the whole basis of FAA risk management ----- regard this incident with shock/horror, bordering on the end of civilization as we know it.

So, who is right???

The only answer to this can come from all the published and easily available safety statistics, from NTSB, from the Australian ATSB, and the equivalents in Canada, NZ, and the European Community countries.

The fact of air safety outcomes is clear, in all categories bar one (gliding) the US system produces the world's best air safety outcomes ---- and this includes mid air collision rates.

What so many non-us pilots or commentators cannot get their minds around is the sheer volume of aviation in the US, in all categories, compared to the rest of the world. Likewise, the whole idea of equitable access to airspace by all potential users is completely "foreign" to non-US pilots.

I don't intend to present any studies to justify my statement, because I don't need to, all the information is publicly available and easily accessible. Suffice to say, a very recent study of collision rates in Australia v. US (again excluding gliders) has only confirmed previous studies, Australia fares unfavourably, compared to the US.

Unfortunately, national pride and anti-US prejudice all too often colors what should be a dispassionate examination of air safety outcomes, and the same pride and prejudice seriously inhibits many countries from adopting the lessons learned (often the hard way) in the US.

Tootle pip!!

PS: A colleague of mine, a well known Australian aviation lawyer, has just had a flying holiday in US. He had never previously flown there, other than as an airline passenger. Prior departure, he didn't really believe what I said about how easy it would be. He and several friends flew a C-206 VFR from San Jose clear across the country, via a northern route, back via a southern route.

Months later, he still hasn't come down off a high, don't anybody try telling him the US system doesn't work and is dangerous.

[20driver]

As someone who frequently flies a spam can around the northeast I think I can comment about this.
US aviation works very well. I have frequently being given Bravo transits in the NYC airspace. One day they were holding commercial departures out of LGA from climbing me as I passed over at 5500 feet. Kids thought that was cool.
Outside the Bravo with flight following I've regularly had 121 traffic pass 500 ft above me. The key is they always will notify the other traffic and add something like "I'm talking with him". If they are not talking with you they will steer traffic away from you several miles out. I've seen it happen. I guess that is why they like to get you on flight following.
In this incident the GA plane was inside the Bravo and you can assume the controllers were talking with him or they would have held traffic on the ground.

I do think the controller should have given the UA a heads up with the clearance. The UA crew probably wishes they hadn't made a fuss but they got surprised and no one likes that.

Reading what I do about GA pilots in Europe and other places I realize what a great deal we have. One thing I think makes a huge difference is we have a readily accessible IFR rating that a lot of GA guys have. As pointed out the controllers can tell who they are talking to and the squeaked voice does not get the transit. Cruel but fair.

Other countries could do well looking at how the US does it and consider if their restrictive attitudes are not part of the problem.

20driver

[Capn Bloggs]

I've listened to the RT on AvWeb and I suspect that the crew may not have had the capacity to appreciate the traffic situation during their departure.
That AVWEB "recording" is misleading. It's had at least 30 seconds edited out of the middle, from commencement of the 777 rolling until it gets to 500ft. Unless there was a traffic call during the time that is missing, the first thing either aircraft know about each other is when the controller mentions the 777 passing 500ft after takeoff (probably higher than that as the call was coming out). Had that call been made 5 seconds later and the lighty continued straight ahead through the centreline the TCAS would have been the only thing that would have saved all of them.

It is obvious that the whole situation was not planned and very nearly ended in major tears. Whether that was because of a mistake or a characteristic of the system remains to be seen. Either way, "much ado about nothing" is a rather odd conclusion to be drawn IMO.

What is also a worry is the UA captain asking for a discrete freq to talk to someone, I assume about the near-miss. At that point of the flight that would be silly. Priorities...

[criss]

Whether that was because of a mistake or a characteristic of the system remains to be seen.

I wouldn't say it a characteristic of the system, because, contrary to what some ppl here try to say, it could as easily happen outside US - it's not illegal to do something like that in "ICAO world". Of course, in the US it happens more often due to volume of traffic, but if I have a VFR traffic that wants to cross, it's exactly what I would apply. So it's not the case how the system is designed, but how you play out the given scenario (by you I mean both ATC and pilots).

[bearfoil]

Capn Bloggs

In listening to the audio, the second call to the Cessna shows an elevated intonation from the controller, a sign of at least mildly elevated urgency. The Captain of UA 889 called up and requested a discrete frequency to memorialize the event with a supe, and to support the FO flying. If he had "let it go" until later, he would have communicated to his F/O a lack of immediacy, as she was clearly upset, and rightly so. His action was entirely proper.

It could also be said that the Cessna was in a far better position to maneuver, the 777 has the priority. If there is fault to be found, I would assign a bit more responsibility to ATC for not including the UA flight in the "mix". However, I think the reporting is rather hyperbolic, and the News (animation) video is absurd.

imo,bear

[Robert Campbell]

UAL has some really weak pilots. They had a major screw up a few years ago on departure out of SFO in a 747-400. The F/O almost put it into the hill on departure when he couldn't handle an engine failure. If there is an error in this incident I would look to the UAL crew first, then the GA guy and the controller.

I've been waiting for this to come up. As I heard it, a "bunkie" was making his first ever line TO, lost an engine and just carried on as the 744 drifted right and cleared San Bruno Mountain by less than 100 feet. There is a subdivision on the North side of the mountain, and the plane set off quite a few car alarms as it passed overhead.

The incident was kept quiet for several months, then it hit the news. It was a one day story as I remember.

United's management had the s**t scared out of them because of the Captain's non-reaction to the emergency. The aircraft was not climbing and drifting right for quite some time.

Most of United's crews were sent to Denver for intensive retraining and evaluation.

I heard this from a United Captain who was on the investigation board.

The only relation that this incident has to the one being discussed is that it happened in about the same place

[protectthehornet]

One of the really important reasons to have complete standardization is just for this scenario.

Something non routine happens...either the reaction of the crew follows training/procedure or disaster might happen

What if the 747 incident had been reversed with the Captain flying and the copilot seeing the plane drit towards the mountain at 100 feet?

[Capn Bloggs]

Cactus,
UAL has some really weak pilots. They had a major screw up a few years ago on departure out of SFO in a 747-400. The F/O almost put it into the hill on departure when he couldn't handle an engine failure. If there is an error in this incident I would look to the UAL crew first, then the GA guy and the controller.

Who do you work for? Perhaps we can dredge up some dirt on it to question your credibility.

It looks veyr much like this near miss had nothing to do with the UA crew. They were only airborne for a few seconds, on a collision course with a lighty that they knew nothing about effectively until the TCAS went off.

I suggest you stop trying to twist the event into something it is not.

[protectthehornet]

capn bloggs...you are right...and I apologize for my post...let us drop the UAL weak sister bit

but.

SFO is the home base of this crew and anyone who has flown out of SFO long enough to be able to bid the 777 to China should know about little planes in the vicinity of the airport.

[criss]

Knowing that there are planes around the AD is a bit different from knowing where a particular a/c is right now and where it is headed.

[Robert Campbell]

Capn Bloggs:

Off the top of my head, I'd guess that "Cactus" is US Airways or America West if he's been there awhile.

_________________

I have to agree that United has it's share of marginal pilots, I flew with several of them in DC-3s before they got hired by United, however, I think you'll find a few "average" or below average pilots flying for any line.

The 744 incident involved a "bunkie" making his first ever real world TO. I don't think he knew what a rudder was for and that those pedals on the floor weren't accelerator and brake.

As an aside, in the early 90s I worked on a video series called "The World Above" which aired on PBS stations. The male host of the show was a UAL bunkie. He said he loved the job, hated flying, but that it paid enough and gave him enough time off so he could pursue his Hollywood ambitions.

To United's credit, the incident scared the hell of them for reasons mentioned earlier, and they took immediate action by initiating a system wide evaluation and re-training program.

Regarding the topic issue on this thread, I fly that route in a small plane often enough to have hard time believing that the tower controller did not warn the 777 crew of the transiting VFR traffic.

I just watched the U-Tube newscast. That reporter from Ch5 has a reputation for exaggeration. It was edited to titillate. She's also trying to nail Toyota right now.

The one thing I noticed was the botched read back by the UA FO. She sounded nervous before rolling. She should have been monitoring the communication between the tower and the Cessna. I have the feeling that she was along for the ride.

[protectthehornet]

bob campell

sadly, due to my cheapness (proof I am a real airline pilot) my machine won't playback the radio calls.

if you heard a female voice acknowledge the takeoff clearance, I think it was the captain...but perhaps you have more information than I do.

[p51guy]

Max Trescott Aviation Trends Aloft: NTSB investigating Near Miss Between United Jet and small airplane near SFO - ATC Audio (http://www.maxtrescott.com/max_trescott_on_general_a/2010/03/ntsb-investigating-near-miss-between-united-jet-and-small-airplane-near-sfo-atc-audio.html)

This one should work. Click ATC audio.

[Capn Bloggs]

Robert,
The one thing I noticed was the botched read back by the UA FO. She sounded nervous before rolling. She should have been monitoring the communication between the tower and the Cessna. I have the feeling that she was along for the ride.
Botched readback? So she stumbled on the callsign? So she's a cripple?

What communication? All the tower said was, according to Max: "roger keep Highway 101 off to your left side" (which seemed to be an undesirable place to be given that a 777 was about to blast off straight into that piece of sky).

I think continued criticism of the 777 crew is unfair.

As for the Cessna pilot, he was about about to cross the extended centreline of SFO 28L. If he wasn't sitting on the edge of his seat looking at the runway watching for jets heading straight at him he'd have to have rocks in his head. But even with the almost-too late tower warning, he still came mighty close to the 777.

[MikeGranby]

> Once the aircraft breaks the ground it's an inside manuever. This
> is and was an instrument rules flight and airspace should be protected
> as such regardless of any prevailing vis. or assumptions.

I'm a few days late on this, but I have to say this comment worries me. If the wx is vmc, surely see and avoid still applies? IFR or not, you have an obligation to look where you're going.

[Robert Campbell]

I just listened to the audio again. The first reply is the Captain (male voice)
all of the rest were from the FO (female voice)

I've annotated whether it's Captain of FO who is speaking.

Clearly, the SFO controller explained the situation to UA889. The FO just had her head inside.

In the transcript, SFO tower is the tower controller. UA889 is the Boeing 777 departing San Francisco for Beijing and 9870E is the Cessna 182, which was flying north to south along highway 101.
11:09:28
9870E: San Francisco Tower 9870 Echo 1.6 [indicating he’s at 1,600 feet]
11:09:33
SFO Tower: 8270 Echo San Francisco tower, roger keep Highway 101 off to your left side
11:09:33
9870E: 70 Echo
11:10:03
SFO Tower: United 889 28 Left Heavy Position and hold
11:10:06
UA889: Position and hold 28 Left, United 889 (Captain)
11:11:41
SFO Tower: United 889 Heavy Winds 090 at 6, Runway 28 Left Clear for takeoff.
11:11:41
UA889: Clear for takeoff 28 Left United, uh Triple 889 (FO) Thinking she has a cute reply for three 8s, then realizing her error

11:13:44
SFO Tower: 70 Echo, Traffic off the departure end climbing out of 500 heavy triple 7.
11:13:49
9870E: 70 Echo is in sight
11:13:51
SFO Tower: Maintain visual separate, pass behind that aircraft
11:13:55
9870E: 70 Echo, Pass behind him
11:13:57
UA889: Is that Traffic for 889? (FO) hasn't been listening
11:13:59
SFO Tower: Just ahead and to your right, has you in sight, Cessna one-thousand 500, they’re maintaining visual separation
11:14:05
UA889: [Unintelligible] (FO)
11:14:07
SFO Tower: 889 Heavy traffic no factor, Contact Norcal Departure
11:14:10
UA889: OK, That set off a TCAS that was….that (FO) rattled and embarrassed
11:14:18
UA889: We need to talk. (FO) Saving face
11:14:21
SFO Tower: Roger.



I will say that if I had been flying the Cessna, I would have turned left sooner.

Each airport is unique. SFO started out as Mills field with one dirt runway. In the 70s (before TCAs) general aviation used the field. We parked at Butler Aviation.

I was involved in a program promoting close in air transport for faster city center to city center connections. We were flying Britten Norman Islanders and Trilanders, Pilatus Porters and Helio Couriers off the wide ramp area near Butler. When landing, we'd come in low along the coast pass the Flying Tigers hangar and Coast Guard Station and then land on the last few hundred feet of 28 left or right.

We also landed at Candlestick Park, The Cow Palace, Crissy Field, Golden Gate Fields and Cal Expo in Sacramento.

Microwave approach systems were on the horizon permitting steeper, curved approaches. (We're still waiting, though something similar is now available using GPS)

We had a letter of agreement with SFO Tower permitting our non-standard ops. VFR ops were permitted at that time and we would request a "standard
ramp departure" When cleared, we'd just take off from the ramp and head for highway 101.

Sadly, the general public didn't want airplanes anywhere close to them, and the TCA was created. STOLAIR became Westair Commuter, and I ended up flying night cargo out of the Tigers Hangar in DC-3s for an airline called Zoom Zoom (later Tranwest Air Express).

The attitude of cooperation between SFO Tower and General Aviation has remained.

Walt Smith, the SFO Tower chief, taught an aviation ground school at Santa Rosa Junior College in the early 90s in addition to running the Santa Rosa Airport tower which handled GA primarily, and commuters from time to time. We all called him "Uncle Walt".

SFO is in a rather different position than most major airports. It's surrounded by water and mountains and other airports. Look at the SFO VFR Terminal Area Chart. That is one mixed up wedding cake.

The terrain is spectacular. On clear days, many of the airliners departing on the 1L or R request the bay tour so that the pax can see the Golden Gate Bridge. Airliners above 3500'; GA below 3000'

Ten years ago there was a proposal to expand SFO with another runway in San Francisco Bay since the existing runways are too close together to permit parallel approaches and takeoffs. I made a lot of money from competing engineering firms which were submitting proposals. All the time I was over SFO shooting oblique and vertical photos, I knew that the expansion would never happen.

First, the "Save the Bay" organizations were dead against the idea. Second, the economy was a little bit more shaky than many wanted to admit, and third, think of the taxi time involved in getting to or from a 28 Very Right a mile out in the bay.

So, in all these years of airlines and GA working together without incident, we have a graduate from a pilot mill (objection - speculation), based in SF, come apart because her little box lit up.

There used to be a program called "Fly a Controller". When I was flying the Otis Spunkmeyer DC-3, we took several OAK controllers for rides (the idea was to bring back the "glorious" days of air travel. The cockpit door was always open, and we took requests. If a passenger wanted to see their house, we'd do everything we could to oblige.)

On one of the flights, I had two OAK controllers on board, and they wanted to fly the 101 corridor past SFO. They wanted to see how it worked. I got a Class B 101 from Bay (now NORCAL) and we proceeded at 1500 ft. Traffic was slow at SFO and the controllers on board got to have good conversation
with their comrades from across the bay as we flew past SFO down the Peninsula to San Carlos (about 8 miles southwest of SFO where we crossed the bay back to Oakland.

The system works well and has for many years.

[criss]

Seems everything worked as it should, just TCAS was unhappy. TWR might have passed the info to the heavy departing, but I don't think it would have been of much use, visual separation was in the hands of Cessna pilot.

[n5296s]

Coming late to this thread... just looks like over-reaction by the UAL FO, who would have known all about the Cessna if she'd been paying attention.

I fly the bayshore transition probably once a month on average. I've had an airliner call an RA concerning me once, I was doing exactly what the controller said and the other traffic was already past my trajectory. The captain sounded annoyed but didn't make a full-scale event out of it.

Usually they will give you another route if there is a heavy taking off on 28L/R, over midfield or out over the bay. A couple of times though I've had a heavy take off in front of me, obviously keep an eye on it and be prepared to get out of the way if needed, but so far it never has been.

Actually I flew that route a couple of hours after the incident (and didn't know about it yet). All I knew was that SFO tower wasn't taking transitions (no surprise now). So Norcal took me over 280 at 3500' instead.

No big deal. Hope it doesn't mess things up long term for the bayshore transition.

n5296s

[bearfoil]

Robert Campbell

Most excellent essay. It took me back quite a ways. Where did they put Bufano's Statue?

My question: At 1600 feet on the Cessna's route close in to 28L, It is not wise to be West of 101, East of 101 (directly overhead the airport) takes him completely out of conflict with 889. West may have been preferable for other traffic, but you know what I'm saying, here? West of the Highway at 1600 feet puts him in 889's bullseye.

F/O is not a weak pilot. She is as meticulous and skilled as anyone here, believe me. For the Tower to claim "not a factor" with the bells going off would get anyone's attention. She has been flying in the Bay for 25 years that I know of, and is a Captain on the 757. Everyone knew (especially in hind sight) what was happening, but at the time she was ignored. She broke off after "we need to talk" because she was flying, even though she was ready to rip and tear. The Captain initiated a call back to tower, as he should have.

bear

[Robert Campbell]

My apologies to the FO if she's as good as you say. And, I agree that the prudent clearance for the Cessna would have been over the field. I've been cleared that way several times.

One thing puzzles me. Why assign 28L, the shorter runway, to the 777 Heavy with a 6 knot tailwind ... unless 889 wasn't THAT heavy.

I think it would wise for SFO tower to issue "Rules of the Road NOTAM or e-mail advisory to all of the local pilots regarding this transition. I subscribe to the FAA's advisories and e-mail NOTAMS

Every time I use the 101 corridor, I look at the TO end of the 28s and, if I see an aircraft there, I tell the controller that I have the traffic in site even if it's not rolling.

In a situation such as this, everyone should be as well informed as possible.


Do you remember when someone tied a big YoYo to the Bufano statue's finger?

[protectthehornet]

robert campbell

thanks for the nice essay and com transcript. I flew for WestAir out of Chico way back when (1982 or so) 402's.

I think the situation was under control with the cessna having the burden of visual seperation. the TCAS RA could have been over ridden if the 777 crew had the traffic in sight and was SURE that was the only traffic.

somewhere back in learning to fly, watching the extended centerline of the runway for traffic...from both planes ...would have been normal.

[Robert Campbell]

WestAir grew out of STOLAir which flew Islanders and Trilanders. The initial Route was SFO - Santa Rosa and back.

I did the promo photography for them of a Trilander circling the SFO terminals and tower. I've got some great images from those days.

I was also doing the route acceptance flights for the FAA until they found out that I was also flying night cargo out of SFO to BUR and LAX in B-18s for Arabesco Airlines, the only Black owned airline in the US. I was told to pick one or the other. I chose Arabesco, the pay was better. It was single pilot, but they let us bring "Cargo Handlers" along. That made it "bearable".

[Robert Campbell]

I don't if there is any connection here. Maybe this was one incident too many, and United decided to throw in the towel:)

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Wed, April 07, 2010 -- 5:08 PM ET
-----

US Airways Said to Be in Talks to Buy United

The UAL Corporation, the parent of United Airlines, and US
Airways are in talks to merge, in a potential deal that would
create one of the world's largest airlines, people briefed on
the matter said on Wednesday.

The negotiations mark the latest efforts to consolidate the
struggling airline industry. Both companies have been vocal
in calling for greater consolidation within the industry to
help prop up falling revenues, with United's chief executive,
Glenn F. Tilton, among the leading proponents for more
mergers.

United and US Airways are deep in their merger discussions,
though a transaction is not expected to be announced for at
least several weeks, these people said, cautioning that talks
may still collapse. One potential hurdle could be union
opposition.

Read More:
United and US Airways Said to Be in Merger Talks - DealBook Blog - NYTimes.com (http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/united-and-us-airways-hold-merger-talks/?emc=na)

:):):)

[Capn Bloggs]

Hornet,
the TCAS RA could have been over ridden if the 777 crew had the traffic in sight and was SURE that was the only traffic.

Your credibility is now zero.

After having read Robert's and others continued attempts to portray this as a non-event, I can now see why I don't like the US system or attitude. These two aircraft were seconds away from being wrecks on the 101, and all you can do is sledge the UA FO for not paying attention. Ridiculous.

[Robert Campbell]

I just talked to a controller at SFO. Everything is back to normal except for busy times which were always restricted: usually 7:30 - 9:00; 11:30 - 1:00 and 4:00 to 6:00. And that is flexible.

Walt Smith, the tower chief, retired two years ago.

And all is well in SFO land.:ok:

[sb_sfo]

They put the Bufano up on Brotherhood Way near Lake Merced. I can't find it on Google Earth.

As far as I'm concerned, it was a crime to not relocate it back to SFO after the new Int'l Terminal construction was done.

[protectthehornet]

bloggs...your credibility is now zero.

gee whiz...anyone that knows that terrain would hesitate to follow a descending RA if the offending traffic was in sight and ATC said it was no factor.

I do get one impression...the FO was new to the plane if she was a 757 captain previously...maybe she forgot she was the FO and the captain should have spoken up.

SFO Flying...fun stuff...I use to work for CalAirCharter among other joints, so I know what cargo/check stuff is all about

[protectthehornet]

the statue with the yo you was Father Junipero Serra up on I280.

Buffano...some of it is in Hillsdale mall and the other stuff might be at Tanforan

[Pugilistic Animus]

YouTube - Nelly - Hot In Herre (Official Music Video 720p HD) + Lyrics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-qN6TCY85c) :ouch:

[aviator]

There is a tremendous amount of speculation on this event.
Many of the stated facts are plain wrong, and I find myself disappointed in some of the conclusions opined by some of my fellow aviators.

The complete story will come out in due time, and I for one am eager to hear the full story. That said, here are corrections to a couple of basic misunderstandings repeated often on this thread. It does not nececessarily change the picture much, but does illustrate that beliefs and facts do not always match.

1- the flying pilot on the UA flight is male.

2- the Captain is female.

3- DH-ing crewmembers said the evasive action was smooth, and not noticed
by most passengers.

I will refrain from divulging personal details about the crew involved, but they have my full confidence, as do all UA crews.

[p51guy]

I noticed it took 15 seconds from SFO telling the Cessna about the 777 climbing out of 500 ft until she caught up and asked if that was their traffic. The Cessna had already turned behind their path having them in sight all the while and was no factor until the 777 RA went off and they called the tower, FAA, NTSB and especially the press to make this news. An earthquake that day might have given the press something worthy of writing about. Look at the post with ATC audio and the transcript on the other post and write down the times and decide what you would have done if you were the 777 driver. If they had done nothing it wouldn't have mattered. As the controller said he was no longer a factor and contact departure. RAs always have a green arc so sometimes a small adjustment makes it happy again. If you can figure out how to lower the nose a tad with automation or manually will usually do that.

We had TCAS sims to show how to handle an RA without undo maneuvering at our airline. They are still quite crude but are wonderful safety devices. I flew a jet into SAN the day before the PSA midair and was very happy to see the TCAS system developed.

I agree the 777 had the priority and couldn't do much maneuvering at their weight. It wasn't very hard to lower their climb rate however. I would be interested to know what the RA green arc showed as the minimum they needed to lower their nose to satisfy it. The only reason they got the alert was an aircraft passing behind them so with future RA alerts they will fix that.

[Robert Campbell]

Aviator

Someone posts a story that they heard. Then the news stories get posted. Then we all jump in based on what has been posted before.

Now that I think about it, why was the female voice doing the communicating if she was the PF? But, then again, when I was PF and I had the FO attending to something else, I found that I was able to fly and communicate. Amazing!

As I said a few posts ago, it's a non issue. The SFO controller I talked to said all was well and that it's still possible to get a 101 VFR clearance depending on traffic and time of day.

P.S. I really like the blanket endorsement of UAL Crews. I know two guys who retired from the right seat. Both were hired from the right seat of US Air Force B-52s. And both have ground looped some really pretty antiques
and had the money to send them out to be fixed. One of these guys pranged his Staggerwing again within a month. He's got right rudder down, now we just need to work on left rudder.

I think that the abilities of the individual should be judged; not the fact the he or she flies for a certain airline.

_____________

As for the Bufano, I was thinking about the one on I-280. I vaguely remember the one at SFO, however I was usually entering by different gates for Butler or Tigers.

[p51guy]

So your opinion of the Buff, B52 pilots, coincides with mine. Always had most of my problems with Buff guys. I guess flying around for days doesn't help flying skills. They made long days out of fun trips.

[Robert Campbell]

You know, they all say B52 is the best airplane they ever flew.

Well, they never learned rudder with that castering gear. They couldn't correct for drift on landing, they'd drag a wing.

Why this one ex UAL guy wanted antique taildraggers beats me.

I never flew with him so I don't know about any other characteristics the 52 instilled that made them fun to fly with.

[CenAir]

Its this Simple she got spooked by TCAS and her call "We need to Talk" made a mountain of problems out of a non-event.

[Robert Campbell]

Say "Goodnight!" Gracie.

[le Pingouin]

Its this Simple she got spooked by TCAS and her call "We need to Talk" made a mountain of problems out of a non-event.The whole point with TCAS is is you do what it says. Not what the controller or anyone else says. Or aren't you familiar with Uberlingen?

A TCAS RA is rarely a "non-event".

[aviator]

If one takes the time to read and comprehend my posting it states that..


"1- the flying pilot on the UA flight is male. (Pilot Flying)

2- the Captain is female. (Non Flying - ie: handling the radios)"

In other words - some have it backwards.

The agendas "some" have are better left OUT of comments directed at real life, and potentally catastrofic, events.

This is not a game.
This is about real pilots doing the best they can to operate a safe aircraft.
And if things happen (near mid-air), one would hope that you would be at the hands of competent and well trained pilots.
In this particular case they handled the situation, and continued onwards to PEK.

Real people - real life.

[Capn Bloggs]

P51,
If you can figure out how to lower the nose a tad with automation
Wrong. Out of interest, how many seconds do you reckon you get to react to a RA? And how many seconds would it take a/to note the required VS; b/set the required VS on the MCP and c/have the aeroplane start responding?

The only reason they got the alert was an aircraft passing behind them so with future RA alerts they will fix that.
How do you work that out?

[PJ2]

p51guy;
It wasn't very hard to lower their climb rate however. I would be interested to know what the RA green arc showed as the minimum they needed to lower their nose to satisfy it. The suggested pitch change for a TCAS II RA response under 200KIAS is 5 to 7degrees, an expected IVSI of 1500fpm (flying to the green should result in this initial rate) or an altitude change from an assigned altitude of between 300 and 500ft from an assigned altitude. Any increase or reversal TCAS command requires only a 1/3g maneuver executed within 2.5 seconds of the command.
The only reason they got the alert was an aircraft passing behind them so with future RA alerts they will fix that. TCAS II is 'tau'-activated which means it is based upon time to the CPA - Closest Point of Approach and not distance. I don't think TCAS II would issue an RA for an aircraft that was just 'passing behind' unless of course that aircraft was overtaking the one ahead; not the case here.

The TCAS II Version 7.0 (http://www.arinc.com/downloads/tcas/tcas.pdf) is an excellent document from the FAA.

PJ2

[Pera]

The scenario described by the transcript isn't a separation breakdown. Visual separation assigned to a pilot is standard ICAO separation. Some questions:

1. the light aircraft wasn't warned about wake turbulence - is that required in the US?

2. Was it an RA or TA? The transcript suggest a TA which in the context would be fine.

An RA would be nasty and require paperwork, but still not a separation breakdown. Poor service and airmanship though to get that close.

[Capn Bloggs]

The scenario described by the transcript isn't a separation breakdown. Visual separation assigned to a pilot is standard ICAO separation.
You're joking, aren't you? The lighty pilot gets oh about 15 secs to avoid a jet coming virtually straight at him (that gets an RA because the lighty is so close) and you say there's a Visual Separation standard?

Was it an RA or TA? The transcript suggest a TA which in the context would be fine.
Read the NTSB report in post 3.

[RatherBeFlying]

Perhaps SFO tower could have mentioned the GA traffic when issuing the takeoff clearance.

"The GA guy has you in sight and is staying clear" means that he has your and your passengers' fate in his hands if you do not yourself have him in sight.

We do like to feel in control of what is about to happen and in this case the FO did not.

[malcolmf]

A while back I posted a report on an RA between Sebby and Dagget departing LAX on the ATC issues section. Unfortunately the thread has gone but the gist of it was that and RA occurred between a heavy 744 and a BE200 at 17000 feet.
It is similar in that it could all have been avoided by a simple change of clearance to give 1000 feet vertical separation rather than 500. In the SFO case a delay to the 777 take off by 15 secs would probably have solved the problem, or is it that the controllers are so focussed on flow rates (due to management pressure) that they don't want to do that.
A TCAS RA is a very rare event in commercial operations, I have only seen one in 20 years flying 744, 757, 767 and 777 worldwide. It is not a normal manoeuvre and certainly on departure out of SFO with all the terrain issues, non standard acceleration heights etc would be very unwelcome.
No one wants to restrict GA, just an appreciation from US ATC that 500 foot separation will result in a TCAS RA.
I would far rather wait 15 secs or stay 500 feet lower than have an RA with the subsequent stress and paperwork.

[n5296s]

I would far rather wait 15 secs or stay 500 feet lower than have an RA with the subsequent stress and paperwork.
I think most GA pilots in the Bay Area would agree with me that being allowed to fly through the heart of the SFO Class B is something that comes with limitations and (maybe not everyone would agree with this) is quite a privilege. If I was asked to make a 360 or two to make room for a heavy on 28, that would be fine by me. I've never had that, but I've often been sent over midfield or out over the bay to get out of the way of the airline traffic. And that's fine.

Someone commented earlier in the thread that "it should be class A". In the US class A stops at FL180, and no VFR traffic is allowed there at all - unlike for example the EGLL class A to-the-ground where SVFR is allowed (and even has its own dedicated frequency). But class B is essentially the same thing as class A in that everyone is under positive ATC control. The best way to get refused entry to the SFO class B is to sound like you won't be able to do that.

n5296s

[West Coast]

subsequent stress and paperwork.

Curious what paperwork must be completed for a RA? Must the same be filled out for a TA as well?

Must be an individual airline thing as there's no blanket requirement on this side of the pond.

[p51guy]

I just checked out post #3 as suggested. It started out with adjust vertical speed 3 times followed by descend 3 times. Does that mean they didn't respond to the first RA so that caused the descend RA? Would this be in the news if they had adjusted vertical speed? Once again the fastest way to do this is manually lower the nose and reduce power. Using automation if they were on autopilot and didn't disconnect would take a bit longer. We all know not responding to an RA initially will escalate to more aggresive RA commands.

[malcolmf]

Curious what paperwork must be completed for a RA? Must the same be filled out for a TA as well?In my company:

An Airprox means any situation which in the opinion of the pilot or air traffic control the distance between aircraft as well as their relative positions and speed have been such that the safety of the aircraft involved may have been compromised and/or avoidance action was taken or would have been appropriate.

An Air traffic incident means any incident in which the aircraft had less separation than expected although there was no definite risk of collision.

Any Airprox or air traffic incident must be reported immediately by RT and backed up with an ASR (Air Safety Report)

An ASR is two sides of foolscap with relative diagrams etc.

A TCAS RA automatically requires an ASR. A TA doesn't although it could come under Airprox or Air Traffic Incident.

[p51guy]

When I was flying the first RA was "monitor vertical speed". We were told if you are already in the green arc you didn't have to do anything. It was a precaution not to do anything but don't deviate from the green arc you are in. Then it did not require any reporting action. It was only when you deviated from your ATC clearance that a report was required.

[Pera]

Bloggs,

My post was about the classification of the incident, not a judgement of the severity or otherwise. Ideally a 777 should not be subject to an RA at A015. Surely we can do better than that.

A 'separation breakdown' is where ATC failed. In this case the responsibility for separation was assigned to and accepted by the C182.

Once separation was assigned, the C182 was required to remain clear of the 777. It must be understood though that whenever visual separation is assigned to a pilot that by definition the aircraft are going to be close together. If they aren't then another standard would exist ie radar or TWR visual separation.

I agree with malcolmf that ATC may have been able to do a better job but it's really hard to say without knowing the culture and local procedures. My comments are based on the broad principles of ATC, not the specifics which this post doesn't address adequately. Maybe ATC would have been in trouble for delaying the C182 when a visual separation standard was available.

I would classify this incident as an AIRPROX or FAILURE TO FOLLOW ATC INSTRUCTIONS.

And I never joke about safety...

[criss]

Robert Campbell, you should work as aircraft accident investigator.

[Capn Bloggs]

Pera,

I apologise for being a bit harsh. My thoughts are that Visual Separation is fine (I get it/comply with it often), but there must be adequate time for the aircraft that is being "asked" to do the staying clear to assess whether it is possible or not and then agree to it. In this case, not enough time was given, resulting in a very close encounter because the VFR could not take enough avoiding action to prevent a TCAS RA (which for Change 7, had to be close) as well, of course, his own significant bank away from the 777.

When the 777 got airborne, no separation standard existed. The controller had no options at all except to get the lighty to avoid the 777 visually. Had the controller been a few seconds later, or the VFR not picked up the 777... Too close for comfort.

[Robert Campbell]

Criss:

There was a reason that I didn't go to medical school.

I've just re-read the first 2 pages of this thread, and looked at the SF VFR Terminal Chart.

There is a lot of confusion including the type of small aircraft involved.

The Terminal chart shows Hwy 101 crossing the extended centerline of 28L at approximately a 45% angle. This leads me to believe that the Cessna's left turn wasn't very radical.

I would like to see the actual radar track of the incident. I wonder how close the two aircraft really got. All I could find was 200 to 300 ft horizontally and 300 ft. vertically.

The human eye is a great lens. It has the ability to act as a wide angle or telephoto, or a combination of both. As the mirror on my Honda says, "Objects are closer than they appear." The opposite is also true, when startled, the human eye fixates on the object, and it appears to be much closer than it actually is.

[Robert Campbell]

Is the UAL Capt's fist name Mollie?

[Robert Campbell]

As you can imagine, in my current business, aerial photography, videography and filmmaking, I have some pretty sophisticated imaging and audio equipment.

Here's my take on the last portion of the audio.


11:09:28
9870E: San Francisco Tower 9870 Echo 1.6 [indicating he’s at 1,600 feet]
11:09:33
SFO Tower: 8270 Echo San Francisco tower, roger keep Highway 101 off to your left side
11:09:33
9870E: 70 Echo
11:10:03
SFO Tower: United 889 28 Left Heavy Position and hold
11:10:06
UA889: Position and hold 28 Left, United 889 (Male voice)
11:11:41
SFO Tower: United 889 Heavy Winds 090 at 6, Runway 28 Left Clear for takeoff.
11:11:41
UA889: Clear for takeoff 28 Left United, uh Triple 889 (Female voice)
11:13:44
SFO Tower: 70 Echo, Traffic off the departure end climbing out of 500 heavy triple 7.
11:13:49
9870E: 70 Echo is in sight (70 Echo, IT is in sight)
11:13:51
SFO Tower: Maintain visual separate, pass behind that aircraft
11:13:55
9870E: 70 Echo, Pass behind him
11:13:57
UA889: Is that Traffic for 889?
11:13:59
SFO Tower: Just ahead and to your right, has you in sight, Cessna one-thousand 500, they’re maintaining visual separation
11:14:05
UA889: [Unintelligible] (I've got vertical- female voice)
11:14:07
SFO Tower: 889 Heavy traffic no factor, Contact Norcal Departure
11:14:10
UA889: OK, That set off a TCAS that was….that (The last "that" is not for general audiences, she sounds very upset)
11:14:18
UA889: We need to talk.
11:14:21
SFO Tower: Roger.

[bearfoil]

Robert

It sounds like aviate may know who was in the cockpit, as I said before, the lady's voice is familiar to me, but it is difficult to tell who was PF from the audio. I still say being west of 101 while southbound over the Departure end of the 28's puts one in jeopardy (actually 2), and at or before the departure (center line) East is more than preferable, it is far safer.

The upshot of this deal is the TCAS and the female's intensity because of the RA. The Tower had no business not giving 889 the traffic, and making them ask. The Controller was wrong. Listen to his last transmission to 70Echo, he's making double sure the Cessna can be relied upon to miss. He knows he's in worse trouble for making the 777 maneuver, and he knows immediately he fouled up. For my money, he was hoping and praying for no TCAS, and 889 would not then know how careless he'd been.

imo, bear

[Robert Campbell]

This is a guess on my part, but the Cessna is based out of Palo Alto, and I'll bet that the pilot is known to, and trusted by, the controllers at SFO.

I agree about east of 101.

No one got excited except the lady (Capt. or FO - we still don't know except for Aviator's posts)

[aviator]

I will refrain from giving out names, but I will say that your suggestion is incorrect.

IMHO, the important discussion is what issues led up to this event and how it was handled.

There seems to be a lot of quick comments trying to discredit the 777 crew.
All they did was take off in a heavily loaded jet into raising terrain, and were presented with a RA at low altitude. By all accounts this was handled professionally.

The Cessna pilot found him/herself in the path of a rapidly approaching airliner and took an apparently correct evasive action.

There may be procedural issues that led to this unfortunate event.

I fail to see why so many are eager to pin this any of the pilots involved.

Flying is about minimizing risk - and this may just be an opportunity to review how one handles a mix of aircraft in a fairly confined airspace.

[overthewing]

Am I picking up a slight whiff of misogyny in some posters? Would a Guy Reaction (deeper voice, limited emotion) have been tolerated better? Is it that the words 'We need to talk' uttered by a woman are giving chills to men who've learned that it usually heralds a 'difficult' discussion?

From querying the Tower about the traffic, to the TCAS going off, seems to have been about 6 seconds, at a time of high workload. I'm not surprised the pilot was heated.

And, speaking as SLF who would not like to see a small plane taking avoiding actions as my flight is lifting off, I'm struck by the fact that the Cessna had to turn at all. Is this normal? Shouldn't the small plane be asked to, say, circle at a safe distance until the departing jet is out of the way?

If the 777 had delayed its take-off roll by, say, 20-30 secs, where would this have put the Cessna in relation to the 777?

[protectthehornet]

the minute the controller was sure the cessna was going to maintain visual seperation and he notified united of this, the incident should have been over.

I would like to know if:

The United crew looked at their TCAS screen and saw the traffic prior to an RA being issued? (this would enable the pilots to visually scan for the traffic.

And why aviator thinks it worthy to add: a 777 heavily loaded taking off towards rising terrian? With that tailwind, they could have asked for runway 10 (and waited and waited and waited). That is just part of San Francisco operations, why mention it?


Does UNITED just have the min TCAS display on the VSI or is it on the radar screen...selectable to many,many miles?

and dear self loading freight...if anyone was to be delayed , the cessna would have been allowed to continue and the 777 would have had to wait, safely on the ground...burning up lots of gas(actually jet fuel)

[Robert Campbell]

Aviator:

Have you read / listened to the transcript / exchange?

The Cessna pilot found him/herself in the path of a rapidly approaching airliner and took an apparently correct evasive action.

The Cessna pilot (male) followed directions to the letter. I think that the 777 crew was not paying attention.

Listen to the tape.

If I'm cleared into Class B airspace and am following directions, I have as much right to be there as the big guys.

I fly in SFO's Class B regularly when I'm shooting aerials. First I call NORCAL Approach on the phone, then I give SFO tower a call if I'm working below 3,000 ft. to ask permission and coordinate the operation.

On occasion, an airliner is restricted below me for a minute or so or vectored around me.

I remember one day when I was working over Yerba Buena Island at 6,000 ft. photographing the Port of Oakland. An airliner asked what "the little guy" was doing at that altitude then told the controller that I had no business being there. The NORCAL controller said I had a clearance and had every right to be there. Then he held then the airliner at 5,000 ft. for another 2 minutes or so well after he was clear.

I've also been asked to move to one side to let a heavy pass. I comply immediately.

As long as we all play by the rules, the system works well. In this case, size doesn't count.

[Capn Bloggs]

Overthewing, a commonsense post from, of all people, a pax. Well done.

hornet,
and dear self loading freight...if anyone was to be delayed , the cessna would have been allowed to continue and the 777 would have had to wait, safely on the ground...burning up lots of gas(actually jet fuel) .

For the sake of a 30 second delay on the ground to let the Cessna pass, so what? What's the 777 ground idle fuel fuel? 50kg per minute? 25kg saved, as opposed to getting a TCAS RA? And yes, it would have been better doing that than taking off going in the wrong direction... Flying airliners is about being economical as well.

You guys are defending the indefensible.

[Tim Zukas]

the minute the controller was sure the cessna was going to maintain visual seperation and he notified united of this, the incident should have been over.The controller was never sure of that, of course. He told him, and the Cessna agreed-- that's what the controller was sure of.

Like they said, the 777 was crossing Highway 101 at maybe a 45-degree angle. [Edit: more like 57 degrees.] The Cessna had already agreed to stay west of the highway, and at the last minute he agreed to pass behind (i.e. east of) the 777 climbing WNWward. The obvious suspicion is that it turned out to be impossible to comply with both instructions without coming too close.

What if the Cessna had responded "Unable" to the second instruction-- how would the tower have handled that? Maybe it was too late for the Cessna to make a right 360, so nothing to do but clear him to cross to the east side of the highway? Which it so happened he could have done-- no opposing traffic there?

[DA50driver]

"b. A pilot's acceptance of instructions to follow another aircraft or provide visual separation from it is an acknowledgment that the pilot will maneuver the aircraft as necessary to avoid the other aircraft or to maintain in-trail separation. In operations conducted behind heavy jet aircraft, it is also an acknowledgment that the pilot accepts the responsibility for wake turbulence separation.

NOTE-
When a pilot has been told to follow another aircraft or to provide visual separation from it, the pilot should promptly notify the controller if visual contact with the other aircraft is lost or cannot be maintained or if the pilot cannot accept the responsibility for the separation for any reason.

c. Scanning the sky for other aircraft is a key factor in collision avoidance. Pilots and copilots (or the right seat passenger) should continuously scan to cover all areas of the sky visible from the cockpit. Pilots must develop an effective scanning technique which maximizes one's visual capabilities. Spotting a potential collision threat increases directly as more time is spent looking outside the aircraft. One must use timesharing techniques to effectively scan the surrounding airspace while monitoring instruments as well.

d. Since the eye can focus only on a narrow viewing area, effective scanning is accomplished with a series of short, regularly spaced eye movements that bring successive areas of the sky into the central visual field. Each movement should not exceed ten degrees, and each area should be observed for at least one second to enable collision detection. Although many pilots seem to prefer the method of horizontal back-and-forth scanning every pilot should develop a scanning pattern that is not only comfortable but assures optimum effectiveness. Pilots should remember, however, that they have a regulatory responsibility (14 CFR Section 91.113(a)) to see and avoid other aircraft when weather conditions permit."

Case closed.

I get RA's on a regular basis going into smaller airports with a lot of priate aircraft activity. (Teterboro, NJ and Centennial, CO top the list).

On a nice Saturday afternoon there are a lot of VFR airplanes out flying. Since it is VMC I am responsible for separation even if I am on an IFR flight plan. US ATC only provides separation if it is IMC. And that is predicated on VFR visibility and cloud clearance minimums. Generally speaking Joe Piper should be at least 500' below the clouds when I pop out on my way down.

Way to many of us spend too much time inside the cockpit not looking outside. If you can't fly the plane and look outside at the same time maybe its time to play more Microsoft Flight Simulator to get the basic skills up to snuff.

I fly a Gulfstream 550, we have more gadgets to play with than any airliner. We have HUD, EVS, Synthetic Vision, and every other bell and whistle that you can possibly stuff in an airplane. It is very tempting to stay inside and watch the automation do its thing, but when the RA goes off you are required to and should turn the autopilot off and hand fly the plane.

Finally, in the USA there is an NTSB requirement to file a report when you have an RA.

[411A]

Way to many of us spend too much time inside the cockpit not looking outside. If you can't fly the plane and look outside at the same time maybe its time to play more Microsoft Flight Simulator to get the basic skills up to snuff.


Well said.
Some of the First Officers I fly with never look outside...then when they fly with me, they find out they had better or...they can look for another job.
I'm the chief pilot, so...my choice.:}

[p51guy]

I am not a controller but if he had said unable he would have been doing a 360 to the right. He calmly said he could pass behind the 777 and had him in sight. Situation handled. For some reason the RA caught the 777 by surprise even though their TCAS would have clearly shown the Cessna before the RA and they were advised of the traffic. Looking out the window is a good procedure in any airplane. Was anybody in the 777 doing that when they got surprised by the RA? Did they respond as they were trained during the RA? Minimum corrections are sometimes all that is required.

[Robert Campbell]

Tim:

If you've ever flown that route, you'd know that everyone had plenty of time to react and comply with instructions.

This is getting a bit silly. No one died. No flaming wreckage fell on 101.

I think we're getting the second or third wave of readers.

Start from the beginning, listen to the tape, read the transcript.

[protectthehornet]

I honestly don't know how the news media got a hold of this story. visual seperation was provided in accordance with regulations.

the only question about the voice being male or female was trying to figure out who the captain was, so let's not make anything of that.

I have a feeling some of us have been in much worse positions and are wondering why we didn't make the national news. 3 controllers were de certified on the spot for screwing up something I was involved with...and this didn't make the funny papers.

AS for seeing only the bottom of the Cessna...big deal...that's the way banking works. I've flown my jet into DCA and at one point, someone said you could only see the top of my plane...that's the way planes turn.

The lessons that should be learned are:

1. always look out the window for traffic...regardless of weather or clearance...and I mean it.

2. Take a look at departure route on TCAS for possible traffic...and if you see something that doesn't make sense...ask ATC.

3. Realize that everyone has a stake in good visibility...put your lights on full bright (with rare exceptions) so you can be seen.

4. remember that TCAS only works when both planes have transponders that are on!

5. When the weather is the nicest, the chance of collision just might be the greatest. People don't go for ''bay tours'' when the weather stinks.

[Tim Zukas]

I am not a controller but if he had said unable he would have been doing a 360 to the right.If the Cessna was parallel to 101 it would have been on a course of about 175 deg true; United was climbing on course 298 deg. How close can the Cessna be to the 777s track and still have room to start a right 360 without making things worse?If you've ever flown that route, you'd know that everyone had plenty of time to react and comply with instructions.To know that we have to know just where the Cessna was at a given time in the transcript. If I fly the route once or twice I will suddenly be able to intuit that? To what accuracy?

I finally looked at the map. It turns out Hwy 101 crosses the runway extended centerline 3900 ft from the departure end of 28L; FWIW, the terrain reaches 650 ft or so 3.7 nm from the end of the runway.

[Capn Bloggs]

Lookout/See-and-Avoid in a jet: you guys are relying a whole lot on the Big Sky theory.

411,
Some of the First Officers I fly with never look outside
I can't understand why. That old rustbucket you fly probably hasn't even got a clock in it! Maybe they are fascinated by all the round dials. :}:}:ok:

[Robert Campbell]

Tim:

We usually use magnetic courses and headings up in the sky. It saves time.

Goodnight.

[pattern_is_full]

Two observations:

Putting on my PP hat - I consider the airspace off the ends of active runways to be the property of the heavy metal, and try for an over-the-top transition (preferably at 90 degrees to the active) if I can't be 5 miles away at 1000' AGL. That's how I've handled JSJ, COS, MEM, IND, and the old Stapleton, either as a published route or by request (mine or the controllers).

Not criticizing the Cessna pilot - if (s)he had a clearance, (s)he had a clearance. But I try to avoid putting my small plane in the same airspace densely populated with the big noisy ones.

I'm also happy to level off at 1000'-1500' AGL and scoot out of the way if followed by a turbine on departure whenever circumstances permit. It's my posterior they are overtaking.
_____

Just a note that since SFO is a United hub, the odds are good that any incident there will involve a United crew, regardless of their quality. That's how statistics work.