Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Near midair over SFO

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Near midair over SFO

Old 31st Mar 2010, 23:42
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 77
Posts: 1,330
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
mm43 is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2010, 23:54
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,017
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?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 00:09
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Over the hill and far away
Age: 73
Posts: 174
mm43

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.
kenhughes is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 00:58
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
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.
p51guy is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 01:10
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 77
Posts: 1,330
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
mm43 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 01:13
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,017
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.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 01:43
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
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 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 01:51
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
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.
p51guy is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 01:52
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
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.
protectthehornet is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 01:59
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,017
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.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 02:10
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
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?
protectthehornet is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 02:25
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,017
what's a STUFFUP?

Ballsup, Messup, [email protected], Screwup, you get the idea?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 02:51
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 35
Non event?

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.
Orestes is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 05:19
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,253
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.
RatherBeFlying is online now  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 05:32
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,623
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...?
GlueBall is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 07:11
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
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?
protectthehornet is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 07:40
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 476
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.
By George is online now  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 07:56
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mayberry
Posts: 135
SFO....nope

That was San Diego.
Spadhampton is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 08:01
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
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!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2010, 12:04
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGLL
Posts: 33
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.
Capt Sly is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.