Near midair over SFO
Join Date: May 2009
Location: sfo
Age: 70
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bearfoil
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: California, USA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do facts matter anymore ??
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sonoma, CA, USA
Age: 79
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aren't Lists Wonderful
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sonoma, CA, USA
Age: 79
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUFFs
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.
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.
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.
A TCAS RA is rarely a "non-event".
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: California, USA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by aviator; 8th Apr 2010 at 05:11. Reason: Removing referance to a particular poster
P51,
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?
How do you work that out?
If you can figure out how to lower the nose a tad with automation
The only reason they got the alert was an aircraft passing behind them so with future RA alerts they will fix that.
p51guy;
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.
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 is an excellent document from the FAA.
PJ2
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.
The TCAS II Version 7.0 is an excellent document from the FAA.
PJ2
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
The scenario described by the transcript isn't a separation breakdown. Visual separation assigned to a pilot is standard ICAO separation.
Was it an RA or TA? The transcript suggest a TA which in the context would be fine.
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.
"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.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hindhead
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I would far rather wait 15 secs or stay 500 feet lower than have an RA with the subsequent stress and paperwork.
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