Near midair over SFO
subsequent stress and paperwork.
Must be an individual airline thing as there's no blanket requirement on this side of the pond.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hindhead
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curious what paperwork must be completed for a RA? Must the same be filled out for a TA as well?
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.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Last edited by Pera; 9th Apr 2010 at 07:43. Reason: to add alternate possible classifications.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sonoma, CA, USA
Age: 79
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sonoma, CA, USA
Age: 79
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transcript From Max Trescott
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.
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.
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sonoma, CA, USA
Age: 79
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bearfoil
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)
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)
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: California, USA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kent
Age: 65
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sonoma, CA, USA
Age: 79
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transcript
Aviator:
Have you read / listened to the transcript / exchange?
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.
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.
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.
Overthewing, a commonsense post from, of all people, a pax. Well done.
hornet,
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.
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) .
You guys are defending the indefensible.
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.
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?
Last edited by Tim Zukas; 10th Apr 2010 at 03:28.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: A Marriott somewhere
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the FAA AIM
"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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
