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

EVA B777 close call departing LAX

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

EVA B777 close call departing LAX

Old 21st Dec 2016, 00:09
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: inmysuitcase
Posts: 201
I'm all ears if you have something better, cos my jet loves a 290-320kt climb....
When I ask for it And "THE MIGHTY" ATC approves it?
testpanel is online now  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 02:06
  #22 (permalink)  
Trash du Blanc
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
When training for my IFR ticket thirty years ago, I was in Van Nuys, California (just on the other side of those hills) when a Cessna with student and instructor on board was vectored into a mountain when on approach to Burbank.

My grizzled old instructor, who had flown bombers in the fifties, said to me, "If a controller vectors you into a mountain, it will ruin their day. They'll have trouble driving home. But you'll be very dead. So who is really in charge of keeping you out of terrain?"
Huck is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 02:22
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,299
flight mode:

BR-15 still continued to the north at about 4900-5000 feet, mountains rising there to 6653 feet. The controller instructed BR-15 to climb to 7000 feet, abeam of Pasadena,CA (USA) the crew finally began to turn right, which brought the aircraft even closer to Mount Wilson (peak and Mount Wilson Observatory at 5715 feet MSL), and to climb. The aircraft passed the peak 0.3nm south of the peak still at about 6000 feet at a heading of about 090 degrees, rolled out at heading 180, climbed to 7000 feet and continued the flight to Taipei for a safe landing without further incident.
The highest antenna on Mt. Wilson is just under 7,000 msl.
aterpster is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 02:37
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Doha, Qatar
Age: 51
Posts: 435
A 777-3 fully loaded has a minimum clean speed of about 280 kts
casablanca is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 02:48
  #25 (permalink)  
YRP
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 139
Listening to the video, I don't agree with posters that say Eva was to blame, certainly not a "rogue".

The controller made a mistake then got flustered and started mixing up what she was saying... call signs, headings, stop climb vs expedite. You can hear the other pilots detecting that, eg AC asking for confirmation on altitude. Then later she was clearing behind events: letting a subsequent departure level at 2000, switching AC to next sector while it still appeared to have a conflict with Eva, and then not fully monitoring Eva despite it all.

Eva got some rapid fire instructions that contradicted each other: the initial left turn, then as they were passing north a reversal to a right turn then back to a left turn to 270, then just "southbound". At that point they were obviously (and reasonably) confused and asked for confirmation of heading (3:08 in the youtube video) which they didn't get, just more instructions where the controller mixes up north and south.


A couple posters mentioned that the turn left to 180 instruction is not on the live atc audio. Liveatc is often unreliable, audio dropouts due to multiple frequencies monitored. The FAA spokesman quoted in the LA times did say the controller gave that left turn.
YRP is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 03:36
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted by neilki View Post
@rightwayup. Got on then, 91.117. Unless approved by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft above a speed of 250kias below 10,000.
Clearly we're talking about the civil system and the military operates under different rules, but no US 121 operator has permission from the Administrator.
I'm all ears if you have something better, cos my jet loves a 290-320kt climb....
§91.117 Aircraft speed.
(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.).
(b) Class C and D stuff
(c) Class B stuff
(d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed.

No authorization from ATC required, but an advisory "We'll be climbing at 280 knots" is nice. Also, the aircraft can only be operated at it's minimum safe speed. I normally round up about 10 knots. It's not a waiver to push over to barber pole.

There's also no limit in Class E airspace beyond 12 NM. But the Class B at LAX extends beyond 12 miles. Not sure what AngryRat's airline is doing. They could do 270-280 going east bound if that's what their minimum flaps up speed is.

Last edited by MarkerInbound; 21st Dec 2016 at 03:52.
MarkerInbound is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 04:47
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 625
The controller made a mistake then got flustered and started mixing up what she was saying... call signs, headings, stop climb vs expedite. You can hear the other pilots detecting that, eg AC asking for confirmation on altitude. Then later she was clearing behind events: letting a subsequent departure level at 2000, switching AC to next sector while it still appeared to have a conflict with Eva, and then not fully monitoring Eva despite it all.
Absolutely agree!
Perhaps she was having a bad day, perhaps it was the end of a long day.. (we have all been there, done that..)
But!
Safety should not be depending on a single person. Where was the supervisor?
There should be more then one layer of cheese.. This looks to me like a fault in the system; going to be an interesting investigation and a very interesting read HF wise...
A lot to learn here (again), pilots and controllers alike..
golfyankeesierra is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 05:04
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,924
Hold on here. In the video at 2:30(ish) the controller clearly instructs EVA to take up a heading of 270 (she initially says 290, but corrects to 270). However, EVA merrily carries on towards the cumulugranitus....

Given the extreme rarity of an easterly departure in L.A. (I fly out of KSMO and the easterly rwy is practically never in use) would the crew not brief any possible departure route a bit more thoroughly than normal? MSA to the N is between 7.5 and 10.4 k ft.

Last edited by 172driver; 21st Dec 2016 at 06:02. Reason: misleading typo
172driver is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 05:07
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Weston Super Mare/UAE
Age: 57
Posts: 397
One problem that is evident here is lack of listening to readbacks....the crew made a mistake - and didnt query it with 'turn the long way round?' - but the controller had issued her instruction and didnt pick up on the readback that it was misunderstood. Straight onto the next aircraft when confirmation of the instructions via readback would have been more suitable. I find that this is fairly prevalent in the US. If the traffic situation is too busy to allow for this then the system is pushing too much tin......

I was gobsmacked, also, with one transmission where the climb instruction at the beginning of the message was climb to 5000 but had changed to 6000 at the end of the transmission, only to be changed to 7000 seconds later! Little wonder that confusion reigned. SLOW DOWN! ATC should be a slow, careful process. Same thing in India, where medals are clearly given for the fastest ATC transmissions. I often told them to speak slowly 'because I only had 50 years experience of my native tongue and am clearly inadaquate!!'

I speak with 14000 hours and heavy, worldwide time.
captainsmiffy is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 05:33
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: México City
Posts: 7
Longtime lurker, new poster.

E190 FO and a frequent flyer in US airspace.

As "native non-native" English speaker, I have to say that ATC was almost at fault as the Eva pilots. Evidently, these chaps are unfamiliar with rwy 7 LAX departures (very unusual indeed) but instructions were really confusing. That, and somewhat poor navigation (I don't want to nail the pilots, since no one is clean in this job, regardless of experience).

I really wish US ATC stick MORE to clear and concise instructions, ICAO phraseology, and engrave in their minds that they are talking to NON ENGLISH speakers from every corner of the world.

Giving this confused crew a simple "fly HDG 180 to the right NOW, expedite turn" would have finished the ordeal without the mountain flyover.


But......I have listened to confused Air New Zealand and Lufthansa crews in IAH........

So it is really someting about US ATC...
Flugjung is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 05:46
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: earth
Age: 56
Posts: 59
Dear neilki,
There are things heavier than a C150.

Larger aircraft can almost always get approval to exceed 250 below 10,000 anywhere in the US. ATC usually has no problem approving high speed when you are a fully loaded 777.

Last edited by Captain Partzee; 21st Dec 2016 at 06:11.
Captain Partzee is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 06:31
  #32 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,076
250KIAS is the maximum below !0,000 in the Continental US. There is no avenue for a controller to approve faster
Departed LAX many times, B744, and been cleared to 'high speed climb' when heavy, which was most times.
parabellum is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 07:49
  #33 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 70
Posts: 2,943
US ATC are not obligated to check readbacks and challenge. .
Is this true ? In rest of the world you are obliged .

EVA obviously had no SA as exhibited that they happily turned towards terrain with no obvious issue
Well , in the rest of the world you always have to follow ATC vectors, as a Controller takes over responsibility for terrain avoidance when vectoring.

A simple correction/instruction like : "Break-Break . EVA15 turn right immediately heading 180" . would have solved the problem. and we would not be here discussing it.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 08:17
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Turkey
Posts: 164
Incredible !
Mlambin is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 09:59
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 63
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by angryrat View Post
Oceanic departures for my operator are approved for high speed climbs out of LA. Where EVA may have gone wrong here is that you have to be clear of the coast to accelerate past 250kts. Runway 25 is usually the duty runway in LA so everyone accelerates past 250kts without thinking too much about it. A change of runway to 07 and having a high speed climb drummed in by almost exclusively flying 25 departures, this previous experience probably contributed to this.
This is bad advice. The FAA never waives the speed restriction with one exception. That is if your minimum clean speed is higher then 250 knots you may fly that speed. If you are more then 12 miles offshore the speed does not apply.
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 10:52
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 63
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by angryrat View Post
It's not advice. My operater has FAA approval to accelerate to Econ climb speed overwater. Read my post number 33 on this thread if you want further explanation. I merely wondered if EVA has the same approval. If they do, they may have inadvertently made a mistake by accelerating while over land.
I would double check that. Lots of airlines have asked all are turned down.
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 10:57
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 53
Posts: 2,767
Why would the controller keep instructing the Eva to turn "southbound" without giving a heading or a direction? I think there are inadequacies with both the Eva crew and the controller.
Is there any evidence that Eva initiated an EGPWS escape ?
framer is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 11:19
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Here 'n there
Posts: 27
ive just listened to that audio - like many I'm sure, (and although we know there was no cfit), I still sat here quivering, waiting for what seemed like the inevitable. words escape me.
VSB via OL is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 11:21
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: home
Posts: 1,507
ATC Watcher
Well , in the rest of the world you always have to follow ATC vectors, as a Controller takes over responsibility for terrain avoidance when vectoring.
I would argue you don't. My responsibilities as a Commander dictate I ensure sufficient terrain clearance. If a controller makes a mistake (like we all can all do sometimes), I cannot just sit there and suck it up.
Right Way Up is online now  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 11:36
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,104
Why would the controller keep instructing the Eva to turn "southbound" without giving a heading or a direction?
Survival mode, she probably doesn't care as long as they turn southbound. I wonder why the crew hadn't entered survival mode just yet...

One little disconnect between pilots and controllers I can notice at times is the radar delay (lacking a more technical term for it). It's quite common for ATC to tell you to maintain heading whilst in the middle of a turn. The EVA crew is in the right turn south when they're getting a new instruction to turn left 270 deg. The autopilot is quite slow to react to such a change, and they were going quite fast. I guess the ADS-B plot is not updating accurately so it's hard to say what turn they actually did.

ATC and pilots a bit out of sync me thinks.
172_driver 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 © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.