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, 13:20
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Airbubba
They must have had plenty of EGPWS warning, I've done the scenario with those hills in the sim more than once. The possibly apocryphal 'shutup gringo' call in the Avianca 011 crash comes to mind.
Just for the record, there was no 'shutup gringo'. It was 'bueno bueno' as reported in the transcript: http://www.fomento.es/NR/rdonlyres/D...66/Anexo_A.pdf (bottom of page 6)
.Scott is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 15:40
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Arizona
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One has to wonder what the ATC clearance was before push back? What SID were they given for an east LAX departure?
Three Lima Charlie is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 16:16
  #43 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Right way up :
I would argue you don't. .
Unfortunately that is what the book says .
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
Of course you will not suck it up. Common sense should always prevails if/when someones makes a mistake . My point was than in normal ops when receiving a vector , responsibility with terrain clearance move to ATC. That what we have been taught, and that is how people are expected to react and that is most probably the reason why the vector was not challenged by the EVA crew.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 16:25
  #44 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Attached is the pertinent portion of the MVA chart for LAX. Eaton Canyon, referred to in today's Los Angeles Times article, is within the 7,700' MVA area. As is obvious, FAA MVA charts in mountainous areas are unwieldy and quite complex.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf
LAX MVAS.pdf (652.3 KB, 219 views)
aterpster is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 16:28
  #45 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Three Lima Charlie:

One has to wonder what the ATC clearance was before push back? What SID were they given for an east LAX departure?
I believe they were given the Ventura Seven, which is a radar vector SID.
aterpster is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 17:04
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Turn southbound" is terrible comm. The US controllers need to clean up their game for foreign carriers. Speed talking, with US standard comm, is a bad idea for foreign carriers.


"What are you doing" is also terrible comm. Be directive with specific instructions. Hopefully the standards division of the ATC management will use this as an learning example for improved standard comm standards.


Using flightaware's altitude and heading information the flight was at 4800'-5000' northbound and 6200'-6400' when it went through the easterly heading. Too close.
misd-agin is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 17:15
  #47 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
misd-agin:

"What are you doing" is also terrible comm. Be directive with specific instructions. Hopefully the standards division of the ATC management will use this as an learning example for improved standard comm standards.
Don't hold your breath. She was simply awful. I suspect she was focused on maintaining separation with Air Canada, to keep the computer snitch from going off. I also suspect she didn't even think about the rising MVAs until late in the game, because the Burbank sector of SoCal normally handles that area.

Also, Air Canada was a bit remiss by saying "Twelve Thousand" instead of "One Two Thousand."
aterpster is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 17:29
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 172_driver
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.
The surveillance displays often have track jitter - if the track shown is from one radar, or if the multisensor tracker is putting together surveillance responses from different sources. These are filtered with a Kalman Filter that 'smooths' the jitter but also has the unfortunate effect of hiding the start of a maneuver. So it is possible to start a turn and for several seconds dependent on update rate the controller will not see the start of turn the filter will create a response without the 'jitter' caused by the start of turn. If the update rate is every 10 seconds and the smoothing lasts for 2 updates it could be 20 -29secs before the turn is observed. A long time if urgent avoiding action has been given.
Ian W is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 18:25
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Been around the block
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Political correctness and Human Resources have infiltrated all aspects of aviation. A good friend of mine was hired as an air traffic controller after a furlough from a 121 carrier based at JFK. He washed out of training along with half the class who were also pilots. Lots of white men shown the door while the remainder left in training fit a PC "profile". Chickens come home to roost...
4runner is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 18:46
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Very sloppy RTF phraseology, and poor technique were contributing factors in this. From what is shown on the video and heard on the transcript, the situation was not complex nor was the frequency particularly busy.
The words 'avoiding-action' and 'immediately' are conspicuous by their absence on this tape.

Last edited by ZOOKER; 21st Dec 2016 at 19:07.
ZOOKER is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 19:08
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bad controlling, exacerabated by worse piloting.
Both loss SA,
cappt is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 19:12
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by angryrat
Well, it doesn't seem so in this case now, does it?
Great rejoinder from a 1986 flying movie.

Originally Posted by YRP
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.
From the LA Times article:

The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating an incident in which a passenger jet was given wrong directions by traffic controllers and guided toward the San Gabriel Mountains, where it flew just hundreds of feet higher than the peak of Mt. Wilson before turning around, according to publicly available flight data.

Bound for Taiwan, the EVA Air Boeing 777 took off to the east early Friday from Los Angeles International Airport’s south runway complex, according to FAA spokesman Ian Gregor. After takeoff, the air crew switched from the LAX control tower to the approach control operations in San Diego, which Gregor said was common practice.

“The air traffic controller at the approach control who was handling EVA instructed the pilot to make a left turn to a 180-degree heading,” he said. “She meant to tell the pilot to make a right turn to a 180-degree heading.”

Following the controller’s instructions, the pilot turned left.

The move sent the plane in the wrong direction, Gregor said.

Instead of flying south, the aircraft flew north toward the San Gabriel Mountains and an Air Canada jet that had departed from the north runway complex at LAX.

When the controller realized the mistake, she “took immediate action to keep EVA safely separated” from the second aircraft as well as ground terrain, Gregor said. She issued the EVA pilot a series of instructions to help him turn south.

“The controller wanted to make sure the EVA aircraft was safely above or away from nearby terrain,” he said.

In a statement issued Tuesday, EVA Air said, “Our flight was never too close to other aircraft or to the mountains.”
Flight controller accidentally sends jet on course toward Mt. Wilson after LAX takeoff - LA Times

Originally Posted by .Scott
Just for the record, there was no 'shutup gringo'. It was 'bueno bueno' as reported in the transcript: http://www.fomento.es/NR/rdonlyres/D...66/Anexo_A.pdf (bottom of page 6)
Another mishap sometimes associated with the 'shut up gringo' call is Avianca 410 in 1988. They were doing a high speed climb on a VMC departure into rising terrain and had a CFIT in the haze. The crew had trained at the Pan Am Flight Academy in Miami, I think that's where I first heard about the alleged GPWS response. Perhaps the urban legend came from a gallows comedian there.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 19:19
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Age: 64
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not the first time a PC controller at LAX did some damage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_1493
slatch is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 21:22
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The ATC recording shows the pilot read back "left heading 180, climbing 7,000".
This was immediately followed by the pilot's "Request high speed climb" and was answered immediately with "Approved request". Shortly after telling the EVA flight to "turn right, right turn heading 180" with the response "Copy right turn heading 180". One second later she tells EVA to "expedite your right turn" and the pilot's response was "Roger, we are passing heading 010 continue right turn heading". A few seconds later, seemingly going into panic mode, she tells an Air Canada flight to turn left to 360, then, getting a bit more shouty, she instructs EVA to "stop your climb" and in the same breath instructs Air Canada to "expedite your climb, maintain 12,000". She then instructs EVA to turn left 290 270". EVA responded with "Left heading 270". Within 1 second came the "What are you doing? Turn southbound now, turn southbound now, stop your climb" A couple of seconds later, the EVA pilot asks "Confirm heading" and he merely gets a repeat of the "Turn southbound, turn southbound now". Then she goes completely to rat's poo. "EVA 15 Heavy, climb and maintain 5,000. Are you southbound now? I see you are going northbound, climb maintain 6,000". Just 2 seconds later she instructs EVA to climb and maintain 7,000. After the pilot acknowledges this, she says"015Heavy, I see you are going southbound. Turn sou.. 'cos I see you are going northbound. Turn south now, climb and maintain 7,000." After clearing a following Cathay flight to 7,000, she instructs EVA "climb and maintain 7,000 and turn south now". EVA acknowledged this (with what sounds like a 'I am fed up with this' tone in his voice) with "right turn to southbound, continue climb 7,000".
Given that the EVA flight was heading toward 180 and was then instructed to turn left to 270, why was she surprised to see the aircraft heading north? Surely, if you are heading something greater than 90 and are told to turn left to 270, passing through a northerly heading is the only option?
Except for one of the earlier instructions, she constantly used "southbound", rather than give a heading. Other aircraft following the same route were all instructed in good old fashioned degrees. I also noticed that after clearing the Cathay flight to the same level as the EVA, she told the Cathay flight to right turn to heading 120. Given that EVA was now swinging to the right, aiming for 180, doesn't that mean a potential conflict there with the Cathay track crossing that of the EVA?
KelvinD is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 21:43
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
AFAIK, your operator cannot approve that unless they have a specific waiver. You have to be beyond 12 miles from the coast to accelerate above min clean speed if >250 KIAS/<10,000'. AIM 4-4-12.j:
j. Speed restrictions of 250 knots do not apply to U.S. registered aircraft operating beyond 12 nautical miles from the coastline within the U.S. Flight Information Region, in Class E airspace below 10,000 feet MSL.
If you think you have such approval, where/how is it written?
Intruder is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 21:51
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This was immediately followed by the pilot's "Request high speed climb" and was answered immediately with "Approved request".
In the US, it's only a courtesy request, except for a very few airports (e.g., ORD) where there is a specific 250 KIAS speed limit that overrides the 'minimum clean speed' guidance.

However, Eva likely makes the request routinely because Taipei is also an airport with a specific 250 KIAS restriction.
Intruder is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 21:59
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: inmysuitcase
Posts: 209
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
By intruder:
AFAIK, your operator cannot approve that unless they have a specific waiver. You have to be beyond 12 miles from the coast to accelerate above min clean speed if >250 KIAS/<10,000'. AIM 4-4-12.j:
I am sorry, but I am the Captain of the "ship".
I know in the usa atc "feels" to be in control, well no, its me thats in control!

My company is paying them to work.
ATC is NOT paying my company to work.
So, they better do their (payed) job, and if i don't like some instructions, i will not follow them, period.

As of the language used.....see my previous post..

EVA 15:“EVA 15 heavy, request high speed climb.„
SoCal Departure: „EVA 15 heavy, affirmative approved as requested.„
AGAIN, they had permission for a high speed climb!
testpanel is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 22:17
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Here and there
Posts: 2,783
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
My old Airbus had a clean speed at high weight of over 250kts. We would ask ATC for a higher speed for operational reasons which was always approved.
tubby linton is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 22:44
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My company is paying them to work.
ATC is NOT paying my company to work.
So, they better do their (payed) job, and if i don't like some instructions, i will not follow them, period.
Wow, what a macho ace flyer you are testpanel. I know, let's do away with ATC, after all so many pilots think they can do it better using TCAS!
Hotel Tango is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2016, 23:07
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: bunkeronthe1st
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
ATC is a SERVICE, they are NOT the boss.
Fatguyinalittlecoat is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.