EVA B777 close call departing LAX
If you look at webtrack they turned left, turned right (abeam the Montebello label on the map, turned left and then right.
This basically lines up with the various instructions as best I can tell.
This basically lines up with the various instructions as best I can tell.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The current mlat server tracking filter has trouble with things that are maneuvering hard, as you've probably noticed (it's a constant-velocity Kalman filter which works well enough for commercial flights most of the time)
This was discussing an mlat plot of maneuvering fighters but it does seem to explain some of the FR24 plotting behavior as the ADS-B coverage gets spotty.
If you look at webtrack they turned left, turned right (abeam the Montebello label on the map, turned left and then right.
This basically lines up with the various instructions as best I can tell.
This basically lines up with the various instructions as best I can tell.
As pilots, our primary response to any ATC heading instruction is the heading given. If we are told to turn onto a new heading, then that heading is the number one priority, and that 'number' is what we set with the heading knob. If the turn direction is not given or seems illogical or wrong, we will query that turn instruction. BUT we will not ignore the heading given, (as long as we are not being turned directly towards a hazard of course).
EVA015 were given a heading of 180 degrees. The actual turn direction might have been wrong or odd or whatever, but they :
a) failed to query the turn direction, and;
b) failed to turn onto the heading they were given.
They actually maintained a heading which was about 160 degrees opposite to what they were initially told (and read back) - despite repeated instructions to turn - and it could have got them killed. Twice. First with AC788 and again with Mount Wilson.
I still wonder if they had a compass/heading malfunction, because I find it hard to believe that a longhaul B777 crew would ignore such basic instructions otherwise.
Last edited by Uplinker; 28th Dec 2016 at 11:28.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: usa
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway, it wasn't their compass, but rather the timing of the controller's instructions that got them going north.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We could hear the EVA crew read back the first "left turn" instruction, and the controller did not correct. So what do you think the EVA pilot should do at this point? Steer left or right or keep chatting on the radio?
Additional tracking data have shown that EVA had initiated turns as instructed, but appeared to have repeatedly been given new directions to turn the opposite way before the current turn was completed.
Towards the end, the controller stopped giving turn directions all together. But, like others have pointed out, after having been given repeated, emphatic instructions for turn direction, the EVA crew could assume by this point that somehow for reasons beyond them that the turn direction was important. Hence the delay to commence the turn to southbound.
If the compass really malfunctioned, how did the flight complete the trip to TPE later?
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uplinker:
The 777 doesn't have a compass. It is a highly redundant inertial system (three inertial platforms) that also has mag var tables to convert true heading into magnetic heading when in domestic airspace. These inertial platforms also provide the attitude platform for the airplane. On rare occasions one inertial reference unit (IRU) might fail. In that rare event the airplane only loses triple redundancy.
I still wonder if they had a compass/heading malfunction, because I find it hard to believe that a longhaul B777 crew would ignore such basic instructions otherwise.
It passed pretty much over the top of my apartment. I was there but don't claim to have heard it.
Here's the LAX Terminal Chart (1:250,000). I have pretty much stopped flying now so it is from 2014 but they had not built any new towers the last time I looked out of my window.
Perhaps some photoshop whizz with a bit of time could superimpose the track to see how close to the towers it was but it looks pretty near to me by eyeball. Maybe a fraction to the South. In the class G for sure.
Here's the LAX Terminal Chart (1:250,000). I have pretty much stopped flying now so it is from 2014 but they had not built any new towers the last time I looked out of my window.
Perhaps some photoshop whizz with a bit of time could superimpose the track to see how close to the towers it was but it looks pretty near to me by eyeball. Maybe a fraction to the South. In the class G for sure.
Last edited by sherburn2LA; 28th Dec 2016 at 19:17.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bleve:
Gross pilot error combined with a company too cheap to buy the mod from AB that would have prevented that.
EVA obviously did not have that problem as represented by their track to TIA once they got it pointed in the correct direction.
These highly redundant inertial systems are not foolproof and if not aligned properly can display incorrect headings. eg:
EVA obviously did not have that problem as represented by their track to TIA once they got it pointed in the correct direction.
Uplinker, I think you are missing the point.
The aircraft started various turns in response to instructions from Atc.
Give someone a turn through 270 degrees to turn to 180 and the aircraft will, at some point turn through north.
When it is pointing in the northerly direction give it another instruction to turn right and it will head generally north while the angle of bank comes off and the right turn commenced.
Issue another instruction and the right turn comes off and a left turn commenced, all the while the aircraft heads generally northish.
Would an native English speaking crew have handled it differently, possibly, but they weren't put in that position. It was a crew with English as a second (third or fourth) language.
On another point I am not sure what the panic was re air Canada. The webtrack (I don't know how accurate this is) on face value has plenty of vertical separation between the two, despite the various level off instructions given by the controller. The webtrack may not give the complete (or accurate) story but by the time the two aircraft got close there were thousands of feet vertical separation according to the webtrack labels. Davereiduk's screen shot shows that there is close to 6000ft vertically between the two aircraft.
The aircraft started various turns in response to instructions from Atc.
Give someone a turn through 270 degrees to turn to 180 and the aircraft will, at some point turn through north.
When it is pointing in the northerly direction give it another instruction to turn right and it will head generally north while the angle of bank comes off and the right turn commenced.
Issue another instruction and the right turn comes off and a left turn commenced, all the while the aircraft heads generally northish.
Would an native English speaking crew have handled it differently, possibly, but they weren't put in that position. It was a crew with English as a second (third or fourth) language.
On another point I am not sure what the panic was re air Canada. The webtrack (I don't know how accurate this is) on face value has plenty of vertical separation between the two, despite the various level off instructions given by the controller. The webtrack may not give the complete (or accurate) story but by the time the two aircraft got close there were thousands of feet vertical separation according to the webtrack labels. Davereiduk's screen shot shows that there is close to 6000ft vertically between the two aircraft.
Last edited by Snakecharma; 28th Dec 2016 at 22:26.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: CYUL
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snakecharma,
I will make some inquires with a 787 pilot I know in Toronto, and see if he heard what the AC crew saw..re EVA below them. I'm sure they were looking for the other aircraft and had it on their TCAS!
I will make some inquires with a 787 pilot I know in Toronto, and see if he heard what the AC crew saw..re EVA below them. I'm sure they were looking for the other aircraft and had it on their TCAS!
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Retired DC9 Driver:
The chances of a collision was near zero. The controller had been trained to think airplane-to-airplane separation and had only absorbed that into her "priority memory bank." Knowing the ATC facility I am sure they thought they had trained her better,
Alas, she was trapped by the terrain to the north of LAX, which may have been a cursory part of her training.
Damn, this is all pathetic without an NTSB incident investigation.
I will make some inquires with a 787 pilot I know in Toronto, and see if he heard what the AC crew saw..re EVA below them. I'm sure they were looking for the other aircraft and had it on their TCAS!
Alas, she was trapped by the terrain to the north of LAX, which may have been a cursory part of her training.
Damn, this is all pathetic without an NTSB incident investigation.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: on the road less travelled
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the 270 heading was meant for AC to provide additional separation but the controller was pre-occupied with EVA and gave the wrong aircraft the westerly heading.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HighSpeedAluminum:
The Ventura 7 SID requires radar vectors.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the 270 heading was meant for AC to provide additional separation but the controller was pre-occupied with EVA and gave the wrong aircraft the westerly heading.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would an native English speaking crew have handled it differently, possibly, but they weren't put in that position. It was a crew with English as a second (third or fourth) language.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: here and there
Age: 69
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
towards a Southern direction (as ATC instruction), towards the South, 180°
going / heading / travelling / flying / navigating towards and maintaining a Southern direction,
say, from 120° through 240° or from SE to SW roughly.
to me it is clear she wanted them to avoid flying Northbound where the mountains are.
going / heading / travelling / flying / navigating towards and maintaining a Southern direction,
say, from 120° through 240° or from SE to SW roughly.
to me it is clear she wanted them to avoid flying Northbound where the mountains are.
Last edited by vmandr; 29th Dec 2016 at 19:15.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Southbound" is an adjective which describes the direction of a track, such as " southbound M6"
"South" can be an adverb which tells which way a specific motion goes.
So the correct English, whether in California, Cumbria or China is "Turn South" and no one will be confused.
"South" can be an adverb which tells which way a specific motion goes.
So the correct English, whether in California, Cumbria or China is "Turn South" and no one will be confused.
