Bearfoil
Registered to DHM INDUSTRIES LLC.

Don't know where the Cessna 182R comes from.

mm43

Protect the Hornet,
Sounds more serious than that. If the lighty was doing a hard left turn:
that indicates he shouldn't have been there, especially considering they only missed by 200-300ft.

Had ATC warned the 777 earlier, what would/could they have done?

mm43
 

From an updated NTSB media release (last line, boxed out):

Sounds like the press made a big story out of nothing again. They had each other in sight and were avoiding a major conflict. Arriving on the 28 runways at SFO is where it gets really interesting intercepting on a collision course to line up on the proper runway. One day I noticed the 747 coming from the north side was not intercepting so leveled off and he went below me a few hundred feet until he got his bearings. I just told tower we had traffic in sight and would continue our approach reference him. A total non event as this one.

kenhughes

Thanks for the update.

One would suspect the original info came from ATC!

Even the NTSB must be wondering who or what to believe.

mm43

Ya joking, aren't ya? The 777 in an unplanned low altitude leveloff following a TCAS RA and the other doing a hard left turn to avoid, only to pass 200-300ft away? That is not a "total non event" in my book.

It was a minor conflict that the cessna prevented from being a major conflict. They both had clearance to do what they were doing. The GA guy flying the little plane might be an airline pilot on his day off. Doesn't make him inferior. If you are heading for a cruise ship in your fishing boat are you going to insist you have the right of way or give way? That's what I thought. The press loves to make news with aviation stories because it sells. This was a non event.

1500 ft horizontal and 200 to 300 ft vertical sound like they had things well under control. Less horizontal separation exists landing on the 28 runways on arrival to SFO. I always felt like I was in formation on final there.

what concerns me is that the united pilots didn't see the GA plane before the atc advisory or the TCAS RA.

Too many pilots don't look out the window...and sholdn't there have been 3 pilots...this was a long haul flight probably with an augmented crew of some form....and all the pilots are on the flight deck for takeoff.

What concerns me is that the crew of a heavy jet, at less than 1000ft AGL, HAS look out to save their arse. Crazy. Lookout is fair eonough, but this smells like a big stuffup to me.

I can remember so many near mid airs that I've had....with ATC seperation and screwups.

I have a feeling that ATC cleared the GA plane...and forgot to warn the 777...and that the GA was watching it all unfold...

it was a high wing, with better look down vis...and when you are that close to this beautiful airport, you look down and watch the planes takeoff.

and what's a STUFFUP?

:p
Ballsup, Messup, C@ckup, Screwup, you get the idea? :ok:

Non event?
 

Semantics! I guess this could be described as a "non-event", if only because thankfully no collision occurred. The question is how close they came to having a "major event" and whether they had things under control. As to the seriousness of the situation, I would defer to the opinions of those flying the planes in question, and after having listened to the Live ATC recording, I think the 777 pilot did not seem at all pleased with what had just transpired.

I turned to get out of the way of a twin turboprop that ATC had helpfully descended me in front of. 100 yards was more like it; yes, that was a hard left turn.

Another twin turboprop nicked the side of the thermal I and another glider were in at an altitude between us.

Suspect they both were enroute YYZ-YXU at 5000 and 4000.

No xpdr, no TCAS alert -- keep those eyes open.

In steady cruise, in broad daylight, haven't you ever seen on your TV a target 1000' above or below, 25 or 30 miles distant, coming head-on, and you look and look and look, and still don't see him . . . until he's just about in front of your face...? :confused:

there is a difference in spotting traffic at cruise altitude and at low altitude, against the background of hills/city background.

hey, how come we haven't heard the GA pilot's side of the radio transmission?

I think it's important to remember that during climb with a pitch attitude of 12 degrees or more, even if you do look out, the view forward is like looking out the slit window of a Tiger Tank. This is why heavy jet traffic and VFR flights don't mix well. I have had two RA's out of SFO and have never liked the place for traffic. The Hallibut and chips down at the warf makes up for it though.

SFO....nope
 

That was San Diego.

Folks,
Note the posts of one "Captain Bloggs", who is doing his best to inject an "Australian Perspective" into the comments.

Basically, the "Australian" approach, as preferred by "Bloggs", to any but IFR/RPT is "clearance not available, remain clear of controlled airspace" on the basis that even sighting a GA aircraft in the distance, from a heavy, is close to an emergency--- but, I hasten to add, a view confined to a small group who have been trying frantically for years, to prevent Australia adopting FAA style ICAO airspace management.

As another Australian pilot (LSA thro' B744), well familiar with operations around KSFO and the bay area, I support the view of those of you who believe this has been blown out of all proportion by the media.

In fact it could be viewed as an example of the system working, not the system failing.

Tootle pip!!

So what are you supposed to do when you are looking out of the window? Level off a 777 or 747 at 1000'? Have you no idea what it is like to fly a big jet?!? On departure for a flight like that you dont have much of a manouever margin - too low a speed and you stall into SF, too high a speed and you bust the flap limiting speeds. Handling is difficult and you are suggesting the pilots should level off to avoid a collision or even warning.... have you not seen the hills there?!?

On the 28s both aircraft are going in the same direction and at least one aircraft is visual with the other and is told to maintain separation. In this case the TCAS system is happy (even though the pilots may not be), and there are no warnings of impending collision.... except if the preceding aircraft goes around....


Crikey - are you trying to flame a guy for being safe?!?

The systems used in the US are systemically unsafe. The fact that IFR traffic is only separated from other IFR traffic is unsafe in a busy environment. The fact that the Americans point aircraft on the approach at each other, and then use the "are you visual with the aircraft in front" and then the "maintain visual separation" or "remain behind the traffic in front" as a way of avoiding a collision raises the risk of collision. The fact that a GA aircraft thinks he is going to miss the 777 is not OK when all the bells and whistles in the 777 are going off. If the pilot is tired (ie 4am on the body clock as I will be as I climb out of KSFO next week) then you have terrain, TCAS, reconfiguration of the air, landing gear and flap systems to consider in the first 1500' and that is before you throw in an engine failure or fire - miss one of these out and you may have a smoking wreck.

It should be the case that in busy airspace (ie KLAX, KSFO, KJFK, KORD etc) that the airspace is designated class A, and therefore IFR traffic is sepearted from all traffic. It would be a shame for the GA folks, but how many of these near misses on the approach or climbout do we need before we get a hit?! Surely in modern human factors teaching this is a swiss cheese with the holes almost lining up.

Capt. Sly
 

You make it out like I don't know SFO.

I was born in San Francisco. I learned to fly at one of the small airports in that area. I Have operated at SFO with General Aviation aircraft and as a pilot for four different airlines there (one very big, the other, so called regionals).

I know the hills having flown over them and walked them and bicycled them, let alone driven in an automobile.

I've shopped at the shopping mall benath the departure route (Tanforan...which, by the way was the sight of old MILLS FIELD, San' Francisco's first airport and the place where the first plane to land upon a ship took off from)

This was a non event. AS P51 guy mentioned, 300 feet vertical and 1500 feet horizontal...that is nothing. P51 guy is right...that is more than a side by side approach to landing at SFO. (though true side by's are less likely now)

AS to what a BIG JET can do or not. It is like any plane as long as the pilot knows what to do. But if you are overly dependent upon autothrottles and too use to just going: "do, dah do, I are a big airplane pilot just hanging on for dear life", yeah, you will exceed some limit if you aren't ready to fly the heck out of a plane.

Now, I do think ATC should have advised the 777: traffic , a GEN AV, along departure path, he has you in sight...prior to takeoff clearance.

I remember being instructed for a go around at La Guardia due to a plane on the runway. I went around, complying with published missed instructions...oh, the tower said, there is a gen av seaplane at 1500' so maintain 1000'...this at 800'. Yeah, I actually had to retard the throttles by hand to level off and not exceed flap speeds. heavens to betsy.!!!!!

Later I was awarded the distinguished flying cross and the cross de guere.

Come on, wake up and fly the damn thing.

(the above decorations are of course an exageration to make the point...pilots fly the plane and not the other way 'round.)

Perhaps PTH could inform us of the freqs the two a/c would be using at the time, but usually VFR and IFR are on separate freqs. It may be the same controller or they may be seated close to each other.

But what do you do with a clearance like that? Our SOPs are to follow any clearance until it is unsafe to do so ie TCAS, WX or Terrain avoidance. In this case we would have been cleared for a SFO8 departure. We cant just plan to level the aircraft below the other traffic at 1500' - our performance calculations dont allow that. We cant just deviate from the SID - performance calculations dont allow that, and we may just exacerbate the situation with a WOOP WOOP pull up. Therefore we either have to wait on the ground, or wait for the TCAS RA (we shouldn't really act on the TA as the aircraft we see may not be the aircraft the TCAS is protecting us from).

We have different standards in the UK and Europe. Standard seperation is 3NM or approximately 18000 feet. This aircraft was within 1500' or 1/10th of the standard seperation if it had happened in the UK. This sort of VFR seperation issue doesnt happen at the big airfields in the UK. We do have heli's operating in the vicinity of the airfields but they are also seperated, but are much closer. They also dont hang around in the vicinity of the departure end of the runway.

So the problem I have is that aircraft are put in danger needlessly. Is it safer to have a Cessna at 1500' visually remaining clear, or no cessna in the take-off cone of a 777? Equally, is it safer to stagger the arrivals onto 28L/R or have them coming in wingtip to wingtip?

I understand your "Come on, wake up and fly the damn thing." sentiment, but passengers are paying for, and surely deserve their safety be put first. Surely we should all be striving for a safer system? We can all go and be gash, but a modern jetliner is not the place to practice chicken. (just eat it ;) )

In this situation I believe neither aircraft did anything wrong within the clearances they we given; Again it is the system that allows this to happen, so lets change the system so the aircraft dont get so close.

No personal digs meant.

A non-event? Yeh, right...

US System
 

Capt Sly, I am sorry but I do not think you have this right. Three weeks ago I flew the KLAX VFR North/South out of Van Nuys. I did it in a Cessna 182. I was totally impressed by the responsibility shown by all GA pilots, and the professionalism of the Heavy crews, mixing it together. P51 hits it spot on with the view that all fly the plane, and understand the routes. The classic UK view of make it ALL class A restricts, not broadens the experience of the GA fleet in the UK. That is a major reason for the huge amount of controlled airspace 'busts' here in UK. With a more free, and open minded approach to aviation/airspave/atc in UK/Europe, perhaps it would be a better experience for all.

SFO Freqs.
 

Both aircraft were on 121.5. That's standard SFO tower freq.

I have to add that every time I've been given the 101 transit clearance, the controller has pointed out the traffic to me (often still just lined up prior to roll on 28R), and has also informed the heavy waiting for departure. More often than not the airliner has me in sight while still on the ground.

28R is used primarily for heavies heading for the orient or Australia, On a typical day, the runway is not that busy.

On the rare day that the wind is really blowing, all departures are on the 28s, and 101 corridor clearances are not permitted. With the the turbulence in the rotor off of San Bruno mountain in those conditions, I wouldn't want to be there anyway.

There must have been high levels of stress for the Controller to have instructed the 182 to pass BEHIND the 777. Light A/C and heavy A/C wakes are not a good combination!

KB

Having listened to the audio, it seems the Tower controller was relying on the Cessna pilot to evade, Tower appeared to be avoiding advising the UA of the conflict, ("not a factor") by the tone of his direct to 70E "You will pass behind?"

the animation on utube is way too dramatic. Considering what happened on Saturday, one wonders why GA is kept West of the 101,the 182 was told to turn East, and climb, which he did.

Tone of voice is subjective, but I heard a strained note in this controller's patter, I think he handled the conflict fine, but he started too late. Of course it was too close, I think he'll get some days off.

bear

Robert
 

Think you'll find more action on 120.5

128.65 had the Captain and Supervisor "discussing" things.

My Bad
 

Sorry. 120.5, although I'd probably get plenty of action on 121.5

look, the USA isn't the UK. Perhaps that is why so many europeans come to the USA to learn how to fly.

It would have been fine if the crew elected to not takeoff and to wait, if the information had been presented to them.

And you aren't allowed to deviate from a SID? So, if there was a thunderstorm on the SID and it was clear to the south, you wouldn't ask for a deviation? That's fine. motor on.

Chances are, no one was at the top of their game. The 777 crew was probably already in ''fat, dumb and happy'' mode and not ready to maneuver right after takeoff.

the controller probably had other things on his mind, and if the GA (until we know better what type, that is what I will refer to the little plane as) responded with something to the effect of they would maintain visual seperation, then that was enough for him.

I dare say that if a flap exceedence happened, the captain is making a big deal about trying to place the blame elsewhere.

Now, I don't know about you guys, but my TCAS works fine on the ground when properly selected. I would have glanced at it and if there was a target, I would have briefed the crew to keep an eye out...indeed the augmented crew, in the jumpseats, would have been instructed to look for the traffic. I do recall that united opted for the cheapest TCAS available and it might not be quite as good as mine.

And dear worrier about wake turbulence...if the little plane was above the big plane, that shouldn't have been a problem.

P51 guy...will you try to explain it to these aviators????????????

Are GA pilots as responsive to ATC as commercial pilots?
 

At the risk of raising another issue, I am interested in the views of the pilots and ATC on this forum as to whether they believe that compliance with ATC instructions by GA pilots is as quick and assured as it is from commercial pilots. This would cast some greater light on the advisability or not of keeping GA aircraft completely out of the arrival/departure airspace around large commercial airports.

Another way of putting this question is as follows. Suppose you are on a conflicting course with another airplane, and suppose ATC issues a command to this other airplane to keep clear of you. Do you breathe easier if you know that this other airplane is a commercial rather than a GA? Or does it make no difference? Or do you breathe less easy knowing that it is commercial?

GA vs Airline pilots
 

it varys...indeed our airline pilot brothers who overflew MSP managed to show how not to handle the radio!

potomac heights...is that in maryland?

I don't know about other areas, but the class B airspace around KORD is more or less de facto class A. A VFR class B clearance is just not going to happen unless it's late at night.

Sorry. 120.5, although I'd probably get plenty of action on 121.5
 

Heh heh! ;)

Yep, basketball scores probably. Oh, wait wrong thread.... :ugh:

- GY

GA vs. Airline
 

When I'm flying my Helio Courier, I'm GA; when I'm flying something with paying passengers aboard, I'm a commercial airline driver.

I try to remember which type of aircraft I'm in so I don't sound too professional in the baby airplane, or too stupid in the airliner.:ugh:

i try to stay silent and learn, but just a few comments.......
 

this is only my second post on this forum, so bear with me. i just have a few comments after following this thread, listening to the tapes (do people still use tape????), and trying to empathize with the situation from all sides.
1) i'm familiar with busy airspace, having lived in the nyc area all my life, and having run the busiest heliport (at the time) in the u.s. and possibly the world. having flown in that space (controlled and uncontrolled) countless times under just about every condition, i have to ask - why would anyone want to put themself and their pax at risk by going near any busy airport, unless it were for an emergency, or for some absolutely necessary reason such as commercial photograpy, inspection or the like? much better scenery elsewhere to my mind. so i agree with those who feel that general aviation, especially on vfr, should stay away, as far as is practical and practicable, unless you have a really good reason to be there. and back then, there was always an issue with cowboy floatplanes, or seaplanes just doing their thing.

2) i'm certainly not as technically proficient in flying the "big jets" as many of you are, but i can't imagine that having to do a major correction between 1000 and 1500 agl on takeoff would not make my sphincter tighten quite a bit - that's what makes flying so exciting - but again, if it were just me, well, that's my choice; with two or three or more hundred poor souls in the cabin behind me, i think the responsibility level rises. not to fault the ua pilot and especially the first officer, i think the upset is quite understandable, and i think they handled it very professionally - adrenaline makes you go "unplugged" sometimes, as long as you bring it back down, and do what you do.
at the prescribed attitude on their takeoff and climbout i doubt that anyone in that cabin could have seen the other aircraft with any degree of certainty until it was right there in the windscreen, and so it then comes down to the controller and his advisories. i couldn't enumerate the number of times i alerted a pilot to conflicting traffic he hadn't seen (both from a controller standpoint, and from being on an aircraft on a collision course when the pilot was distracted). the controller in this case probably should have added more info (somehow, they don't seem the same out there on the left coast as they do in this area), but he did what he's supposed to do, and rolled with it.....after all, it still comes up to "see and avoid", fortunately, or unfortunately.
just an aside, if you ask me about the buffalo incident a little more than a year ago, if you listen to the tapes, i feel that the controller in that incident was at least 50% responsible in not alerting the pilots to icing conditions at the altitudes they were flying through).

so.....a close call, some hairy seconds, and all is well again....just another incident to learn from. oh, and by the way, screw the media; nothing that i've ever been involved in has been reported truthfully by most of the media - the actual truth only sells papers maybe thirty years down the line, in the midst of the actual event, only bulls@@t rules. now why the f@@k did that get highlighted? what a world.

i wait to be corrected.
thanx:confused:

Obiously the Cessna was at the base of the TCA altitude to be in the corridor. Turbojet aircraft are required to stay in the TCA and not fly below the lateral limits. I can see an RA TCAS alert conflicting with TCA altitude requirements but it is required to follow the RA alert. The SFO
8 departure requires a minimum of 300 ft per NM rate of climb. I am familiar with the LAX corridor but not SFO but you have some very good local talent on this thread. Sounds like the GA guy did everything right and had the situation under control. United had an RA or TA that took them by surprise. I'm sorry if they ended up exceeding flap speed dealing with it if that is what their beef is.

Had a similar experience getting my 767 FO check out in the late 80's with a check airman in LAX when he wanted the 30 minute leg to SAN. It was late and he missed his 2,000 level off to the shoreline for the VFR corridor. He tried to fix it with automation and busted by 300 ft and airspeed going way above max flap speed. I made the call outs but if a pilot insists on using automation you are along for the ride.

disagree completely
 

Hornet,
I'm gonna have to disagree with your read on this completely. Seeing blips on the TCAS prior to departure from a busy field is normal. It is not really a red-flag event in my minds eye because I would just believe it to be the prior departing traffic. In the 777 TCAS aural alerts are inhibited until 1100' IIRC. I cannot speak for Untied but at my airline there is NO difference procedurally between a 500 RVR T/O and a CAVU one. Once the aircraft breaks the ground it's an inside manuever. This is and was an instrument rules flight and airspace should be protected as such regardless of any prevailing vis. or assumptions.

Sure we all can be John Wayne and slam the autothrottles and the stick around but in a ship with 300 people onboard a Red-Bull Air Race Ride is really not in everyone's best interest or appropriate given that ATC should be assuring a safe departure corridor in the first place.