NTSB investigating UAL/SFO near miss

inigo88

inigo88

Composite-lover
30 March 2010

NTSB to investigate near miss involving a 777 over San Francisco

The NTSB has launched an investigation into a nearly catastrophic collision between a United 777 and a small private aircraft over San Francisco last weekend. The NTSB estimates that the two aircraft missed each other by less than 300 feet.

At about 11:15 a.m. PDT on March 27, United Airlines Flight 889, a B777-222 (N216UA) carrying 251 passengers and 17 crew members on a flight to Beijing, China, had just departed from San Francisco International and was climbing through about 1,100 feet when both air traffic control and the aircraft's collision avoidance system reported air traffic nearby.

The flight crew saw a small aircraft, an Aeronca 11AC (N9270E), in a hard left turn traveling from their 1 o'clock to 3 o'clock position. The first officer interrupted the climb and leveled out the aircraft. Both crew members reported seeing only the underside of the Aeronca as it passed to within an estimated 200-300 feet of the 777.

After the encounter, the flight crew continued to Beijing without further incident.
Click to expand...
Somebody compiled this audio clip of ATC comms of the incident for SFO Tower and then the handoff to Norcal Departure (must be logged into liveatc to listen).

It's apparent that the Aeronca pilot was on a valid Class B clearance transitioning north to south at 1500 ft (Hwy 280 transition?). I've heard that with this transition SFO tower often reroutes VFR aircraft to overfly midfield if they have straight out departures from rwys 28L/R to protect their climb (between Montara Mountain and San Bruno Mountain, an area known as "the Gap").

In this case, the Aeronca (N9270E) was given a traffic advisory of the departing B777 while it was still at 500 ft, reported it in sight and was issued visual separation instructions to pass BEHIND the departing aircraft, which they read back. Given the fact that the UAL pilot and tower blocked each other it sounds like the flight crew was already responding to their TCAS Resolution Advisory and querying ATC by the time they got the traffic advisory from tower. The aftermath is pretty wild, I can only imagine what they asked SFO tower on the discreet frequency they got...

I don't mean to speculate too much while the NTSB does their thing. However, I live just north of San Francisco and have been wanting to make a similar flight as the offending aircraft down Ocean Beach to Half Moon Bay, and am a little spooked by the whole thing now.

Other than complying with the instructions you read back to ATC, what else if anything do you guys think can be learned from this?
 
Re: UAL pilot to SFO TWR after TCAS RA: "We need to talk!"

inigo88 said:
Other than complying with the instructions you read back to ATC, what else if anything do you guys think can be learned from this?
Click to expand...

Keep an eye out for the big ole' 777, and pass in the cleared way.

What can be learned will come out of knowing more of the info surrounding it.
 
Re: UAL pilot to SFO TWR after TCAS RA: "We need to talk!"

MikeD said:
Keep an eye out for the big ole' 777, and pass in the cleared way.

What can be learned will come out of knowing more of the info surrounding it.
Click to expand...

Aye, you're absolutely right. I need to be more patient. Looking forward to hearing what NTSB concludes, and the ASRS report if/when it's released. :)
 
Re: UAL pilot to SFO TWR after TCAS RA: "We need to talk!"

inigo88 said:
Aye, you're absolutely right. I need to be more patient. Looking forward to hearing what NTSB concludes, and the ASRS report if/when it's released. :)
Click to expand...

Its just that the info is so preliminary; and without hearing the complete UAL crew side of it, GA pilot side of it, as well as the ATC debrief, it's difficult to come up with truly useful and accurate lessons to be taken away.
 
Re: UAL pilot to SFO TWR after TCAS RA: "We need to talk!"

I'm sure some politician will try to make their mark with this one by banning all VFR transitions. :laff:
 
Re: UAL pilot to SFO TWR after TCAS RA: "We need to talk!"

I heard some idiot the other day saying he thought flying through Bravo was just, quote, "part of the deal" with flight following. This was of course after he busted right into it without a clearance.

Reeeeal classy.



Not bagging on the weekend warriors here but sheesh... know your stuff!!!
 
Re: UAL pilot to SFO TWR after TCAS RA: "We need to talk!"

I just saw Max Trescott (CFI from the south bay) on NBC11 news trying to translate what happened to the general public. He did an okay job, except the media thinks an Aeronca Champ is "one of those little Cessnas" and then proceeded to show a photo of a C182.

I'd heard Trescott's name before because I bought a laminated VFR transition map he makes for the bay area. It's ironic he was on the news talking about... VFR transitions.

E_Dawg said:
I heard some idiot the other day saying he thought flying through Bravo was just, quote, "part of the deal" with flight following. This was of course after he busted right into it without a clearance.

Reeeeal classy.
Click to expand...

Good god man... That's bad...

E_Dawg said:
Not bagging on the weekend warriors here but sheesh... know your stuff!!!
Click to expand...

Can't speak for everyone, but I'm no MD with a Bonanza. Bag away. :beer:
 
Re: UAL pilot to SFO TWR after TCAS RA: "We need to talk!"

Heard about this today, except I heard they missed by 50 feet and the GA plane was a 182. Glad to get the real story.
 
Re: UAL pilot to SFO TWR after TCAS RA: "We need to talk!"

ChasenSFO said:
Heard about this today, except I heard they missed by 50 feet and the GA plane was a 182. Glad to get the real story.
Click to expand...


In another 8 hours it'll be "missed by mere inches"

The report I saw said 300 feet vertical and 1500 horizontal.
 
Re: UAL pilot to SFO TWR after TCAS RA: "We need to talk!"

One of the biggest aviation lies: "traffic in sight"
 
Re: UAL pilot to SFO TWR after TCAS RA: "We need to talk!"

I don't get the "nearly catastrophic collision" part of this. Not knowing everything I would think tower would issue traffic with the takeoff clearance but still, Visual sep was made and confirmed. I can understand the UAL pilots anger though, just after rotation is probably not the place you want to be having RA's.
 
Re: UAL pilot to SFO TWR after TCAS RA: "We need to talk!"

I think we are building a generation of pilots who see TCAS as more important than visual lookout.

Avionics have their use, but they are meant to enhance a pilot's basic responsibility to see and avoid, NOT to be the primary method.
 
Re: UAL pilot to SFO TWR after TCAS RA: "We need to talk!"

Hacker15e said:
Translation: "well clear".
Click to expand...

For a fighter maybe but, not in the airline world. Also consider the wake that heavy, slow and clean 777 makes and its proximity to that Aeronica.
 
Re: UAL pilot to SFO TWR after TCAS RA: "We need to talk!"

Hacker15e said:
I think we are building a generation of pilots who see TCAS as more important than visual lookout.

Avionics have their use, but they are meant to enhance a pilot's basic responsibility to see and avoid, NOT to be the primary method.
Click to expand...

Most airliners do not have huds and even then they are on the left side only. So, we have to fly our airliners heads down. Especially at 1100'. That is a very busy time for us as we are transitioning from takeoff flap and power settings to climb.
 
Re: UAL pilot to SFO TWR after TCAS RA: "We need to talk!"

JoelT said:
Most airliners do not have huds and even then they are on the left side only. So, we have to fly our airliners heads down. Especially at 1100'. That is a very busy time for us as we are transitioning from takeoff flap and power settings to climb.
Click to expand...

The HUD is not the only way to fly "heads out". Pilots have done it for decades...it's called a crosscheck. Maybe you've heard of it. Divide your time between looking inside the cockpit and outside. How do you think airliners did it in the pre-TCAS era?

I'm well aware that takeoff is a busy time; airliners are not the only aircraft making power and configuration changes between takeoff and departure. Somehow people are able to have a crosscheck that allows safe operation of the aircraft and completion of checklist tasks.

Seriously...there are two people in the cockpit...are you telling me that one of them at least can't divide his time keeping track of things inside and outside the cockpit? If not, then there is a serious misapplication of CRM going on, as well as a serious mis-prioritization of tasks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top