Bumblebee
Commodore
so my edit would have been a better use...thanks for that
NTSB investigating UAL/SFO near miss
- Thread starter inigo88
- Start date
MarkE
Greetings, Professor Falken
Don't mean to hijack this thread but makes you wonder what else they and other news outlets report inaccurately?
That was my big thing. You're visual separation there C-17. Use some good judgement. Had you reviewed the airport information like you were supposed to (I assume they did), they should've expected the fighter traffic to be right where it was. In their review, they would've known where the traffic patterns were and what the pattern alts were, and should've expected traffic at those places. The inside downwind for 16 was no factor at 6100 MSL, but the outside downwind was closer....2.5 to 3 miles further east of the runway. At 6100', the outside downwind could conceivable be close to someone descending on the TACAN or ILS to RW22...BUT, that's why there's a hard altitude at the FAF, and with visual separation on a clear and a million day, there's no problem.
You'll get a kick out of this Hacker: Briefing the generalities of this incident to a group of civil pilots during an airspace meeting one day, I explain the above about how visual separation should've been the end-all, as everyone was flying very predictable and known altitudes and headings. One guy tells me, on my comment about why did the C-17 follow the RA, that "well, he had to....just think if it had been IMC and there WAS no visual separation, and the same event happened!".
Hmmmm. Well clown, if that were the case, then there would've been no outside/inside downwind...nor any VFR pattern.....open in the first place, and hence, no F-4 traffic to be visual from or to even be a factor, would there? Nearest traffic would've been on the TACAN or ILS to 16, not the pattern; and even that would've been sequenced by RAPCON far from the RW 22 TACAN or ILS traffic. Or, wind necessitating, everyone would be inbound on RW 22.
Nitwit.
Bumblebee
Commodore
:yup:
OK three deep breaths sir...
Heehee!
Just funny reflecting.
Then again, someone might get their panties in a bunch around here for that one-word comment. There's always someone with the thin hyde.
pericynthion
Well-Known Member
inigo88
Composite-lover
I don't think that's true. I think that part of the feed is two sectors of Norcal Departure (you can move the Left/Right balance slider over to the left to get rid of most of the other sector's audio). They had that conversation with TRACON in addition to whatever they told tower on the discrete freq.
Thanks you guys for picking up the NTSB tail number error. Aeronca Champ out of Connectecut made no sense. C182 out of Palo Alto does.
JoelT
Well-Known Member
Re: UAL pilot to SFO TWR after TCAS RA: "We need to talk!"
To respond to both posts I'll just use this one. First, 300' is much less than required separation for IFR traffic.
In regards to your TCAS comment it seemed to me like you were ready to throw the United crew under the bus when they did exactly what they were supposed to. You can't always see the traffic you are trying to avoid. In fact, almost every RA that I have ever had I could not find the traffic until after doing the TCAS commanded escape maneuver. It's there for a reason and the pilot must follow it to the letter if a visual can not be maintained.
To respond to both posts I'll just use this one. First, 300' is much less than required separation for IFR traffic.
In regards to your TCAS comment it seemed to me like you were ready to throw the United crew under the bus when they did exactly what they were supposed to. You can't always see the traffic you are trying to avoid. In fact, almost every RA that I have ever had I could not find the traffic until after doing the TCAS commanded escape maneuver. It's there for a reason and the pilot must follow it to the letter if a visual can not be maintained.
ian
Well-Known Member
Re: UAL pilot to SFO TWR after TCAS RA: "We need to talk!"
i agree, the whole purpose of the crew concept is that the PF is always outside, the PNF is making the adjustments inside
i agree, the whole purpose of the crew concept is that the PF is always outside, the PNF is making the adjustments inside
Bumblebee
Commodore
bunch of panties...goodHeehee!
Just funny reflecting.
Then again, someone might get their panties in a bunch around here for that one-word comment. There's always someone with the thin hyde.
...panties in a bunch not so good!
Alpha Lima
New Member
Re: UAL pilot to SFO TWR after TCAS RA: "We need to talk!"
Class B IFR-VFR is only 500' and in this case visual was applied per .65 7-2-1 so its on the pilot maintaining visual to not prang off the aircraft that he is visually seperating himself from.
Class B IFR-VFR is only 500' and in this case visual was applied per .65 7-2-1 so its on the pilot maintaining visual to not prang off the aircraft that he is visually seperating himself from.
Bumblebee
Commodore
Re: UAL pilot to SFO TWR after TCAS RA: "We need to talk!"
I don't think anyone is blaming the controller here...
When SFO handed off the 777 to NorCal and said no further traffic, I believe that was because the only traffic if consequence had been identified, and had agreed to take responsibility for separation...if neither had agreed to "maintain visual separation" then the tower would have vectored one or the other, most likely the small aircraft, to be sure of separation.
The way I understand it once the pilot agreed to maintain visual it was on that pilot and the controller is absolved of the separation responsibility for that traffic.
I don't think anyone is blaming the controller here...
When SFO handed off the 777 to NorCal and said no further traffic, I believe that was because the only traffic if consequence had been identified, and had agreed to take responsibility for separation...if neither had agreed to "maintain visual separation" then the tower would have vectored one or the other, most likely the small aircraft, to be sure of separation.
Re: UAL pilot to SFO TWR after TCAS RA: "We need to talk!"
The story I saw said they were both in a 4 G negative dive.
The story I saw said they were both in a 4 G negative dive.
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
Sounds like UAL never had the aircraft in sight. Having the RA go off right after liftoff without traffic in sight is not a good thing.
I'm very heads up, but sometimes you just can't pick up the traffic, especially when youre in and out of the cockpit and 20ish degrees nose up right after takeoff.
Of course, we aren't all fighter hot shots either... I know ya'll are farther up, but your aircraft are designed to easily be able to see in all directions. Chill out on the rhetoric and try to see it from their perspective.
The rules for an RA is that you can ignore it to the extent of not taking the action, but cannot go in the opposite direction of the RA regardless of circumstances. Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
That being said...she sounded like one of those chicks that's overly scary and jumps at everything with her transmission. I've had similar encounters (although with gliders... so no RA), and a simple "hey, do yall have a number we can talk to you when we get on the ground? that was a bit too close..." would have sufficed.
I'm very heads up, but sometimes you just can't pick up the traffic, especially when youre in and out of the cockpit and 20ish degrees nose up right after takeoff.
Of course, we aren't all fighter hot shots either... I know ya'll are farther up, but your aircraft are designed to easily be able to see in all directions. Chill out on the rhetoric and try to see it from their perspective.
The rules for an RA is that you can ignore it to the extent of not taking the action, but cannot go in the opposite direction of the RA regardless of circumstances. Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
That being said...she sounded like one of those chicks that's overly scary and jumps at everything with her transmission. I've had similar encounters (although with gliders... so no RA), and a simple "hey, do yall have a number we can talk to you when we get on the ground? that was a bit too close..." would have sufficed.
Hey now.....no need for cheap shots. I realize there are visual limitations to the heavies, but in my example, the C-17 crew had the fighters in sight and called so, then is surprised by an RA occurring and wants to make it a reportable incident? C'mon now.
Which to me (the no action thing), is what I questioned them as to why they didn't do that.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
There's no rhetoric and there's no "hot shots", and it makes no difference what kind of visibility is available out the window.
Our priorities as pilots start with (above ALL else):
1. Don't hit the ground, or anything attached to it
2. Don't hit any other aircraft
Is there EVER, ANY task that is a higher priority than these two? This is basic airmanship.
I don't care what kind of toys you have on the airplane that you "need" to operate...I don't care what your checkists say....I don't care what your company's crew duties say...no cockpit tasks ever, ever, EVER supersede your responsibility and duty as a pilot to not hit the dirt or hit other aircraft. Period.
Pilots of ALL TYPES of aircraft -- including those with windows the same size, shape, and distance away from the pilot's eyes as every current airliner -- were able to safely operate using see-and-avoid as the primary means of traffic deconfliction for decades. There is nothing -- NOTHING -- that has changed with the addition of an aid to situational awareness (ergo, TCAS).
Looking outside and not hitting things is a basic, core responsibility. If you think otherwise, then I suggest you need to take a step back and re-evaluate your priorities as an airman.
Kingairer
'Tiger Team' Member
Re: UAL pilot to SFO TWR after TCAS RA: "We need to talk!"
Why would you lie about having someone in sight...Ill lie that i dont have traffic insight, even when i think i do, at times because Im not 100% sure its THE traffic, and Im not ready to accept the responsibility of seperation.
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
Didn't mean for it to be a cheap shot... I honestly didn't read the C-17 one after multiple fighter ones. Some of the crap that was written up until that point just made my head hurt.
An RA is always going to end up in a report, anyways. I don't agree with her reaction on the radio one bit... in fact I can't imagine spending the next 14 hours with someone that behaves like that, haha.
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
I don't disagree with a single thing you wrote. Fly the freaking airplane.
However, you accused them of relying solely on TCAS when you do not know whether or not they had the Cessna in sight. There are many many times when I've had similar instances, though not resulting in an RA, where I never picked up the other target except for the diamond on my display- despite best efforts and going full heads up.
It happens... and when that target you don't see goes red, you've got to take action since you cannot see them. You know... that whole "don't hit anything" part of flying...