Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 29, 2016, 11:35:08 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: Check out: FlightSimCon 2016 June 11-12, 2016


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  Near Miss @ KSFO - We Need to Talk! (w/OAK Ctr)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Near Miss @ KSFO - We Need to Talk! (w/OAK Ctr)  (Read 24280 times)
kahuna
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« on: March 30, 2010, 09:59:54 PM »

(03-30) 15:18 PDT SAN FRANCISCO --

A small plane came within less than 300 feet of a commercial jetliner taking off from San Francisco International Airport over the weekend, federal officials said today.

A United Airlines Boeing 777 with 251 passengers on board, bound for Beijing, took off at 11:15 a.m. Saturday and had just been cleared to climb to 3,000 feet when the near-collision happened, the National Transportation Safety Board said.

The jet was at 1,100 feet when an air traffic controller warned the crew to be on the lookout for a small plane, the safety board said. Immediately afterward, the jet's automated traffic collision avoidance system issued an audible alert of, "Traffic traffic."
That's when the pilot and first officer saw a light high-wing Aeronca 11AC making a hard left turn to the right of the airliner, the safety board said. The first officer promptly leveled off the jet, and both crew members watched as the Aeronca passed 200 to 300 feet over the airliner, the safety board said.

The jet continued to China without further incident.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/30/BACC1CNHPS.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0jiPkq7tW

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/30/BACC1CNHPS.DTL&tsp=1

* UAL889_Mar_27_2010_KSFO.mp3 (3620.54 KB - downloaded 5686 times.)
Logged
rekno13
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


« Reply #1 on: March 31, 2010, 02:36:54 AM »

thanks for the post, sound like you tried to include the conversation the controller had with the pilot but the audio is kind of going crazy, too much going on?
Logged
Dave_B
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2010, 09:23:29 AM »

No. It is easy to isolate the conversation since it's on two different channels. Just open your volume control and put the Wave balance control either to the right or the left depending on what you want to hear.
Logged
rationaljeff
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2010, 01:21:27 PM »

I brought the file into Logic Pro to split the files into two mono files so I could isolate UAL and then mix it down into a single file, but they are not independent.

EDIT:

OK, I spent some time editing it and EQing it to try and focus on the UAL flight.

This edit starts exactly when they switch to talk about the incident.


* United_Bounce.mp3 (4242.78 KB - downloaded 4251 times.)
« Last Edit: March 31, 2010, 01:36:31 PM by rationaljeff » Logged
Pushin_Tin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2010, 02:13:06 PM »

The media pisses me off. They got this all wrong. Everything was done by the book. The C172 reported the B777 in sight and was told to "maintain visual separation and pass behind that aircraft." The controller then immediately went to the B777, called the C172 traffic, and notified them that the aircraft was maintaining visual separation from them. This is textbook visual separation. It happens every day at every airport in the world. Look at the news' subtitles of the controller-pilot transmission. It's hilarious. If you're going to hype up a story and try to pin it on the controller, at least have the correct audio transmission.

Example from FOX News:
 
"Just hang to your right, tag insight head for 1500 and maintaining those separation"   HAHAHAHA

how about....

"Just ahead and to your right, has you in sight,  Cessna, 1500', they're maintaining visual separation"
Logged
rekno13
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


« Reply #5 on: March 31, 2010, 03:54:30 PM »

No. It is easy to isolate the conversation since it's on two different channels. Just open your volume control and put the Wave balance control either to the right or the left depending on what you want to hear.

Ah yeah, I'm on OSX and don't think I have an option, but I did put it into audacity later in the evening and found it out : ) Thought thats what was going on but wasn't sure. Thanks again!

The media pisses me off. They got this all wrong. Everything was done by the book. The C172 reported the B777 in sight and was told to "maintain visual separation and pass behind that aircraft." The controller then immediately went to the B777, called the C172 traffic, and notified them that the aircraft was maintaining visual separation from them. This is textbook visual separation. It happens every day at every airport in the world. Look at the news' subtitles of the controller-pilot transmission. It's hilarious. If you're going to hype up a story and try to pin it on the controller, at least have the correct audio transmission.

Example from FOX News:
 
"Just hang to your right, tag insight head for 1500 and maintaining those separation"   HAHAHAHA

how about....

"Just ahead and to your right, has you in sight,  Cessna, 1500', they're maintaining visual separation"

I agree, I hate our media. No sense of professionalism at all. What's funny is they say that about the rest of us.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2010, 03:57:06 PM by rekno13 » Logged
joecc060
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #6 on: March 31, 2010, 07:41:01 PM »

The media pisses me off. They got this all wrong. Everything was done by the book. The C172 reported the B777 in sight and was told to "maintain visual separation and pass behind that aircraft." The controller then immediately went to the B777, called the C172 traffic, and notified them that the aircraft was maintaining visual separation from them. This is textbook visual separation. It happens every day at every airport in the world. Look at the news' subtitles of the controller-pilot transmission. It's hilarious. If you're going to hype up a story and try to pin it on the controller, at least have the correct audio transmission.

Example from FOX News:
 
"Just hang to your right, tag insight head for 1500 and maintaining those separation"   HAHAHAHA

how about....

"Just ahead and to your right, has you in sight,  Cessna, 1500', they're maintaining visual separation"

That was ridiculous.  It didn't even make sense.  They also called TCAS "t-test" and quoted a takeoff clearance as "flight 6888, wings 090 at...".  Isn't there someone on their staff that has a clue about aviation that can proofread these transcripts?  It's just embarrasing.
Logged
kahuna
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #7 on: March 31, 2010, 07:47:20 PM »

Sorry about all of the chatter in the original uploaded file. The source I grabbed from the archives was composited and I could not gracefully filter out the multiple conversation threads.
Logged
sykocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349



« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2010, 10:37:45 PM »



That was ridiculous.  It didn't even make sense.  They also called TCAS "t-test" and quoted a takeoff clearance as "flight 6888, wings 090 at...".  Isn't there someone on their staff that has a clue about aviation that can proofread these transcripts?  It's just embarrasing.

They probably used Youtube's new transcription services. (click the CC next to the volume button)
« Last Edit: April 01, 2010, 03:31:45 AM by sykocus » Logged

Yesterday I couldn't spell air traffic controller. Today I R one.
Biff
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 376



WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 01, 2010, 09:48:11 AM »

I notice AVweb picking up more and more stories from here.  At least they credit LiveATC, unlike some other sites.

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1594-full.html#202257
Logged

aviator_06
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 01, 2010, 09:39:20 PM »

Wow great clip! I've had a Southwest 737 fly over top of me before with no warning from approach but it was a litte more than 300ft I bet the pilot of the small plane about crapped a brick. lol
Logged

phil-s
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 103


« Reply #11 on: April 01, 2010, 11:21:38 PM »

Did I hear this right? In the first part of the tape, I hear tower saying something like “…onca, traffic off the departure end, climbing out of 500, heavy triple 7”. The GA responds with something, presumably its call sign, followed by “traffic IS in sight”. Tower: “Maintain visual separation, pass behind that aircraft”. Tower then tried to tell UA that the GA had them in sight and would pass behind. But by the time tower spoke to UA, immediately after talking to the GA, all hell had already broken loose. The Cessna (not Aeronca) was banking hard left (accoprding to AvHerald) and the UA had gotten a "strong TCAS", responded to it, and was trying to contact tower. In fact UA and tower stepped on each other.   

I can imagine that the UA crew had higher priorities immediately after wheels up then scanning their TCAS displays for possible conflicting traffic, and didn't have time for tower’s instruction to the Cessna to even register on them before they heard their TCAS callout. Seems also like the Cessna was way way out of position, given that it was out over the bay when (as we hear later) their instruction was to “stay west of Hiway 101”. So how did tower let the Cessna get so far off course, and how could the Cessna pilot not realize where he was? “Visual separation” implies to me VFR, and to be out over the bay in the 28 departure track instead of “west of 101”….? And did the Cessna pilot really respond calmly “traffic IS in sight” when he was at that moment banking hard left apparently trying to get the hell out of the way of the 77?

Oh well, I’m not a pilot, just an interested bystander, so any comments would be appreciated.   

Incidentally, I really loved the FOX news quote. Just further confirmation that their news reports rarely bear any relation to actual facts.
Logged
timz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #12 on: April 02, 2010, 12:12:59 AM »

The 777 wasn't over the bay (or near it) so presumably the Cessna wasn't either. No indication he wasn't west of 101 like he was supposed to be.

It seems everybody followed the letter of the rules-- the Cessna did pass behind the 777, and he didn't hit him, so he did maintain visual separation. You might hope he would take care to avoid setting off their TCAS, but apparently that's not actually a requirement?
Logged
sykocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349



« Reply #13 on: April 02, 2010, 01:41:09 AM »

The 777 wasn't over the bay (or near it) so presumably the Cessna wasn't either. No indication he wasn't west of 101 like he was supposed to be.

It seems everybody followed the letter of the rules-- the Cessna did pass behind the 777, and he didn't hit him, so he did maintain visual separation. You might hope he would take care to avoid setting off their TCAS, but apparently that's not actually a requirement?

Not sure what else he could have done. It would have been hard for him to turn right (make a 270) to pass behind and still keep the 777 in sight thus "maintaining visual separation".
« Last Edit: April 02, 2010, 02:04:42 AM by sykocus » Logged

Yesterday I couldn't spell air traffic controller. Today I R one.
wlowe
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #14 on: April 02, 2010, 02:08:06 AM »

Of course the media sensationalized the story.  Thats what they do.  I worked in the news biz for 10 years... its just what they do.  But I'm also a pilot...

It sounded like the 777 was departing 28 so heading to the west, so even if the GA aircraft was west of the 101 (as instructed), he still could have easily been in the departure path of the Heavy.  And the Heavy had instructions for runway heading after takeoff I believe.  Of course we don't know all the facts, but from my perspective, the error would have been on the controller in clearing the 777 for takeoff as a GA was about to pass in-front of the business end of an active runway at an altitude that the 777 would quickly be climbing through after takeoff.

A TCAS warning that soon after takeoff has got to be a scary thing to deal with.  Not only do you already have your hands full with getting the plane off the ground and cleaned up, but the pitch attitude is relatively high and forward visibility isn't great.  Its hard to see a little GA out there at that phase of flight.

The Cessna was way too close and although both pilots did a great job of taking evasive action, the controller should have never let them get into that situation.  Had they collided the loss of life could have been very great.  And even given the Cessna avoided the collision, passing behind a Heavy Jet on takeoff is the last place you want to be in a light aircraft.  The wake turbulence coming off a 777 on takeoff is easily enough to slam a single engine airplane to the ground.

Just my 2 cents.
Logged
phil-s
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 103


« Reply #15 on: April 02, 2010, 08:55:47 AM »

%$^#$, seems I've had my internal compass offset 90 deg at KSFO forever.  Been thinking all these years that rwy 1 points roughly east while 28 is lined up roughly N.  So, yes, of course nobody was out over the bay and, yes, it sounds like the Cessna was following (bad) instructions.
Logged
Windtee
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24



WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2010, 05:25:01 AM »

Now I get a better picture since hearing the abbreviated version. Thanks for the follow-up.
Logged

CP, IA, ASEL, AMEL
www.Windtee.com® Aviation T-Shirt Art!
Cap747
Guest
« Reply #17 on: April 09, 2010, 03:55:29 AM »

As everyone here is a bit off-topic, I'll try to bring it on-topic again, this threat as it says above, is about the second part, w/OAK !

Here the girly asked for a phone number (and actually got it) and if there were radar recordings made, she needs those.... Of course flight tracker has their part for this....  afro
« Last Edit: April 11, 2010, 05:42:15 AM by Cap747 » Logged
atcman23
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 367



« Reply #18 on: April 09, 2010, 08:45:47 AM »

Sounds like an OCD pilot.  She can't just get radar data anyway... there's a lot of paperwork to go about getting that... oh and not to mention you would be in a courtroom.  File a ASRS and call it a day.  Pointing fingers and determining blame while flying the aircraft are things that should not be done at the same time (like drinking and driving).
Logged

Mark Spencer
Cap747
Guest
« Reply #19 on: April 10, 2010, 01:50:19 PM »

 grin BTW the topic about the first part is here...

http://www.liveatc.net/forums/atcaviation-audio-clips/near-miss-at-ksfo-we-need-to-talk!/msg43227/#msg43227


Logged
Jay
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #20 on: April 11, 2010, 12:34:02 AM »

From the sound of it ATC applied visual separation at the last minute, even though the pilot accepted it there isn't any time (only a mile at most) for the GA to out manuever the B777 that's climbing through his altitude. Almost seems like local applied visual separation as a CYA.
Logged
Cap747
Guest
« Reply #21 on: April 11, 2010, 06:08:11 AM »

From the sound of it ATC applied visual separation at the last minute, even though the pilot accepted it there isn't any time (only a mile at most) for the GA to out manuever the B777 that's climbing through his altitude. Almost seems like local applied visual separation as a CYA.

I didn't wanted to comment to this, but I can't resist  grin

A GA usually can turn around it's own axis in a short distance, this Cessna needs only 200 to 300 feet, doing a full 360 if they have to, but that depends on pilot skills....  evil
« Last Edit: April 11, 2010, 06:09:49 AM by Cap747 » Logged
alltheway
Guest
« Reply #22 on: November 06, 2010, 05:20:51 PM »

I found this on the internet,

Quote:"Terminal Area (Norcal Approach)
Basic separation within 40 miles of single antenna is three miles in airport/terminal airspace. IFR/VFR separation is 1.5-miles in Class B. Beyond 40 miles of antenna it is 5 miles.

The pilot should know that under VFR conditions once you have told ATC that you have visual contact with traffic you may not receive any further radar advisories on that traffic. They may not advise you again of altitude or direction. It is up to you to evade any possible wake turbulence. ATC will let you fly right under a DC-10' wake turbulence and not issue a warning. You must be aware of this lack of protection and be assertive enough to make a 360 or whatever it takes for avoidance. It may be best not to 'see' traffic "


Got this from:
http://www.whittsflying.com/web/page5.310Bay_Area_ATC_System.htm



Hugggghhhh what a cute voice - early 20's?
« Last Edit: November 07, 2010, 06:23:08 PM by alltheway » Logged
briantambrose@gmail.com
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #23 on: November 30, 2010, 12:53:13 AM »

The media, will send out a news chopper to fly over a light GA crash any film as much detail as they can... they try to get the bodies if they can... it is sick.. they never have any facts, actual causes or a clue about GA.  They Blood Leads as they say...  angry
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!