Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 24, 2014, 12:45:24 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: LiveATC.net Flyers Released!  Please click here to download & print a copy and be sure to post at an airport near you!


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  Near Miss @ KSFO - We Need to Talk!
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Near Miss @ KSFO - We Need to Talk!  (Read 15065 times)
Squawk 7700
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 469



WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 21, 2011, 01:05:05 AM »

Here is an interesting article on the United 889 / Cessna 182 (N9870E) near miss incident over San Bruno, CA last year.
http://www.tourismandaviation.com/news-8294--How_Close_United_Airlines_Flight_889_Came_To_A_Midair_NTSB_Report_
Logged

Feeder:
KHWD Ground/Tower
KOAK Del/Gnd/Twr
KSFO NORCAL App Rwy 28L/R
KSFO Tower/Ground
NORCAL Approach (KOAK)
NORCAL Departure (KSFO/KOAK)
KSJC NORCAL Approach #2
ZOA Oakland Center (35/40/41)


RJTT App/Dep
RJTT Tokyo Control
RJTT Twr/TCA
alltheway
Guest
« Reply #16 on: April 21, 2011, 06:03:27 AM »

There are two topics about this incident, would it be possible to merge these Dave?

Thanx

http://www.liveatc.net/forums/atcaviation-audio-clips/near-miss-at-ksfo-we-need-to-talk!-(woak-ctr)


The exclamation point is screwing up....
« Last Edit: April 21, 2011, 06:16:49 AM by alltheway » Logged
keith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 275


WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 21, 2011, 12:18:02 PM »

Background on SFO GA transitions:
GA typically remain west of hwy 101 (which runs just west of SFO itself) when transitioning the airspace. This keeps them clear the 1L/R departure stream.

When they run a heavy departure off 28L/R, they sometimes route the GA traffic over the top of the airport, then a NW heading until the 28L/R guy is clear, then back over to the west side of 101. (I've flown the transition several times, and have had both variations take place).


I would be curious what would possess the GA pilot to fly so close to the departing jet as to cause the interaction that just happened. Obviously, TCAS isn't smart enough to know that the approach/converging traffic has you in sight and will maintain vis sep. So, I'm wondering why RA's were enabled? Is it SOP to disable RA's in all terminal areas, or is it airline-specific, or crew discretion?

I'm trying to work out if the crew over reacted, or if the GA pilot flew unusually close.
Logged

KS Flight Log - pics, videos, ATC/intercom audio and in depth flight reviews
PilotEdge - add ATC to your simulation experience
alltheway
Guest
« Reply #18 on: April 21, 2011, 12:45:51 PM »

That now was why I asked Dave to merge the two topics, but here's what I wrote in the other topic:

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
« Last Edit: April 22, 2011, 06:12:29 PM by alltheway » Logged
StrongDreams
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


« Reply #19 on: April 21, 2011, 03:43:30 PM »

The NTSB report appears to blame ATC ("an operational error occurred at SFO ATCT").

Link to report.
Logged
sykocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349



« Reply #20 on: April 21, 2011, 04:33:06 PM »

I don't see where the operational error was. The Cessna was told to maintain visual separation, the UAL was told the Cessna was maintaining visual separation.
Logged

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

Posts: 275


WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 22, 2011, 02:09:32 PM »

Thanks for posting the link to the NTSB report. It's really worth reading closely.

I'm still not sure what the operational error was here, the only thing that springs to mind is that minimum lateral/vertical separation of two targets in the Bravo was not maintained PRIOR to the Cessna pilot accepting visual separation.

That makes sense based on the report from UAL of seeing the Cessna "turning hard..."  In other words, the traffic point out was essentially pretty late in the game.

Reading the report, it basically implies that nobody was really paying attention to the transitioning Cessna.  I'm not easily rattled, but THAT is an issue.  The recommendations at the end of the report are actually reasonable.  They mention the possibility of a standalone freq for handling GA transitions, similar to what LGA and EWR have.  I have used the LGA/EWR VFR tower freqs, and they are awesome for several reasons.

I've also used the SFO twr freq when transitioning, and on two occasions, had to circle over Bay Meadows while awaiting a break on the frequency to get a word in.  Thankfully, they knew I was coming (coordinated by SQL tower ahead of time). Had they not known I was coming, a cold call would've tied up the frequency for a relatively long time, during which time the tower would be unable to issue takeoff/landing/LUAW instructions to the heavy metal at SFO.

A standalone position makes all the sense in the world, I think, because transitioning SFO is _not_ always straight forward (there's no Silver Bullet routing that makes sense 24/7), and the tower is already busy enough.

All of that said, the Cessna pilot should've maintained better situational awareness.  If you're southbound in the Bravo while transitioning SFO, you should have your eyes peeled on the 28's, watching for go-arounds, or departures.  How the pilot did not know (apparently), that a jet had launched from one of the 28's and was heading toward him is a bit of a mystery to me, since he was on the same frequency.

SFO is a fast-running operation with the deps on 1L/R sneaking out in between the 28L/R arrival stream. It's not hard to imagine how a relatively infrequent operation (Bravo transition by a GA aircraft) would be forgotten.

Logged

KS Flight Log - pics, videos, ATC/intercom audio and in depth flight reviews
PilotEdge - add ATC to your simulation experience
alltheway
Guest
« Reply #22 on: April 22, 2011, 06:39:56 PM »

 cool The Cessna should have been assertive to avoid this close call, maybe he had the text "objects in windshield appear closer than they are" in front of him...

/sarcastic mode off/

Found this about using TCAS:
http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Incorrect_use_of_TCAS_Traffic_Display

Where it says: "quote - ICAO Doc 8168: PANS-OPS, Chapter 3, Section 3.2 states unequivocally that "pilots shall not manoeuvre their aircraft in response to traffic advisories (TAs) only. (This) restriction in the use of TAs is due to limited bearing accuracy and to the difficulty in interpreting altitude rate from displayed traffic information."

And this : http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/TCAS_II_Activation

Where it says : ICAO PANS-OPS Doc 8168 (and also the ACAS Manual Doc 9863)

Although the TCAS RA function is inhibited, with the system selected on, when an aircraft is on the ground - and also at low altitudes when airborne - it is very important for operational safety that the system is selected on before take off, to ensure that the RA function will be active as soon as the built-in system constraints allow this during the initial climb. It would be completely impracticable for flight crew to routinely select TCAS on (or off) whilst airborne at low altitude.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2011, 07:34:26 PM by alltheway » Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!