777 almost hit San Gabriel Mts Friday

They read the instruction back multiple times, yet failed to take action. Seems like they were pre-occupied and a little behind the 8 ball. CRM might've gotten the best of them.

Happy to hear it was a safe ending!
 
Shouldn't that be "the ecologically balanced San Gabriel Mountains" in the title?
 
I'm wondering what the implications are of the "high speed climb" they asked and received approval for.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm wondering what the implications are of the "high speed climb" they asked and received approval for.
Click to expand...
I'm wondering what it means. High climb rate or high airspeed? High airspeed would seem to be counterproductive.

And unless they have a restriction on either, is it necessary to get it approved?
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm wondering what the implications are of the "high speed climb" they asked and received approval for.
Click to expand...
Outside the US that would mean an airspeed above 250kts below 10,000'. In the US the controller does not have the authority to grant such a request (that is reserved for the Administrator). The controller likely thought they required above 250kts due to their clean-maneuvering speed--in such a case, neither approval nor notification is required. The crew may have just wanted the faster climb.
 
Several of the flight's transmissions were blocked on the recording. It sounded as though there was confusion as to the direction of turn. IMO, the controller, whose incorrect instruction started the problem, didn't help the situation with her "turn south" instructions. Stick to standard phraseology, especially with a non-native English speaking crew.

Keep it simple. Keep it standard.

"Eva 15, turn right immediately heading 1-8-0"
 
MAKG1 said:
I'm wondering what it means. High climb rate or high airspeed? High airspeed would seem to be counterproductive.

And unless they have a restriction on either, is it necessary to get it approved?
Click to expand...
Heavy internationals loaded to the brink will routinely require a high speed climb and that is simply exceeding 250 kts below 10. Happens many many times a day just in my airspace and obviously every where else that has them flying around. I'm not an aeronautical engineer but I know there is at least one on here that may be able to explain the whys.
 
The reason I raised this question is that I was wondering if the high speed climb request and approval was a factor in the crew's being slow to respond to the turn instructions given. Would there have been a need to delay turning in order to build speed more quickly?
 
What I find interesting about this is that I just recently saw a "lessons learned" video somewhere on youtube about very similar scenario. But, with a GA aircraft in hard IMC.
 
Palmpilot said:
The reason I raised this question is that I was wondering if the high speed climb request and approval was a factor in the crew's being slow to respond to the turn instructions given. Would there have been a need to delay turning in order to build speed more quickly?
Click to expand...
They would need to climb slower, or level off, to build speed. Not good with terrain ahead.
 
Larry in TN said:
... In the US the controller does not have the authority to grant such a request (that is reserved for the Administrator). ...
Click to expand...

<looks at phone lines on the console> Lets see now, airfield ops, fire department, tracon supervisor....nope, no administrator phone line. :nonod:
 
wilkersk said:
What I find interesting about this is that I just recently saw a "lessons learned" video somewhere on youtube about very similar scenario. But, with a GA aircraft in hard IMC.
Click to expand...

Obviously these guys were in IMC. Otherwise they would have looked out the window and taken some sort of action other than flying right at mountain!
 
Ouch. That was hard to listen to. This one is going to be used as an example a lot. It reminds me of the Lear that drove Frank Sinatra's mom into Mt San Gorgonio. Confusion with ATC instructions and while trying to sort it out forget where and how high the rocks are.
 
wilkersk said:
What I find interesting about this is that I just recently saw a "lessons learned" video somewhere on youtube about very similar scenario. But, with a GA aircraft in hard IMC.
Click to expand...
I've seen something similar as well and may be what you're referring to, which was a video filmed inside of a Bonanza that came inches from colliding into a mountain. After landing the wingtip was shown to be damaged and the strobe housing was ripped off.

If that wasn't a close call, I don't what is.
 
noobJohn said:
Obviously these guys were in IMC. Otherwise they would have looked out the window and taken some sort of action other than flying right at mountain!
Click to expand...

One would think.

I don't know what the weather down South was like, but in NorCal, it's been CAVU for the past week. Most days, in excess of 50 miles visibility, probably a lot more. Weather is usually better to the south....
 
Was it daylight, or dark, when this incident happened?
 
Palmpilot said:
Was it daylight, or dark, when this incident happened?
Click to expand...

Good point. FlightRadar24 says the ATD was 12:25 AM that day. Like a lot of transpacific flights, they departed around midnight.

But if it's where I think it is, there are a whole ****load of lighted towers there.
 
The problem here was the controller - I remember when she used to work at Brackett - I'm not going to say anything more. But I'm stunned she's [was] working a TRACON.

@Palmpilot it was DARK and wet -

Look at this link - they have an image that shows supposedly how close the airplane came to the towers - these stories are always hyperbole and I'm sure that the image is a telephoto lens - but its still pretty darn close -

http://abc7.com/news/new-details-show-misdirected-jets-close-call-with-mount-wilson/1668073/
 
MAKG1 said:
Good point. FlightRadar24 says the ATD was 12:25 AM that day. Like a lot of transpacific flights, they departed around midnight.

But if it's where I think it is, there are a whole ****load of lighted towers there.
Click to expand...
and it was IMC at that time to prob 8-12k - it was pouring down rain all night

"If you can see this light, you are too close" kind of night.
 
comanchepilot said:
The problem here was the controller - I remember when she used to work at Brackett - I'm not going to say anything more. But I'm stunned she's [was] working a TRACON.

@Palmpilot it was DARK and wet -

Look at this link - they have an image that shows supposedly how close the airplane came to the towers - these stories are always hyperbole and I'm sure that the image is a telephoto lens - but its still pretty darn close -

http://abc7.com/news/new-details-show-misdirected-jets-close-call-with-mount-wilson/1668073/
Click to expand...

I don't know how bad the controller may have been in the past...but I think you should know your cardinal directions if you want to fly folks around. Just me thinking out loud.
 
I'm just a PPL holder, but I understood the controllers instructions perfectly, and I wouldn't have found myself that close. Further, even in IFR, the PIC is responsible for sanity-checking controller instructions and he should have noticed himself flying into terrain. I think the controller is being railroaded & inappropriately vilified in this case.
 
Minshall said:
I'm just a PPL holder, but I understood the controllers instructions perfectly, and I wouldn't have found myself that close. Further, even in IFR, the PIC is responsible for sanity-checking controller instructions and he should have noticed himself flying into terrain. I think the controller is being railroaded & inappropriately vilified in this case.
Click to expand...

The issue is her lack of proper phraseology with a non native English speaker. Add into that her first mistake of "left" instead of "right" instruction.

I've taught several Asian and Middle Eastern students who could barely speak English. You have to be direct and exact with your instructions. You have to use words their most likely to know. Those are the ICAO proper phraseology words and structure.

The backseat quarterbacking would have climbed him above MVA and turned the Southwest dude west bound to get him out of my hair. Once I knew he wouldn't hit the mountain I'd get him to turn on course and out of my airspace.

I think she made the situation worse by keeping him below the ridge line and by yelling the instructions at him.
 
Minshall said:
I'm just a PPL holder, but I understood the controllers instructions perfectly, and I wouldn't have found myself that close. Further, even in IFR, the PIC is responsible for sanity-checking controller instructions and he should have noticed himself flying into terrain. I think the controller is being railroaded & inappropriately vilified in this case.
Click to expand...

ARFlyer said:
The issue is her lack of proper phraseology with a non native English speaker. Add into that her first mistake of "left" instead of "right" instruction.

I've taught several Asian and Middle Eastern students who could barely speak English. You have to be direct and exact with your instructions. You have to use words their most likely to know. Those are the ICAO proper phraseology words and structure.

The backseat quarterbacking would have climbed him above MVA and turned the Southwest dude west bound to get him out of my hair. Once I knew he wouldn't hit the mountain I'd get him to turn on course and out of my airspace.

I think she made the situation worse by keeping him below the ridge line and by yelling the instructions at him.
Click to expand...

Both of these points of view are valid in my opinion. Having been a controller who has worked foreign pilots a lot I can't agree more with @ARFlyer. And I can't agree more with @Minshall that a pilot has to sanity-check ATC instructions. Ya gotta know where and how high the rocks are
 
There was proper phraseology issued. The recording doesn't show that she issued a left turn like the news reports claim. Doesn't really matter anyway, the pilot read back left to 180. She is responsible for correcting an improper read back if that's what indeed occurred. If she did issue the left to 180, that's irrelevant also because she corrected the turn in a prompt manner with a right turn back to 180. It was only when the EVA didn't comply with that, along with the 270, did she start using non standard phraseology. Completely within her directives and in my opinion, prudent in this case. As far as holding the altitude, I imagine she was trying to keep from from climbing into her Air Canada to the left.

Good learning clip for pilots & controllers but not sure why it made AP news. No sep was even lost. You've got about 1500-2000 controller operational errors (where sep is lost) that occur annually and don't make the news. That's just the ones that are reported. Who knows high the actual number is.
 
"Air traffic controller assigned different duties after directing jetliner toward Mt. Wilson"

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-faa-investigation-20161221-story.html?ref=yfp

Note the inaccuracy in that headline: based on the pilot's readback, the left turn instruction was to heading 180, which would have taken them away from the mountains if they had completed the turn. Instead, it looks like they straightened out on heading 360 instead. At no time did she assign them a heading of 360, or anything close to it.
 
Well that kinda changes things. The original report didn't mention terrain sep (2000 ft) was lost. In that case we've got a case for an OE because she never issued a higher altitude. Still, if the pilots in EVA would've complied with the right 180 to begin with, it never would've progressed to mess it did. Also, even though the controller was using non standard with "turn south" or "southbound,"the pilots finally came back and read 180. Two international pilots that didn't get the initial right turn to 180 and then took several minutes to figure out south means 180??? :confused:Read back 5,000 at one point when the controller said 6,000 as well.

This isn't some Taiwanese flight school student here. Two, what I would assume highly experienced pilots couldn't determine which way to turn, and I have no doubt were clueless on their relative position to terrain...scary.
 
Minshall said:
I'm just a PPL holder, but I understood the controllers instructions perfectly, and I wouldn't have found myself that close. Further, even in IFR, the PIC is responsible for sanity-checking controller instructions and he should have noticed himself flying into terrain. I think the controller is being railroaded & inappropriately vilified in this case.
Click to expand...
Coming back from NorCal on Wed I received a vector into the hills in the northern San Fernancdo Valley - Foreflight showed me with an impact in 7 minutes- as that ticketed down I broke out of the clouds with a very disconcerting view - 3 min later my TAWS in the 530 chimed - proving that works- just as I was about to exercise my PIC authority to obey the TAWS warning I got a turn - with the beeper going off in the background from ATC. . . .
 
comanchepilot said:
Coming back from NorCal on Wed I received a vector into the hills in the northern San Fernancdo Valley - Foreflight showed me with an impact in 7 minutes- as that ticketed down I broke out of the clouds with a very disconcerting view - 3 min later my TAWS in the 530 chimed - proving that works- just as I was about to exercise my PIC authority to obey the TAWS warning I got a turn - with the beeper going off in the background from ATC. . . .
Click to expand...

I would have been beyond ****ed. Yeah forgetting to hand me off to tower or keeping me on a vector for 20 miles happens. But turning me into a mountain range and forgetting me is not kosher.
 
So, wouldn't getting a vector towards a mountain without any sort of further acknowledgement from ATC not set off some warning in a pilot's mind? "Uhh, hey. You have us pointed at this mountain. How long are we going to be on this heading?"
 
Just because MSAW is alarming in the background doesn't mean terrain separation has been lost. Just like when CA is blaring doesn't mean aircraft to aircraft separation is lost either. They both are on set with certain parameters to provide a buffer. You could probably have a few hundred go off any given day with no loss of separation...a bit annoying really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top