Near aviation tragedy averted

Posted at 4:23 PM on March 30, 2010 by Bob Collins (5 Comments)
Filed under: Aviation

The National Transportation Safety Board revealed today that a small plane and a commercial jetliner nearly collided over San Francisco on Saturday. The NTSB release says:

At about 11:15 a.m. PDT on March 27, the crew of United Airlines Flight 889, a B777-222 (N216UA) destined for Beijing, China, carrying 251 passengers and a crew of 17, was cleared to takeoff from San Francisco International Airport (SFO) on runway 28L and climb to an initial altitude of 3,000 feet. The first officer, who was flying the aircraft, reported that after the landing gear was retracted and the jet was at an altitude of about 1,100 feet, the tower controller reported traffic at his 1 o'clock position. Immediately following the controller's advisory, the airplane's traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) issued an audible alert of "TRAFFIC TRAFFIC." The pilots saw a light high wing airplane, an Aeronca 11AC (N9270E), in a hard left turn traveling from their 1 o'clock to 3 o'clock position. The first officer pushed the control column forward to level the airplane. Both crew members reported seeing only the underside of the Aeronca as it passed to within an estimated 200-300 feet of the 777. TCAS then issued an "ADJUST VERTICAL SPEED" alert, followed by a "DESCEND, DESCEND" alert. The first officer complied and the flight continued to Beijing without further incident.

The next time someone tells you that commercial airline pilots are glorified bus drivers, remind them of this scenario. Given the estimated speed of both aircraft, disaster was literally just one second away. It recalls one of the most tragic air disasters in the country, when a small plane collided with a jetliner over San Diego many years ago. What happened? Almost certainly this will come down on the small airplane pilot and an air traffic controller. No airplane is allowed within about 5 miles of an airport like San Francisco (and also Minneapolis-St. Paul, where the no-fly zone extends to the ground near the High Bridge in St. Paul) unless they've been given clearance to enter and are under the guidance of a controller. I've found the actual tape of the incident. In this tape, the tower controller in San Francisco clears the United flight for takeoff and tells the smaller plane to be looking for traffic. The smaller plane reports he has the Boeing 777 in sight, and he is told to pass behind the jet. The controller then tells the pilot of the 777 that the small plane is "no factor." She's not happy. "That set off the TCAS," she says, which is the collision warning system. (Note: I edited about 20 seconds of silence from the time the flight is cleared to take off to the time the first traffic advisories are issued.)

---

Comments (5)

To varying degrees, I think most of us in the cabin take commercial air travel for granted.

Yes, the baggage fees stink, the toddler in front of you is crying, an you are shoehorned between two people. But consider for a moment that the air traffic control system that keeps watch over your plane as well as however many hundreds (thousands?) of aircraft across the country is ancient technology, compared to what *could* be done.

All in all, it is an amazing feat. I believe they just appropriated (finally) some serious money to begin to update the system. Is that correct Bob?

Posted by John O. | March 31, 2010 6:59 AM

---

Nice Job blowing this event out of proportion. The Cessna had the UAL B777 in sight and was instructed to maintain visual separation from the jumbo jet. No safety was compromised.

Posted by Jerry | March 31, 2010 9:00 PM

---

I like the view the pilot had. I'll throw in with her.

Posted by Bob Collins | March 31, 2010 9:43 PM

---

Once again the national news takes a "non event" and makes it larger than life.

One of the cardinal rules for pilots is to "see and be seen", and clearly the Cessna 182 pilot saw the Boeing and was able to safely pass behind it.

I think the young lady pilot in the United Aircraft over reacted a bit in this instance.

John M. White, ATP Pilot, Entrepreneur and Internet Publisher

http://all-things-aviation.com

Posted by John M. White, ATP Pilot | April 2, 2010 1:42 PM

---

I always wonder why defenders of pilots and air traffic controllers in situations like this can't make their logical arguments without including a "shot" at the media. One really shouldn't have anything to do with the other.

It's the NTSB, not the pilot, who is reporting the two planes came within 200-300 feet of one another. One presumes there was no longitudinal separation, so I'm going to guess an acceptable lateral separation is not 200-300 feet.

I might also suggest that if you're a small aircraft pilot, the last place you want to be is behind and slightly below a dirty heavy, the perfect place for an upset via wingtip vortices.

Look, I get it. Air traffic controllers and pilots don't like the media, and it helps an argument to supply ignorance and stupidity.

Let me suggest to you that you're at the wrong place for that strategy.

Posted by Bob Collins | April 2, 2010 3:26 PM

---

Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.

Name*:

E-mail Address*:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments*:

Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Tweet this page
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories