hayzel777
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:18 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:28 am

keitherson wrote:
Dear lord this is even worse than the famous ATC recording with China Airlines at JFK.


That was Air China(CA), not China Airlines(CI). And that was different. In that incident, the pilot could not even understand the difference between a question and statement.
 
CO953
Posts: 515
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:36 am

Replying to wjcandee, Comment #48:

"Because all I have to do is listen to liveatc and hear enough to know she's out of her depth, that's why."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not a pilot but have read ATC transcripts for years and years.
Agreed - at first listening, this whole interaction is suspect as He*l.

Lack of clarity and whipsmart incisiveness (by ATC especially) needed to manage such a congested airspace, especially given that it was 1:20a, and so it wasn't "primetime" busy.

Pilots and ATC both sounding behind the airplane..

As a regular passenger in and out of LAX, it's scary. To me, at night, heading into those dark mountains, too close to a bad accident.
 
SPREE34
Posts: 1731
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:09 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:43 am

77west wrote:
This is one of the reasons I find it strange that the USA still has so many vector based departures from major airports. I realise that this increases capacity, but if they were flying a non-vector SID this would not have happened.


Incorrect on the vectors. An RNAV route permits a higher volume of traffic to flow, with closer, yet standard separation being maintained.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
 
AirCalSNA
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:53 am

The pilots failed three times to do what they said they were going to do: right heading 180, continuing right turn at heading 010 when asked to expedite, and left heading 270. Why they failed to act as they said they would is the principal problem. It also sounds like the pilots probably made the first error by reading back an instruction as left turn 180, which ATC didn't catch. But it may be that ATC gave the wrong instruction to begin with since it's not audible. But even if that had happened the additional instructions that the pilots repeated back, if followed, would have prevented the situation from escalating.
 
Passedv1
Posts: 649
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 3:59 am

I don't know the exact rules, and perhaps she could have phrased it differently but I think she was saying turn south because of the radar lag...she wanted them the shortest way around to south. Sometimes because of the radar lag when giving a turn close to 180 degrees you end up sending them around the long way. Since they already screwed up the when she used standard phraseology, i'm not convinced it would have made a difference.

Those pilots ae required to be english proficient. Wouldn't that standard require them to understand either fly south or head south, traffic is south of your position, traffic is for the south complex, airport is landing south...i don't see how the pilots escape fault on this. While the controller could have handled this better (i question her decision to keep eva down as long as she did since she couldnt fet them to turn away from the mountains. Wouldn't it have been better to turn AC?) i don't think this is ALL her fault.
 
hayzel777
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:18 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:32 am

AirCalSNA wrote:
The pilots failed three times to do what they said they were going to do: right heading 180, continuing right turn at heading 010 when asked to expedite, and left heading 270. Why they failed to act as they said they would is the principal problem. It also sounds like the pilots probably made the first error by reading back an instruction as left turn 180, which ATC didn't catch. But it may be that ATC gave the wrong instruction to begin with since it's not audible. But even if that had happened the additional instructions that the pilot[photoid][/photoid]s repeated back, if followed, would have prevented the situation from escalating.


The FAA has said she said she wanted to say right but said left heading 180 instead. After that, she realizes and says right heading 180 so they turn. She tells them to expedite and the pilot reads back they are turning through 010. She then instructs them to do a LEFT turn of 270, which I'm pretty sure confuses the pilot completely. Then she starts doing her "What are you doing? Turn Southbound" and the pilot reads back "left or right"? She doesn't respond and a different pilot on the BR plane says "confirm the heading" and they also get no accurate heading. She continues her "Turn Southbound".
Last edited by hayzel777 on Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
hayzel777
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:18 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:38 am

Passedv1 wrote:
I don't know the exact rules, and perhaps she could have phrased it differently but I think she was saying turn south because of the radar lag...she wanted them the shortest way around to south. Sometimes because of the radar lag when giving a turn close to 180 degrees you end up sending them around the long way. Since they already screwed up the when she used standard phraseology, i'm not convinced it would have made a difference.

Those pilots ae required to be english proficient. Wouldn't that standard require them to understand either fly south or head south, traffic is south of your position, traffic is for the south complex, airport is landing south...i don't see how the pilots escape fault on this. While the controller could have handled this better (i question her decision to keep eva down as long as she did since she couldnt fet them to turn away from the mountains. Wouldn't it have been better to turn AC?) i don't think this is ALL her fault.


"Turn southbound" or using "Northbound" is not ATC vocabulary. You can go southbound either by turning left or right. The BR pilot hears this and specifically asks her "left or right", to which they get no response. A second pilot on the AC asks "Confirm the heading" and she replies "Turn southbound now".

Not only that, prior to this exchange, she had given confusing redirects. She first tells them to turn RIGHT 180 after she realizes they are headed the wrong way, but suddenly tells them again to now turn LEFT 270.

And when did they screw up when she used standard phraseology?

I do hope BR fires or at least demotes these pilots though. Giving the company such a bad image.
 
alggag
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 6:34 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:11 am

Not a pilot but to me it sounds like mistakes were made all around here by the pilots and ATC. Thank goodness that we're able to use this as lessons learned moment and it didn't turn into an actual CFIT.
 
asetiadi
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 5:05 pm

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:03 am

But the plane is equipped with TCAS and GPWS so what's so worry about?
 
crownvic
Posts: 2483
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:16 pm

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:07 am

blackbox67 wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
...You could also hear the brain/mouth disconnect as she repeately started calling one plane then corrected herself.

Time for a new assignment at the Trenton tower, where she hopefully won't hurt anyone.

What an awful "locker room" post. Without any glimpse of the whole situation I would suggest to refrain from abusive statements like these.
How can it be in a aviation forum to have such finger-pointing before all of the facts are known.?
Did we hear her saying the words "left to 180" ? There is only the (false) readback on the audit file.

On the part of the pilots : How about turning the HDG-knob to 180 as instructed and read back ? What about asking again "Do you want us to turn left to the north ?"
Could be EGPWS saved the day but pilots should always have an idea where they will be in the next minutes.
I agree there was ambigous wording used by both parties in this event. Maybe there was an error on the part of the controller, but shifting all the blame to just one side is taking the easy way out.


I for one could understand the EVA pilots better than I could understand our governments "finest". A little compassion here for the foreign pilots and some extreme disciplinary action for the controller!
 
mtnwest1979
Posts: 2211
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:23 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:46 am

She probably said left heading 180 out of habit since the westerly departures are so much the norm. A brain fart moment to start with. Then the lack of action or understanding by the EVA crew of what they were ultimately supposed to do and then not doing much until eventually turning south.
Riddle: Which lasts longer, a start-up airline or a start-up football league?
 
AirCalSNA
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:48 am

hayzel777 wrote:
AirCalSNA wrote:
The pilots failed three times to do what they said they were going to do: right heading 180, continuing right turn at heading 010 when asked to expedite, and left heading 270. Why they failed to act as they said they would is the principal problem. It also sounds like the pilots probably made the first error by reading back an instruction as left turn 180, which ATC didn't catch. But it may be that ATC gave the wrong instruction to begin with since it's not audible. But even if that had happened the additional instructions that the pilot[photoid][/photoid]s repeated back, if followed, would have prevented the situation from escalating.


The FAA has said she said she wanted to say right but said left heading 180 instead. After that, she realizes and says right heading 180 so they turn. She tells them to expedite and the pilot reads back they are turning through 010. She then instructs them to do a LEFT turn of 270, which I'm pretty sure confuses the pilot completely. Then she starts doing her "What are you doing? Turn Southbound" and the pilot reads back "left or right"? She doesn't respond and a different pilot on the BR plane says "confirm the heading" and they also get no accurate heading. She continues her "Turn Southbound".


True, but what your rendition does not reflect is that time elapsed between the instructions with the pilots not turning their friggin' plane away from the mountains. They just kept heading north a good 20 miles in my estimation after saying repeatedly that they were turning. It wasn't like ATC was barking inconsistent instructions in rapid succession. Even so I will grant you that ATC did a terrible job here, but ultimately the pilots at a bare minimum have to know the terrain, maintain spatial awareness, and, dare I say, have a bit more steel in their temperaments so as not to be reduced so easily to the aviation version of keystone cops.
 
User avatar
CARST
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:00 pm

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:49 am

keitherson wrote:
Dear lord this is even worse than the famous ATC recording with China Airlines at JFK.


But the CI pilots were to blame for what happened there, too. They didn't even understood the basic instructions, only then the JFK controller flipped out and started using completely non-standard phraselogy.


Here in this case, I don't blame the EVA pilots. Perhaps they didn't understood the first instruction. Perhaps they were unsure what to do after getting two different instructions in first place. First the wrong turn left, than their readback to turn left and then the "correct" instruction to turn 180. This could have led to confusion. But right then the controller went into absolutely frustrated non-standard phraselogy and made the situation worth.


As a non native english speaker I know how difficult it can be to understand quick speaking native speakers, especially when they have a strong dialect or use colloquial language instead of the stuff you learned at school. BUT, despite being a non-native speaker I am always surprised how bad the English of some pilots is who fly internationally. IMHO every pilot flying on international routes should take mandatory English classes to not get into such situations. "Southbound" is something every pilot should understand. And because of national pride some other languages beside English are kept as ICAO languages and it is accepted that these pilots only know the standard phraselogy, which is not enough to safely operate an airliner with hundreds of passengers. Rant over...
 
hayzel777
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:18 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:07 am

CARST wrote:
keitherson wrote:
Dear lord this is even worse than the famous ATC recording with China Airlines at JFK.


But the CI pilots were to blame for what happened there, too. They didn't even understood the basic instructions, only then the JFK controller flipped out and started using completely non-standard phraselogy.


Here in this case, I don't blame the EVA pilots. Perhaps they didn't understood the first instruction. Perhaps they were unsure what to do after getting two different instructions in first place. First the wrong turn left, than their readback to turn left and then the "correct" instruction to turn 180. This could have led to confusion. But right then the controller went into absolutely frustrated non-standard phraselogy and made the situation worth.


As a non native english speaker I know how difficult it can be to understand quick speaking native speakers, especially when they have a strong dialect or use colloquial language instead of the stuff you learned at school. BUT, despite being a non-native speaker I am always surprised how bad the English of some pilots is who fly internationally. IMHO every pilot flying on international routes should take mandatory English classes to not get into such situations. "Southbound" is something every pilot should understand. And because of national pride some other languages beside English are kept as ICAO languages and it is accepted that these pilots only know the standard phraselogy, which is not enough to safely operate an airliner with hundreds of passengers. Rant over...


Once again, those were Air China(CA) pilots, not China Airlines(CI) pilots. China Airlines is BRs main competitor and based in Taipei. The flight in question that time was CA981, or callsign Air China 981.

Also, if you refer to my previous post, you can turn southbound in two different directions. The pilot did ask "left or right" and she did not respond at all. After that, they asked to "confirm the heading" and she responded yet again "turn southbound now!"
 
b747400erf
Posts: 3135
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:33 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:26 am

You take off heading 70 degrees. ATC vectors you to 90 degrees. Your next instruction is heading 180 and you... think to make a LEFT turn? The pilots might have confused their departure for the LOOP departure as you loop left around back to the LAX VOR taking off 24 or 25 but EVA pilots would never fly that unless they once were freighter pilots.

The controller should have caught the "left" 180 and going on paid leave is standard procedure but there are a lot of outraged people here trashing the atc and wjcandee who could not wait to defend some companies like Allegiant and their close calls jumping the gun very prematurely here.

The transcript says she said right 180 2 times after and EVA read back right 180.

EVA 15: „Left heading 180 (south), climb and maintain 7,000 EVA 15 heavy.„
EVA 15:“EVA 15 heavy, request high speed climb.„
SoCal Departure: „EVA 15 heavy, affirmative approved as requested.„
EVA 15: „Approved, EVA 015 heavy.„
SoCal Departure: „..turn right, turn heading 180.„
EVA 15: „Copied, right heading 180, EVA 15 heavy.„
SoCal Departure: „..please expedite your right turn.„
EVA 15: „EVA 15 heavy, roger just passing heading 010, continue right turn heading.„
SoCal Departure: – instructing Air Canada 788 to increase its rate of climb to avoid conflict with BR 15 –


The controller should have been male, and worked for Allegiant, then the fault would only be with the pilots according to some here...
 
Noshow
Posts: 1074
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:37 am

We need data transmissions for clearances soon to avoid this confusion again. The best would be to send it right onto the NAV display. Intermittend and blocked radio transmissions are not reliable enough. Look how good cockpits have become and ATC voice is almost still like WW2 standards. Procedures must be better layouted for multiple languages and cultural backgrounds. Especially when non standard maneuvres are requested.
 
celestar
Posts: 536
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 11:37 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:48 am

CHA5Departure wrote:
I don't know if anyone else caught this in the youtube video linked above, but it sounds like near the end of the clip when EVA 015 finally starts turning right for 180 that the pilot handling comms has changed. The voice sounds different to me than previous comms. If that is the case it certainly makes you wonder what was going on in the cockpit...

EDIT: Or maybe it is the same pilot and he is losing his shiz because he realizes they are very close to a CFIT disaster.


I noticed that several time and being a Taiwanese, I can easily tell you at least three person are trying to answer to ATC which is wierd and strange and very strange and chaotic.....
 
celestar
Posts: 536
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 11:37 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:50 am

The more I look at it, the more I think the crew may be at fault to begin with.
It is also true that ATC did not carefully monitor the direction of EVA flight and only rely on EVA pilots acknowledgement, which they did not do what they say they will - in a easy to understand manner to all reader. Emmmmm...........
I don't blame the ATC for shooting Turn South South... But I think she should have noticed that earlier that EVA is not turning heading 180 in the right way.
 
ktof
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 11:31 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 11:36 am

hayzel777 wrote:
CARST wrote:
keitherson wrote:
Dear lord this is even worse than the famous ATC recording with China Airlines at JFK.


But the CI pilots were to blame for what happened there, too. They didn't even understood the basic instructions, only then the JFK controller flipped out and started using completely non-standard phraselogy.


Here in this case, I don't blame the EVA pilots. Perhaps they didn't understood the first instruction. Perhaps they were unsure what to do after getting two different instructions in first place. First the wrong turn left, than their readback to turn left and then the "correct" instruction to turn 180. This could have led to confusion. But right then the controller went into absolutely frustrated non-standard phraselogy and made the situation worth.


As a non native english speaker I know how difficult it can be to understand quick speaking native speakers, especially when they have a strong dialect or use colloquial language instead of the stuff you learned at school. BUT, despite being a non-native speaker I am always surprised how bad the English of some pilots is who fly internationally. IMHO every pilot flying on international routes should take mandatory English classes to not get into such situations. "Southbound" is something every pilot should understand. And because of national pride some other languages beside English are kept as ICAO languages and it is accepted that these pilots only know the standard phraselogy, which is not enough to safely operate an airliner with hundreds of passengers. Rant over...


Once again, those were Air China(CA) pilots, not China Airlines(CI) pilots. China Airlines is BRs main competitor and based in Taipei. The flight in question that time was CA981, or callsign Air China 981.




Goodness me....take a day off, we all know what they meant, stop being such a smartass.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 7989
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 12:01 pm

For what it's worth, there's a syntax issue involved here as well.

The proper command is TURN [Direction] TO [Heading].

When one instead commands "TURN Southbound NOW", it can be confusing, because you have a nonstandard Heading in the space where the Direction is supposed to be.
 
D L X
Posts: 12497
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 12:45 pm

Do professionals in Taiwan not know English anymore? My understanding was that it's a pretty bilingual place.
 
SAAFNAV
Posts: 576
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:41 pm

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:11 pm

asetiadi wrote:
But the plane is equipped with TCAS and GPWS so what's so worry about?


Your car has got ABS and airbags, why drive on the right side of the highway?
L-382 Loadmaster; ex C-130B Navigator
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14056
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:17 pm

I don't think ATC did a bad job at all. Lack of terrain awareness by the crew, you don't drive aircraft into hills even if you think ATC is controlling you.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
bgm
Posts: 2227
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:35 pm

Natflyer wrote:
sadiqutp wrote:
Great video, can´t fault the controller. The EVA crew is...lost.


Can't fault the controller?!

She is using non-standard terminology, giving incorrect instructions, and was not clear at all. It was painful to listen to.

Admit it. ATC screwed up. It happens. Thankfully no lives were lost, this time.
OK boomer.
 
BobbyPSP
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 12:29 pm

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 3:04 pm

I know they have GPWS but don't they have radar that would show the mountain in front of them as well as not enough altitude to clear it?

Not a pilot here; I'd think you'd "see" the mountain before the GPWS started.

Would there have been any aural warnings on the flightdeck at the same time ATC recognized what was happening causing even more confusion for the crew?
 
Whiteguy
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:11 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 3:38 pm

bgm wrote:
Natflyer wrote:
sadiqutp wrote:
Great video, can´t fault the controller. The EVA crew is...lost.


Can't fault the controller?!

She is using non-standard terminology, giving incorrect instructions, and was not clear at all. It was painful to listen to.

Admit it. ATC screwed up. It happens. Thankfully no lives were lost, this time.


She was using standard terminology and that wasn't working, they weren't listening or complying with instructions. I think when the situation was getting more serious and the frustration of them not complying is when she just trying to say anything to get them to turn their aircraft. This was entirely on the EVA crew, very poor situationally awareness and compliance with simple ATC instructions. Scary.....
 
sadiqutp
Posts: 278
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 5:05 pm

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:37 pm

bgm wrote:
Natflyer wrote:
sadiqutp wrote:
Great video, can´t fault the controller. The EVA crew is...lost.


Can't fault the controller?!

She is using non-standard terminology, giving incorrect instructions, and was not clear at all. It was painful to listen to.

Admit it. ATC screwed up. It happens. Thankfully no lives were lost, this time.


.....
EVA 15: „Left heading 180 (south), climb and maintain 7,000 EVA 15 heavy.„
EVA 15:“EVA 15 heavy, request high speed climb.„
SoCal Departure: „EVA 15 heavy, affirmative approved as requested.„
EVA 15: „Approved, EVA 015 heavy.„
SoCal Departure: „..turn right, turn heading 180.„
EVA 15: „Copied, right heading 180, EVA 15 heavy.„
SoCal Departure: „..please expedite your right turn.„
EVA 15: „EVA 15 heavy, roger just passing heading 010, continue right turn heading.„
SoCal Departure: – instructing Air Canada 788 to increase its rate of climb to avoid conflict with BR 15
.....

The fact that such exchange was made and yet the pilots continued flying north makes me think that the ATC was trying out non-standard instructions as a mean of expressing urgency. Her performance wasn't probably optimal, but the pilots reactions were almost dangerous
 
wn676
Posts: 1699
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:33 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:46 pm

Whiteguy wrote:
bgm wrote:
Natflyer wrote:


Can't fault the controller?!

She is using non-standard terminology, giving incorrect instructions, and was not clear at all. It was painful to listen to.

Admit it. ATC screwed up. It happens. Thankfully no lives were lost, this time.


She was using standard terminology and that wasn't working, they weren't listening or complying with instructions. I think when the situation was getting more serious and the frustration of them not complying is when she just trying to say anything to get them to turn their aircraft. This was entirely on the EVA crew, very poor situationally awareness and compliance with simple ATC instructions. Scary.....


The ATC instructions were not simple though. Not that the crew isn't deserving of fault here as they did continue to fly towards a mountain, but they were instructed to turn to a heading of 180 by turning left, not right. Then they were told to turn right to 180 after they were already pointed north, then told again to turn left to 270 as they were in a right turn through a heading of 010. At that point I probably would have lost all faith in the controller and pointed the plane in a safer direction, but I think it's clear from the audio that the EVA crew was confused and trying to figure out just what exactly she wanted them to do.

Again, there's plenty of blame that lies on the EVA flight crew as well; first and foremost, they were not flying the aircraft, rather, they were tied up in trying to communicate.
Tiny, unreadable text leaves ample room for interpretation.
 
asetiadi
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 5:05 pm

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:20 pm

SAAFNAV wrote:
asetiadi wrote:
But the plane is equipped with TCAS and GPWS so what's so worry about?


Your car has got ABS and airbags, why drive on the right side of the highway?


Dude, that's not the same. ABS and Airbags is to reduce your injury during accident.
Most modern cars got Lane keeping Assists and radar guided cruise control to avoid accident just like a plance having TCAS and GPWS.
 
AMSATC
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 1:34 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:35 pm

And we are still pretending that Asian carriers English proficiency and CRM are up to the global standards? How many of these are we going to see before another crash?
 
trex8
Posts: 5344
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:53 pm

keitherson wrote:
Dear lord this is even worse than the famous ATC recording with China Airlines at JFK.

I think you are referring to an Air China CA flight not a China Airlines CI one.
 
trex8
Posts: 5344
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:54 pm

keitherson wrote:
Dear lord this is even worse than the famous ATC recording with China Airlines at JFK.

I think you are referring to an Air China CA flight not a China Airlines CI flight!
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:35 pm

AMSATC wrote:
And we are still pretending that Asian carriers English proficiency and CRM are up to the global standards? How many of these are we going to see before another crash?


If we required western pilots to speak Chinese then a lot of planes would be auguring every month.

I agree (and I deal with this at work) the subtlety of professional communications is lost when you are dealing with a foreign language. It's not their FAULT but it is a problem.

It has been a fascinating thread so far. It sounds like ATC screwed up, then Taiwan pilots failed to catch the screwup, then ATC blamed them, then pilots started to get scared, because if you cannot trust the L/R instruction, it also calls into question the heading instruction. And there was climb ambiguity as well! They may have decided to sit tight before further compounding their misunderstanding. The only problem with this strategy was looming terrain. Perfect storm, very bad situation.

Edit: And I agree with Beefmoney 2 posts down, saying "Southbound" was bad. When speaking to foreigners, especially Asian lang speakers, you keep vocabulary strictly contained to a word set they know. You clearly say "One eight zero" here... give them something they can use.
Last edited by Flighty on Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:51 pm, edited 3 times in total.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:38 pm

trex8 wrote:
keitherson wrote:
Dear lord this is even worse than the famous ATC recording with China Airlines at JFK.

I think you are referring to an Air China CA flight not a China Airlines CI flight!


Not sure if you've had a chance to read the thread yet, but this was addressed and clarified multiple times already. :-)
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
Beefmoney
Posts: 1071
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2000 2:16 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:39 pm

It's pretty clear that both the flight crew and the controllers have some blame in this situation, but for different reasons. Let's go through this bit by bit.

Firstly, the error on the initial incorrect left turn to 180 will fall onto the controller one way or another, either because she incorrectly spoke "left" instead of "right" or, if it turns out that she didn't mispeak and correctly cleared them "right" then she missed the incorrect readback of "left". So, no matter what, she screwed up on at least one of those two issues.

After noticing EVA turning left she gives a good proper instruction of a right turn to 180 to get them back on the correct heading south. Nothing wrong with that. Well done.

However, separation is quickly reducing between EVA and an Air Canada 767 that departed LAX after EVA. She instructs EVA to expedite the right turn, and the crew responds in the affirmative that they are in the right turn passing through 010 heading. Again, nothing is getting out of hand at this point. If EVA just continues their right turn around to 180, everything will turn out just fine. But this is where it starts going haywire.

She then starts to give a mistaken clearance to Air Canada 788 to expedite their turn and stop their climb, which makes no sense because they were never in a turn to begin with, they were on a steady heading to intercept their SID, but they were indeed in a climb so they could follow that instruction at least. She notices her error and corrects herself telling Air Canada to expedite their climb (instead of stopping it), and to turn left to 360, which would be a fine instruction at this point. HOWEVER, because of the botched initial instruction to stop the climb, Air Canada reads back that they will be stopping their climb at 7,000, along with the correct clearance to 360. They did not hear or understand the corrected instruction to expedite their climb, and she does not correct them, so they level off at 7,000.

She then tells EVA to stop their climb.

Both aircraft have now stopped their climb, and are roughly parallel with each other in roughly the same few miles of airspace. Air Canada on the left at 7,000, EVA on the right at 5,000 and still cleared to turn right to 180.

She now notices Air Canada's leveling off at 7,000 and tells them to expedite their climb to 12,000. This catches Air Canada off guard because of the hasty instruction to stop their climb just a few seconds ago, so they ask for confirmation of the climb up to 12,000. She confirms. Air Canada begins a steep climb up to 12,000.

She then starts to clear EVA for a left turn to 270 which is in conflict with the prior clearance to the right to 180. EVA acknowledges. This may have been due to a UPS aircraft climbing out of Ontario airport to the east of EVA, so the controller may have decided it was best to go around to the west instead. Also, This clearance may seem odd at first glance because she's giving EVA a turn back to the left when Air Canada is directly off their left, but at this point Air Canada is climbing and should not be a factor. EVA should pass well underneath Air Canada if they turn left onto 270. Either way, changing their clearance from right turn to left turn was a big change, and added to the confusion.

At this point EVA is now starting to turn left to the 270 heading they were cleared to. After a few moments she then asks EVA "What are you doing" and to "Turn southbound" along with "Stop your climb". First of all, they are not in a climb, and have been level at 5,000 for quite a few minutes at this point. Secondly, If the crew was slow getting the left turn started, along with the radar display lag, she may not have noticed they had begun their left turn, and believed they were still flying north. This is where things get completely lost on both sides of things. EVA likely gets confused because they are doing exactly what she said. They are turning left to 270. Now the controller is yelling at them "what are you doing". So they hesitate and stop their turn still heading roughly north. EVA asks for clarification, and stutters "left...right...heading" before stopping transmission. This clearly shows that they were confused at this point as to whether they were supposed to be turning left or right, and to what heading. Left would make sense, because they were given a left clearance to 270. But when she yelled at them and told them to turn south immediately, they likely second guessed their turn direction, not sure if they misunderstood something to warrant her reaction.

For foreign pilots, they were probably completely lost at this point. First they were told to correct with right turn to 180, then they were told to turn left to 270, so they started that left turn, then got yelled at and told to turn southbound (180). They were getting all sorts of conflicting clearances that weren't in standard ATC verbiage. They probably couldn't decide whether they were supposed to turn left or right. After all, they tried left before and got yelled at.

At this point, Air Canada is cleared to 12,000 ft, well above EVA and out of the picture.

EVA now requests confirmation on the heading, obviously still not sure what heading or direction the controller wants them to turn. They even seem to stress the world "heading", likely because they want an actual turn direction and HEADING, and not a rough direction like "south".

She responds with "Southbound, southbound now!", still not giving them a proper heading or turn direction.

The crew gives up on trying to get a heading, and reads back "roger, southbound now". They still have not clarified the turn direction, but they decide amongst themselves to make it a right turn, likely because of the admonishment they got last time when they turned left. They are still at 5,000 heading toward rising terrain that reaches around 6,000 feet.

After dealing with another aircraft, she then tells EVA to climb and maintain 5,000 (which they are already at), along with asking them "Are you southbound now, I see you going northbound" as well as changing (in the same transmission) their climb clearance, telling them to climb and maintain 6,000. EVA replies "southbound, maintain 5,000." missing her corrected 6,000 ft climb instruction. They are in a sweeping right hand turn to the right at this point, heading northeast toward Mt Wilson.

She then orders them to climb to 7,000. They readback correctly. They continue their turn and begin to climb.

She then says to them "I see you heading southbound now, turn south- correction, I see you heading northbound, turn southbound now". This constant mis-speaking and rapid fire corrections of non-proper ATC instructions is going to be absolutely confusing to a foreign flight crew who is expecting proper clearances and not common-english instructions. She needs to give them a simple HEADING and DIRECTION. Turn right heading 180 is all she needs to say. But instead she uses common english cardinal directions and on top of that screws it up, says it backward, and has to correct herself. No wonder they are second-guessing everything.

She then gives instructions to another aircraft, but you can hear EVA's crew trying to transmit in the background, possibly trying to confirm turn direction or heading, as we can only make out the words "left turn" in the snippet of their transmission, in between her transmissions to the other aircraft.

Again she tells EVA to "turn south now". No heading or direction.

Again she gives another aircraft instructions, and EVA tries to talk over them. When the other transmission is completed, you can hear EVAs crew saying "...right turn to southbound, maintain 7000". This transmission in fact does not sound like the same pilot who had been communicating previously (who would likely have been the non-flying pilot). This is possibly the other pilot, the one flying this leg of the trip, taking control of the situation and making a hard and fast decision to continue the right turn instead of trying to beg the controller for clarification on turn direction.

The controller responds "affirmative". The crew reads it back one more time to confirm.

The EVA 777 passes about half a mile south of Mt Wilson at around 6,300 feet and climbing. Mt Wilson is at 5,700 foot elevation with antennae that reach up to 6,600 ft.

The crew completes their turn to 180 (south), and informs the controller that they are heading 180 at 7,000. The flight continues on uneventfully.

I think it's pretty clear that this situation was started primarily by a controller giving a wrong turn direction (or not correcting a misunderstood clearance), but this situation went from "normal error" to "dangerous situation" because of the controller not giving standard ATC clearances to a foreign flight crew, rapidly changing the decisions that she was making, and choosing to use non-standard common language instructions that are not specific or clear enough for ATC communication. In addition, she made numerous mistakes of the tongue when communicating, exacerbating the situation.

Good readback awareness and clear standard ATC phraseology from the controller would have stopped this situation from evolving how it did.
 
IADCA
Posts: 1894
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:07 pm

Wow, seems like plenty of blame to go around there. That was really painful to listen to. Not just the phraseology being nonstandard, "turn southbound now" omits the crucial part of the instruction that they had clearly missed before - turning them away from the mountains. She also missed their specific question regarding left or right (albeit after they'd already read back several instructions correctly after the initial miscommunication and done...nothing, several times).

hayzel777 wrote:

I do hope BR fires or at least demotes these pilots though. Giving the company such a bad image.


I don't know why you're so obsessed with (a) apparently wanting to fire people involved in this - it's at least your fourth post suggesting disciplinary action, which seems patently obviously to be warranted to the point of not even worthy of comment - or (b) the airline's image, which is such a stupid concern in an incident like this that it's almost laughable. I'm a lot more worried about the fact that a large enough group of people combined their efforts to screw up and create the type of cascading failures that lead to accidents. EVA Air's image or not, a 777 came damn close to hitting a mountain in an incident that any one of at least three people could have easily avoided at any time in a 3 or 4 minute time frame and nobody did. And you're concerned about image, not a planeload of people. Some huge corporation's image? Are you serious?
 
D L X
Posts: 12497
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:44 pm

Thank you, Beefmoney for the clear synopsis! :) But,

Beefmoney wrote:
Good readback awareness and clear standard ATC phraseology from the controller would have stopped this situation from evolving how it did.

When if ever did EVA ever get a clearance to drive heading 360? They flew in the wrong direction without clearance for what, 20 miles?

My guess is that is what the controller was thinking in her head the whole time: "who told you to go North?"

IADCA wrote:
Not just the phraseology being nonstandard, "turn southbound now" omits the crucial part of the instruction that they had clearly missed before - turning them away from the mountains.

Like another poster, I was thinking the nonstandard phraseology, after using lots of standard phraseology to no avail, was her attempt at breaking through to pilots that didn't seem to her to be following commands. But like you, I was waiting for the admonition that they were driving directly towards a mountain, and/or another plane. I actually think she turned more attention to getting other planes out of the way of the one she thought wasn't listening.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 7227
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:55 pm

Hard to tell who is at fault but she reminded me of latest Land Rover Discovery ad. She can read all left turn nav prompts and move on to right turn turn prompts.
 
hayzel777
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:18 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:58 pm

D L X wrote:
Thank you, Beefmoney for the clear synopsis! :) But,

Beefmoney wrote:
Good readback awareness and clear standard ATC phraseology from the controller would have stopped this situation from evolving how it did.

When if ever did EVA ever get a clearance to drive heading 360? They flew in the wrong direction without clearance for what, 20 miles?

My guess is that is what the controller was thinking in her head the whole time: "who told you to go North?"

IADCA wrote:
Not just the phraseology being nonstandard, "turn southbound now" omits the crucial part of the instruction that they had clearly missed before - turning them away from the mountains.

Like another poster, I was thinking the nonstandard phraseology, after using lots of standard phraseology to no avail, was her attempt at breaking through to pilots that didn't seem to her to be following commands. But like you, I was waiting for the admonition that they were driving directly towards a mountain, and/or another plane. I actually think she turned more attention to getting other planes out of the way of the one she thought wasn't listening.


Actually, if you look at their flight path, they clearly began the "left turn heading 270" when she ordered it. But after, she became confused and started the "what are you doing".
 
Beefmoney
Posts: 1071
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2000 2:16 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:59 pm

D L X wrote:
When if ever did EVA ever get a clearance to drive heading 360? They flew in the wrong direction without clearance for what, 20 miles?


It seems that the north track was simply a consequence of the initial error and subsequent rapid fire heading reversals from the controller and flight crew hesitation. It was never an explicit clearance or intention on the part of the controller nor flight crew.

The initial error was a "left turn to 180" which required an entire 270 degree turn to the left, starting from their easterly heading. So, they began their turn and around the time they were in the turn facing north the controller saw the error and tried to correct it with a clearance to the RIGHT to 180, so they had to halt their turn to the left and begin a turn back to the right, rolling out roughly north before reversing back to the east. It's a big heavy 777, so this would take a little bit of time before the plane actually made tangible gains back toward the east. However, before those gains could be realized the controller reversed the instructions AGAIN, this time telling them to turn left to 270. So AGAIN they had to stop a turn and reverse direction back toward the west this time. Then she yells at them and the confusion just gets worse before the crew eventually decides to stop asking for clarification and make the turn to the right (east).

All said and done, all this accomplished in the grand scheme of things was a back-and-forth, back-and-forth, back-and-forth from east to west only a few degrees each time which kept them on an overall track towards the north because they never got a chance to get much done in the east or west turns before getting reversed again by the controller.
Last edited by Beefmoney on Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
IADCA
Posts: 1894
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:27 pm

Beefmoney wrote:
D L X wrote:
When if ever did EVA ever get a clearance to drive heading 360? They flew in the wrong direction without clearance for what, 20 miles?

However, before those gains could be realized the controller reversed the instructions AGAIN, this time telling them to turn left to 270. So AGAIN they had to stop a turn and reverse direction back toward the west this time. Then she yells at them and the confusion just gets worse.


It's more than 45 seconds from when they acknowledge the right turn to 180 (and indicate that they're passing through 010 just a few seconds into that) until they are instructed to turn left. At no time is any instruction given to them that tells them to stop the turn - only to stop climbing - yet they clearly do stop the turn and keep flying north that entire time.
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1667
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:32 pm

Beefmoney: many thanks for the comprehensive analysis. DLX does have some good points that you need to take into account, but as you Beefmoney point out, this isn't a clear case of "bad piloting" or otherwise simple error. Plenty of blame to go around.
 
Beefmoney
Posts: 1071
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2000 2:16 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:36 pm

IADCA wrote:
Beefmoney wrote:
D L X wrote:


It's more than 45 seconds from when they acknowledge the right turn to 180 (and indicate that they're passing through 010 just a few seconds into that) until they are instructed to turn left. At no time is any instruction given to them that tells them to stop the turn - only to stop climbing - yet they clearly do stop the turn and keep flying north that entire time.


They are in a full LEFT turn passing through roughly north when told to turn RIGHT all the way back around to 180. That's going to take somewhere around 30 seconds to respond to the controller, spin the heading dial, let the plane cease its turn to the left, roll out, begin it's turn to the right, and then actually make a meaningful radar course back towards the right. By that point the controller gives them a heading back towards the LEFT to 270, which means they have to do the whole acknowledgement, spin the knob, level out, and reverse course song-and-dance again which is going to take another 30 seconds, at which point by the time they are making meaningful progress into the left turn she's on their ass again telling them quit doing what they are doing and turn south, which they hesitate on accomplishing because of how much confusion is happening and the lack of clarity on how to accomplish it. Eventually they just make their own decision in light of the lack of specific turn direction commands, and make the turn to the right.

At no point did they WANT to fly north, just simple time elapsing between constant attempts at course reversals resulting in basically no useful gain over the ground in either direction, and attempts to get the controller to clarify which direction to make the turns.

They clearly never thought that a northerly heading was what they were supposed to be flying. I'm sure they didn't want to be on that heading any more than the controller did. But they wanted clarification to cut through all of the corrections and course reversals, and she wasn't giving it to them, so they did what they had to do and eventually made a decision on their own.

Just to be clear, however, there IS blame to be laid on the pilots. First and foremost, they should have hand-flown the plane once these course corrections started happening and they were being asked to expedite their turn. They clearly were using automation throughout the entire process, and it slowed down their ability to react in a timely manner, which led to the controllers poor decision making because she wasn't getting good enough feedback about the progress of their turns from radar.
 
IADCA
Posts: 1894
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:07 pm

Beefmoney wrote:
IADCA wrote:
Beefmoney wrote:

It's more than 45 seconds from when they acknowledge the right turn to 180 (and indicate that they're passing through 010 just a few seconds into that) until they are instructed to turn left. At no time is any instruction given to them that tells them to stop the turn - only to stop climbing - yet they clearly do stop the turn and keep flying north that entire time.


They are in a full LEFT turn passing through roughly north when told to turn RIGHT all the way back around to 180. That's going to take somewhere around 30 seconds to respond to the controller, spin the heading dial, let the plane cease its turn to the left, roll out, begin it's turn to the right, and then actually make a meaningful radar course back towards the right. By that point the controller gives them a heading back towards the LEFT to 270, which means they have to do the whole acknowledgement, spin the knob, level out, and reverse course song-and-dance again which is going to take another 30 seconds, at which point by the time they are making meaningful progress into the left turn she's on their ass again telling them quit doing what they are doing and turn south, which they hesitate on accomplishing because of how much confusion is happening and the lack of clarity on how to accomplish it. Eventually they just make their own decision in light of the lack of specific turn direction commands, and make the turn to the right.

At no point did they WANT to fly north, just simple time elapsing between constant attempts at course reversals resulting in basically no useful gain over the ground in either direction, and attempts to get the controller to clarify which direction to make the turns.


I agree that they didn't want to fly north. Nobody wanted them to fly north. As for the rest of that, something strikes me as quite wrong with a situation in which, after being told to make a right turn to 180 while they're in a left turn, acknowledging the instruction, and flying for 45 more seconds, they're flying pretty much the same heading they were when that instruction was given. Your hypothetical timeline takes care of some of that time, but at the end of that time they should have been on a "meaningful radar course back to the right." They never got to that point, and they stopped turning right despite absolutely no instruction to do so.

I don't know what is a reasonable excuse for still being on a course just a few degrees east of north almost a full minute after being instructed to fly 180 and being unambiguously commanded to "expedite your turn," regardless of how much you want to play with the dials or take the time to do so. Again: "right" "180" and then 5 seconds later "expedite your turn," and 45 seconds later they're on the pretty much the same heading: north. That's pretty hard to fathom.

In that time, AC has been given a new heading and altitude and has already established that heading and is headed to that altitude, while EVA has apparently taken little or no action whatsoever other than ceasing the left hand turn.
 
SAAFNAV
Posts: 576
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:41 pm

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:24 pm

asetiadi wrote:
SAAFNAV wrote:
asetiadi wrote:
But the plane is equipped with TCAS and GPWS so what's so worry about?


Your car has got ABS and airbags, why drive on the right side of the highway?


Dude, that's not the same. ABS and Airbags is to reduce your injury during accident.
Most modern cars got Lane keeping Assists and radar guided cruise control to avoid accident just like a plance having TCAS and GPWS.


It is the same. If you don't understand that analogy, then compare it with a helmet. Just because you wear doesn't mean you will go running around into walls.

TCAS and GPWS are last ditch efforts to save lives. The final layer in the Swiss cheese model before you die.

Nowhere ever has any procedures made any allowance for having it. I don't have statistics with me right now, but I'm certain more people has died by trusting on GPWS than what was saved by it.

Procedures, both ATC and pilot, are what you trust your lives to. TCAS and GPWS are there to back up the back up.
L-382 Loadmaster; ex C-130B Navigator
 
D L X
Posts: 12497
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:46 pm

SAAFNAV wrote:
asetiadi wrote:
SAAFNAV wrote:

Your car has got ABS and airbags, why drive on the right side of the highway?


Dude, that's not the same. ABS and Airbags is to reduce your injury during accident.
Most modern cars got Lane keeping Assists and radar guided cruise control to avoid accident just like a plance having TCAS and GPWS.


It is the same. If you don't understand that analogy, then compare it with a helmet. Just because you wear doesn't mean you will go running around into walls.

TCAS and GPWS are last ditch efforts to save lives. The final layer in the Swiss cheese model before you die.

Nowhere ever has any procedures made any allowance for having it. I don't have statistics with me right now, but I'm certain more people has died by trusting on GPWS than what was saved by it.

Procedures, both ATC and pilot, are what you trust your lives to. TCAS and GPWS are there to back up the back up.


Come on man. If your car deploys its airbags, YOU HAVE CRASHED. If the airplane deploys GPWS and TCAS, it prevents you from crashing. The latter is a last ditch effort to allow you to use the vehicle again. The former is to attempt to keep you alive when you have suffered damages.

Can we put this false analogy to bed now?
 
SAAFNAV
Posts: 576
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:41 pm

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:54 pm

D L X wrote:
SAAFNAV wrote:
asetiadi wrote:

Dude, that's not the same. ABS and Airbags is to reduce your injury during accident.
Most modern cars got Lane keeping Assists and radar guided cruise control to avoid accident just like a plance having TCAS and GPWS.


It is the same. If you don't understand that analogy, then compare it with a helmet. Just because you wear doesn't mean you will go running around into walls.

TCAS and GPWS are last ditch efforts to save lives. The final layer in the Swiss cheese model before you die.

Nowhere ever has any procedures made any allowance for having it. I don't have statistics with me right now, but I'm certain more people has died by trusting on GPWS than what was saved by it.

Procedures, both ATC and pilot, are what you trust your lives to. TCAS and GPWS are there to back up the back up.


Come on man. If your car deploys its airbags, YOU HAVE CRASHED. If the airplane deploys GPWS and TCAS, it prevents you from crashing. The latter is a last ditch effort to allow you to use the vehicle again. The former is to attempt to keep you alive when you have suffered damages.

Can we put this false analogy to bed now?


Allright, bad analogy if you insist, in the sense that airbag is post crash and GPWS is hopefully pre-crash.
But the point I made is that if you trust in airbags to allow you drive recklessly, you have already lost.

I stick to my premise that GPWS is a last ditch effort to save the aircraft and the lives therein. asetiadi asserted that since all pax aircraft has got GPWS and TCAS, why bother with ATC and even file an incident which nearly killed them?
L-382 Loadmaster; ex C-130B Navigator
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9264
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:55 pm

SAAFNAV wrote:
TCAS and GPWS are last ditch efforts to save lives. The final layer in the Swiss cheese model before you die.


This is completely true.

SAAFNAV wrote:
I don't have statistics with me right now, but I'm certain more people has died by trusting on GPWS than what was saved by it.


But this is completely crazy. If that were true, then regulatory bodies would order airlines to disable GPWS. I can't think of one single accident was caused by "trusting on GPWS" as a substitute to proper navigation.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
SAAFNAV
Posts: 576
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:41 pm

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Thu Dec 22, 2016 4:03 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
SAAFNAV wrote:
TCAS and GPWS are last ditch efforts to save lives. The final layer in the Swiss cheese model before you die.


This is completely true.

SAAFNAV wrote:
I don't have statistics with me right now, but I'm certain more people has died by trusting on GPWS than what was saved by it.


But this is completely crazy. If that were true, then regulatory bodies would order airlines to disable GPWS. I can't think of one single accident was caused by "trusting on GPWS" as a substitute to proper navigation.


There are so many examples of transcripts out there where the GPWS has screamed like mad, and the pilots still flew straight on without taking any evasive action. Thinking they had better SA than the GPWS.
Same with TCAS. Heck, I've been in the air twice where we had TCAS RA's and the pilots did nothing. In both instances I had to give very assertive visual commands after I picked up the traffic.
Both instances were in controlled aerodrome areas.
L-382 Loadmaster; ex C-130B Navigator
 
IADCA
Posts: 1894
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: ATC Error Nearly Causes Crash near LAX

Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:46 pm

SAAFNAV wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
SAAFNAV wrote:
TCAS and GPWS are last ditch efforts to save lives. The final layer in the Swiss cheese model before you die.


This is completely true.

SAAFNAV wrote:
I don't have statistics with me right now, but I'm certain more people has died by trusting on GPWS than what was saved by it.


But this is completely crazy. If that were true, then regulatory bodies would order airlines to disable GPWS. I can't think of one single accident was caused by "trusting on GPWS" as a substitute to proper navigation.


There are so many examples of transcripts out there where the GPWS has screamed like mad, and the pilots still flew straight on without taking any evasive action. Thinking they had better SA than the GPWS.
Same with TCAS. Heck, I've been in the air twice where we had TCAS RA's and the pilots did nothing. In both instances I had to give very assertive visual commands after I picked up the traffic.
Both instances were in controlled aerodrome areas.


That pretty much defeats your own point. What you just posted is the very opposite of "trusting on" GPWS or TCAS to keep you safe: it's completely ignoring them even when they're screaming that something's wrong. Continuing your bad analogy, it's like shooting a hole in your airbag to make sure it doesn't save you even if you do crash, or deliberately disabling your lane assist or ignoring it when it goes off. While you're right in the overall point that GPWS isn't a substitute for proper navigation, you could hardly have argued the point any worse.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos