B747-400 SFO near CFIT, UAL Pilot Claims PTSD
05-30-2010, 08:45 PM
#21
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2010
Posts: 54
Well what was their altitude when they executed the GA? They obviously had some SA cause the Captain called for a missed when he noticed something wasn't right. Plus they would/should have had their DA set. So it couldn't have been that close to a CFIT. Unless they totally went through their minimums (given the -50) without a runway in sight.
I think the pilot who claims to have PTSD is full of it and I doubt they were really that close to the terrain. I also found it funny when they interviewed the passenger and he says "I'm really happy the pilot decided to gun the engines." Love non-pilot commentary. It cracks me up.
I think the pilot who claims to have PTSD is full of it and I doubt they were really that close to the terrain. I also found it funny when they interviewed the passenger and he says "I'm really happy the pilot decided to gun the engines." Love non-pilot commentary. It cracks me up.
05-31-2010, 01:01 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,105
Well what was their altitude when they executed the GA? They obviously had some SA cause the Captain called for a missed when he noticed something wasn't right. Plus they would/should have had their DA set. So it couldn't have been that close to a CFIT. Unless they totally went through their minimums (given the -50) without a runway in sight.
I think the pilot who claims to have PTSD is full of it and I doubt they were really that close to the terrain. I also found it funny when they interviewed the passenger and he says "I'm really happy the pilot decided to gun the engines." Love non-pilot commentary. It cracks me up.
I think the pilot who claims to have PTSD is full of it and I doubt they were really that close to the terrain. I also found it funny when they interviewed the passenger and he says "I'm really happy the pilot decided to gun the engines." Love non-pilot commentary. It cracks me up.
Finally, second guessing the FOs PTSD isn't fair and you're not a doctor. You weren't there and didn't experience his stress. Conducting a long flight, tired, and suddenly finding yourself with a navigational issue, in bad weather with low fuel, could perhaps make someone experience PTSD. Cut the guy some slack.
05-31-2010, 04:33 PM
#23
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2010
Posts: 54
Obviously you don't have obstacle protection when you're not established, but were talking about the San Francisco Bay here. Either way setting their minimums would of protected them in this particular situation and is by far better than setting nothing at all. As soon as you reach minimums and don't see a runway it's time to boogie out of there. That's the only way they could have had a CFIT. Especially executing an RNAV approach which tend to have higher minimums (though not always) than an ILS approach.
Edit:
Fair enough on the FO. I suppose I shouldn't judge what someone else may or may not have. Good point.
Edit:
Fair enough on the FO. I suppose I shouldn't judge what someone else may or may not have. Good point.
Last edited by av8r007; 05-31-2010 at 04:43 PM.
05-31-2010, 07:23 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Fero's
Posts: 472
Not all approaches have a DA. Many Cat III autoland approaches have an "Alert Height". No visual reference required. If the FMA's are ok and you had the RVR, you can continue. Don't have to see anything.
If, (And this is pure conjecture/speculation), the FMS auto tuned the LDA as opposed to the ILS. And the crew believed they were on the ILS, the airplane could have joined an offset loc and intercepted the LDA GS.
The RVR was 1XXX. I would normally brief, and do, an autoland in those conditions.
If, (And this is pure conjecture/speculation), the FMS auto tuned the LDA as opposed to the ILS. And the crew believed they were on the ILS, the airplane could have joined an offset loc and intercepted the LDA GS.
The RVR was 1XXX. I would normally brief, and do, an autoland in those conditions.
05-31-2010, 08:24 PM
#25
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2010
Posts: 54
I may have to re-watch the video, but I don't recall them saying they were on the CATIII and yes you're right you don't need to see anything. I remember them saying they were on the RNP to 28R which would require minimums even if it were clear and a million or RVR 1XXX (and in that case they ignored the approach mins). Maybe they did attempt the autoland when the controller advised them they were off the localizer. I guess all is well that ends well.
06-01-2010, 01:19 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: B777 FO
Posts: 416
I think something got screwed up for sure. Whether they messed up or the database did, he may still have PTSD. They apparently almost put a -400 in the drink and that's bound to have an effect regardless of the cause.
06-04-2010, 07:32 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: B737 Captain
Posts: 323
UA 747 Pilot Claims PTSD Over Go-Around
....in to SFO - sues Honeywell because of "defect" is nav data base. Does anybody know this guy? Maybe we can send him some feminine hygiene spray to ease his suffering. Seriously, none of this makes any sense. Even with an issue with the ILS (ATC didn't indicate any problem until the second attempt) I have serious doubts that they were that close to death. And don't most approaches in to SFO have you "out over the bay"? 
Video Library - cbs5.com
Video Library - cbs5.com
Last edited by 4th Level; 06-04-2010 at 07:42 PM.
06-05-2010, 12:33 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: B737 Captain
Posts: 323
06-05-2010, 02:38 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: FO
Posts: 3,044
Pretty strange story.
I'm just a CRJ guy, but how would the database error cause them to be off the localizer though? In a 747 is an ILS not done in "raw" data? (or were they not on an ILS, they just mention loacalizer and I have never been to SFO either)
I'm just a CRJ guy, but how would the database error cause them to be off the localizer though? In a 747 is an ILS not done in "raw" data? (or were they not on an ILS, they just mention loacalizer and I have never been to SFO either)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
