Snoozing Pilot Mistakes Venus For Aircraft; Panic, Injuries Ensue 307
Cazekiel writes "In January 2011, an Air Canada Boeing 767 carrying 95 passengers and eight crew members was on route to Zurich from Toronto when its First Officer, fatigued and disoriented from a long nap he'd taken, panicked in seeing what he believed to be a U.S. cargo plane on a collision course with his aircraft. The panicking F.O. pushed forward on the control column to make a rapid descent. Only, it wasn't an aircraft he'd been looking at, but Venus. According to the article: 'The airliner dropped about 400 feet before the captain pulled back on the control column. Fourteen passengers and two crew were hurt, and seven needed hospital treatment. None were wearing seat belts, even though the seat-belt sign was on.' The only danger in this situation had been the F.O. napping for 75 minutes instead of the maximum 40, as the disorientation and confusion stemming from deeper sleep was the culprit in this mix-up. However, the Air Canada Pilots Association, 'has long pressured authorities to take the stresses of night flying into account when setting the maximum hours a pilot can work,' taking into account that North Atlantic night-flights are hardest on an already-fatigued pilot."
Re:radar... (Score:3, Informative)
For traffic, it's TCAS..
Venus was incidental (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is this a bad thing? (Score:3, Informative)
Except when the evasive action puts the plane into the path of the C-17 the pilot thought he was evading. Even after the captain had told him the C-17 was straight ahead and 1,000 feet below. Or the fact that the captain and the C-17 pilots flashed their landing gear lights to acknowledge their position. Go ahead and think its actions are okay just because someone "felt it was necessary."
Re:I read tfa and Im still not sure what happened (Score:5, Informative)
Re:air canada is a terrible carrier (Score:5, Informative)
emirates = hot hostesses and the option to watch the front-mounted camera on the entertainment system. with all the chaos of landing, it's comforting to know you're not going to run into the terminal.
Re:Venus was incidental (Score:5, Informative)
Mod parent up. Venus had nothing to do with it.
First officer saw Venus, alerted captain. Captain pointed out that was Venus, pointed to actual oncoming aircraft. First officer misinterpreted altitude of actual oncoming aircraft, dived.
The captain pulled up sharply to AVOID a collision (Score:3, Informative)
There was an oncoming aircraft on the same flight path 1000ft below. The FO was visually searching for that aircraft, saw venus, panicked, and put the aircraft nose-down.
The captain immediately assumed control of the plane and put the plane nose-up.
The planes were on the exact same flight path thanks to GPS. They were both depending on the 1000ft difference in altitude to prevent a head-on collision. A better idea is for each plane to offset right of the flight path by 1 mile.
Not Venus, sensationalism at its best (Score:5, Informative)
He did not take evasive action to avoid Venus, but did point to Venus and briefly discussed if it was an aircraft when he first woke up. He later made the evasive maneuver when he misjudged the position of another aircraft. The two events are only connected by the fact the pilot was entirely too exhausted.
Re:No seatbelts? (Score:5, Informative)
its not a LAWFUL ORDER you fucking MORON. it a request. you can ignore it.
crew are not LEOs. they cant issue lawful orders.
Federal Aviation Regulations require passenger compliance with lighted passenger information signs and crewmember instructions concerning the use of safety belts.
So sit down, buckle your seat belt, and STFU.
Re:radar... (Score:5, Informative)
As far as I know, commercial aircraft have never had radar to detect traffic. They do usually have weather radar, but that's for detecting bad weather, not traffic.
There is TCAS [wikipedia.org], but I don't see how that would have avoided this. Sure, the pilot could have thought "TCAS doesn't say anything is there, so I'll just continue on", but is that really what you expect a panicked pilot to do?
Also, avoiding anyway is probably the right response: safety systems do fail, and you're not going to score any points by saying "but TCAS didn't say there was any danger" if there is a real collision, because you and your passengers will be dead.
The real story is that operating vehicles while impaired causes accidents. We know this. That's why we regulate it; there are limits on how many hours in a row you can work, how much sleep you must have had, how much alcohol can be in your blood, and more. Apparently, it wasn't enough to prevent this incident.
Please read the actual report. (Score:5, Informative)
Please, please, please -- there are tons of very well-considered safety points in the real report, and the linked articles are very very very wrong.
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2011/a11f0012/a11f0012.asp [tsb.gc.ca]
To quote:
At 0155, the captain made a mandatory position report with the Shanwick Oceanic control centre. This aroused the FO. The FO had rested for 75 minutes but reported not feeling altogether well. Coincidentally, an opposite–direction United States Air Force Boeing C–17 at 34 000 feet appeared as a traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS) target on the navigational display (ND). The captain apprised the FO of this traffic.
Over the next minute or so, the captain adjusted the map scale on the ND in order to view the TCAS target 5 and occasionally looked out the forward windscreen to acquire the aircraft visually. The FO initially mistook the planet Venus for an aircraft but the captain advised again that the target was at the 12 o'clock position and 1000 feet below. The captain of ACA878 and the oncoming aircraft crew flashed their landing lights. The FO continued to scan visually for the aircraft. When the FO saw the oncoming aircraft, the FO interpreted its position as being above and descending towards them. The FO reacted to the perceived imminent collision by pushing forward on the control column. The captain, who was monitoring TCAS target on the ND, observed the control column moving forward and the altimeter beginning to show a decrease in altitude. The captain immediately disconnected the autopilot and pulled back on the control column to regain altitude. It was at this time the oncoming aircraft passed beneath ACA878. The TCAS did not produce a traffic or resolution advisory.
Re:radar... (Score:5, Informative)
Lots of facts wrong. . .
First Officer woke up. Captain said "hey, sleepyhead, you see that Air Force cargo plane coming towards us that the TCAS is telling us about?" First Officer points, "That thing?", "No, that's Venus, the Air Force cargo is lower." "Oh. Ah! It's coming right at me!" (Dives instinctively)
All within a couple of seconds after waking from 75 minutes of REM sleep in his chair, groggy as hell.
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2011/a11f0012/a11f0012.asp [tsb.gc.ca]
Re:Is this a bad thing? (Score:4, Informative)
Have you actually looked at Venus in clear skies? During the closest approach it's bright enough so that people mistake it for a motorcycle _headlight_.
Re:I read tfa and Im still not sure what happened (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a quote from the Safety board report;
Several deviations from Air Canada controlled rest SOP occurred. They included:
not advising the cabin crew of the intention to rest;
not agreeing in advance on an end time of 40 minutes;
not stopping the rest at 40 minutes; and
not providing recovery time after the rest.
If anyone was at fault it was the Captain for not following proper procedure which put the First Officer in the position of making a snap decision while just waking up.
The FO, still groggy, saw Venus directly ahead and misidentified it as the C-17, immediately diving.
This is a false statement perpetuated by the posted summary. It sounds like the FO dove to avoid Venus. That is not what really happened. Here is the real sequence of events;
1. Captain advised FO of approaching C-17.
2. FO searched the sky and thought he found the aircraft.
3. The captain corrected the FO that what he say was actually Venus and the other aircraft was dead ahead and below.
4. The FO found the real aircraft, misinterpreted its movement and dove the aircraft.
The FO did not dive to avoid Venus; he dove to avoid the other aircraft. Here is the supporting quote from the Safety Report;
Coincidentally, an opposite–direction United States Air Force Boeing C–17 at 34 000 feet appeared as a traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS) target on the navigational display (ND). The captain apprised the FO of this traffic.
Over the next minute or so, the captain adjusted the map scale on the ND in order to view the TCAS target 5 and occasionally looked out the forward windscreen to acquire the aircraft visually. The FO initially mistook the planet Venus for an aircraft but the captain advised again that the target was at the 12 o'clock position and 1000 feet below. The captain of ACA878 and the oncoming aircraft crew flashed their landing lights. The FO continued to scan visually for the aircraft. When the FO saw the oncoming aircraft, the FO interpreted its position as being above and descending towards them. The FO reacted to the perceived imminent collision by pushing forward on the control column.
Re:I read tfa and Im still not sure what happened (Score:4, Informative)
We tried that, and the evidence suggests the risks are greater. What happens if you do that is that crew members just say they're fine when they're not. Studies show that giving crew members the option to nap at their stations makes it more likely that they actually *will* nap when they need to and consequently are more alert during critical stages of flight (like approach and landing) where maximum performance of all crew members can make a major life and death difference.