Professional Pilot Testimony

[NEOWatcher]

I just wanted to place this link here for the next time someone tries to make a claim based on the "expertise" of a professional pilot thinking they know everything they see.

Pilot sends plane into dive after mistaking Venus for oncoming plane

And it's not just a simple matter of being drowsy or ill and mis-identifying it for the airplane that was in the vicinity.
The first officer was told by the captain it's not the plane. Each plane even flashed thier lights for confirmation. The first officer still took his own action.

[profloater]

In a boat, the correct procedure is to turn to starboard if you fear imminent head on collision. Is it the same for a pilot? Diving would seem to be a poor logic reaction.

[John Mendenhall]

And how many times have we stood near a group of non-astronomers staring at Venus and exclaiming "Look how fast it's moving!" Oh, lordy.

Regards, John M.

[peter eldergill]

I saw on the news that the copilot had just woken up from a nap (which was longer than allowed by law) and was groggy, not thinking clearly. Didn't see much after that, though

Pete

[Solfe]

I thought pilots turn right and descend, but I have been wrong before.

[slang]

BBV News: 'Pilot fatigue' caused Air Canada jet dive

The "confused and disoriented" co-pilot heard the standard cockpit warnings from the other plane's approach and thought it was heading directly for his passenger jet.

IIRC the standard collision avoidance systems will tell the pilot to ascend or descend. Perhaps the system was telling the pilot(s) to descend. The BBC article links to this Transportation Safety Board of Canada article. Someone less fatigued than me please read and verify.

[JustAFriend]

OK I'll embarrass myself and tell a story from 30 years ago.

The wife and I were driving up into Canada on a fishing vacation.
After 20+hours, she was sleeping and about 3am I couldn't keep my eyes open any longer.
So I pulled off the freeway and into the parking lot of a small church.
I turn off the car and fall asleep.

About 8am I wake up. Groggy and not realizing what I did and thinking we were still going 75mph.
....and the brick wall of the church is 3 feet in front of my hood....

I screamed, she woke up screaming and we still laugh about it today.


.... so I know what he feels like.

[Spoons]

Hahahaha! Awesome story! Thanks for sharing.

[NEOWatcher]

I saw on the news that the copilot had just woken up from a nap (which was longer than allowed by law) and was groggy, not thinking clearly. Didn't see much after that, though

I thought it was as simple as that at first myself. But; the article that I linked tells the timeline of the interaction between then captain and first officer. It's that disregard of the captain's clarification that makes it stand out to me.

The first officer saw a bright object ahead of the plane -- the planet Venus -- and mistook it for the approaching C-17. The captain corrected him and said the C-17 was straight ahead and 1,000 feet below.
At that point, the captain of the Air Canada jet and the C-17 pilots flashed their planes' landing lights at each other to acknowledge their position.
But the first officer, still believing that the object in the sky above him was the cargo plane, initiated a dive to avoid the perceived imminent collision

IIRC the standard collision avoidance systems will tell the pilot to ascend or descend. Perhaps the system was telling the pilot(s) to descend. The BBC article links to this Transportation Safety Board of Canada article. Someone less fatigued than me please read and verify.

Thanks for that link. It gives a better timeline.
The TCAS was tracking the "target", but never gave a warning. (because it wasn't a threat until actions were taken)
What it does clarify for me is that the Captain was concentrating on instruments and the First officer was doing the visual.
The first officer already acknowledged his condition, but took primary action anyway.
I wonder how he determined it was close enough for action. Further in the link it says:

Based on tests conducted in an Air Canada B767 simulator, no distinct motion up or down the field of view of an oncoming aircraft was detectable until the aircraft was 15 seconds apart at a closure speed of 900 knots

It still shows that professional pilots are still fallible at times in their observations.

[Buttercup]

OK I'll embarrass myself and tell a story from 30 years ago.

The wife and I were driving up into Canada on a fishing vacation.
After 20+hours, she was sleeping and about 3am I couldn't keep my eyes open any longer.
So I pulled off the freeway and into the parking lot of a small church.
I turn off the car and fall asleep.

About 8am I wake up. Groggy and not realizing what I did and thinking we were still going 75mph.
....and the brick wall of the church is 3 feet in front of my hood....

I screamed, she woke up screaming and we still laugh about it today.


.... so I know what he feels like.

Lol!! I needed that. Thanks for sharing.

[Solfe]

OK I'll embarrass myself and tell a story from 30 years ago.

The wife and I were driving up into Canada on a fishing vacation.
After 20+hours, she was sleeping and about 3am I couldn't keep my eyes open any longer.
So I pulled off the freeway and into the parking lot of a small church.
I turn off the car and fall asleep.

About 8am I wake up. Groggy and not realizing what I did and thinking we were still going 75mph.
....and the brick wall of the church is 3 feet in front of my hood....

I screamed, she woke up screaming and we still laugh about it today.


.... so I know what he feels like.

Oh, my god... I can't stop laughing! That is awesome!

[Hornblower]

In a boat, the correct procedure is to turn to starboard if you fear imminent head on collision. Is it the same for a pilot? Diving would seem to be a poor logic reaction.

With boats, diving is not an option except for submarines.

[grapes]

The first officer saw a bright object ahead of the plane -- the planet Venus -- and mistook it for the approaching C-17. The captain corrected him and said the C-17 was straight ahead and 1,000 feet below.
At that point, the captain of the Air Canada jet and the C-17 pilots flashed their planes' landing lights at each other to acknowledge their position.
But the first officer, still believing that the object in the sky above him was the cargo plane, initiated a dive to avoid the perceived imminent collision

::snip::

Thanks for that link. It gives a better timeline.
The TCAS was tracking the "target", but never gave a warning. (because it wasn't a threat until actions were taken)

So the avoidance maneuver actually brought the two planes closer to being a problem for each other. Have I read that right?

[profloater]

With boats, diving is not an option except for submarines.

Ha yes indeed but the point is if both dive it does not help re collision whereas both turning right as internationally agreed (for boats and surfaced subs!) makes sense.

[NEOWatcher]

So the avoidance maneuver actually brought the two planes closer to being a problem for each other. Have I read that right?

That's how I read it. Not only closer in altitude, but at the time when the other plane was close enough to pass under while they were in (or recovering) from the dive.

Ha yes indeed but the point is if both dive it does not help re collision whereas both turning right as internationally agreed (for boats and surfaced subs!) makes sense.

That's how I read it too.
I think the difference with planes is that it's quicker to dive than to turn. Also; I've heard in the past some simulations of collision avoidance systems that know which plane should dive and which should "pull up". (any aviators out there that can confirm that or slap me for saying it?)

[slang]

Also; I've heard in the past some simulations of collision avoidance systems that know which plane should dive and which should "pull up". (any aviators out there that can confirm that or slap me for saying it?)

I'm not an aviator but that is exactly how one collision avoidance system works. And when an airtraffic controller gives instructions that conflict with TCAS instructions, and one pilot obeys the controller rather than TCAS, bad things happen (as "Aircrash Investigation" watchers will remember).

[Luckmeister]

I think the difference with planes is that it's quicker to dive than to turn. Also; I've heard in the past some simulations of collision avoidance systems that know which plane should dive and which should "pull up". (any aviators out there that can confirm that or slap me for saying it?)

If there is no collision avoidance equipment involved and upon seeing a plane approaching head on the default action would be to dive, and both planes did that, then both planes might dive into each other but if the default were to maneuver to starboard and both planes did that, they would move away from each other.

[NEOWatcher]

If there is no collision avoidance equipment...

Yep; my mind was on that subject when I said it.
I agree with the rest.

[profloater]

That's how I read it. Not only closer in altitude, but at the time when the other plane was close enough to pass under while they were in (or recovering) from the dive.


That's how I read it too.
I think the difference with planes is that it's quicker to dive than to turn. Also; I've heard in the past some simulations of collision avoidance systems that know which plane should dive and which should "pull up". (any aviators out there that can confirm that or slap me for saying it?)

I am not sure about that, (turn versus dive) but the 3D effect is probably another case where the instruments (crash avoidance radar) is a better judge than the pilot. Piolts have to learn to trust instruments like the artificial horizon. In the dark a pilot can rotate his plane in less than a minute without realising he is upside down. Judging the trajectory of an approaching plane and whether you are likely to collide must be a very difficult task for a human.

[slang]

BA has an article on this to, on his blog: Did a pilot really drop a plane into a nosedive to avoid Venus? where he plays down the role that Venus played in this mishap, or at least doubts the explanation as given in ie the BBC article.

He focuses on these lines in the Transportation Safety Board of Canada report:

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.

(Bold mine, FO = first officer, the one who initiated the dive). Because of the bolded part, BA suggests the media get it all wrong, but I see no confirmation that the FO did indeed see the oncoming aircraft, that is to say, identified the correct spot of light as the oncoming aircraft (and continued to do so). IMHO this is a poor choice of words in an accident investigation report, where there is such a strong possibility of misidentification being a contributing (or root) cause. Perhaps the investigators did establish that a correct identification was made, but I don't see support for that in the report. Am I being too skeptical here?

[HenrikOlsen]

With boats, diving is not an option except for submarines.

Every boat can go underwater at least once.

Which brings fond memories of maxim 11: Everything is air-droppable at least once.

[Swift]

Every boat can go underwater at least once.

Which brings fond memories of maxim 11: Everything is air-droppable at least once.

Though it is a great line from the history of Apollo 13, failure is always an option.

[Eric12407]

With the logic that goes on in this forum .. since everyone in the world makes observational mistakes at some point in their life ... no ones observations can ever be taken seriously or have any credibility.You go on and on and on trying to slander peoples character and intelligence while ignoring the real issues ... the most important one being .. you have abandoned your fellow man ... choosing worship of your deluded sense of scientific materialistic world view rather than opening your minds to a greater reality and working together to investigate its possibilities. For that ... you will reap your own limited rewards .. while others will see the universe as it truly is.Time is short .... all things are polarized and the choices apparent. Choose wisely in the coming weeks and months ... choose to help and serve ....not deride and mock. Work at bringing people together .. rather than driving them apart ...

[Strange]

With the logic that goes on in this forum .. since everyone in the world makes observational mistakes at some point in their life ... no ones observations can ever be taken seriously or have any credibility.

That is not logical. The fact that everyone makes mistakes means that we need to take care when assessing eye-witness testimony and look for corroboration. Not that we should just dismiss it.

You go on and on and on trying to slander peoples character and intelligence

Where has anyone's character or intelligence been slandered?

not deride and mock

Where has anyone been derided or mocked?

[Swift]

You go on and on and on trying to slander peoples character and intelligence while ignoring the real issues ... the most important one being .. you have abandoned your fellow man ... choosing worship of your deluded sense of scientific material world view rather than opening your minds to a greater reality and working together to investigate its possibilities.

Eric12407,

Take it down a notch. The only slandering that seems to be going on is coming from you, slandering the character and logic of other members of this forum. And since what you are writing seems to have little to do with this topic, ("Time is short"???) it should probably go in your own thread.

[Luckmeister]

With the logic that goes on in this forum .. since everyone in the world makes observational mistakes at some point in their life ... no ones observations can ever be taken seriously or have any credibility.<br><br>You go on and on and on trying to slander peoples character and intelligence while ignoring the real issues ... the most important one being .. you have abandoned your fellow man ... choosing worship of your deluded sense of scientific material world view rather than opening your minds to a greater reality and working together to investigate its possibilities. <br><br>For that ... you will reap your own limited rewards .. while others will see the universe as it truly is.<br><br>Time is short .... all things are polarized and the choices apparent. Choose wisely in the coming weeks and months ... choose to help and serve ....not deride and mock. Work at bringing people together .. rather than driving them apart ...

This board's software uses the "[br]" coding instead of the HTML "<br>" coding. If you are writing your posts in an HTML editor, this problem would be solved by using a simpler one like Notepad, or by making sure you're in plain text mode if composing the message in a more fully-featured editor.

[John Jones]

[...]no ones observations can ever be taken seriously or have any credibility.

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

[Eric12407]

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

Ergo ... then most pilots observations re: ufo's should be taken as credible .... or at least more credible than the average person.

[Strange]

Ergo ... then most pilots observations re: ufo's should be taken as credible .... or at least more credible than the average person.

That is not logical either. As the story that started this thread shows, pilots are as likely as anyone else to misidentify things they see.

[John Jones]

Ergo ... then most pilots observations re: ufo's should be taken as credible .... or at least more credible than the average person.

non sequitur