Yea, I know it's not necessarily publicly available... but The UAL2428 was initially descended to FL320. The pilot requested to continue their descent so the controller issued FL310. The controller never gave a traffic advisory reference the SKW and UAL2428 responded to the RA at approximately FL315. Separation was never, nor was it going to be lost.
@@ljfinger Where you have no business being in that phase of descend. They are way below 18.000ft. At that time everybody has to have returned to their seats and fastend their seatbelts. Who is in danger of getting hurt at the time are the flight attendants.
@@Quotenwagnerianer What video did you watched? The RA happened at 31,000 feet. Even with the fasten seatbelt sign is on. The flight attendants do not tell people to go back to their seats until pilots tell them to prepare the cabin for landing. That could be as little as 15 minutes before the actual touch down.
Man, some times he gets it wrong. VASA makes some pretty hard videos so quickly. No need for small corrections because i'm sure there is a comment like this on a bunch of his videos. VASAviation
It’s about time that the protocols change for ATC to quit being required to ask stupid questions like sex of injured passengers , what the **** difference does it make
This is actually fairly important information for medical personal, so I have been told by people with medical professions, though I am certainly no expert, and I do wonder what the relevance is in case of a broken ankle.
They may want the sex and age to determine if it's a woman of childbearing age. If there's an emergency and it's worse than a broken ankle for instance then emergency procedures and emergency meds have to be discretionary. That being said, with all of the transitioning going on and how people identify etc etc is awfully hard to figure out nowadays. How are you supposed to know?? y@@jgpacheco21
TCAS doesn't care about actual separation, but closure rates. It detects time to impact, based on vertical speeds and altitudes and position. Its quite possible they were always separated but that won't stop TCAS.
that's why our SOP tell us to reduce rate to 1000fpm or less during the last thousand feet. TCAS won't ever know we're going to level off. But reducing rate of climb or descent will reduce the chance of TCAS triggering
yeah as far as I know (just a rando who likes aviation, not a pilot or avionics tech, etc) TCAS is pretty dumb and just assumes everyone will maintain heading, speed, and climb/descent rate and just predicts if you’ll hit anyone if those things remain constant.
@@jakint0shI mean, that seems better than assuming that they'll slow down and stop. I suppose you could also warn for collisions in a cone of possible paths but the false positive rate would go up.
@@Khrrck Well, that is technically what it does in some sense. It tries to prevent loss of separation, which, in turn, prevents collisions. It warns pilots if it predicts that another aircraft will get close enough that there is cause for concern, not just if it predicts an outright crash. And realistically, if you’re in a position where you’d get an RA then either ATC messed up or somebody else in the air is doing something dumb, both of which happen infrequently (as far as I’m aware), so false positives aren’t too much of a problem normally (as far as I’m aware).
@@jakint0sh TCAS has nothing to do with separation, that's more an ATC thing. There can be a loss of separation without ever triggering a TA or RA. TCAS just looks at potential conflicts in the path of the aircraft and is entirely based on time, not distance. For an RA to trigger no one speciffically has to 'screw up'. If someone has a high enough rate of climb/descend it can still trigger an RA even though it will always be more that 1000ft, the appropriate separation minimum in this case. Khrrck was talking about the possibility of TCAS looking at possible paths, which is not some TCAS does now. It can definitely cause more false positives which is a huge safety hazard, like shown in this video. Not only for crew and passengers aboard, but when an aircraft is following an RA it can come in conflict with a third aircraft which is close by. Imagine it happening with independent parallel approaches...
I appreciate the airlines/captains that give “last call warnings” before descending. When there’s no warning lots of folks are scrambling for the restroom when they feel/see first decent and seatbelt light.
@@tomstravels520 It wouldn't surprise me. If I recall, United is one of those whose SOP is to illuminate the light at or before TOD. Some do it later on, but no matter what I always see passengers get up right after that as if they perceive it as a "last call for lavatory" or "time to pack up the mobile office"
Any airline crew member worth their salt will recommend leaving your seatbelt on for the entire flight, not required, but we don't take our seatbelts off when we get on the Highway, no difference in a Commercial Jet
Wild guess, but ankle injuries to me indicate moving about the cabin. If they're up to the lavatories, or in the lavatories, they aren't going to be belted.
@@JimalTemus you can always hold on to the ceiling/storage cabins/seats if you're on the move. Toilet is a little bit more tricky but there are always structures around to be holding on to. Staying lose on an airplane is always a high risk of injury.
Somehow passengers seem to forget previous experience in turbulence and not to know that if necessary an airliner may move more like a fighter than an overfed bumblebee. Or turbulence so bad enough to turn the aircraft into a wreck on its final flight and the interior into the emergency room in a war zone.
@@beyondinsanitybr Yes, like climbing a long ladder: always maintain three points of contact - including at least one hand holding on! Not as good as sat down with seatbelt on but it's the next best thing.
TCAS doesn't "know" assigned altitude. It's looking at present altitude and rate of climb\descent. The aircraft could have been assigned 310 and that would have been fine - it's just because he was descending fast that TCAS freaked out and issues an RA. The fact that the FAA already said these aircraft didn't lose separation lends credibility to that possibility.
If they were assigned 310 why did they immediately continue to descend below 310 after the RA cleared. Nothing in the video supports that conclusion and the video actually directly contradicts it. Where are you getting that information?
Yes and we get, as you know, a traffic alert first with plenty of time to adjust if you need to. Guaranteed no-one was paying attention... Back to training.... AND you are supposed to reduce ROC/ROD to 1000' ft/min in the terminal area within 1000' of your assigned altitude and it is good airmanship UNLESS ATC asks you to limit to 1500 ft/min. The professionalism , planning and attention to the details in the fight deck died 10 years ago. I have NO INTENTION of crashing into anyone so I fly as if there was no TCAS. AND RA does not mean pulling the stick out of its mountings.. It means follow the Vertical guidance offered
It's not until you're in an abnormal situation on an airliner that you realise just how tough and capable they are. I was on board one when a passenger had a heart attack. It's amazing how quickly you can land from cruising when necessary, and what G forces they can pull while still well within their limits.
In UK we (ATCOs) are encouraged to pass traffic information on 1000ft crossing traffic ("maintain FL310 on reaching, traffic crossing left to right 1000ft below") this prompts pilots to taper their rate earlier than normal to avoid RAs. It seems this wasnt done here, and the United pilot or the autopilot was hoping for continuous descent and was going to level off at the last moment.
In the US we are also required to tell the pilots about traffic when the targets will merge at minimum separation. I make sure to call traffic to aircraft climbing or descending if the targets will be close but not merge to try and avoid an RA. I think as you say UAL was high on the descent and wanted to get down fast, the controller was likely busy and missed the last minute traffic call.
Well, the “on reaching” part of that statement confused the crap out of an American pilot who has already been cleared to that Flight Level. We always look at each other in the cockpit and say “he already cleared us to that….” It makes sense in your context here, but it’s not what the rest of the world would say. The rest of the world would just call out the proximity traffic. Not bashing you, but the Brit’s by far have the weirdest ATC nomenclature of all over the world. I wish they would have a meeting with the rest of the world. And ya, before all the foreign pilots start bashing the USA controllers, I’ll tell you that we do it this way because it is orders of magnitude more efficient than any other country, we use slang, non standard phraseology, and very very rapid radio transmissions. And it works because our ATC is awesome.
@@markg7963 feedback systems exist if pilots are unhappy with UK ATCO R/T, would take less than 5 minutes to fill out a UK CAA observation report, or even phone it in to the tower on landing (or for them to pass on to radar) otherwise there would be no driver for change. In the absence of that, happy to take feedback here!
This reminds me strongly of another well-known case of a TCAS alerted aircraft that resulted in injuries. Japan Airlines flights 958 and 907 famously had a near mid-air collision in 2001. Back in the day, it was less known that the TCAS had priority over ATC, and both gave exact opposite directions. 958 followed their TCAS alert and descended though ATC had told them to climb. 907 followed ATC directions and descended even though their TCAS told them to climb. They got so close that 907 had to do an evasive maneuver (a dive) that was just barely successful in avoiding a collision but still injured a few passengers. It would be interesting to see if these recent flights were actually extremely close enough to need to do something similar, but of course there’s no excuse to be standing when the seat belt sign is on.
For reference, the UAL2428 was cleared to FL310, vertically separated from SKW3304. There was no loss of separation nor was there an operational error on part of the radar controller. There was a lack of traffic issuance in accordance with merging target procedures, which we can speculate may have reduced the aggression in the pilots' reaction to the TCAS alert. Either way, this was a standard operation with an abrupt maneuver resulting in a fractured ankle and a back injury at no fault of the controller.
Your response is a perfect example of “can” vs. “should”. Can a controller thread a fully loaded aircraft through the paths of two other fully loaded aircraft with a 800mph close rate at the bare minimum possible separation (which I disagree that 1000ft is legal since RVSM doesn’t apply for aircraft changing altitude)? Yes they “can”. Should a controller do that when a simple instruction for UAL to hold its descent at 320 until clear of the intersecting traffic would have done the job and avoided any RA? Yes they should. Aviation is not meant to be a dance along the knife edge of safety rules because any error is catastrophic.
@@kathrynslye471 descending / climbing to 1000’ separation is perfectly legal, that is a daily operation across the US. The only error by the controller here was not applying merging target procedures and calling traffic to both UAL and SKW. There are some controllers that always use 2000’ to avoid having to do a traffic all but in busy airspace this is not feasible.
@@NicolaW72 well yes, because it’s the standard minimum for vertical separation, if 1000’ was deemed unsafe they would make it 2000’ (which it is above FL410) but the issue with TCAS would still exist because now it would be programmed to go off at 2000’ separation. Telling controllers the minimum separation is 1000’ but to use 2000’ makes no sense because the 1000’ vertical minimum has been well tested and studied to ensure ample separation between aircraft.
Not necessarily. My mother-in-law stumbled and put her hand against the very thin plasterboard wall that you could just about push your finger through, not even hard enough to dent the wall. She broke her wrist and her pinkie finger. We don't have enough details to say how the break happened. For all we know person 1 fell and landed on person 2 causing the ankle break or, like my MIL, they could have osteoporosis.
Since we don’t have the audio from the center we don’t know what altitude United was cleared to. If he was only cleared to FL310 it is entirely on him, if he was cleared below that it’s going to fall on the controller
"United 2428, when you get a chance, can we have the insurance policy carriers and numbers of the injured passengers, as well as the color of socks they are wearing."
Far too many pilots panic over RAs. This is not supposed to be a yank or push hard on the yoke. You have 5 full seconds to comply with a RA. That’s how the system is designed. AP off, AT off, and then slowly ease the yoke forward (or back) and get the VSI towards the green, out of red zone. It is supposed to be a methodical, logical, step-by-step procedure. Yanking back/forward is NOT required. A RA response should NOT result in injuries.
How do you know they werent people in the toilet or in the aisle going to the toilet? They may not have been but they MAY have been. A rapid manoeuvre would much more like affect people stood up. Its not the same as a turbulence drop.
Always amazes me to hear people were walking around on the plane during the Descent... no wonder they got hurt. Why would you not be securely fastened especially during a descent??
If there are injuries in the cabin from a TCAS RA then the pilots are doing something very wrong, assuming the victim is not prone to falling or intoxicated.
Exactly. ATC asked all kinds of questions about injured passengers pretty late during the descent. I understand they have to write their reports but let the pilots concentrate on the approach.
well, it's a fcking ankle, not a head injury or a heart attack... If the pilots need to follow procedures of declaring "medical emergency" for minor injuries, then the ATC needs to follow his procedure of asking questions... Blame the game, not the player...When the pilot told him that he hasn't got the information and that he is concentrating on the descent, the ATC did not put any pressure.
A mess. RA doesn't mean panic slam the column. Either way they should have been seated and belted. Being the US I'm sure there will be ridiculous lawsuits.
doubt, that's why the seatbelt fastened warning exists in both luminous and audio formats. Passengers disregarding the warning removes all liability from the pilots, as abrupt maneuvers are to be expected during the times the fasten seatbelt sign is on.
@@VASAviation Didn't notice it was 310. My fault, still scratching my head though over the response from UA. That said, not enough details to know yet.
they should have, well, we dont know that. If the seatbelt sign had just been turned out, these could be the last toilet users coming back to their seats.
On my first commercial flight recently, I saw numerous passenger rise to go to the bathroom during descents despite the seat belt sign being illuminated. What surprised me is the flight attendants just slipping around people without telling them to sit back down. You've been on an 8 hour flight, and you're telling me you can't make it another 25 minutes to the gate's bathroom? There was nearly lines forming and the attendants did nothing. This is why regulations need to be strictly adhered to.
Reading and following the guidance in the AIM is kinda important. If the UAL pilots would have abided by the simple climb/descend guidance offered in AIM 4-4-10(d) they’d have a lot less questions to answer.
Yes, always by the next day. Also TCAS events are common. Hundreds and hundreds per day across the US and the world. Most are caused by close proximity to un-identified VFR aircraft not in communication with ATC.
@@wnhtynhatc1306 No. TCAS events are not common. That is simply wrong. In fact getting a TCAS RA is fortunately the very rare exception from the rule of normal flight operations.
@@NicolaW72 I work in such a capacity to tell you that out of 45,000 commercial flights a day across the US, TCAS events are pretty common, however "common" is fairly relative term. It depends what your perspective is to consider them uncommon.
@@NicolaW72 I feel like my area has a TCAS RA nearly as much as we have a go around...and the RAs majority are all with more than standard separation.
No loss of separation? I think UAL and SKW were less than 3 miles apart laterally when UAL was at FL308 (less than 10 Flight Levels above SKW). Does that not matter since UAL and SKW were travelling away from each other at that time?
I've had planes respond to RAs when I've climbed them to 1000' below traffic. It's because their climb rate is high enough the plane thinks it's going to collide.
Off topic (for the most part). I’ve asked this question on other aviation channels but no answer yet. This experience happened years ago and I don’t really understand why I lost consciousness. Landing in sw jet, what felt like just about to touch down, plane pulled up suddenly and at an angle that seemed very steep. Clearly this was a go around possible collision avoidance. The g forces were so strong that I lost consciousness for a second. My traveling companion said he almost lost consciousness. Is this something to do with my anatomy? I do have orthostatic hypotension if that’s relevant. Is this common in commercial air travel to have passengers subjected to those g forces? Im trying to figure out if this is a me thing or a very rare event with a plane avoiding near catastrophic event so they weren’t worried about g forces on passengers? Thoughts?
Yes, something is wrong with you. A commercial plane would take serious damage if G forces that would cause a normal person to lose consciousness occurred.
RA maneuvers are supposed to be executed smoothly. Initial separation maneuvers are only 1,000-1,500 ft/min up or down. No need to do that fighter jet stuff.
Retired Engineer here with 1000s of business flights and love aircraft. I always have my seat belt on. Traveling at 100s of km/hr any sudden violent (pilot commanded or turbulence) is going to end badly if your seat belt is unfastened.
Thank you very much for your work which, for me, is more than a distraction, it is a way to progress in English phraseology (and I know I am not the only one in this case). Basically I listen to the recording, then I read the subtitle to check my understanding. Unfortunately the subtitles are not displayed long enough, which means I have to go back in the video constantly. For me and those in my situation, would it be possible to systematically leave the last subtitle displayed until the next message (in future videos)? THANKS
Could have been a excessively abrupt maneouvre, specially considering that there where two injuries, but you won't believe how easy an unfit person could injure their ankle. I've seen a person jump from a trampoline some 1,5 meters in the air to then sprain an ankle because they misstepped descending from the 30cm mat to the floor, they had improper physical training for that activity but still they where in better shape than most. I've also known of ski instructors loosing a season because they slipped on a step
Have had them many times. You have plenty of time to react. But yes, it sounds like they may have overreacted in this case. Or something entirely unrelated. Who knows.
Why does ATC keep pestering the pilots with questions about "sex of passengers" and so on, when clearly they are busy with the approach? Is there not a rule-book about relevant and appropriate communication in these cases, especially when the pilots are in a high-workload phase of flight?
The controllers want to pass the information along to the first-responders on the ground. Better medical care can be provided in a more timely fashion if the EMTs know what to expect. ATC is absolutely fair to ask, but they also backed off as soon as the pilot told them they were too busy to respond.
Interesting they must have pulled up really quick and to hard. In my training you have to respond quickly but honest a RA can be complied with and the passenger would never even know.
@@Look_What_You_Did This happened at 30,000 feet, not in SFO airspace. And he's right, responding to TCAS never will require extreme maneuvers. The system is designed to give plenty of time to avoid a collision.
There is not a chance in hell a properly complied with RA manoeuvre should result in broken bones. If the seat belt sign was on and the passenger was standing then serves them right but thats no excuse for Pilot error. An RA manoeuvre is slow and methodical not a panicked yank the yoke any which way.
"Depart the airport heading 140, vectors final approach course" what does that mean? First part of the sentence gets me thunking an aircraft is taking off and the last part gets me thinking the same aircraft is landing.
I understand that means to assume heading 140 after overflying the airport. If you are taking off, the instruction would be more precise than "depart the airport" :D
Looking at the ground track of the flight, it appears they overflew San Fransisco airport, then flew southeast of the airport to land on 28L. "Depart the airport heading 140" means "after passing the airport, turn to 140."
The sex of the injured passengers or the age really doesnt matter for a leg injury. First responders don't prepare any differently. No reason to bug the crew for this non essential info.
@@wnhtynhatc1306 I'm speaking as a first responder. We don't prepare any differently if its a male or female or age. If its required info they can get it on the ground when they see the patients! No reason to bug a crew for this info other than to know there is a medical emergency and the nature.
And, do you know what shoes the passengers are wearing, their star sign, how many children they have, what grade they got in high school history class...
Something doesn't adds up. Had many RA's and never had to maneuver so aggressively that someone would be injured. In fact they didn't even knew or felt anything.
Went from -2000 to -1000 in only a few reports. Definitely some g-forces there. Reporting is granular so the real data recorder numbers probably are even worse over a shorter period.
Love how every time we get an incident involving turbulence the “tHiS iS wHy YoU aLwAyS wEaR yOuR sEaTbElT” crew shows up acting like they stay strapped in every second of a 6 hour flight, ankle injuries point strongly towards someone having been up, most certainly going to the lavatory, calm down, we all know to stay belted in when we’re seated.
This is very avoidable on all fronts. Passengers should be belted at this point, pilots should be descending slower, and ATC hopefully notified both planes of the traffic... Hoping that info comes out from the audio during the incident.
Once there is a TCAS advisory it overrides instructions from ATC. And this rule in turn is a lesson that was paid for with plenty of lives. If you meant to say ATC should try to be more proactive to ever avoid a situation to escalate into a TCAS RA then I conditionally agree. Usually controllers are really good but they're humans with human limitations and once the workload increases they will be able to do less and less beyond the minimum service that is required.
@@ralfbaechle I mean that ATC is required to issue traffic that is passing at the minimum required separation, if it appears that the targets will merge. The targets were close enough that traffic should have been issued, especially considering that one was descending, which would make the pilots aware of the traffic and not react to an RA if they were planning to stop above.
@@VASAviation Oh right, I got messed up between the audio from Approach and the actual issue happening at FL310. In that case, you really don't expect your plane to be taking aggressive evasive maneuvers that high in the flight levels.
The injured passengers were trying to join the “mile high club” in the first class bathroom. The female had friction burns on her face from being pressed into the mirror.
This is so sad - an RA should be completely undetected by passengers. If passengers were injured, the pilots reacted imappropriately. They’ll have to live with their incompetence forever (unless they don’t give a sh1t). Some Airbuses have an automatic TCAS RA flight mode - smooth response to any RA without the slightest risk of passenger injury. Sad that pilots just don’t get it…
They were on descent and the seatbelt sign was on. Every flight I’ve been on, this is the point when the FA’s walk around checking each passenger for seat belts, and wave people off from the lavatory. Of course, there’s always going to be “someone,” but why do people continue to disregard the inflight rules? Those rules are there for your SAFETY, folks!
@@Dmitry_IMHO it pierces my ears when I select a clip from this channel while wearing earphones. What I have to do each time is lower the volume to silent for 10 seconds or skip the video to a later point.
Unfortunately we live in a world where the ENTITLED do whatever they want! If the seat belt light was lit and they ignored it, that's ground for being put on the do not fly list!!! They risked the lives of other passengers that obey rules! If they lost their balance or where tossed around, other passengers could have been injured!!!
A possible ankle fracture is not a medical emergency. I would focus on the fact that TCAS and skilled aviators avoided a collision. Fucking passengers will sue the airline anyway. And they will settle for thousands for "pain and suffering"
Who pays the medical bills? It had better be the airline and it should be the airline that caused the TCRS. Yes, controllers give instructions but the Captain and ultimately the airline are responsible for the health and safety of the paying passengers, regardless of the passengers actions.
This has gotta be the dumbest comment of the day. “Yeah we’re gonna be unable that heading because in 80 miles there might be a United jet that will have started their descent and if everything times out perfectly there may be an RA.” RAs are almost always on ATC if pilots followed instructions.
If the belts were on and the passenger was told to sit, then liability would be with the passenger and not the airline. The US is probably different, with most of the passengers likely sueing because of emotional stress or something.
UAL2428, if able let me get the political affiliation, club memberships, skin color, height and weight, attractiveness on a scale of 1-10 on the injured parties.
These questions come from the emergency services dispatcher - they always want to know age and gender and whether the patient is breathing. The later is obvious, age less so, but babies go down-hill fast. I have no idea why they want to know gender.
@@ickipoo You don't understand why they want to know gender? "Attention all units - be aware that there is a male holding a firearm at the bank - check that, the gender is not important. Just figure out who the target is when you get there." Airplane respondent: "What? You're 70 and hurt? Okay that makes 3 injured because we're briefed to look for a 13 and 21 YO." vs. "Okay that's one, so there's one more we need to locate and treat."
Even if UAL2428 was cleared to FL310, TCAS RA would trigger with that steep rate of descent, that's why we should climb at
I'd love to know the CFL of UAL2428 at CPoA with SKW3004.
What about descent?
Yea, I know it's not necessarily publicly available... but
The UAL2428 was initially descended to FL320. The pilot requested to continue their descent so the controller issued FL310. The controller never gave a traffic advisory reference the SKW and UAL2428 responded to the RA at approximately FL315. Separation was never, nor was it going to be lost.
Looks like they were cleared to FL310.
@@bomber996 source?
That's why always fasten your seatbelts😅
And hold on to the ceiling/seats if you're on the move.
Hard to do if you're in-line for the restroom.
@@ljfinger Where you have no business being in that phase of descend. They are way below 18.000ft. At that time everybody has to have returned to their seats and fastend their seatbelts. Who is in danger of getting hurt at the time are the flight attendants.
@@Quotenwagnerianer What video did you watched? The RA happened at 31,000 feet. Even with the fasten seatbelt sign is on. The flight attendants do not tell people to go back to their seats until pilots tell them to prepare the cabin for landing. That could be as little as 15 minutes before the actual touch down.
@@Jopanaguiton You are right, I missed the FL200 call.
Just a note that @2:14 I'm pretty certain they don't say "so we didn't want to waste that much time", rather "so we don't have really that much time"
Man, some times he gets it wrong. VASA makes some pretty hard videos so quickly. No need for small corrections because i'm sure there is a comment like this on a bunch of his videos. VASAviation
It’s about time that the protocols change for ATC to quit being required to ask stupid questions like sex of injured passengers , what the **** difference does it make
@@weikcpa I was actually surprised when atc asked that, I want to know the reasoning behind that.
This is actually fairly important information for medical personal, so I have been told by people with medical professions, though I am certainly no expert, and I do wonder what the relevance is in case of a broken ankle.
They may want the sex and age to determine if it's a woman of childbearing age. If there's an emergency and it's worse than a broken ankle for instance then emergency procedures and emergency meds have to be discretionary.
That being said, with all of the transitioning going on and how people identify etc etc is awfully hard to figure out nowadays. How are you supposed to know?? y@@jgpacheco21
TCAS doesn't care about actual separation, but closure rates. It detects time to impact, based on vertical speeds and altitudes and position. Its quite possible they were always separated but that won't stop TCAS.
that's why our SOP tell us to reduce rate to 1000fpm or less during the last thousand feet. TCAS won't ever know we're going to level off. But reducing rate of climb or descent will reduce the chance of TCAS triggering
yeah as far as I know (just a rando who likes aviation, not a pilot or avionics tech, etc) TCAS is pretty dumb and just assumes everyone will maintain heading, speed, and climb/descent rate and just predicts if you’ll hit anyone if those things remain constant.
@@jakint0shI mean, that seems better than assuming that they'll slow down and stop.
I suppose you could also warn for collisions in a cone of possible paths but the false positive rate would go up.
@@Khrrck Well, that is technically what it does in some sense. It tries to prevent loss of separation, which, in turn, prevents collisions. It warns pilots if it predicts that another aircraft will get close enough that there is cause for concern, not just if it predicts an outright crash. And realistically, if you’re in a position where you’d get an RA then either ATC messed up or somebody else in the air is doing something dumb, both of which happen infrequently (as far as I’m aware), so false positives aren’t too much of a problem normally (as far as I’m aware).
@@jakint0sh TCAS has nothing to do with separation, that's more an ATC thing. There can be a loss of separation without ever triggering a TA or RA. TCAS just looks at potential conflicts in the path of the aircraft and is entirely based on time, not distance. For an RA to trigger no one speciffically has to 'screw up'. If someone has a high enough rate of climb/descend it can still trigger an RA even though it will always be more that 1000ft, the appropriate separation minimum in this case.
Khrrck was talking about the possibility of TCAS looking at possible paths, which is not some TCAS does now. It can definitely cause more false positives which is a huge safety hazard, like shown in this video. Not only for crew and passengers aboard, but when an aircraft is following an RA it can come in conflict with a third aircraft which is close by. Imagine it happening with independent parallel approaches...
I appreciate the airlines/captains that give “last call warnings” before descending. When there’s no warning lots of folks are scrambling for the restroom when they feel/see first decent and seatbelt light.
Apparently the seatbelt sign was already on and they were standing in the aisle when this occurred hence the injuries
source?
@@VASAviation united Airlines statement
@@tomstravels520 It wouldn't surprise me. If I recall, United is one of those whose SOP is to illuminate the light at or before TOD. Some do it later on, but no matter what I always see passengers get up right after that as if they perceive it as a "last call for lavatory" or "time to pack up the mobile office"
@@aviation_nut yeah I think they did that on my United Flight recently. Wish they would either do it later or give a heads up before reaching TOD
well, it could be people who were already waiting for the toilet and the sign had just been activated.
Any airline crew member worth their salt will recommend leaving your seatbelt on for the entire flight, not required, but we don't take our seatbelts off when we get on the Highway, no difference in a Commercial Jet
Wild guess, but ankle injuries to me indicate moving about the cabin. If they're up to the lavatories, or in the lavatories, they aren't going to be belted.
@@JimalTemus you can always hold on to the ceiling/storage cabins/seats if you're on the move. Toilet is a little bit more tricky but there are always structures around to be holding on to. Staying lose on an airplane is always a high risk of injury.
Somehow passengers seem to forget previous experience in turbulence and not to know that if necessary an airliner may move more like a fighter than an overfed bumblebee. Or turbulence so bad enough to turn the aircraft into a wreck on its final flight and the interior into the emergency room in a war zone.
my guess it was flight attendant who got hurt
@@beyondinsanitybr Yes, like climbing a long ladder: always maintain three points of contact - including at least one hand holding on! Not as good as sat down with seatbelt on but it's the next best thing.
Thank you very much for picking this up! It clarifies a little bit more what happened - and: better one TCAS RA too much than one too few.
TCAS doesn't "know" assigned altitude. It's looking at present altitude and rate of climb\descent. The aircraft could have been assigned 310 and that would have been fine - it's just because he was descending fast that TCAS freaked out and issues an RA. The fact that the FAA already said these aircraft didn't lose separation lends credibility to that possibility.
This is correct. UAL2428 was assigned a descent to FL310, vertically separated from SKW3304 level at FL300.
If they were assigned 310 why did they immediately continue to descend below 310 after the RA cleared. Nothing in the video supports that conclusion and the video actually directly contradicts it. Where are you getting that information?
Poor SOP? No 3,2,1 rule. 3000ft to go keep maximum 3000ft/min, 2000ft to go keep maximum 2000ft/min, 1000ft to go keep maximum 1000ft/min.
I mean if they were in level change, airplane will just pitch to keep speed, it doesn't know or care about the V/S.
Yes and we get, as you know, a traffic alert first with plenty of time to adjust if you need to. Guaranteed no-one was paying attention... Back to training.... AND you are supposed to reduce ROC/ROD to 1000' ft/min in the terminal area within 1000' of your assigned altitude and it is good airmanship UNLESS ATC asks you to limit to 1500 ft/min. The professionalism , planning and attention to the details in the fight deck died 10 years ago. I have NO INTENTION of crashing into anyone so I fly as if there was no TCAS. AND RA does not mean pulling the stick out of its mountings.. It means follow the Vertical guidance offered
Props to the controller for accepting the answer from the pilot about being too busy to get all the info.
It's not until you're in an abnormal situation on an airliner that you realise just how tough and capable they are. I was on board one when a passenger had a heart attack. It's amazing how quickly you can land from cruising when necessary, and what G forces they can pull while still well within their limits.
In UK we (ATCOs) are encouraged to pass traffic information on 1000ft crossing traffic ("maintain FL310 on reaching, traffic crossing left to right 1000ft below") this prompts pilots to taper their rate earlier than normal to avoid RAs. It seems this wasnt done here, and the United pilot or the autopilot was hoping for continuous descent and was going to level off at the last moment.
Most Europe does that. We also have SOP to adjust rate to 1000fpm or less during the last thousand feet to avoid TCAS
In the US we are also required to tell the pilots about traffic when the targets will merge at minimum separation. I make sure to call traffic to aircraft climbing or descending if the targets will be close but not merge to try and avoid an RA. I think as you say UAL was high on the descent and wanted to get down fast, the controller was likely busy and missed the last minute traffic call.
Well, the “on reaching” part of that statement confused the crap out of an American pilot who has already been cleared to that Flight Level. We always look at each other in the cockpit and say “he already cleared us to that….” It makes sense in your context here, but it’s not what the rest of the world would say. The rest of the world would just call out the proximity traffic. Not bashing you, but the Brit’s by far have the weirdest ATC nomenclature of all over the world. I wish they would have a meeting with the rest of the world. And ya, before all the foreign pilots start bashing the USA controllers, I’ll tell you that we do it this way because it is orders of magnitude more efficient than any other country, we use slang, non standard phraseology, and very very rapid radio transmissions. And it works because our ATC is awesome.
@@markg7963 feedback systems exist if pilots are unhappy with UK ATCO R/T, would take less than 5 minutes to fill out a UK CAA observation report, or even phone it in to the tower on landing (or for them to pass on to radar) otherwise there would be no driver for change. In the absence of that, happy to take feedback here!
I’m a retired ATC Instructor in Australia and we taught the same thing.
TCAS RA’s don’t require abrupt maneuvering.
This reminds me strongly of another well-known case of a TCAS alerted aircraft that resulted in injuries. Japan Airlines flights 958 and 907 famously had a near mid-air collision in 2001. Back in the day, it was less known that the TCAS had priority over ATC, and both gave exact opposite directions. 958 followed their TCAS alert and descended though ATC had told them to climb. 907 followed ATC directions and descended even though their TCAS told them to climb. They got so close that 907 had to do an evasive maneuver (a dive) that was just barely successful in avoiding a collision but still injured a few passengers. It would be interesting to see if these recent flights were actually extremely close enough to need to do something similar,
but of course there’s no excuse to be standing when the seat belt sign is on.
Thank you for the date and other details.
Seems like a good idea to keep your bathroom breaks to cruise flight only.
For reference, the UAL2428 was cleared to FL310, vertically separated from SKW3304. There was no loss of separation nor was there an operational error on part of the radar controller. There was a lack of traffic issuance in accordance with merging target procedures, which we can speculate may have reduced the aggression in the pilots' reaction to the TCAS alert. Either way, this was a standard operation with an abrupt maneuver resulting in a fractured ankle and a back injury at no fault of the controller.
Your response is a perfect example of “can” vs. “should”. Can a controller thread a fully loaded aircraft through the paths of two other fully loaded aircraft with a 800mph close rate at the bare minimum possible separation (which I disagree that 1000ft is legal since RVSM doesn’t apply for aircraft changing altitude)? Yes they “can”. Should a controller do that when a simple instruction for UAL to hold its descent at 320 until clear of the intersecting traffic would have done the job and avoided any RA? Yes they should. Aviation is not meant to be a dance along the knife edge of safety rules because any error is catastrophic.
@@kathrynslye471 descending / climbing to 1000’ separation is perfectly legal, that is a daily operation across the US. The only error by the controller here was not applying merging target procedures and calling traffic to both UAL and SKW. There are some controllers that always use 2000’ to avoid having to do a traffic all but in busy airspace this is not feasible.
@@charliehotel9886 Yes, it is perfectly legal. But the question is: Is it a good idea?
@@NicolaW72 well yes, because it’s the standard minimum for vertical separation, if 1000’ was deemed unsafe they would make it 2000’ (which it is above FL410) but the issue with TCAS would still exist because now it would be programmed to go off at 2000’ separation. Telling controllers the minimum separation is 1000’ but to use 2000’ makes no sense because the 1000’ vertical minimum has been well tested and studied to ensure ample separation between aircraft.
Maybe the pilots can use their TCAS display to see the other traffic and make adjustments to their climb profile accordingly.
I always keep my seatbelt on whether the sign is on or not, except to use the restroom at cruising altitude
Broken ankle? Must have been pulling some serious Gs
Not necessarily. My mother-in-law stumbled and put her hand against the very thin plasterboard wall that you could just about push your finger through, not even hard enough to dent the wall. She broke her wrist and her pinkie finger. We don't have enough details to say how the break happened. For all we know person 1 fell and landed on person 2 causing the ankle break or, like my MIL, they could have osteoporosis.
Since we don’t have the audio from the center we don’t know what altitude United was cleared to. If he was only cleared to FL310 it is entirely on him, if he was cleared below that it’s going to fall on the controller
I always keep my seatbelt fasten.
Must make it difficult when having a shower.
@@camoogoo i can stand up fasten the seabelt and go to shower.
That sounds like some chastity belt situation🐸
"United 2428, when you get a chance, can we have the insurance policy carriers and numbers of the injured passengers, as well as the color of socks they are wearing."
Yeah I really don't see how first responders' on-ground preparation would benefit from that info being shared in the given scenario
Far too many pilots panic over RAs. This is not supposed to be a yank or push hard on the yoke. You have 5 full seconds to comply with a RA. That’s how the system is designed. AP off, AT off, and then slowly ease the yoke forward (or back) and get the VSI towards the green, out of red zone. It is supposed to be a methodical, logical, step-by-step procedure. Yanking back/forward is NOT required. A RA response should NOT result in injuries.
I was trained that passengers should not feel it, and they shouldn’t spill their G&T’s.
I would rather hurt my ankle than be smashed into the plane below me.
Exactly. There's no need to injure anyone. That really ought to be emphasized in training.
if that light is on, stay seated. this is why. no one to blame but yourself.
How do you know they werent people in the toilet or in the aisle going to the toilet? They may not have been but they MAY have been. A rapid manoeuvre would much more like affect people stood up. Its not the same as a turbulence drop.
Always amazes me to hear people were walking around on the plane during the Descent... no wonder they got hurt. Why would you not be securely fastened especially during a descent??
If there are injuries in the cabin from a TCAS RA then the pilots are doing something very wrong, assuming the victim is not prone to falling or intoxicated.
And what were the injured passengers wearing? what NFL teams do they support?
Exactly. ATC asked all kinds of questions about injured passengers pretty late during the descent. I understand they have to write their reports but let the pilots concentrate on the approach.
I'm gonna guess the NY Jets?
well, it's a fcking ankle, not a head injury or a heart attack...
If the pilots need to follow procedures of declaring "medical emergency" for minor injuries, then the ATC needs to follow his procedure of asking questions...
Blame the game, not the player...When the pilot told him that he hasn't got the information and that he is concentrating on the descent, the ATC did not put any pressure.
A mess. RA doesn't mean panic slam the column. Either way they should have been seated and belted. Being the US I'm sure there will be ridiculous lawsuits.
doubt, that's why the seatbelt fastened warning exists in both luminous and audio formats. Passengers disregarding the warning removes all liability from the pilots, as abrupt maneuvers are to be expected during the times the fasten seatbelt sign is on.
@@eldorado3523 at FL310 the seatbelt sign was most likely to be OFF at that time
From the keyboard its super easy...
@@VASAviation Didn't notice it was 310. My fault, still scratching my head though over the response from UA. That said, not enough details to know yet.
they should have, well, we dont know that. If the seatbelt sign had just been turned out, these could be the last toilet users coming back to their seats.
Dang, I i broke my own ankle in May this year and, while im back on my feet, I'm still not back to normal. Sucks for that passenger, i know his pain.
On my first commercial flight recently, I saw numerous passenger rise to go to the bathroom during descents despite the seat belt sign being illuminated. What surprised me is the flight attendants just slipping around people without telling them to sit back down. You've been on an 8 hour flight, and you're telling me you can't make it another 25 minutes to the gate's bathroom? There was nearly lines forming and the attendants did nothing.
This is why regulations need to be strictly adhered to.
Reading and following the guidance in the AIM is kinda important.
If the UAL pilots would have abided by the simple climb/descend guidance offered in AIM 4-4-10(d) they’d have a lot less questions to answer.
In the event of a TCAS is there any FAA review to find the root cause?
Yes, always by the next day. Also TCAS events are common. Hundreds and hundreds per day across the US and the world. Most are caused by close proximity to un-identified VFR aircraft not in communication with ATC.
@@wnhtynhatc1306 No. TCAS events are not common. That is simply wrong. In fact getting a TCAS RA is fortunately the very rare exception from the rule of normal flight operations.
@@NicolaW72 I work in such a capacity to tell you that out of 45,000 commercial flights a day across the US, TCAS events are pretty common, however "common" is fairly relative term. It depends what your perspective is to consider them uncommon.
@@NicolaW72 I feel like my area has a TCAS RA nearly as much as we have a go around...and the RAs majority are all with more than standard separation.
No loss of separation? I think UAL and SKW were less than 3 miles apart laterally when UAL was at FL308 (less than 10 Flight Levels above SKW). Does that not matter since UAL and SKW were travelling away from each other at that time?
Loss of separation never occured. They were vertically separated
I've had planes respond to RAs when I've climbed them to 1000' below traffic. It's because their climb rate is high enough the plane thinks it's going to collide.
Off topic (for the most part). I’ve asked this question on other aviation channels but no answer yet. This experience happened years ago and I don’t really understand why I lost consciousness.
Landing in sw jet, what felt like just about to touch down, plane pulled up suddenly and at an angle that seemed very steep. Clearly this was a go around possible collision avoidance. The g forces were so strong that I lost consciousness for a second. My traveling companion said he almost lost consciousness.
Is this something to do with my anatomy? I do have orthostatic hypotension if that’s relevant. Is this common in commercial air travel to have passengers subjected to those g forces? Im trying to figure out if this is a me thing or a very rare event with a plane avoiding near catastrophic event so they weren’t worried about g forces on passengers?
Thoughts?
Yes, something is wrong with you. A commercial plane would take serious damage if G forces that would cause a normal person to lose consciousness occurred.
@@mrpielover615 well shit. I mean, I knew something was wrong with me…. 😂
@@mrpielover615 but read again, the guy next to me got light headed too
@@EffSharp then he also has issues.
@@mrpielover615 lol
RA maneuvers are supposed to be executed smoothly. Initial separation maneuvers are only 1,000-1,500 ft/min up or down. No need to do that fighter jet stuff.
Exactly. There's no need to injure anyone. That ought to be emphasized in training.
Retired Engineer here with 1000s of business flights and love aircraft. I always have my seat belt on. Traveling at 100s of km/hr any sudden violent (pilot commanded or turbulence) is going to end badly if your seat belt is unfastened.
Sometimes I visit the lavatory
@@VASAviation glad you do
Thank you very much for your work which, for me, is more than a distraction, it is a way to progress in English phraseology (and I know I am not the only one in this case). Basically I listen to the recording, then I read the subtitle to check my understanding. Unfortunately the subtitles are not displayed long enough, which means I have to go back in the video constantly. For me and those in my situation, would it be possible to systematically leave the last subtitle displayed until the next message (in future videos)? THANKS
That wouldn't help you at all. Rewind and listen again until you read and listen as fast as they speak. That will improve your skills.
Thank you, you da best
0:34 Interesting: a 3 aircraft corner case.
What dork was walking around the plane and not buckled in???
Haven't you visited a lavatory ever before?
Wow. Must be nice not to have to ever go to the toilet.
Could have been a excessively abrupt maneouvre, specially considering that there where two injuries, but you won't believe how easy an unfit person could injure their ankle. I've seen a person jump from a trampoline some 1,5 meters in the air to then sprain an ankle because they misstepped descending from the 30cm mat to the floor, they had improper physical training for that activity but still they where in better shape than most. I've also known of ski instructors loosing a season because they slipped on a step
Or could be elderly passengers with osteoporosis.
Unless up to use the washroom, passengers should always be belted, even withoutthe sign. Given the phase of flight here, the sign was likely lit.
Odd that an RA results in injuries. TCAS is calibrated in such a way that normal maneuvering is all that is required.
Maybe the scare factor? According to a Eurocontrol study, only 33.7 % of "climb"/"descend" RAs are flown correctly.
but human reaction isn't part of that
Is TCAS an automated manoeuvre or manually flown based on the RA ?
TCAS RA are supposed to be flown with smooth inputs but that's easy to say when you're not the one 20 seconds from death because ATC messed up.
Have had them many times. You have plenty of time to react. But yes, it sounds like they may have overreacted in this case. Or something entirely unrelated. Who knows.
Why does ATC keep pestering the pilots with questions about "sex of passengers" and so on, when clearly they are busy with the approach? Is there not a rule-book about relevant and appropriate communication in these cases, especially when the pilots are in a high-workload phase of flight?
The controllers want to pass the information along to the first-responders on the ground. Better medical care can be provided in a more timely fashion if the EMTs know what to expect. ATC is absolutely fair to ask, but they also backed off as soon as the pilot told them they were too busy to respond.
Interesting they must have pulled up really quick and to hard. In my training you have to respond quickly but honest a RA can be complied with and the passenger would never even know.
@@Look_What_You_Did airspace doesn’t matter TCAS gives you a certain amount of time to react. Never need to rush. Or make over jerky corrections
@@Look_What_You_Did This happened at 30,000 feet, not in SFO airspace. And he's right, responding to TCAS never will require extreme maneuvers. The system is designed to give plenty of time to avoid a collision.
There is not a chance in hell a properly complied with RA manoeuvre should result in broken bones. If the seat belt sign was on and the passenger was standing then serves them right but thats no excuse for Pilot error. An RA manoeuvre is slow and methodical not a panicked yank the yoke any which way.
Assuming someone’s gender on a flight to SFO…gutsiest move I ever saw Mav…
This kind of stuff always reminds me of Gol 1907
A properly flown TCAS RA response won't exceed 1G. If flown properly.
This response to the RA seems like it might have been a bit more aggressive.
"Depart the airport heading 140, vectors final approach course" what does that mean? First part of the sentence gets me thunking an aircraft is taking off and the last part gets me thinking the same aircraft is landing.
I understand that means to assume heading 140 after overflying the airport. If you are taking off, the instruction would be more precise than "depart the airport" :D
Looking at the ground track of the flight, it appears they overflew San Fransisco airport, then flew southeast of the airport to land on 28L. "Depart the airport heading 140" means "after passing the airport, turn to 140."
Loss of finesse. You had to “pull”? That sort of injury came from a hefty pull. RAs are not programmed to require such an extreme action,
Do we know that the injured person wasn't an elderly person with osteoporosis?
"Do you have eye color, favourite meal, and first pets name please".
"Uuhm, we're in the flare right now, we're a little busy"
How are passengers injured when they are in their seats with seat belts on?
Maybe they were not?
TCAS is a nifty system. A pilot overreacting to it, not so nifty.
At least on the radar, that was certainly threading the needle. Yikes!
There is no need to use violent/abrupt maneuvers when responding to an RA, the system was not designed that way.
The sex of the injured passengers or the age really doesnt matter for a leg injury. First responders don't prepare any differently. No reason to bug the crew for this non essential info.
You are wrong. It is required information.
@@wnhtynhatc1306 I'm speaking as a first responder. We don't prepare any differently if its a male or female or age. If its required info they can get it on the ground when they see the patients! No reason to bug a crew for this info other than to know there is a medical emergency and the nature.
@@crookeddonald4761 It might be necessary for the (sole) purpose of ATC paperwork. Why? Not sure. Just putting the possibility on the table.
@@crookeddonald4761 And yet, nearly every call for service begins with " you're responding to an at for a year old "
It’s mainly to differentiate cases, secondly to make sure it isn’t an outlier like a baby.
I always wear my seatbelt; it's the prudent thing to do.
And, do you know what shoes the passengers are wearing, their star sign, how many children they have, what grade they got in high school history class...
Pablo! I taught you better!
Something doesn't adds up. Had many RA's and never had to maneuver so aggressively that someone would be injured. In fact they didn't even knew or felt anything.
No loss of separation.....
But injuries.....
No tin showers either.....
A TCAS event should never involve that much stick force, all you need to do is fly positively out of the red, not put everyone on the ceiling?
yea I dont get this either - esp when no loss of separation tok place
It's all us and our upright posture. It doesn't take much to fall.
@@artemkras And if you're say, an elderly person with osteoporosis, just stamping your foot can be enough to break a bone.
Went from -2000 to -1000 in only a few reports. Definitely some g-forces there. Reporting is granular so the real data recorder numbers probably are even worse over a shorter period.
Another reason to automate the whole thing
Controller didn’t need that information. Medical emergency. Get medical staff to gate. End of discussion
The controller passes on the medical information. That's why he asked the gate number so the EMTs would be at the gate when the plane arrived.
@@buckhorncortez male/female, those questions were irrelevant. Find the gate number and send medical there...
I don't understand the instruction to "depart the airport heading 140".
Me neither. I'm guessing it is incorrectly transcribed, but it certainly sounds like "depart".
it’s part of the arrival into SFO. They overfly the airport, depart it heading 140 in order to enter the left downwind.
The airport is probably a reference point, the more understandable phraseologies are “leave xxx heading 140” or “after xxx, fly heading 140”
@@Speediestyew That would make sense, but they also said it was a straight-in.
Foam mic cover please. Sheesh.
The title should be "Passengers injured after ignoring seatbelt sign."
Were you onboard?
big oof
If we could just get a detailed medical history and insurance before you focus on flying, that'd be great.
And don’t call me Shirley😂😂
@@TangoDelta8111 Pardon me, is there a Doctor in the Tower? You know, it's the tall building with 3 second memory folks
👍
Assuming genders in 2024 is wild 😅 I'm joking!
Love how every time we get an incident involving turbulence the “tHiS iS wHy YoU aLwAyS wEaR yOuR sEaTbElT” crew shows up acting like they stay strapped in every second of a 6 hour flight, ankle injuries point strongly towards someone having been up, most certainly going to the lavatory, calm down, we all know to stay belted in when we’re seated.
This is very avoidable on all fronts. Passengers should be belted at this point, pilots should be descending slower, and ATC hopefully notified both planes of the traffic... Hoping that info comes out from the audio during the incident.
Once there is a TCAS advisory it overrides instructions from ATC. And this rule in turn is a lesson that was paid for with plenty of lives. If you meant to say ATC should try to be more proactive to ever avoid a situation to escalate into a TCAS RA then I conditionally agree. Usually controllers are really good but they're humans with human limitations and once the workload increases they will be able to do less and less beyond the minimum service that is required.
I don't know of any Airlines that have the seatbelt light on at that high altitude
@@ralfbaechle I mean that ATC is required to issue traffic that is passing at the minimum required separation, if it appears that the targets will merge. The targets were close enough that traffic should have been issued, especially considering that one was descending, which would make the pilots aware of the traffic and not react to an RA if they were planning to stop above.
@@VASAviation Oh right, I got messed up between the audio from Approach and the actual issue happening at FL310. In that case, you really don't expect your plane to be taking aggressive evasive maneuvers that high in the flight levels.
Seatbelts light at 31k?
In RVSM airspace you need to be at 1,000 FPM within 2,000 feet of your assigned altitude
No but when you respond in a TCAS-RA its a smooth pitch down/up you dont smack down the controls and you cause a negative g load...
Any maneuver you make will increase or decrease the g load. When unexpected, it could easily cause a fall.
Maybe it’s a good time together into the travel insurance business!
or not
Another day, another near-collision in America.
This was nothing near to a near collision
The injured passengers were trying to join the “mile high club” in the first class bathroom. The female had friction burns on her face from being pressed into the mirror.
This is so sad - an RA should be completely undetected by passengers. If passengers were injured, the pilots reacted imappropriately. They’ll have to live with their incompetence forever (unless they don’t give a sh1t).
Some Airbuses have an automatic TCAS RA flight mode - smooth response to any RA without the slightest risk of passenger injury.
Sad that pilots just don’t get it…
I can’t believe the controller was allowed to say “San Fran”
They were on descent and the seatbelt sign was on. Every flight I’ve been on, this is the point when the FA’s walk around checking each passenger for seat belts, and wave people off from the lavatory. Of course, there’s always going to be “someone,” but why do people continue to disregard the inflight rules? Those rules are there for your SAFETY, folks!
Why would the seatbelt light be on at 31K feet?
"and the injured passenger, their favorite color?" - ATC
seems like there are alot of near misses these days...
The TCAS RA maneuver should not ever be a violent maneuver. If it was it was done incorrectly.
These clips always start with a very loud noise... Especially if you have the volume turned to high from another clip you've watched before
It’s literally a jet sound, what would you expect? 😅
@@Dmitry_IMHO it pierces my ears when I select a clip from this channel while wearing earphones. What I have to do each time is lower the volume to silent for 10 seconds or skip the video to a later point.
I recommend turning your volume down
@@VASAviation for every single clip is not practical.
What’s a volume control? My audio equipment is too loud can I blame the UA-camr who is delivering this awesome content?
ATC: Please provide sex of the injured passengers
Pilot: This is a flight to SFO, stand by while we ascertain pronouns
so, basically, the SIC panicked.
Why someone was roaming around in the cabin is dumb.
Flight Attendants must be some of the most stupid people on the planet then.
Yes. How stupid to be using a toilet after hours being in the air!!!
Unfortunately we live in a world where the ENTITLED do whatever they want! If the seat belt light was lit and they ignored it, that's ground for being put on the do not fly list!!! They risked the lives of other passengers that obey rules! If they lost their balance or where tossed around, other passengers could have been injured!!!
Why would the seatbelt light be lit at 31k feet?
A possible ankle fracture is not a medical emergency. I would focus on the fact that TCAS and skilled aviators avoided a collision. Fucking passengers will sue the airline anyway. And they will settle for thousands for "pain and suffering"
Broken ankle is not a medical emergency…….way to inconvenience other aircraft United D bags.
Charlie Lima Uniform Sierra Tango Echo Romeo Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo
SFO, again.... an accident is in the corner....
2:04 did the pilot just assumed the gender of the passagers?????
United policy forbids this heinous act. Probably has to do 6 months sensitivity training
Hahaha. Asked myself the same, but he asked for sex and not gender.
Who pays the medical bills? It had better be the airline and it should be the airline that caused the TCRS. Yes, controllers give instructions but the Captain and ultimately the airline are responsible for the health and safety of the paying passengers, regardless of the passengers actions.
This has gotta be the dumbest comment of the day. “Yeah we’re gonna be unable that heading because in 80 miles there might be a United jet that will have started their descent and if everything times out perfectly there may be an RA.”
RAs are almost always on ATC if pilots followed instructions.
If the belts were on and the passenger was told to sit, then liability would be with the passenger and not the airline. The US is probably different, with most of the passengers likely sueing because of emotional stress or something.
Sounds like the crew was a little too aggressive
UAL2428, if able let me get the political affiliation, club memberships, skin color, height and weight, attractiveness on a scale of 1-10 on the injured parties.
These questions come from the emergency services dispatcher - they always want to know age and gender and whether the patient is breathing. The later is obvious, age less so, but babies go down-hill fast. I have no idea why they want to know gender.
@@ickipooI know my wife runs a 911 center. But asking a pilot for all the EMD stuff during a critical phase of flight is still ridiculous
@@GigsTaggart Yeah, theres gonna be plenty of time while taxi-ing to the gate for this.
@@ickipoo You don't understand why they want to know gender?
"Attention all units - be aware that there is a male holding a firearm at the bank - check that, the gender is not important. Just figure out who the target is when you get there." Airplane respondent: "What? You're 70 and hurt? Okay that makes 3 injured because we're briefed to look for a 13 and 21 YO." vs. "Okay that's one, so there's one more we need to locate and treat."