United Mileage Plus (Pre-Merger) - 1/15/2008 UA 901 FRA-SFO diverted to OAK [Updated 2010 News Reports]

Just saw on the news and confirmed by UAL.COM.

FRA-SFO UA 901 was diverted to OAK due to fuel! Apparently there is some cargo on that flight that is deemed as "life saving." Seems like someone at Stanford Medical center is awaiting a bone marrow transplant and the marrow was on the flight from FRA. They are now questioning if the marrow is still good. Saw this on local ABC affiliate.

Flight 901
Arrived at Gate
Details Frankfurt, Germany (FRA)
Tue, Jan 15
Scheduled: 2:00 PM
Actual: 2:14 PM
Reason: Schedule change due to Air Traffic Control
Gate: C08
Oakland, CA (OAK)
Tue, Jan 15
Scheduled: 4:21 PM
Actual: 4:24 PM
Reason: Schedule change due to Air Traffic Control
Gate: --
Baggage claim: --

Flight 901
Departed Gate
Details Oakland, CA (OAK)
Tue, Jan 15
Scheduled: 4:41 PM
Actual: 6:11 PM
Reason: Schedule change due to Aircraft Servicing
Gate: --
San Francisco, CA (SFO)
Tue, Jan 15
Scheduled: 4:31 PM
Estimated: 6:40 PM
Reason: Schedule change due to Aircraft Servicing
international terminal concourse g
Gate: 97
Baggage claim: --

Apparently there is some cargo on that flight that is deemed as life threatening.Most people would consider bone marrow to be life-saving, not life threatening. ;)

But the diversion looks like it was due to ATC, not fuel... at least based on the stats you posted. Then the aircraft had to be serviced at OAK, adding to the delay.

The city was fairly foggy for much of the day, so that may have been a contributing factor for the diversion.

They are now questioning if the marrow is still good.Strange... the flight was delayed only 3 minutes and the drive from OAK is only 15 minutes longer than from SFO (assuming the Dumbarton bridge isn't backed up). One would think an extra hour on ice, after spending 10 hours in the air already, wouldn't really change things... then again, IANAMD. Unless they couldn't get the marrow out of the hold at OAK, which seems a little weird... if it was a LifeGuard flight, one would think they'd allow the special cargo to be removed ASAP.

Unless they couldn't get the marrow out of the hold at OAK, which seems a little weird... if it was a LifeGuard flight, one would think they'd allow the special cargo to be removed ASAP.
What kind of customs procedures/delays are there on transplantable human tissue?

What kind of customs procedures/delays are there on transplantable human tissue?Don't know. It's not exactly agricultural so I don't think you have to dump it in the bin before you leave. ;) And in principle it's priceless to the recipient, so it should be infinitely taxed. :eek: In reality, I have no clue.

I've miss all the action this past month happening out of SFO and OAK.

What kind of customs procedures/delays are there on transplantable human tissue?

The carriers of the transplant material are granted priority boarding and elite security lines. However, they are not granted access at any of the lounges, save for USO if the materials are destined for a member of the military.

:D

(I apologize in advance for not addressing the question specifically)

The carriers of the transplant material are granted priority boarding and elite security lines.If the transplant organs came from a GS, or if they're going to a GS, do they get GS treatment? :D

UA 901 (744 aircraft) was diverted to OAK today due to a malfunction in the instrument landing system, compounded by fog and fuel. I was on that flight. Here's my take on the story:

We were on our final approach to 28R at SFO in patchy fog. I've landed on this runway countless times, but when I looked out the window right before landing, I thought "holy $#?&, we're really close to the water." Sure enough, the pilot went full throttle, pulled up, and channel 9 went dead. Seemed like a missed approach. We circled around and missed our next approach as well. After this missed approach, the captain announced we were diverting to OAK. We landed at OAK, parked at gate 1 at OAK, but nobody was allowed to disembark, and to the best of my knowledge, no cargo was unloaded. Some maintenance employees came on board, and there was a constant stream of pilots and maintenance crew in and out of the cockpit. The bottom line (inferred from announcements and overheard snippets). Our ILS was malfunctioning, hence the dangerously low approach the first time, and the failure to land on a subsequent time in fog.

The ILS could not be repaired in a reasonable timeframe (especially now that the OAK maintenance facility is closed) so the options were
1. Wait 5-6 hours for border patrol to set-up an adequate passport control and customs operation
2. Refuel the plane, wait for the weather to improve to allow a visual landing at SFO, and fly across the bay to SFO.

The captain opted for #2, which yielded a 2.5 hour ground hold in OAK. Glad I was in row 15.

It was fun to be on an OAK-SFO flight (my first ever), and on a 747, no less. About 10 minutes of airtime. The FA's remained seated for the whole flight, but once we were on a final approach, the purser jokingly made a call for "flight attendants, prepare for arrival." Visibility was great at this point, and we landed pretty smoothly on the first approach. Too bad channel 9 was off for this segment as well.

Probably one of the shorter 747 flights that can be made between two different airports except BFI-SEA

Yeah... at 11 miles, it was longer than BFI-SEA or the shortest scheduled commercial flight (Westray-Papa Westray in the Orknies, ~2mi), but pretty impressive for a 747. Especially when many carriers fly 757s from the east coast to Europe.

For the next few hours, there's a little route map available on flightaware. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL901

Do you get an additional 500 miles? :p

It was an award ticket, so I can't even pretend that I should've gotten the extra miles. :(

It was an award ticket, so I can't even pretend that I should've gotten the extra miles. :(

But did you ask for compensation? An SWU or two seems to be in order here for the near-wet-feet-landing and the subsequent sightseeing flight :D

What about soiled trousers?

Apparently there were several SFO diversions in the morning due to the fog. I was at the SFO RCC late that afternoon and the agent at the front desk mentioned an inbound 777 (I believe it was coming in from Asia) had diverted to Reno that morning.

Apparently there were several SFO diversions in the morning due to the fog. I was at the SFO RCC late that afternoon and the agent at the front desk mentioned an inbound 777 (I believe it was coming in from Asia) had diverted to Reno that morning.now i know the runway is plenty long enough but that must have been a trip (pun intended) either to see, or have been, on that sucker coming thru the mountains.

Apparently there were several SFO diversions in the morning due to the fog. I was at the SFO RCC late that afternoon and the agent at the front desk mentioned an inbound 777 (I believe it was coming in from Asia) had diverted to Reno that morning.
Looks like it was flight 76 from HNL on the 14th?
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL76/history/20080115/0811Z/PHNL/KRNO
Also 892 from ICN on the 15th diverted to LAX:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL892/history/20080115/0616Z/RKSI/KLAX

If you knew all the facts, it would change your life forever.

If you knew all the facts, it would change your life forever.Doubtful..but why don't you enlighten us?

Interesting first post... welcome to FT.

If you knew all the facts, it would change your life forever.

Do tell.....

...this could get interesting...

First off, I doubt we will ever hear back from "The Pilot flying" on this one, but I'd really like to know what happened.

I was on UA852 from NRT-SFO on 1/25 and we also had a diversion and ground stop at OAK. This was necessary because the plane needed fuel after circling over the Pacific for an hour waiting to land. However, after a quick stop I got to take the super quick OAK-SFO flight which is a really neat flying only 11 miles in a 777.

http://cbs5.com/local/united.flight.901.2.1693628.html

Finally, more than two years after that cryptic message from The Pilot flying.

Wow! :eek:

Finally, more than two years after that cryptic message from The Pilot flying.

Wow! :eek:

Exactly why you want an experienced cockpit crew. I'd expect that some express-type planes with this advanced programming would have ended up in the bay.

Just saw the interview on KPIX (Ch. 5 SF) including a screen-shot of this FT post.

Is it just me or dose cbs5 hate united airlines not about this story but every story the show is only bad things about united.

Interesting to read another post last night from someone claiming that a CO pilot, experiencing a tailstrike taking off, turned in his wings... and today we have reports of this experience, reports coming out because one of the crew (Pilot or CoPilot, I'm not sure which) has stopped flying and has a lawsuit against Honeywell, manufacturer of the ILS system on the plane, because they caused him to suffer from post-traumatic-stress syndrome.

I'm going to have to ask my pilot friend about this one, since I'd think there would be systems on board that actually measure, rather than assume, present aircraft altitude. I can understand the lateral positioning error that supposedly happened on the second landing attempt, but it seems odd that an aircraft has no means of knowing the distance between itself and the ground. Which could be one more example of how little I know about aircraft.

Whatever, glad we have people and not robots in the cockpit. Great work by the cockpit crew. ^
Is it just me or dose cbs5 hate united airlines not about this story but every story the show is only bad things about united.In the big picture, there's lots of good news about UA. But locally? United has laid off and furloughed an awful lot of people 'round these parts, and for the local angle, that's a lot more important than stories about putting new seats in 777s.

Probably one of the shorter 747 flights that can be made between two different airports except BFI-SEA

This used to be a regular scheduled flight. I remember way back when there was some promotion that if you flew in a given year you'd get double miles or something the next year. The local news reported lots of people taking the OAK-SFO flight R/T to meet that requirement.

Just saw the interview on KPIX (Ch. 5 SF) including a screen-shot of this FT post.saw it as well (complete with the screen shot of Cap'n Adventure's post) and very very scary. wondering if this was "brushed under the rug" by ua and/or honeywell thinking nothing would come of it until the pilot took legal action

Exactly why you want an experienced cockpit crew. I'd expect that some express-type planes with this advanced programming would have ended up in the bay.

This runs through my head frequently these days as more and more of my flights require bright green luggage tags and lack a proper cup table in First Class.

Like any occupation, your skills improve as you do it more. The younger pilots cannot be "faulted;" 99.9% of them do an awesome job. Unfortunately, there simply is no substitute for experience.

I've said this before: despite the many shortcomings of UA from a service perspective when compared to its European and Asian counterparts, I'm convinced they still have the best trained pilots (as well as other U.S. carriers) and I feel much safer on a UA plane.

Finally, more than two years after that cryptic message from The Pilot flying.

Looks like it did indeed change his life forever. :(

I wish Capt. Taylor the best in finding a new career and hope that his stress issues ease with time. United does have the best pilots and is the main reason that I continue to fly UA.

I'm going to have to ask my pilot friend about this one, since I'd think there would be systems on board that actually measure, rather than assume, present aircraft altitude. I can understand the lateral positioning error that supposedly happened on the second landing attempt, but it seems odd that an aircraft has no means of knowing the distance between itself and the ground. Which could be one more example of how little I know about aircraft.

It is curious, because the 744 flight deck has a single analog barometric altimeter as well as the "digital" barometric altimeter on both the left and right seat primary flight displays. In addition, both PFDs show the actual altitude above the ground as measured by a radio altimeter. As part of procedure the pilot not flying would callout "1,000 feet" and "500 feet" and an automated audio callout would occur for altitudes below 100 feet ("fifty", "thirty", "ten"). So, there shouldn't have been any confusion about the altitude. What gets sticky, though, is that if the lateral location of the aircraft is incorrect, then the altitude may not immediately seem inappropriate. That said, on any precision or non-precision approach, a DH (decision height) or MDA (minimum descent altitude) is defined and is set on the EFIS control panel. Now, given the stated conditions, it would be likely that the aircraft was on a CAT III-B approach to 28R, which carries a DH of 50' and a RVR (runway visual range) of 600'. Basically, it is hard to imagine if normal procedures are being followed, how there wouldn't have been a "100" callout at 100', followed by an "approaching minimums" and a "minimums" callout; if at 50' the runway or lights aren't visible, the procedure is to go around. 50' is really close to the ground, don't get me wrong, but a go-around at the DH is a SOP. Now, again, if the aircraft were not where it should be laterally, that 50' DH could be much more dangerous over land, near a bridge, a large boat, etc, etc - so not being laterally in the right place is a serious problem. For lessons on controlled flight into terrain and the role pilots play in maintaining situational awareness, see AA 965 (http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/2001/sp0104.html). In any case, it is extremely difficult to imagine a scenario where a 744 executes CFIT into the bay with three highly qualified pilots in the cockpit for any reason; there are simply so many redundant systems, many of which are cross checked during an approach as part of SOP.

I want to be clear that I have no knowledge of the specifics of this case, just knowledge of aircraft avionics systems and instrument approach procedures. According to Boeing: (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/safety/manufacturers_role.html) Controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) describes an accident in which a flight crew unintentionally flies an airplane into the ground, a mountain, water or an obstacle. It is a leading cause of airplane accidents involving the loss of life. There have been more than 9,000 deaths due to this since the beginning of the commercial jet age.

Like any occupation, your skills improve as you do it more. The younger pilots cannot be "faulted;" 99.9% of them do an awesome job. Unfortunately, there simply is no substitute for experience.

I wonder what the statistics tell us about CFIT incidents that occur at the hands of US ATPs – are they low time young pilots, or high time experienced pilots? Or both? The AA reference guide for Latin American flying says:
There are many hazards in this environment, but the greatest danger is pilot complacency. From 1979 through 1989, 44 major accidents involving large commercial aircraft occurred in South America. Of these 44 accidents, 34 were attributable to pilot error, or were pilot-preventable with proper situational awareness.

Excellent Post 000123UA

I don't have your familiarity with the 747 specific systems, but, as a pilot with a commercial certificate and an instrument rating, several things about this story don't seem right to me...

1. An ILS is not dependent on a database. It's a pretty rudimentary ground-based radio-navigation aid. Basically, it transmits 4 lobes (two vertical and two horizontal) which overlap only at the very center of the desired course. The aircraft senses these lobes and is able to translate variations in the signal into indications of how far and in which direction from the center of the glidepath the aircraft actually is. Because these lobes spread with distance, the accuracy of the instruments in the cockpit increases as you get closer to the runway, and, ILS procedures are designed with wider "protected" airspace farther from the landing for this reason.

2. To the best of my knowledge, the only database-dependent approaches available are Area Navigation approaches (GPS, INS (RNP), LORAN(deprecated), VOR-based RNAV, etc.). Of these, I believe SFO has only GPS and INS(RNP). I believe the 747 is capable of INS(RNP) approaches, so, a database error would make sense in the case of either a GPS or INS(RNP) approach.

However, in the case of an Area Navigation approach, most pilots I know would at least be monitoring the ILS as a sanity check of the data, so, it seems odd to me that they got "that close" to the water far enough off to be an issue without seeing some indication of a problem. Additionally, I know that the Norcal controllers are pretty good and I've never even made it close to full deflection on an ILS (less than 2 degrees off) before I started getting questions from the controllers.

I hope the lawsuit makes it to court and that there is a public transcript available as I think that is the only way we will ever likely get the complete story from the pilots (if even then).

Somehow, so far, what has been revealed doesn't pass the sniff test for me and provides more questions than answers. I tend to think that a database error isn't unlikely, but, the system is designed with checks and balances in the procedures that mean a pilot shouldn't follow a database error into the ground. Perhaps fatigue and perceptual narrowing were an issue here. I just don't know. It would be really nice to get a detailed first-hand account from each of the three pilots.

http://cbs5.com/local/united.flight.901.2.1693628.html

WOW.

Oh my gosh! I'm getting chills just reading this. Scary to think I was supposed to be on a 747 yesterday out of SFO, and this could happen to anyone. I'm not usually scared of air travel but this definitely makes me nervous reading it!

In addition to the excellent writeup by UA123, and his link to the AA accident in South America, I'll relate a closer-to-home incident.

About 15, maybe 20 years ago, flying east-bound out of the LA area as a private instrument rated pilot, I tuned into the SLI (Seal Beach) VOR, which should have given me a heading more or less of 090 direct to SLI. However, I got a direct-to heading of about 010.

The just-released sectional (VFR navigation chart) had printed the Paradise (PDZ) VOR frequency, some 20 or so miles north, as the SLI frequency.

Had I followed the direct-to heading, I would have been in the LAX TCA, crossing the final approach course. A potentially very serious situation (close, by the way, to the location of the private-PSA mid-air some number of years back).

I reported this in a NASA ASRS (http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/) report, got a call back, and had a long discussion with the NASA folks on this.

In addition to the excellent writeup by UA123, and his link to the AA accident in South America, I'll relate a closer-to-home incident.

About 15, maybe 20 years ago, flying east-bound out of the LA area as a private instrument rated pilot, I tuned into the SLI (Seal Beach) VOR, which should have given me a heading more or less of 090 direct to SLI. However, I got a direct-to heading of about 010.

The just-released sectional (VFR navigation chart) had printed the Paradise (PDZ) VOR frequency, some 20 or so miles north, as the SLI frequency.

Had I followed the direct-to heading, I would have been in the LAX TCA, crossing the final approach course. A potentially very serious situation (close, by the way, to the location of the private-PSA mid-air some number of years back).

I reported this in a NASA ASRS (http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/) report, got a call back, and had a long discussion with the NASA folks on this.

Which is why you should always identify the VOR by listening to the transmitted ID. ... .-.. .. is very different from .--. -.. --.. (actually many VORs now transmit Voice ID as well).

Excellent Post 000123UA

I don't have your familiarity with the 747 specific systems, but, as a pilot with a commercial certificate and an instrument rating, several things about this story don't seem right to me...



I agree with you. Things don't add up here. If the weather was really that bad, they would have shot the Cat III approach as 123 pointed out. There is no "database" involved as you point out, unless the database was the table of ILS frequencies, DHs to set up the instrument system (vs. reading them off the chart). It is possible that something was wrong with one the frequencies tuned (hence the importance to ID each NAVAID).

Besides, who was cross checking the DME? On a 3 degree glideslope each NM from the airport should be about 300 feet of altitude. If the radar altimeter shows 250 feet and the DME shows 2.3 miles, something is amiss...

We are not in possession of all the facts here...

Wasn't there a flight around that time that also had a similar issue? I recall something that I had heard about an incorrect navigation system a few years ago.

The question I want to know is how come this was the only plane that encountered this issue, when this same data was probably on hundreds of planes that would've also landed at SFO. Also, I'd really like to know how someone overwrote the coordinates for such a major airport without such a change being flagged or caught in a review.

I recall a particularly interesting landing once into SFO... foggy beyond belief and I just kept wondering how the pilots managed to do it. Didn't seem like we could see the water... just kept descending and descending. I felt comforted knowing that there was technology to bring our plane in... reading the pilot's account is a bit chilling.

We are not in possession of all the facts here...

I tend to agree. United and Honeywell have a strong incentive to downplay the seriousness of the incident, and the pilot, in pending litigation against Honeywell, has the opposite incentive. The news report indicated that the pilot claims that he can no longer fly due to post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from the event.

At the end of the report, we see that the reporter still doesn't know what the FAA's take was on this. That to me is a critical piece of information, as the FAA is more or less a neutral party with much expertise.

My completely non-expert sense for this is that it two landing approaches, badly off-course, followed by an emergency landing at OAK on minimal fuel looks pretty serious.

Reported on CBS affiliate in San Francisco (http://cbs5.com/video/?id=65214@kpix.dayport.com) (h/t Airline Pilot Central). Allegedly there was some kind of anomaly in the database of the flight management system, leading the plane to be off the localizer on the ILS approach to 28R at SFO. The captain noticed "something wrong" at the last second and ordered a go-around. After a second approach and a second go-around, the crew declared an emergency and diverted to OAK. Apparently this was written up on FT by a passenger on the flight -- FT gets a little shout-out on the news report.

I don't know what to make about the claims against Honeywell (the manufacturer of the FMS), but great job by the crew.

This is also discussed in this thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-mileage-plus/779632-1-15-2008-ua-901-fra-sfo-diverted-oak-updated-2010-news-reports-2.html).

Wow. My props to the pilot.

Reported on CBS affiliate in San Francisco (http://cbs5.com/video/?id=65214@kpix.dayport.com) (h/t Airline Pilot Central). Allegedly there was some kind of anomaly in the database of the flight management system, leading the plane to be off the localizer on the ILS approach to 28R at SFO. The captain noticed "something wrong" at the last second and ordered a go-around. After a second approach and a second go-around, the crew declared an emergency and diverted to OAK. Apparently this was written up on FT by a passenger on the flight -- FT gets a little shout-out on the news report.

I don't know what to make about the claims against Honeywell (the manufacturer of the FMS), but great job by the crew.

PTSD over ONE emergency? That guy needed to quit being a pilot a long time ago. He's clearly not cut out to deal with the stress of an emergency and it is frightening he made it to the 747...

PTSD over ONE emergency? That guy needed to quit being a pilot a long time ago. He's clearly not cut out to deal with the stress of an emergency and it is frightening he made it to the 747...

All it takes is one...remember what Macho Grande, just one incident did to Ted Striker? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjBdFPyxuak

PTSD over ONE emergency? That guy needed to quit being a pilot a long time ago. He's clearly not cut out to deal with the stress of an emergency and it is frightening he made it to the 747...

:rolleyes:
I would reconsider this statement. The incident involved not just the pilot/co-pilot but the hundreds of souls they were responsible for. The "what if" scenario is chilling indeed, but the fact that it happened outside of the captain's control makes it all the more traumatic. IMO, only a calloused pilot would consider themselves unscathed from this event.

Man that was a close call...

:rolleyes:
I would reconsider this statement. The incident involved not just the pilot/co-pilot but the hundreds of souls they were responsible for. The "what if" scenario is chilling indeed, but the fact that it happened outside of the captain's control makes it all the more traumatic. IMO, only a calloused pilot would consider themselves unscathed from this event.

+1

Trauma and PTSD are hard to predict. I know medical professionals in NYC who were highly traumatized by 9/11, not because they were on the sight, but because as soon as the news hit, every hospital in the city implemented emergency plans to be prepared to take in large numbers of trauma patients that never materialized. These doctors were standing there, watching TV, prepared to do everything they could to save the lives of patients that never got to the hospitals. The feeling of helplessness when they were mentally prepared to be taking responsibility for dozens of lives at a time cannot be underestimated. (It's a VERY different trauma than that experienced by those who were at Ground Zero, but those I know who were at the sight were extremely sympathetic to the trauma experienced by the doctors at the hospitals.)
-JMP