Near Miss Coolangatta.

[airwolf117]

I saw the thread was closed, but actually want to defend the newspapers on how close this really was. A family member saw it and initially thought they were flying formation, before common sense clicked in and they realised something had gone really wrong.

According to ASA Webtrack, (12 Oct 9:16am) WebTrak (http://webtrak5.bksv.com/ool3) , they aircraft were less than 100ft apart vertically and not much horizontally.

Everyone keeps dismissing this as "fear-mongering"... but this was actually a bloody close call in the scheme of things.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r225/airwolf1171988/NearMiss.png

[Draggertail]

I looked at webtrak too. Not sure how accurate it is, but at first glance the go around was left very late.

[Jabawocky]

Yep, that was close, enough to get an investigation and a heap of paperwork on your desk.

Imagine the view from the B737 with the nose pitching up and a little 'slowtation' under it somewhere……pucker factor :eek:

A few earlier shots show it was close like air wolf said. The VA crew earned their pay for the year right there!

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/ScreenShot2014-10-14at50904PM_zps2ec0fece.png

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/ScreenShot2014-10-14at51240PM_zpse06d5bcc.png

[Flying Binghi]

.






Hmmm... Looks like just another muppet beat up of a non event...

""...An Air Services Australia spokeswoman confirmed the incident was not as serious as it may have appeared.

“They were potentially going to come a little bit too close so a procedural assurance was given,” said the spokeswoman.

“There was never any danger to anyone and no loss of separation.”

She said loss of separation assurances were commonplace in Australian aviation and generally of no concern.""


No Cookies | The Courier-Mail (http://m.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/virgin-plane-and-light-aircraft-in-close-call-over-gold-coast-airport/story-fnihsrf2-1227087904530?nk=1075b2b87cd4ce3dd9b4858fd3a36a34)









.

[onehitwonder]

Check out the photo


http://i62.tinypic.com/2z73gh3.jpg

[Ultralights]

nice shot, Kudos to the photog.

[tipsy2]

Long lense effect maybe.

I want to see piccies/video of the loop, now that would really be something

tipsy:=

[Jabawocky]

I think that pic and the radar traces are about in synch as it gets.

ASA media release might be a bit of wet blanket technique.

For once the media muppets are a bit less muppet like, apart from the loop.

[Capn Bloggs]

What a fantastic shot!
:DThe VA crew earned their pay for the year right there!

Depends on whether they left it all up to ATC who left it far too late, and why they didn't break right as soon as the nose was above the horizon to build in some lateral separation. ;)

[Jabawocky]

Bloggs,

Perhaps the Captain elected to keep the C525 in sight until he had the situation under control and had a clear spatial picture before committing the RH turn, rather than blindly losing sight without knowing.

I bet the formation guru's will give us a good education in not losing sight and what to do and not do if you do.

;) back at ya! :ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

I bet the formation guru's will give us a good education in not losing sight and what to do and not do if you do.
Done a bit in my time, 100-650kts. You either push to stay in sight, pull the power off to drop back fast if you lose sight, or turn away promptly (with a pull up to assist) to get away from the person you've lost. I'll leave it to you to work out which one would work in this case! :ok:

[Chief galah]

Good view from seat 1 A.
I can think of at least 3 breakdowns of separation.
Not sure what Manual the ASA spokeslady is using.

[Centaurus]

a procedural assurance was given,” said the spokeswoman

Is that an invitation to be more than just friends? :ok:

[Awol57]

What are the 3 breakdowns out of curiosity?

[Chief galah]

Runway
Visual
Vertical

[Jabawocky]

Yes Mr Blogsie, I am aware of your past :}

I know your preferred option is pull up with the afterburner blazing :}:}

[Awol57]

Was azimuth lost for there to be a breakdown visually? I am not familiar with Goldcoast aerodrome but looking at ERSA and webtrak I'd say the controller likely never lost azimuth. Sure, it got close but no doubt everyone knew about each other.

The fact the aircraft went around meant there more than likely wasn't a runway separation incident (though more than likely there would have been had Virgin landed).

If it's done visually, you don't need vertical.

I think I'd rather listen to the tapes and see the radar tapes with GS etc before I hang anyone over this one.

[Chief galah]

Awol57
The way I see it is that separation must be established and maintained as the transition is made from one separation standard to another.
As runway separation, IMHO, never existed, it is difficult to argue that any other standard existed until the two tracks diverged at about 9:16:28
The event occurs from about 9:15:59 which is the first time both aircraft appear on the WebTrack display, to 9:16:28 which is when track divergence occurs.
The aerodrome elevation is 21' AMSL. WebTrack altitudes may well be incorrect, but relatively to both aircraft, should be accurate enough.
At 9:15:59 the C25A is possibly airborne at 98' with VOZ 511 passed the runway threshold at 354' and 400-500m behind.
This is not runway separation, the first standard that needs to be applied.
From 9:15:59 to 9:16:17 I believe there may possibly be visual azimuth separation from the Tower, but it won't last long. The C25A is below VOZ511 by 60-100', and 300-400m ahead. Not being a B738 pilot, I don't know if an aircraft is visible from the cockpit in this position i.e. below and between 1100-1130 o'clock. The C25A pilot has no way of seeing or knowing the position of the other aircraft. So relying on pilot participation during this fairly critical phase, is problematic.
From 9:16:17 to 9:16:28 visual azimuth separation from the Tower is not sustainable. VOZ511 is still above the C25A, and still within 400m and with very little angular distance between them from the Tower.
In my experience, this would not be enough to claim "visual separation". (The favourite catch call)
There is no visual separation, vertical separation, radar separation or any other type of separation as I see it.
Also, IMHO and in hindsight, I think it is safer for the B738 to land because it is a close situation that won't get any closer.
With both aircraft in the air, it's a close situation that gets closer until they end up diverging.

[Awol57]

I agree with you 100% about letting the second one land. In my experience it's better (and safer) to cop the runway sep breakdown than have 2 in the air on upwind.

I am am not familiar enough with goldcoast to speculate any more. I understand it's in as a LOSA so I assume there was visual sep but it wasn't what you might call "ideal" conditions, or that it wasn't assigned to the pilot.

Either way, it's one of those situations you never let happen again (or at least try to avoid at all costs :ok:)

[Chief galah]

Loss Of Separation Assurance
The wet dream of some clown in the back office.
Conceptual doodlings guaranteeing another years "work"
and a paragraph in MATS.

[Nautilus Blue]

Actually the basic concept of Separation Assurance is a good thing. Unfortunately its hard to pin down to an exact definition in some circumstances, and can be subject to individual interpretation. One way of putting it wold be that controllers are supposed to be good, not lucky!

[Chief galah]

NB

hard to pin down to an exact definition in some circumstances, and can be subject to individual interpretation

Exactly

JR

A B737 departs SY for PH, a B737 departs PH for SY, how is separation assured?

Exactly

[le Pingouin]

If you're worried about that then how are they even separated? Stand yourself down now!:}

[majorca]

Separation Assurance is not possible or practised in Approach or Departures environment so the scenario of one departing SY/PH is not applicable. As much as I think sep ass is bs, it is mainly applied in the enroute environment.
The runway standard applied to a landing behind a preceding departing aircraft is that you do not permit the landing aircraft to cross the runway threshold until the preceding aircraft is airborne and:
a. has commenced a turn; or
b. is beyond the point on the runway at which the landing aircraft
could be expected to complete its landing roll; and
c. there is sufficient distance to enable the landing aircraft to
manoeuvre safely in the event of a missed approach.
Maybe in this instance the Virgin pilot made the decision to go round catching the ADC by surprise?

[Nautilus Blue]

But equally very black and white in some cases. A 737 climbing out of PH crossing a descending 737 inbound from SY may well climb above before the crossing point or pass in front/behind, but you don't just hope.

Separation Assurance is not possible or practised in Approach or Departures environment

So what do you call SIDs and STARs with complementary VNAVs?

Most arguments against Separation Assurance use ridiculous exaggerated examples, applied logically it has a place.

[majorca]

Of course you do not just hope, Nautilis, there are radar standards in place to take care of such situations and SIDS an STARS are there for tragic flow purposes. How often have you heard the instruction " cancel SID.......". A breakdown of separation or sep ass.......I don't think so.

[Chief galah]

There's nothing logical about categorizing this incident as a LOSA.

[le Pingouin]

But what about the dozens of times a day that the 27 or 16 departures from ML to the NE don't have their SID cancelled and climb over the top of the arrivals on the ARBEY STAR?

[Nautilus Blue]

SIDS an STARS are there for tragic flow purposes

I think based on that it would be wisest to agree to disagree, we are unlikely to convince each other.

There's nothing logical about categorizing this incident as a LOSA.

If ASA Safety are calling it a LOSA then by definition there was no LOS, so what else would you call it?

"The controller messed up but by luck and/or pilot action three was no loss of separation" is just another definition of LOSA.

Unless you believe there was a LOS in which case you need to take it further and formally immediately, because there has either been a fundamental error in the investigation or a cover up.

[Chief galah]

NB
Mate, I've been out of it for a while, but me and my colleagues were, in Paul Keating terms, "done" for much much less.
Look, if the C25A hesitated when he said he would go, this is s**t bad luck for the controller. He used his judgement and from that moment on, LOSA goes out the window.
But in my mind, two aircraft aren't going to get much closer than this. The poor enroute people have to justify 900' and 4.5nm for goodness sake.
I have no axe to grind, but this clerical approach to operational matters leaves me cold.

[Creampuff]

Cue David Attenborough:And here we see the very unusual territorial behaviour of the Lesser Spotted Aussie Controller.

A generally shy and very reserved species, they only show themselves when one of their kind engages in the behaviour known as a "f*ck up". But even then, any display of internal dissent is usually confined to local colonies.

Here we see the Lesser Spotted Aussie Controller in a rare public display of post f*ck-up public disagreement, almost certainly to be resolved by emails-to-the-death.

[Nautilus Blue]

I'm saying it does have a place despite the fact that it can be a bit vague and open to interpretation. Don't write off the idea altogether. Use it when its black and white, like issuing requirements, putting aircraft on headings etc. rather than relying on profile sep. Most of what we all do every day is qualifies as separation assurance anyway.

The poor enroute people have to justify 900' and 4.5nm for goodness sake

You have been gone a long time. 4.9 is a breakdown these days.

If you think there was a LOS, then all considerations of SA are irrelevant anyway.

Are we saying that what ASA calls LOSA should be a LOS, or should be a non event?

[Chief galah]

Creampuff, thanks that is funny. To the death? I don't think so, too much Super to chew through first.

NB, you continue to reinforce my point, I think.