PPRuNe Forums


Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 16th Feb 2017, 11:00   #21 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Dublin
Posts: 201
s&t, Rwy 16 is a backup runway for EIDW used a very few times a year when we get strong south-easterly winds or when main runway is out of service for whatever reason. Main runway is 10/28 which employs a state-of-the-art arrival/point merge system

https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/de...-in-dublin.pdf

use of Rwy 16 is bad news, everyone involved knows it, there are no high speed exits, planes have to taxy all the way to the end of runway to exit, heavier b737/a320 have to backtrack a tiny bit for line-up, it's a massive pain.. so if arriving traffic hears you have 15 ahead of you, you are realistically looking at 15x3 mins or more + departures that will take forever to line up.. anyway, not a normal day at EIDW by any means.. there's not much ATC/crews can do to improve - runway itself needs upgrades, but I don't think it's going to happen - main focus is to build a parallel runway for 10/28 at the moment.. like I said, usage during peak hours of rwy 16 is so rare, it's not on top of anyone's priority list
Martin_123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Feb 2017, 13:14   #22 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 619
Ah thanks Martin 123 - so to those not intimately involved with EIDW, some bigger picture emerges ...

An official (noise) report on dublinairport.com tells us that there were 1,411 arrivals (recorded as noise report events) on RW16 as opposed to a total number of such events of 70,107 for 6 months January to June 2016 i.e. indicative of 2% of arrivals.

Can we say RW16 gets well used 1 day in 50? Maybe speed/capacity limits should apply 1 day in 50 until they fix the system on RW16 Arrivals. Should the risks be NOTAM'd?

Devilishly inconvenient though, as commuters found out every day for years after the Hatfield and Potters Bar rail disasters.

Meantime, Keep calm and carry on ?
slip and turn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Feb 2017, 13:59   #23 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 6,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by slip and turn View Post
At some stage afterward, FR9431 also turned left and diverted to Shannon at FL170 although I only heard the heading clearance of 250, not the level. The stray 267kts ADS-B plot for FR9431 also carried an altitude of 19800. The next plot I have seen was 297kts at 19275. EI933 had been further ordered to "Climb FL210" which was acknowledged, so I think we might conclude that EI433 at that time was lower than FL210 and had not in fact levelled at FL210 until ordered to climb back up there.

Meantime FR9431 may still have been as high as 19800. If that is the case maybe that's where the controller's eye view of an 800 feet separation comes in.
Yes, a more detailed look at the FR24 data (subject to the usual caveats) doesn't support the assertion that the Aer Lingus levelled off at FL210, instead suggesting that it was still descending at around 1000 fpm at that point. There aren't enough data points to establish how much lower he got before being requested to climb back to FL210, but the minimum vertical separation from the Ryanair was clearly significantly less than the quoted 1800'.

If Simon has more granular data for the 20 seconds or so where the (potential) conflict existed, perhaps he could share it with us in support of his statement that there was no loss of separation.
DaveReidUK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Feb 2017, 15:16   #24 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Dublin
Posts: 201
Quote:
An official (noise) report on dublinairport.com tells us that there were 1,411 arrivals (recorded as noise report events) on RW16 as opposed to a total number of such events of 70,107 for 6 months January to June 2016 i.e. indicative of 2% of arrivals.

Can we say RW16 gets well used 1 day in 50? Maybe speed/capacity limits should apply 1 day in 50 until they fix the system on RW16 Arrivals. Should the risks be NOTAM'd?
I'd say most of those movements in 2016 were recorded off peak hours when they closed the 10/28 runway to do upgrades from 2300-0500, that actually was NOTAMed as far as I can remember, and since that happened out of peak hours it didn't cause so much hassle

anything else, like weather or breakdowns on 10/28 forcing to use 16 cannot really be NOTAMed if you think about it.. no major airport is immune to weather temporarily reducing it's capacity and causing some holds/diverts. Of course there is always room or improvement but I don't think anyone flying into Dublin would consider their arrivals as broken or anything
Martin_123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Feb 2017, 16:50   #25 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Salzburg
Posts: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
If Simon has more granular data for the 20 seconds or so where the (potential) conflict existed, perhaps he could share it with us in support of his statement that there was no loss of separation.
I don't have more granular data, that's why I remained cautious until Feb 14th even though the statement by AAIU of Feb 12th (no investigation) basically already suggested there was no loss of separation.

On Feb 14th I then got word that the official radar data (in other words the IAA data) confirmed there was no loss of separation (however, I did not get those data, of course).
Austrian Simon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Feb 2017, 08:36   #26 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 6,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austrian Simon View Post
I don't have more granular data, that's why I remained cautious until Feb 14th even though the statement by AAIU of Feb 12th (no investigation) basically already suggested there was no loss of separation.

On Feb 14th I then got word that the official radar data (in other words the IAA data) confirmed there was no loss of separation (however, I did not get those data, of course).
OK, I won't argue - having learned the hard way, in the context of another discussion, that you don't tolerate any disagreement with your version of events, even if it's to highlight the use of dodgy data.
DaveReidUK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Feb 2017, 09:23   #27 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 619
Chaps, no need for any of us to take potshots at egos of messengers just for having the gall or temerity to craft and broadcast thought provoking messages. Tell me if I am wrong, but this is NOT a busy ATC frequency. It's a discussion forum for Reporting Points that may affect jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots. It is also seen as a reliable place to find signposts to credible aviation news.

Oftentimes, if not always, the pilots themselves can't report so others kick off new threads.

Seven posts back I made a closing comment. An over and out. Then Martin 123 brought some useful background to the fore which put a new slant on what happened Monday lunchtime 6 February 2017.

Brave lad. Plenty of others had been reading the thread and thinking about it, but not commenting. I dared to comment what I was thinking. I have nothing to lose. I no longer make a living from aviation. I can't seriously claim to be an expert in anything anymore. I do however rely a lot on commercial aviation in Europe, and I do claim to still have half a brain.

I've learned about flying and about safety risk from many experiences - both aviation sharp end, and in other professional arenas - many which Del Prado won't have shared, but some that he will have with rolled or even concerned eyes from the other end of his scope. Hell yes, surprise! I've even been a flow control problem!

We're all human of one disposition or another, which means imperfect results and unintended consequences. Some like DP may see themselves as well functioning machines and the obvious choice for the job, and for deciding the job. Fair enough - his choice. We are allowed to differ.

I congratulate Simon on creating Aviation Herald whose prominence and credibility I'd missed until recently, and on and Simon's own attempts at steering a clear course through obstacles and detritus. It's a neat business he's created. I shall visit that site more often now.

I also like Dave Reid's usually cool take on all matters.

As for me, I am sufficiently self aware to know I don't have that many fans on a good day. So I can take the same hint I did yesterday before Martin commented - we are being urged to trust and hope. But like Simon, Dave and Martin, I'll make up my own mind from my own seat, thanks, and hell, I might even comment again another day and accept the moderator's judgement as to whether it is useful to let it stand on PPRuNe, or not.

For now though, business as usual, keep up the good work, tidy up the bad, trust and hope, and all that ...

Last edited by slip and turn; 17th Feb 2017 at 17:55. Reason: Not forgetting Martin who makes up his own mind too!
slip and turn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Feb 2017, 19:59   #28 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: The MEL page
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austrian Simon View Post
I have further confirmed, that the audio has been manipulated/faked. The sounds of the autopilot disconnect wailer as well as the "Traffic! Traffic!" advisory are not present on any other recordings that became available to me in the meantime, including (but not only) LiveATC.

According to information I have received from Ireland during our research the thread initiator here (as well as on boards.ie) and the video author most likely are the same person (and I have more information about that person, which however would be inappropriate to be mentioned here).



Just so I have this right, the anorak who made the youtube video maliciously edited TCAS sounds into it to make the incident appear more dramatic?

Last edited by tech log; 17th Feb 2017 at 20:10.
tech log is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Feb 2017, 20:06   #29 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 1,009
If that's true I'm assuming said anorak could be subject to being sued by any of the IAA, Aer Lingus or Ryanair?
Una Due Tfc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Feb 2017, 20:21   #30 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: The MEL page
Posts: 72
I'm not making any accusations here and am solely interpreting the content of Simon's post and other posts on PPRuNe.


Simon is of the opinion the video was maliciously edited.

Simon believes the OP of this thread and the video author may be the same person

The OP has previously posted on PPRuNe linking to other videos by the same youtube channel author

The OP's post history on PPRuNe indicates he claims to be ATC




@ShannonACC I think you'd be well served to reappear on here and explain yourself a little bit, Eamonn.
tech log is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Feb 2017, 20:41   #31 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: The MEL page
Posts: 72
I've just read the AVH report.

Quote:
On the audio referenced by our competition there were background sounds during the transmissions of EI-433, one being an autopilot disconnect wailer, on the next transmission a "Traffic! Traffic!" TCAS Traffic Advisory. In cross checking the recordings we found the actual communication between ATC and the aircraft, as recorded by that video, confirmed, however, none of the background sounds was available in any of the recordings we got hold of (including those of LiveATC), neither the autopilot disconnect wailer nor the Traffic Advisory were present in any other recording. It is interesting to note, that by Feb 14th 2017 the "Traffic! Traffic!" sounds and transcript were removed from the video referenced by our competitor.
Quote:
It may perhaps help to understand the motivation of the video author: On Feb 12th 2017, after first analysis of the radar data, we posted a comment under the video stating the facts as revealed by the Mode-S data. As immediate reaction the video author disabled the comments under his video, thus also removing our comment from public view (the comments were re-enabled by Feb 14th). A short time later on Feb 12th ads were activated on the video obviously to monetarize the video.

Update Feb 14th 22:09Z: Following the release of our coverage the video author has removed the video.
There are some knuckles to be rapped I think.
tech log is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th Feb 2017, 08:01   #32 (permalink)
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 66
Posts: 2,215
Looks like "Fake news" has reached PPRuNe . May that serves a reminder to all those here who " jump" at the first report on Internet , and worse: start apportion blame based on what they read. .
ATC Watcher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 18th Feb 2017, 09:24   #33 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 6,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher View Post
Looks like "Fake news" has reached PPRuNe . May that serves a reminder to all those here who "jump" at the first report on Internet, and worse: start apportion blame based on what they read.
When quoting information from any third-party source, it's best to keep one's critical faculties intact and exercise a bit of common sense.

Every normally reliable sources such as Avherald don't always get it right - for example their report on the Go2Sky B738 at Kristiansand cites a mythical RTO, based on dodgy "data" showing that the aircraft was in the fjord(!) when it started its takeoff run (as pointed out by a fellow PPRuNer at the time).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
I'm not sure I see the initial 230 meter takeoff roll to a stop in this dataset, there is a spurious position at 1936Z that plots in the water by the approach lights.
DaveReidUK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Feb 2017, 17:54   #34 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
Posts: 7
On Feb 18 tech log quoted Simon's AVH update to the "non-incident":
"Update Feb 14th 22:09Z: Following the release of our coverage the video author has removed the video."

Ah not so much - once Send is pressed to post to any social media channel it can be hard to erase tracks. For example, a very new YouTube account has published what I assume to be a copy of the OP's original YouTube video at https://youtu.be/NxUq7RWBafc. Click “More” to see the pure alarmist blurb that’s word for word from the Mirror.

And the Mirror (which itself copied the story from the Irish Mirror) has used the OP’s original audio - including the so-called fake AP disconnect alert and (very faint) “traffic traffic” advisory, and they’ve added RT transcripts - which is rather helpful for the non-Irish! Listen to dramatic moment two planes just avoid a mid-air collision right above airport - Mirror Online
SLFstu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Feb 2017, 21:47   #35 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 6,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLFstu View Post
And the Mirror (which itself copied the story from the Irish Mirror) has used the OP’s original audio - including the so-called fake AP disconnect alert and (very faint) “traffic traffic” advisory, and they’ve added RT transcripts - which is rather helpful for the non-Irish! Listen to dramatic moment two planes just avoid a mid-air collision right above airport - Mirror Online
Clearly it's a media competition to see how many alternative facts can be crammed into a single article.

And it's a creditable effort:

Leaving aside the fact that there was no "narrowly avoided mid-air collision", and that the non-event wasn't "right above the airport", we've got a faked ATC tape, misidentified flight, misquoted separation rules and, somewhat strangely, a purported quote from Ryanair to the effect that one of the aircraft involved performed a GA at Dublin (which has no relevance and isn't actually true anyway).
DaveReidUK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Feb 2017, 23:00   #36 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 619
We've also got a lot of (possibly Extended Squitter?) data at ADSBexchange.com published as "unfiltered" for those who know what it might mean. I've spent a couple of hours looking at it this last evening and there are lots of raw plots seemingly reporting exactly 1000' separation during the descents at the relevant times which I think were around the couple of minutes 1311-1313Z on the day? What I can't quite understand is the exclusive use of ˝ flight levels in a large part of every ADS-B data record or collection of "squits". Someone will know what that is.
slip and turn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 17:39.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1