Qantas, Air NZ jets in near miss

[DJ737]

From news.com.au

"A QANTAS Boeing 747 and a similar Air New Zealand jet were involved in a near miss over Auckland International Airport on the weekend, New Zealand's Transport Accident Investigation Commission (TAIC) said today.

The two jets were unacceptably close and infringed the required separation between aircraft, TAIC said in a statement.
Qantas flight QF43 was said to be on an instrument approach to the airport when air traffic controllers noticed an unidentified aircraft tracking towards its approach path.

Controllers told the Qantas cockpit crew to abort the approach, turn right and climb to 3,000 feet.

At that time, Air New Zealand flight NZ124 was following on an instrument approach to the same runway, and had been cleared to descend to an altitude of 4,000 feet.

As the Qantas jet climbed away, its crew received a ground proximity warning and, in response, initiated a pull-up to 5,000 feet.

The pull-up occurred about one to one-and-a-half nautical miles from NZ124, which was then descending through 4,500 feet.

TAIC said it was investigating the incident."

The way this reads is that ATC instructed a climb into conflicting traffic. :rolleyes:

Anyone know the real story?


DJ737

The Roo Rooter :E :ok:

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Whatever happened, I bet it little resembles that particular article.

[Cloud Cutter]

The way this reads is that ATC instructed a climb into conflicting traffic.
:confused: Maybe you're reading it upside down??? The clearance limit is reported as 3000 ft (probibly due to the other jet which was cleared to 4000), further climb was reportedly initiated due to a GPWS warning. I don't know how they could be within 1.5 miles of each other if on the same approach though unless a tight 180 degree turn was made. Of course the GPWS warning sounds a bit curious in this context, TCAS climb would be more fitting.

[ferris]

Just from reading the article, it looks like ANZ on downwind, about to be turned onto the ILS. Qf, on the ILS, gets told to turn away from the unidentified conflict and climb to 3000' under the ANZ descending 4000' on the downwind. Qf gets the GPW and climbs to 5000' (company SOP?). Sound reasonable?

Raises a lot of questions. Hierarchy of instructions, authority etc. eg. If the hierarchy is GPW, TCAS, ATC, visual/avoid having a prang, this would be a perfect example of common sense being removed from the equation and the domination of following set procedures to the detriment of safety. ie trying to write checklists for every possible situation.

[Dr. Red]

This was on the late news on TV1 tonight. I might have misunderstood, but they made it sound like the jets passed within 500 feet of each other. Not likely.

Also, why would you get a GPWS warning while over 3000 feet and climbing? No high ground in the area??

[Borneo Wild Man]

ILS 05 per chance???

[Keg]

I never knew that 'climb, crossing climb' was considered a GPWS!! :eek:

[splatgothebugs]

Wont be on the ILS chaps, the runway works are going on and therefore you only have the LLZ for 05L or 23R (green pages).

Sounds a little messy but I guess we will have to wait and see the report.

splat:ok:

[Cloud Cutter]

why would you get a GPWS warning while over 3000 feet and climbing?
:confused: They were climbing TO 3000 feet, they may have been at 10 feet when they got the warning, it doesn't say.

What ever was going on, noone was flying an ILS as there is no such approach available.

I agree with ferris, this does raise questions about following standard proceedures when there seem to be strong contra-indications. There is absolutely no terrain above 1000 feet when turning right off either final and this should be painfully obviouse to the crew. Also under radar vectors, you would expect protection. On the flip side, there have been numerous major accidents caused by hessitation in following GPWS warnings for these very reasons. I guess the ground is much bigger and easier to hit than another aircraft.

Of course we won't know the full detail for a while, and I will be interested to see if anything else comes out - it doesn't quite add up yet.

[zulu_kilo]

Two Boeing 747s carrying hundreds of passengers came unacceptably close to each other in airspace above Auckland, accident investigators said yesterday.

The Transport Accident Investigation Commission said a Qantas jet came within two to three kilometres of an Air New Zealand aircraft shortly after 5pm on Saturday, infringing the required separation space.

But commission spokesman John Mockett said the two jets were not in any particular danger.

"The Qantas aircraft went up about a mile and a half [2.4km] behind the Air New Zealand aircraft. There was no danger of collision, but you’re supposed to have a three-mile [4.8km] separation."

He said all parties involved seemed to have acted appropriately, but the separation distance was infringed and an investigation is required.

A commission statement said Flight QF43, from Sydney, was coming in to Auckland Airport when air traffic control told it to abort its landing approach because a light aircraft was heading towards its path.

It turned towards the central city. As it manoeuvred, a ground proximity warning forced the crew to start climbing to 1500m.

In doing so, QF43 came within two to three kilometres of Flight NZ124 from Melbourne, which was descending through 1370m.

Mr Mockett said the planes were not damaged.

Air New Zealand chief pilot Captain David Morgan said the airline’s role was not being investigated.

"We are an involved party, but it’s a Qantas incident.

"The Qantas aircraft moved through our aircraft’s altitude space."

Captain Morgan said 281 passengers and 15 crew were on board Flight NZ124.

Mr Mockett said the Air New Zealand aircraft was an unaffected third party. He said further investigations would continue.

"We don’t even know yet what may have caused the ground proximity warning to go off."

The report would be finished in October at the earliest.

[VH-Cheer Up]

Has the correct identification of GPWS versus TCAS alert been made here?

Seems far more likely a TCAS alert would have sounded.

Anyone got the facts?

[Cloud Cutter]

We don’t even know yet what may have caused the ground proximity warning to go off
Straight from the TAIC, think that about clears it up.

[VH-Cheer Up]

Straight from the TAIC, think that about clears it up.

Not really Cloud Cutter, I reads like he was probably just responding to a journo question based on the previous and probably wrong report.

Sounds much more like a TCAS alarm would have been sounded than GPW; given GPW doesn't usually go off on a well-flown final, and I can't imagine the crew of the QF34 doing anything other than best practice.

I don't think the TAIC spokesman was on the flight deck during this incident, just wondered if anyone has spoken with the crew that was flying and might have some facts?

Thanks anyway...

VHCU

[Three Bars]

By way of some information on SOPs (to stop some of the misinformation on this thread so far):

1) TCAS and GPWS warnings take priority over ATC considerations - remember that the Russian airliner involved in the DHL midair followed ATC instructions instead of TCAS.

2) GPWS warnings are to be followed in all instances except when in day VMC - in this instance (only) a GPWS warning does not need to be followed if a visual terrain assessment confirms that there is no danger to the aircraft.

[Borneo Wild Man]

A left turn off 05(due traffic on your right ie downwind RH 05)could give you a nice little GPWS over the Waitakeries.There has been more than one incident of A/C recieving GPWS warninings while being radar vectored left base for a short app to 05.

[Mr McGoo]

If you are doing an approach to a runway that is not in the GPWS data base (05L/23R ?) and Terrain Overide is not engaged (QF43 ?) then GPWS will activate regardless of the terrain (as it thinks you are going to land in a paddock).

[Three Bars]

McGoo,

That used to be the case when this temporary runway was first used for operations with EGPWS, but the databases were amended long ago and this should no longer be a factor.

What seems to be getting little airplay is the "unidentified light aircraft". As I recall, during green chart operations, the Auckland Terminal area is supposed to be closed to GA operations.

Who was the "unidentified" light aircraft? I hope he gets the rocket he deserves.

[flyby_kiwi]

Ive only seen the herald extract but which includes.....

air traffic control told it to abort its landing approach because a light aircraft was heading towards its path.

Three bars, close... GA types are still going in - its itinerant VFR's that are being kept away.
So I guess that leaves the question as to what the lighty was doing (and of course wheather he was at fault). An IFR lighty on the visual approach, Auckland based VFR operator?

Wasnt me anyway :}

[Otto2]

Three Bars, a point of order, my reading of the NNM is that if you brief of an expected GPWS warning in day VMC and it occurs it may be disregarded.
To encounter a warning and then justify it is not what it says.
Maybe your operator is providing guidance contrary to Boeings?

[Sqwark2000]

Is it QANTAS's SOP's to make a mandatory climb to 5000' from a GPWS warning?

If the ATC instruction was to commence a missed approach due traffic and climb to 3000', why when a GPWS warning follows closey behind, does the crew think 3000' under radar control is not safe enough for us we are going to climb to 5000'?

The decision to climb to 5000' is the major contributing factor here.

RWY 23R must have been in use. Two jets from Oz arriving in AA would not cross paths with each other on RWY 05L as it is a straight in approach from the Tasman Sea. My understanding is the Air NZ jet was right hand downwind for RWY 23R (over the city sector) descending to 4000' when the QANTAS jet passed 1.5Nm behind on it's way to 5000'.

S2K

[Three Bars]

Otto:

Verbatim, the note in the FCOM says, "If positive visual verification is made that no obstacle or terrain hazard exists when flying under daylight VMC conditions prior to an obstacle or terrain warning, the alert may be regarded as cautionary and the approach may be continued."

Therefore the relevant points are:

1) It is not necessary to "brief" the possibility of a GPWS warning to continue the approach - the pilot only needs to have assessed (in day VMC conditions) that there is no threatening terrain in the vicinity of the approach path.

2) In all other scenarios (night and/or IMC), any GPWS warning must be followed - even if familiar with the local area.

WRT the level-off altitude following a GPWS warning, the recovery actions state:

"Monitor radio altimeter for sustained or increasing terrain separation."
"When clear of terrain, slowly (my bolding) decrease pitch attitude and accelerate."

Remember that when the GPWS warning profile is flown, the aircraft will be at a very high pitch attitude with maximum thrust set. Even if initiated very early, a level-off that would not cause a very uncomfortable bunt would use a considerable ammount of airspace.

There is no "upper limit" to a GPWS recovery manoeuvre. While the highest MSA at Auckland is 3400 feet, even if the pilot initiated the recovery at this altitude it is likely that a much higher altitude would have resulted following the level-off (for the reasons already given). Our Limitations manual tells us that: "Pilots are authorised to deviate from their current ATC clearance to the extent necessary to comply with an EGPWS warning." Therefore, if a GPWS warning was received, it would supercede any previous ATC altitude instruction.

Further guidance from the manuals is that GPWS warnings take precedence over TCAS advisories.

[blueloo]

Three Bars, note the word PRIOR

when flying under daylight VMC conditions prior to an obstacle or terrain warning


You must have verification PRIOR to the warning. How do you know what has set it off. I was once told of United airlines Jumbo flying underneath a QF jumbo in IMC (prior to TCAS). The UA jumbo did not maintain its altitude and came close to the underside of the QF one at 20000 odd feet setting the QFs GPWS off.

Now admittely its an unlikely scenario that a light a/c or some other object other than terrain would do this, but imagine you have just set up for approach, then told to Go around, mid go around you get a GPWS - which I dont think you could be expecting, nor with the high nose attitude can you see underneath you...... Would not the most conservative course of action be to carry out the GPWS maneouvre - especially seeing the emphasis being placed on it in QF training at the moment?


Anyway its all speculation, does anyone actually know the facts?

[Three Bars]

Bluey,

I think you've missed the point of my posts.

I'm not trying to say anything about what happened in this incident. As usual, there is a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here with a lot of misinformation spread about. For the benefit of other posters on this thread, I'm just trying to explain some of the heirarchy of requirements as they would have pertained to the QF crew.

Namely:

1) If a go-round instruction is received, it is flown.
2) If a GPWS is received (other than in day VMC) it must be flown.
3) The GPWS takes prioirity over ATC instructions.
4) A GPWS warning takes priority over a TCAS advisory (I don't even know if this was a factor in this case).
5) A GPWS recovery level-off will use quite a bit of airspace and probably exceeded the previous ATC clearance limit.

I have not made any judgements over what the crew did or did not do - I'm just trying to explain the decision-making process in such a situation. I'll wait to read the report with interest.

[Otto2]

3 Bars,
I dont think I am missing the point of your posts, you are missing the point of mine.
PROIR means exactly that.
Where CFIT accounts for a significant number of accidents GPWS alerts are not to be questioned.


"Airmanship is like common sense, you've either got it or you haven't."

[Three Bars]

Otto and Bluey,

Where have I ever said that they should not have followed the GPWS in this situation??????????????

In fact, I was explaining that in QF, GPWS warnings must be followed with only one exception - daylight VMC with prior assessment of visual terrain clearance.

I have reread my posts carefully to try and work out where there could be a misundertsanding and the best I can find is my quote:

2) GPWS warnings are to be followed in all instances except when in day VMC - in this instance (only) a GPWS warning does not need to be followed if a visual terrain assessment confirms that there is no danger to the aircraft.

In the above "in this instance (only)" means "except when in day VMC" not in the instance of the incident at Auckland.

Hope this clarifies things. We are arguing the same point here!!

[Life as a journey]

Blinkin' heck, I hope you blokes don't actually work for Qantas.

[TinPusher]

QFA had just turned onto the 23 LLZ at 3000'. AA TWR had a VFR 'lost' over the city and heading towards final approach. QFA was maintained at 3000' and taken off the approach to the west to keep clear of the 'lost' VFR. The pilot reacted to a GPWS warning (still at 3000') and commenced a climb into the ANZ flight (at 4000') righthand downwind. TCAS then gave an RA requiring a left turn to pass behind ANZ. The reason for the GWPS remains a mystery that hopefully the investigation will resolve. Not a particularly nice experience for all involved.
TP

[ferris]

TCAS then gave an RA requiring a left turn to pass behind ANZ What?

[RaTa]

TinPusher

TCAS does NOT give directions in other than the vertical plane.

[TinPusher]

Whatever... QFA however had to take avoiding action that involved a left turn to 'miss' ANZ. According to your comments it can't have been due to a TCAS RA, visual sighting perhaps or due to cues provided by TCAS (TA?)... What I do know is that they missed by not very much at all!!:ooh:
The thing that concerns me most was that at 3000' QFA was above the minimum radar vectoring altitude and yet received a GPWS alert. The highest terrain in his vicinity was the top of Rangitoto Island (800' or there abouts) and as I work on this sector at present I will have to modify the way I operate!
As a footnote, I know that at Wellington the MRVA is also 3000' but rarely do they descend traffic below 4000' in IMC (especially jets) over terrain because they have been caught out there in the past with GPWS alerts.
TP

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

False GPWS alerts are not unknown. Unless you are day/VMC however, you follow them first and ask questions later.

Sounds like this guy may have been in the invidious position of having the GPWS telling him to climb and the TCAS telling him to descend... all while IMC. Not good...:uhoh:

[OhForSure]

Borg: Exactly what I was thinking. Any QF drivers care to explain SOP for such a situation? Two warnings at once advising differing maneuvers?

[RaTa]

OhForShure

There is no SOP, it is one of those situations where you have to work out what is most lilely to be the worst case and do the procedure for that.

For me I would follow a GPWS over a TCAS any time.

[AerocatS2A]

Makes sense. If you descend against a GPWS you WILL eventually hit an obsticle. If you climb against an RA you MIGHT hit an aeroplane. I know which option I'd go for.

[Borneo Wild Man]

Ah yes girls,and thats why we brief MSAs
Anybody like to remind me what the AA 25NM MSA is?

[Skycon]

Talking to ATC they said press got it wrong and it was 2 x b767.

QFA on 23R LLZ/DME and ANZ downwind r/h . Light a/c tracks across zone, QFA sent round right turn climb to 3000ft.

GPWS warning sounded QFA advises climbing to 5000ft.

weather scattered shrs in area but okay.

Light a/c flown by off duty b767 pilot (rumour - unconfirmed but very strong)

25nm MSA R180 west to R360 2800
R360 east to R180 3400

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

The QF aeroplane was a 747.

[Skycon]

corr to earlier

yep 2 x b747

[Plas Teek]

And may one suggest that the light A/C didn't have its Xpdr on....hence the "lost" term earlier.

[WhiteRat Wannabe]

The aircraft was at 3000', skirting some wx and in cloud and rain. GPWS went off, and although there's only 400' to MSA, you MUST follow the procedure, and once you've got GA thrust set and 20 deg nose up, you ain't gonna stop it in 400'! If you did you'd be peeling people off the roof! There's no exception where you can trickle the thrust on and climb to MSA! Besides, if the GPWS is going off you can't trust your altimeters!

ATC advised QF of conflict and they turned, they could see the NZ aircraft on their TCAS, and it turned from blue to red, but they never got a RA. The climb wasn't intended to 5000', but once the appropriate procedure was followed that was what they had.

It looks like a spurious GPWS at this stage, possibly due to the rain.