Near miss over Hungary?

[Very_Low_and_Fast]

Anybody heard of a near miss over Hungary last Saturday involving Air France A340 and JAT B737?
They missed by few hundred feet and were on FL340.
It was reported by Hungarokontrol today.

[Alpha Leader]

Another instance of wildly diverging accounts of the same incident.

Hungarocontrol claim that the distance between a JAT aircraft and an Air France aircraft was 500 m (no details as to whether this was vertical or horizontal), whereas the Hungarion ATC union - who alerted the press - claims there was a distance of only 60 m at around 31,000 ft.

[Pointer]

well can't comment on said (near-)misshapp but the other day i was over HGR and had to descent thousand :confused: to let passing traffic (R to L) same level pass, and then back up again;where as a simple vector would have been sufficient :* ; was not happy with this lazy :mad: controller :mad: , and i made sure he knew i wasn't (still being my pollite self, but with a bite) :E

Pointer :E

[Avman]

Pointer, you make some provocative unqualified assumptions in your post. Please understand that, for a variety of reasons, vectors are NOT always possible. Believe me, you on the flightdeck, only get to hear and see a very small part of the total picture.

[Daysleeper]

with this lazy controller

Yeah , cos rolling the alt select down ten clicks then pressing a button, then back up ten clicks and pressing another button, thats like real work.:yuk:

[fmgc]

I have to say I received a requestet to descend and then climb again somewhere down that way recently.

I can't recall having received such a request in any other airspace and it would seem to be an unusual way to manage enroute seperation.

It is not a particularly efficient way to fly an aeroplane.

IF, and I emphasize the IF, there is an ATC unit that is using this tactic instead of using radar vectors then I hope that they stop it soon.

[Avman]

fmgc, I refer to my post a few moments ago!

Granted, it may seem a little unusual, but there may well be a very good reason which you are not aware of.

[fmgc]

Hence my emphasis of the IF!!

[5milesbaby]

fmgc, your IF was about any ATC unit that uses descent as a tactic to avoid a midair collision rather than vectors. EVERY ATC unit will have to use this tactic occasionally as avman refers. It is a last resort to alter levels but sometimes it has to be done, and something I know happens EVERY DAY in the London FIR en-route, you just will not realise all the time that its happenning.

[fmgc]

Yes, but this is different, it is very rare to get asked to descend 1000' and then 10 mins later get asked to climb back up 1000'.

I am sure that in the London FIR you may get asked to descend and then stay there. I have never known London to ask me to descnd and then climb again (I am sure that it might happen, but I am also sure that it is rare).

I know what my IF was about as I wrote it, it was about maintaining separation, not avoiding mid air collision. I suggest that you re-read my post.

[Avman]

I re read your post and despite the "IF" you "hope they stop it soon". To me that indicates that you believe that this is some sort of deliberate act undertaken to pi$$ crews off. I very much doubt it. They may well have (temporary?) airspace restrictions (for military reasons perhaps) which prevents them from using the option to give vectors in the specific area concerned. If one of the two conflicting a/c (there could be more) are near to destination, then that one will go down 1000 or 2000 feet and stay there. If, however, both are in the middle of a long sector, it will be a case of doing a yo-yo.

[Lon More]

IF, and I emphasize the IF, there is an ATC unit that is using this tactic instead of using radar vectors then I hope that they stop it soon.
It might p!ss you off, but would you really like the last sound you ever hear to be a really loud bang?
TCAS notwithstanding, you do not have the whole picture, you are not alone in the sky and there are many reasons why a vector can not always be given Visit a Centre sometime and see for yourself.

[fmgc]

Right this i going to be my last posting on this issue as I am fed up.

IF THEY ARE USING DESCENTS INSTEAD OF RADAR VECTORS TO MAINTAIN SEPERATION. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT LOUD BANGS WHEN METAL COLLIDES, I AM USING IF AS YOU ARE RIGHT I DO NOT HAVE THE WHOLE PICTURE

If I had said that I thought that they were doing it on purpose to p1ss me off, or had I said that I thought that they were doing it for being lazy then I would understand your bereating my comments BUT IAM NOT, I said IF IF IF not WERE WERE WERE!!

[5milesbaby]

I suggest YOU reread ALL of our posts and UNDERSTAND that there are occasions where vectors CANNOT be used so the yo-yo descent/climb WILL happen. End of. IF you don't like it, TOUGH LUCK, it can be the ONLY safe way to resolve a LOUD BANG, the alternative is always going into the open FIR and trying to find a unit that can give you a RAS :E

You are right, it does happen in the London FIR, and it is rare.

Maintaining separation and avoiding a midair collision to a controller means EXACTLY the same.

[wingman863]

When on a flight from Budapest to LGW on the 17th of August, our aircraft came, what seemed to be very close to a citation jet while climbing to the cruise. As a passenger on this flight, I was a little bit unnerved by it. Whether or not it was "too" close I don't know but having flown all around europe and the UK as a passenger, I have never seen my trusty steed come this close to another aircraft. On the outbound leg of the same trip, a few minutes before the initial decent, we also had a Lufthansa A340 go very close over our heads.

Each of the encounters were strange but having 2 in the one trip was exceptionally odd in my eyes.

[Clarence Oveur]

I would suggest that you ATC chaps UNDERSTAND the we are user of the area in question, and therefore have EXPERIENCE of how ATC chooses to provide separation. Compared to the rest of Europe the descent/climb technique is used uncommonly often by Hungarian ATC. And it is both during the day and the night. It also appears to have little to do with the levels of traffic, as it happens even at 3AM with hardly anybody on the frequency.

[Avman]

WINGMAN 863

I do quite a bit of flying myself and I have often seen other a/c in close proximity. Be aware that 1000 feet vertical seperation doesn't look like much to the naked eye. I remember flying in a Gulfstream 1 with a BA B747 going by 1000 below in a turn. If, like you, I hadn't known better, I would have been screaming AIRMISS. It wasn't!

CLARENCE OVEUR

You have in fact NO experience in ATC procedures from a controller's perspective, and what constraints Hungarian ATC may be working with at present. You are making assumptions without factual substance, the very thing you pilot chaps detest about non-pilots telling you how to fly your aeroplanes.

[Clarence Oveur]

If you would stop being so defensive for a minute, you would notice that I am not making any assumptions at all.

I am saying that we have experience in HOW ATC provides separation, not WHY they do it in the way they do. That is a fact.
I have experienced the descent/climb method of separation uncommonly often in Hungarian airspace compared to the rest of Europe. That is a fact.

Now, perhaps you could be constructive, and enlighten us all by giving us some examples of why it would be necessary with this descent/climb method, even in the middle of the night.

[Avman]

Now, perhaps you could be constructive, and enlighten us all by giving us some examples of why it would be necessary with this descent/climb method, even in the middle of the night.

I already have. I am confident that if you're not given vectors there has to be a valid reason other than a controller simply not wanting to give a vector. Controllers love vectoring, it's the fun part of the job :} . The reason may have nothing to do with traffic density but with some sort of airspace restriction which could also be valid at night. Oh, and you guys never get defensive about your job? ;)

[factoryfatty]

Don't worry it's probably just road works like on the M6 or some other motorway!

[ATCO1962]

You'll get the up/down treatment in our airspace as well, sometimes, as the crossing angle between two tracks is minimal and a vector would add so many track miles that it's a toss-up as to what's more economical... a 1,000ft change for 3 or 4 minutes or a hard turn followed by a lot of extra flying miles. In the event of a large crossing angle; no thought required, a vector every time (almost!!)

Happy flying:O

[Avman]

Good call and a very valid point ATCO 1962 . I think you've hit the nail on the head. Looking at SOGMO in Hungary three major routes cross at narrow angles. Two a/c converging on these narrow crx tracks at the same time and speed could never be effectively vectored (unless speed restrictions were given many hundreds of miles in advance, which is totally impractical).

[FlyVMO]

Thank you for the last two posts.
These are explanations that mean something to us, much better than just saying there is "a valid reason".

Visit a Centre sometime and see for yourself.

This used to be encouraged here in the states, but is no longer very practical since 9/11. What is the policy in Europe as far as pilots visiting an ARTCC?

FlyVMO

[Grunf]

Hello everybody.

The problem with Hungarocontrol I think lies somwhere else. IThey have internal governance issues and this "rpoblem" might have been non-existant, even.

Let's say that this things happen very often, especially on busy corridors above Hungary, and more to the south.


One of my experiences was an urgen need for the same yo-yo move above Serbia for a VIP flight going through...

Apparently BEG ATC decided that a UN plane is very important not to change its FL?!


As long as TCAS exists to help...and hopefully all the old, military trained, TAC staff (in that part of Europe) are retired...

[songbird29]

What started as a query about a possible nearmiss has turned somewhat emotional getting into the pro's and cons of how to provide separation (or if one prefers: prevent a collision) between two a/c at the same level.

The pilot's preference is clear and undisputed: lateral.

Yet there are reasons why this optimum service cannot always be given and a controller will have to resort to resolving the potential conflict vertically:
- airspace restrictions such as active military areas inhibiting manoeuvring to the right and/or left as explained above by Avman;
- the minimal crossing angle between two tracks as explained by ATCO1962;
- workload, because headings mean continuous active workload while level change allows better to concentrate on other problems and tasks. In a situation with many conflict situations, or with a high proportion of co-ordination to be done, it may be the better strategic option, however awkward it is for one unlucky individual pilot.

Some of the posts infer that Hungarian and by extension Eastern European ATC would be inferior to 'our' Western European practices. Those who hold these colonialist views are mistaken.

In Western Europe conflicts are equally resolved vertically. Avman and fivemilesbaby have said this already. The only difference is that in Western Europe, due to the high amount of climbing and descending, it is not necessary to reclear the a/c back to the original flightlevel. Many a/c in West-European airspace have to commence descend or continue their climb anyway and the controller will pick these aircraft for getting out of the way of the other one. Step climb or step descend is another word for this. But in Hungary most aircraft at high altitude want to remain their level for a long, long time, so it is impossible for the controller to conceal that the vertical conflict resolution has been applied.

Yo-yo moves may be awful, but especially on busy corridors with long-haul level flights there may be no other way to prevent TCAS from getting off too frequently as the last resort.

[Grunf]

Songbird,
Thanks for a good answer. By the way I am biased since I am from Eastern Europe and have extensive experience with flying in that "sky".

ATC staff over there and especially in former Warsaw pact countries (including former Yugoslavia) are mostly military trained/oriented. Hungarocontrol had problems before and it turns out that the person who initially informed media about the near miss is a head of ATC staff Union who, by the way, was fired from Hungarocontrol 2 years ago.

Hence the comment. There is nothing colonialist in that especially when i think that ATC people are the same all around the globe as well as anybody flying or supporting flight ops from the ground.

We all do want to keep things as smooth as possible and perform professionally.

[Tallbloke]

And returning to the thread (anyone remember that), I personally am wondering what happened last Saturday.

[airvlad]

Grunf,
if you are from one of the former Eastern Bloc countries, I presume you should know Yugoslavia was not part of Warsaw Pact.
To extend your knowledge, ATCOs in former Yugoslavia had civilian training at least for last 30 years (that I know of).
Your profile doesn't point that you would have a lot of hands on experience in ATCO - pilot communication.
Pease don't take this personally, just a casual observation.
Belgrade newspaper quotes JAT P.R. saying that JAT B733 and Air France A343 were as close as 500m and flying in opposite directions. JAT pilots heard the Air France being cleared to their FL.
They visually spoted the Airbus and moments later received TCAS RA, that they followed.
As in any press I guess at least half of this is true.
Hopefully the incident will be followed through, this shouldn't be happening in the middle of Europe (again).
airvlad

[Grunf]

Airvlad,

Good point. I do not have the experience of Flight deck to ATC communication.

Since I am also form former YU I am aware of situation in ATC over there. I sincerely hope that Hungarian airspace is organized and lead by people with more "civilian" then "military" experience/background since rule and regulations at that old time (before 1989) was really different.

In general, media are sending their own signals when there's nothing else to write about.
I also follow the same media as you and in my opinion media representatives from JAT are under a lot of pressure because of other reasons then this incident which is just another menacing thing for them.

Spinnig and counter spinning, I guess. It is worth noticing that Air France and French media authorities are numb on this "incident". Considering what happened on YYZ not so long ago with similar a/c one would expect media to be all over this.

[Pointer]

Well looks like i stirred a hornets nest??

Please read carefully, atco's! ; In most responses you give comment and considerations as if i/or the other pilots for that matter, am/are a student pilot (no offence, student pilots can be very capable;just in case you get offended as well) for the first time on a Long X/C. i am flying a metal tube through the air of make and model quite recent. Now i am not incinnuating anything.. but if you guy's/gal's are as daft as you give me credit... i hope not!

Yes if gave a reply but with all the info available, and indeed with the knowledge of possibility of "not seeing the big picture" (wich if i don't see; ask for).

It is our duty, as PIC's to execute a safe and economicaly sound flight; therefore questioning the odd descicion by whom ever comes with it, in this case the HGR controler. Now i know there could be other reasons but if i ask a vallid question and the the ATCO comes back with "crossing traffic" and on my TCAS (in middle of night with hardly any talk on sector) i see one Yes ONE! plane as far as my TCAS go's.... i am having a hard time seeing the validity of that maneuvre. seems the traffic i saw was the affecting one, so i follow it all the way and indeed he crosses (more than 10NM) and we get a climb again.

What's the first lesson in ATCO class? "pilots are stupid and don't ever see the whole picture!"? come on guy's give us a little more credit than that!

And yes i have never ever had this kind of descent/climb combo in my mid-size careerlength period. Maybe this is not so uncommen in other parts of the world but in Europe... nahh not seen it before. and the fact that someone else had it over the same spot...?

Pointer :E

[ZRH]

There are many lazy ATCOs around. I see it every day. Rather climb/descend than do the heading trick. This depends very often on individual ATCO mentality and more often than not on the individual's age. The older chaps are not keen on giving headings just as much as the lazy guy is not keen on using headings. Of course airspace restrictions play a major part too and so do the flights involved. If one of the flights has to descend because of his destination, then you will hear the excuse " ahh well, he has to descend anyway" even if its only in 100 nm or so.

I prefer the headings where I can, purily as a service to the flying customer.

[Pointer]

ZRH just to clarify; i am not talking in general about the ATCO's being lazy; i don't have any knowledge on that. but i think as a ATCO you should have very pressing matters to have an A/C (just after it stepclimbed) descent and than climb back just to keep your separation in tact? I have had very... very early descents; wich i don't accept without a word with the controller... i try to rub off on my copilots that they should think before accepting ANY clearance and reading it back.

I did have some words with french ATCO's on two different occasions, one turned out well. i received a clearance to reduce to 160 (at around 26 nm) which my copilot read back and i asked my co to look at the distance and how we would achieve this speed? (not thinking of the 90deg intercept he gave us) so i asked if ATC if they realy wanted this speed? so we did as we where told, but i told the tower to relay the message to the controller that we did not agree to the vector and speed!

To my supprise; once on ground freq. we where told that the involved controller appologised for the poor planning and speed. Now that was a proffesional guy; admitting he could have done better when he realised it was a bit of a cockup!

So... to get back to the thread... not seen a A340 upclose in that airspace... sorry :-)

Pointer :E

[ATCO1962]

You can't do much about controllers who are lazy/incompetent but there are a multitude of reasons why a competent and keen controller would drop or climb an aircraft to ensure separation.

Even though the frequency may seem quiet and TCAS isn't showing much except the traffic that appears to be the one in conflict with yourself, please don't second guess the ATCO. He/she may be extremely busy managing 10 different tasks that you know nothing about and may, validly, choose the level separation option as the one that will ultimately be the safest one.

You can often tell if it's laziness or whatever just by listening to the voice and snarliness. If it's not busy, I don't mind the odd friendly question about why a certain action was taken. I ask questions of pilots on the frequency often to fill in gaps in my knowledge base and to assist trainees that I have.

Thanks to all of you who have taken the time out to explain such things:ok:

[Lon More]

i ask a vallid question and the the ATCO comes back with "crossing traffic" and on my TCAS (in middle of night with hardly any talk on sector) i see one Yes ONE! plane as far as my TCAS go's
Thank you for proving my point.
TCAS will only show you traffic on a mode 3/A and C squawk. Military traffic, for example, does not always comply and therefore would not be displayed and, contrary to what some believe, they do fly at night.
Not all the traffic being worked by the controller need be on one frequency, again military traffic, possibly on UHF, and if the frequencies are not coupled then you won't know anything about it.
In this case you asked where the traffic was, but not everyone does., but what was the closing angle? If it was very small, it is sometimes difficult to judge the actual separation at the crossing point. especially true at night when, due to low traffic, sectors are combined and it is probable that the controller was working all the civil traffic over the country. His radar display would be covering a much greater area than normal.

BTW. Yes , I am aware that we are down here because you are up there; and even before 911 I came across a lot more ATCOs in cockpits than pilots in Centres.

[fat'n'grey]

Chaps, ATCOs take great pride and pleasure in a job well done. But we have to work within the constraints of each of our own ATM systems.

These systems vary; airspace size/restrictions, number/type of radar sensors and radar coverage, displays, update/refresh rate of the the radar data, voice communication systems, ATC training, competence and experience levels etc.

The desired en-route radar separation minima is 5NM. However, there are are still many States where for one or more of the above reasons the radar separation minima is greater than 5NM. It may be 8NM, 10NM, 15NM or even 20NM. For States where the radar minima is 8NM or greater the radar is used primarily as a back up to Procedural Control and assisting in situational awareness. Vectoring is not often used due to both the time taken to achieve lateral separation and the track-mile penalties incurred. For these States vertical separation is the preferred solution.

I may be wrong (I usually am!) but I believe Hungary have upgraded their radar sensors and will shortly be revising (reducing) their en-route radar separation minima to 5NM.

Oh dear!

[Clarence Oveur]

Thanks, Songbird and ATCO1962. Nice to have somebody answer without being snotty.

[Avman]

Snotty, Moi? :suspect: :cool:

[Pointer]

Well i didn't know it would be such a rush to prove the ability of the ATCO... and indeed i have generaly only good experiences with my Land-bound counterpart.


ATCO1962 i have to disagree on one fundamental point:
please don't second guess the ATCO

If i would not do that, it would mean i am not doing my job. Agreed; when it is bussy you stay with the program, but when all my senses tell me (mental picture) that something is wrong in this equation... (that means more than one input, we might be shallow at times, but certainly not without depth :-) )i do second guess and confront/ask the controler in question about the validity of his instruction.

when i place the preverbial foot in own mouth.. i will acknowledge that as well.

Pointer :E

[ATCO1962]

Pointer

As P-in-C, you are perfectly entitled to and, in fact should, question any ATC clearance that you feel will affect the safety of your flight. However, there's nothing quite as annoying for a controller to have a pedantic person on the other end of the radio questioning simple ATC decisions. In cases such as this Hungarian level change, I'm saying please don't judge the controller without all the facts and never harangue him/her even if you believe you know all the facts or you may have the explanation given while you're "several " miles away from where you want to be on a vector while the ATCO sorts out what they want to do with you.

Most of us have nothing to prove, having got to where we are by hard graft. It's in our best interest to get you through our airspace as quickly and safely as possible and that often means imposing restrictions that can seem incomprehensible if you don't know the airspace, equipment, procedures, etc.

If, at times, you do get a lousy service from the few of our brethren who do have something to prove, hold your tongue and send a letter to the authorities. That often gets the attention of the guilty party and you look good when they pull the tapes.

And Clarence, you're welcome:ok: It always goes a lot better when professionalism and friendliness go hand in hand.:D

[055166k]

From an ATC perspective a vertical separation is easy to apply, it immediately demonstrates safety, allows the aircraft to fly in a straight line, and is economical on R/T.
Radar vectors need monitoring, both aircraft need to be controlled and subsequently de-restricted, the heading[s] may cause infringement of neighbouring sector requiring co-ordination, possibility of tracking outside permitted corridor/airway with proximity of Danger/Restricted/Military airspace, and of course the use of radar vectors on multiple traffic elements will adversely affect sector capacity.
Over to you pilots......what do you want.....to fly in a straight line or maintain the level and add maybe 20 track miles?
Pointer....hold out your arm at full stretch and look at the width of the fingernail on your index finger....that is 10 miles on my radar......and my ATCO colleagues and I will never risk your safety on that........and avoiding wake vortex could have been a factor.

[Pointer]

yes yes i know most of that, and i do appreciate the fact that you people like to hand me off to the next sector in prefferably one piece.... But what is it with the sensetivity? Accept the fact that there are (just as with in my proffesion) people that rather do the less strenious and have a tendacy to do the lazy thing..? all within operational requirements.

And we are not that stupid...?? (most of us anyway)

Greetings, and talk to you "all" on the air
Pointer :E

[Avman]

You know Pointer, with all due respect, I think you're the sensitive one. Each time one of us explains one of the many reasons, you reply with the fact that you know and we shouldn't be sensitive. So, in other words and regardless of what you're being told, you are maintaining that what you experienced was bad controlling? Whatever. Happy flying Pointer and tscheuss ;)

[guclu]

Well I would like to thank the ATCO's and the well computerized systems in West and East Europe. Thank you ATCOs ! Flying in this region is great ! Whatever you decide ! 1000 down and up no problem. If it is required. No problem untill RA.

After flying at diiferent parts of the world I trust European Airspace much more than any other airspace !


fat'n'grey :
I thought approach radar minima was 5nm (no wake and no ILS) ! Are your sure this is enroute ? :O

Rgrds,

Guclu

[HotDog]

Prior to my retirement, we operated through Hungarian airspace three times per month, during the Yugoslav conflict. We were often directed by Budapest control to change levels, mainly east bound, rather than vectors for conflicting traffic. Hungarian airspace is very small but extremely busy. I have always found the Hungarian ATC most accomodating if the "big" picture allowed it. Being a native Hungarian speaker probably helped a little bit.

[Pointer]

Well... eh yeah Navman, you got the point; it was just this instance that indeed i found the controlling...lets call it "odd" :ugh:

Just one more note on the sensetivity thing here :E (for laughs) its just me say what i said about this instance ... but it seems you ATCO's are falling over eachother to prove the point that it MUST be something else .... Duhhh :hmm: ?

This is the last i will say on the subject other wise someone might say i don't like ATCO's which is the opposite, Allways big fun. Had some fun while i was in and out of LCY as well , i think they (tower) are still trying to lose the weight gainned from the belgian chocolates... :ok:

Later
Pointer :E