Well done Boyz.

[Toe Knee Tiler]

Airliners on collision course

December 28, 2009 - 2:54PM
Aviation safety authorities are investigating how two passenger planes wound up on a collision course over the Northern Territory on Tuesday.
The two commercial flights were travelling on the same flight path and headed for one another before the situation was corrected early on Tuesday morning.
A mid-air collision was only avoided after the crew of a Cathay Pacific Airbus A330, travelling south to Melbourne from Hong Kong, questioned the air traffic controller, who confirmed there had been a breakdown of separation standards.
A Virgin Blue Boeing 737 was simultaneously headed north from Melbourne at the same height level of 37,000 feet.
The Airbus was told to climb an extra 1000 feet and divert its path slightly.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau said the incident was serious and will prepare a report.
A bureau spokesman said it was unlikely the planes had been close to colliding, given neither of their automatic warning systems had been activated.
A final report should be completed by April, he said.
AAP

[ab33t]

That is scary to think that with todays technology aircraft can still be placed on a collision course. Reminds me of the Brazil incident

[Ex Cathedra]

What's scary is that at the end of the day, pilots are still expected to be the last barrier between 'nothing happened' and 'big boom/smoking crater', yet next year the guy who sits in front of a screen all day in CXcity is getting a raise and we aren't...

:hmm:

[rick.shaw]

Not scary. Just blooming frustrating. Enough to make one a little angry, actually.

[Sqwak7700]

How many more smoking holes until 1nm right offsets become mandatory in every airway. It just makes sense. :D

[The Wraith]

Had it happen in Paris before. **** happens....just hope we or ATC catch it before it keeps SKY News in crap news reporting for a week...:(

[Basil]

Yup, just been informed by IT guy at dinner in UK pub tonight that aeroplanes with computers do it all themselves (I hope he was being a bit facetious)

[Captain Dart]

Actually, he's kinda right. The latest Airbus autopilot/flight director will fly an RA (deviating from the programmed flight path to stay in the VS green zone) itself, providing the autopilot is engaged. My understanding is also that if the AP is not engaged, the flight director will command same.

[N1 Vibes]

Talking of 'Scary', friend of the airline, Simon Parry in the SCMP, does his quality-journalistic best to scare the brown stuff out of the local populus:

"Cathay Pacific Plane Just Seconds from Collision in Australia"

I hope you are reading this Mr Parry, because here's the reality:

Question 1.

Two aeroplanes are flying towars each other at 700 kmh and 800 kmh, with a distance of 20nm between them how long before they become a 'loud-bang'?

Closing speed = 700 + 800 kmh = 1,500 kmh = 800 kts(ish)

Time in minutes to travel 20nm = 20/(800/60) = 20/13.3 = 1.5 minutes

Answer = 90 seconds....

Of course editorially you are restricted on how much of the truth you are allowed to publish Mr Parry. You could of course have said "Cathay Pacific Plane 90 seconds from Collision...." but that just doesn't do the brown trouser thing for the readers does it?

Brgd's

N1 Vibes :ok:

[FlexibleResponse]

I think we should remember that Parry's job as an aviation journalist is not to write for professional aviators to tell them what is happening in aviation, but rather to try and present aviation problems to Joe Public in a way that the average man in the street can understand.

So, in a way Parry was quite correct...yes, it was 90 seconds instead of say 30 seconds, because the CX pilot asked the pertinent question at that particular time...thank heavens he did...otherwise the last and only final defence would have been TCAS.

If you look at it from the travelling public's point of view, they have paid good money to be safely transported by air from A to B. It is therefore very understandable said Joe Public becomes somewhat concerned when a CX pilot has to ask ATC why they have assigned another jet to fly a head-on collision course on the same airway at an identical height.

Joe Public has every right to assume that this sort of event is easily predictable and the system has made such a situation/accident impossible to ever eventuate.

It is ATC's job to keep aircraft separated...the system should not rely on some very alert pilot having to query ATC's flow management. There is absolutely no point in having ATC if they can't keep us separated.

In the old days before TCAS we had a lots of near misses (many unknown due cloud/vis) and some very ugly accidents. In the first year that CX had TCAS fitted, I counted 18 TCAS events in our safety magazine... that means 18 ATC major breakdowns...and that was only one year, one airline and only for the TCAS-fitted aircraft. ATC has certainly had to smarten up their act since the advent of TCAS because we could see some of the ATC picture and errors for the first time.

Like every other professional aviator, I don’t like what happened in the subject incident and I want something done about it.

The public have every right to be informed when things go wrong and what might be or not be done about it. And so perhaps we might forgive journalists who add an exciting tone of such missives to catch the public’s attention to important events. Their message will help keep everyone alive.

[N1 Vibes]

FR,

Like every other professional aviator, I don’t like what happened in the subject incident and I want something done about it.

Something is being done about it - by the Australian authorities. It doesn't require Mr Parry to wind up fare paying passengers with an inflammatory headline....unless you want less people to fly with CX or to Oz. Fine, then you and I will be out of a job.

Brgd's

N1 Vibes

[mr Q]

toe Knee Tiler reported it first ....
Mr Parry frequently reports matters which appeared here first ..
Perhaps he should ......at least ocassionally..... attribute this site as the original source of his albeit expanded SCMP articles