PDA

View Full Version : Close call- A319 vs. B747


GarageYears
28th May 2010, 15:43
************************************************************

NTSB INVESTIGATING NEAR MIDAIR COLLISION OF US AIRWAYS A319
AND CARGOLUX AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL 747 IN ALASKA

************************************************************

The National Transportation Safety Board has launched an
investigation into the near midair collision of a passenger
jetliner and a cargo jumbo jet.

On May 21, 2010, at about 12:10 a.m. Alaska Daylight Savings
Time, an Airbus A319, operating as US Airways flight 140,
and a Boeing 747-400, operating as Cargolux Airlines
International flight 658, came within an estimated 100 feet
vertically and a .33 mile lateral separation as the B747 was
departing Anchorage International Airport (ANC) and the A319
was executing go-around procedures at ANC.

The A319, with 138 passengers and crew aboard, was inbound
from Phoenix (PHX) to runway 14 and the B747, with a crew of
2, was departing Anchorage en route to Chicago (ORD) on
runway 25R. The incident occurred in night visual
meteorological conditions with 10 miles of visibility.

According to the TCAS report from the A319 crew, that
aircraft was approaching ANC when, because of the effects of
tailwinds on the aircraft's approach path, the crew
initiated a missed approach and requested new instructions
from air traffic control. The tower controller instructed
the A319 to turn right heading 300 and report the departing
B747 in sight. After the A319 crew reported the B747 in
sight, the controller instructed the A319 to maintain visual
separation from the B747, climb to 3000 feet, and turn right
heading 320. The A319 crew refused the right turn because
the turn would have put their flight in direct conflict with
the B747. The A319 crew then received a resolution advisory
to "monitor vertical speed" and the crew complied with the
descent command. During the descent, the A319 crew lost
sight of the B747. At about 1700 feet above ground level,
the A319 crew received a "clear of conflict" aural command.

There were no reported injuries or damage to either
aircraft.Could have been nasty. How is "monitor vertical speed" interpreted as "descend"? Is the NTSB confused on this one?

- GY

BusyB
28th May 2010, 16:02
I have to say ANC ATC are very fond of trying to pressure crews into keeping visual separation. Difficult enough between B744 and A319 as reported, but trying to see all from a B744 at 250kts when there are light aircraft everywhere is an accident waiting to happen.:suspect:

Graybeard
29th May 2010, 04:35
The A319 crew then received a resolution advisory to "monitor vertical speed" and the crew complied with the descent command.

Since when is a "Monitor Vertical Speed" a command to descend?

GB

Capn Bloggs
29th May 2010, 08:26
When the green bit on the VSI is down, that's where you keep the VS. :ok:

Sir Richard
29th May 2010, 08:38
BusyB


The skies around PANC are rarely full of light aircraft near midnight

The incident occurred in night visual
meteorological conditions with 10 miles of visibility

Fatfish
29th May 2010, 09:11
Why only in the US is this stupid ATC "maintain visual seperation" used? :confused:

HEATHROW DIRECTOR
29th May 2010, 09:16
Fatfish..... but it isn't. In the UK it is frequently used during good weather for parallel approaches. In the event of a confliction with a go-around I can well understand why it was used in these circumstances.

Fatfish
29th May 2010, 12:09
Thank you Heathrow, stand corrected. Yup, I guess its called passing the buck. Why should a potential conflict be allowed to developed in the first place? On a Go Around, with upteen happenings per second in the cockpit and numerous blind spots, that would surely be a nice time to issue such a clearance. Maybe only the lost of life will hasten the demise of "maintain visual seperation". :rolleyes:

DownIn3Green
29th May 2010, 12:54
Having been on both sides of the mike, including as ATC in the UK, I would suggest any pilot who doesn't want to "maintain visual" learn how to enter the hold until the skies are absoultely void of other traffic...

"ABC123 number 3 for 27L following the 737 turning final 10 O'clock 4 miles, report the traffic in sight."

"Traffic in sight, ABC123"

"ABC123 maintain visual seperation follow the 737 contact XYZ Tower..."

OR

"Negative contact ABC123."

"ABC123 roger, turn right heading 090 vectors for downwind. You'll be number 5 following a B-747 13 mile final..."

Get the picture?

Pugilistic Animus
29th May 2010, 13:53
Yes! when visual you are expected to see and avoid [internationally] and maintain a wake vortex separation under that clearance...similar in nature, by analolgy when you are cleared from present position direct to an IAF...you are responsible for checking you altitude requirements and remaining clear of terrain and obstacles...and failure to do so may result in 91.13...or worse:\

protectthehornet
29th May 2010, 14:16
you make an interesting point about terrain clearance. however, if one is cleared via ''radar vectors'' to the IAF one is given terrain clearance at or above minimum vectoring altitude.

while I encourage everyone to know the terrain and maintain clearance, on vectors this is usally done correctly (though ATC can make mistakes)

I'm sure you understand this is meant in a ''radar environment".

Fatfish
29th May 2010, 15:34
DownIn3Green. Please refer posting 1 of this thread "came within an estimated 100feet". :rolleyes:

BusyB
29th May 2010, 16:21
Sir Richard,
Doesn't change my comments for when they are flying. I have operated there innumerable times and heard this request with any number of unidentified TCAS a/c.:ok:

None
29th May 2010, 20:37
Having been on both sides of the mike, including as ATC in the UK, I would suggest any pilot who doesn't want to "maintain visual" learn how to enter the hold until the skies are absoultely void of other traffic...

I'm sure more complete (and accurate) information will come out in the months ahead.

It's not that a crew would never take a "maintain visual" clearance, but rather that there might have been a good reason for them to not take this one.

It's 0100 (airport of origin time), it's a mountainous area, they see lights that appear to be the 747, they see a lot of lights out there, they are cleaning up and working the go around, it's 0100 at the airport of origin (yep, I said that twice).

I am certain this crew has taken many "maintain visual..." clearances and will continue to do so. Like you, I would be interested to hear more about what is reported in the news media. I am happy to wait for an official statement.

DownIn3Green
30th May 2010, 20:35
Yeah Fat..."estimated 100'", but almost 1/2 mile laterally...no big deal for professional pilots...

Weapons_Hot
31st May 2010, 00:04
None - a few points of order/clarification are needed.

ANC has mountains to the north east - these would not effect either the departure off 25R or the GA off 14 (either published or assigned heading to 300M).

0100LT on 28 MAY would have been a great twilight, given that there was a full moon (risen) on 28MAY.

Numerous lights - yeh, but only from the departing B744. A right turn heading 300 off RWY 14 would have the A319 pointing into a void - no ground lights, etc. but a full moon.

Also, check the NOTAMs for RWY14 ILS - I believe you will find that it is OTS for a couple of months (including 28MAY).

I not suggesting anything, but if you haven't briefed for a visual approach RWY14 with a 3.2deg path, it will get interesting when you get to KANDY expecting to find the beams.

Now, wait for summer to really get underway with the many light aircraft transiting the GA lanes or landing at Lake Hood/Merrill Field - it will get messy.

I wait with interest for the tapes and radar traces, and official report.

None
1st Jun 2010, 22:21
ANC has mountains to the north east - these would not effect either the departure off 25R or the GA off 14 (either published or assigned heading to 300M).

"ICAO defines Mountainous Area as a gain or loss of 3000 of elevation
within a distance of 10 NM."

I choose to apply ICAO operating considerations for Mountainous Area when operating at ANC due to high terrain in the vicinity.

0100LT on 28 MAY would have been a great twilight, given that there was a full moon (risen) on 28MAY.


The 0100 time is intended to offer you the idea that the crew is at the end of their best performance time line. It was not intended as a suggestion of atmospheric lighting.

...but thanks for clarifying your perspective.

misd-agin
2nd Jun 2010, 14:02
.33 x 6000' = 2000' lateral seperation

Sometimes I'd rather maintain visual seperation vs. waiting for the radar to see the movement, have the controller try to figure out what the intent of the movement is for, and for him to transmit a new vector to my aircraft.

In some incidents the guys at the pointy end have a much better idea of what's happening. Did some BFM with a China Southern 747 going into LAX years ago. They turned base from the north downwind for Rwy 24R. They ended up south of 25L. Unfortunately that's the runway we were landing on. :uhoh: Co-altitude, nearest closure was 1700'.

s_bakmeijer
3rd Jun 2010, 15:53
sounds alot for professional pilots, but at 0100 lt, in a go-around. you dont wanna take the wake of a slow 747. around 3000'

413X3
4th Jun 2010, 19:47
would it have killed the atc to just have the Cargolux 747 wait on the runway while the A319 was landing? I've always wondered about the dangers of crossing runways when aircraft go around

400drvr
5th Jun 2010, 07:45
A half mile happens pretty fast in the big iron. lets see TOGA...Flaps 20...Gear up and then throw in a TCAS RA at night. Yep that half mile goes by real fast!

;)

DownIn3Green
5th Jun 2010, 17:24
400hundred...

Understand your post, however...my point is FLY THE JET!!!

Screw TOGA...when it hits the fan, that's what YOU'RE there for...Are you flying the A/C or is it flying YOU???

IMHO that's the problem with our new generation of pilots...

Us old guys know to FLY THE JET when things get "iffy"...

Sorry if that offends you...

Fatfish
8th Jun 2010, 05:30
So, DownIn3Geen, you agree then with the 'new pilots', 'Keep Visual' under those condtions is not a good idea and is an accident waiting to happen. :)

DownIn3Green
9th Jun 2010, 19:19
Fat...

You're an accident waiting to happen...but then you'll probably never ave a command...

I agree that the "New Piolts" rely way too much on technology rather than flying skills, which they don't have...

Basil
9th Jun 2010, 20:45
If carrying out an IFR approach and go-around, if you have to be told 'maintain visual separation' there's been a c0ck-up.
Had to once break in on a PAR to say just that. Reason? There was an ongoing cock-up in the circuit.

NB: for the non professionals: there is a difference between IFR and IMC.

Fatfish
10th Jun 2010, 01:43
Tch! Tch! DownIn3 Green. Getting personal arent we? Cant stand a little debate? And you're so shit hot that you would screw TOGA. Well that says alot. :rolleyes:

ATC Watcher
10th Jun 2010, 07:26
would it have killed the atc to just have the Cargolux 747 wait on the runway while the A319 was landing? I've always wondered about the dangers of crossing runways when aircraft go around

The dangers exists and have been, according the FAA " mitigated " . Therefore you have more niceties in the US , like allowing Land and Hold Short procedures on intersecting runways .( US ALPA is supporting this , even against IFALPA recommendation btw)
The argument in there is expedition ( i.e landing/departing more aircraft per airport at any given time ) and unfortunately not safety first.

As to the argument old versus kid pilots, I 've seen so many incidents now where kids were trying to fix or please the computers instead of manning the shop that I tend to agree wholehearthly with 3 green in there ....

kick the tires
10th Jun 2010, 07:56
3 Greens - "estimated 100'", but almost 1/2 mile laterally...no big deal for professional pilots...

Perhaps you'd better leave us professional pilots to decide whether we can judge such distances, closure rates, wake prediction and spacial awareness such that we dont endanger our passengers and aircraft and go and live to fly another day!

Oh, I should of added night to that list, but nah, after all, its no big deal!!!!!!!!