Spirit A319, skydiving plane in close call over Michigan

[pattern_is_full]

400 feet vertical, 1.6 miles horizontal, closest approach. Rapid descent obeying TCAS warning (RA?) leads to CC injuries:

FAA probes close call of Spirit jet, small plane (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/faa-probes-close-call-spirit-jet-small-plane-1)

A319 was climbing out of Detroit at 14,400 ft.

"DETROIT (AP) — The Federal Aviation Administration said Monday it is investigating a close call between a Texas-bound Spirit Airlines flight and a skydiving plane that forced the jetliner to dive sharply over Michigan, as screaming passengers feared the plane was going to crash.

Flight attendants bumped their heads and luggage spilled out of overhead binds during the incident Sunday evening....

...Only after the dive was the pilot able to give out information, announcing only that a "flight control issue" led to the maneuver."

[Capn Bloggs]

You do not need to upset the (apple) carts/tarts just to follow an RA! Each 1° pitch up or down will result in around 700ft/min change in vertical speed. Be gentle. :ok:

[aviatorhi]

Only after the dive was the pilot able to give out information, announcing only that a "flight control issue" led to the maneuver."

Really? Announcing a flight control issue to a bunch of pax? If they weren't panicking before they sure would be after. :ugh:

[pattern_is_full]

Yeah, I wondered about that, but figured it might be the reporter's interpretation of the passenger's interpretation of what the pilot actually said, so would withold judgement pending more detail.

[golfyankeesierra]

Rule no 1 in PA: No need to tell the whole truth, but never lie :=

[Basil]

IMHO, if you mix VFR & IFR then this sort of incident is inevitable.
The para pilot MAY have had visual contact at 1.6 miles and considered that OK; the TCAS, OTOH, doesn't see it quite like that.

[aviatorhi]

While we mix VFR and IFR ops in the US the dropzones I've worked at have always been mandated to stay in contact with the approach control facility they are operating in and announce the jump runs, etc. to the controllers. Controllers have always given me heads up about traffic as well.

That being said I know a fair few skydiving pilots who shouldn't be within 1000 miles of controlled airspace and take "in contact" to mean tuned in and muted on COM 2.

[Torquelink]

Yeah, I wondered about that, but figured it might be the reporter's interpretation of the passenger's interpretation of what the pilot actually said, so would withold judgement pending more detail.

Air Traffic Control = "Flight Control" to the average journo?

[blind pew]

Had a mate on the dc10 miss a free fall parachutist by feet...around ten grand...FO ducked!

[grafity]

Here's another good example of a near miss with sky divers. I think in this case it was the airliner of course.

Skydive Near Miss Passenger Airplane - YouTube

[Hotel Tango]

that forced the jetliner to dive sharply over Michigan, as screaming passengers feared the plane was going to crash.

I see that the classic dramatic shock horror style of reporting hasn't deserted our intrepid newsrag reporters yet! :hmm::rolleyes:

[cockney steve]

It's a bloody god thing that none of these Journo's appear to use surface -transport. :ooh:

They'd all have a heart-attack and die of fright in a car!....just imagine! less than twenty FEET lateral separation and maybe a couple of hundred fore and aft:eek: but wait!....there's oncoming traffic, loads of it, with less than 50 feet separation!!!!

The horror! the risk! and rumour has it, the licence provision requires little more than the ability to read and write.

As for RAILWAYS.....huge conveyances hurtling along 2 narrow strips of steel at ~60 mph....do they realise that means a 120 mph collision is only prevented by the gap of less than six feet, between these two flimsy sets of rails.

One has to wonder at the IQ level of both writer and target-audience for their output of drivel.

1.6 MILES isn't even a near-hit, let alone a "near miss".

[Ian W]

CapnBlogs
You do not need to upset the (apple) carts/tarts just to follow an RA! Each 1° pitch up or down will result in around 700ft/min change in vertical speed. Be gentle. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

It does seem to be a little on the overreaction side to do a negative G bunt when you are aware of the other aircraft and you are only asked for 1600fpm descent. Lucky that there were no injuries for the rear crew and SLF.

[pattern_is_full]

It's a bloody god thing that none of these Journo's appear to use surface -transport.

Not that I disagree about sensationalist news coverage in general - but in this case the "story" was the (apparently) violent avoidance manuever and its effects in the cabin, not the proximity of the planes as such.

It does seem to be a little on the overreaction side to do a negative G bunt when you are aware of the other aircraft and you are only asked for 1600fpm descent.

I believe the request was for an altitude change of 1600 feet, not a descent RATE of 1600 fpm. Losing 1600 feet in, say, 25 seconds, takes a descent RATE of 3840 fpm.

And since the A319 was in climb, a change to a descent would have involved a total V/S change larger than simply descending from level flight. Say, a climb of 2000 fpm converting rapidly to a descent of 3840 fpm = net V/S change of 5840 fpm. Mild "vomit comet" maneuver.

[areobat]

. . net V/S change of 5840 fpm. Mild "vomit comet" maneuver. Spirit management will probably want to charge pax extra for this service.

[Nemrytter]

Mild "vomit comet" maneuver.Very mild, acceleration needed for the maneuver you describe is something like 2.3m/s/s*. vomit comet manages 9.8m/s/s.

Still, it probably is rather alarming and uncomfortable if you're not expecting it.


*Assuming my math is correct. Possibly a bad assumption after a couple of glasses of wine!

[ettore]

Hi guys,
I love you for your assumptions -- i.e. educated guess -- I had a great fun, thanks, indeed. :)

[Capn Bloggs]

I believe the request was for an altitude change of 1600 feet, not a descent RATE of 1600 fpm. Losing 1600 feet in, say, 25 seconds, takes a descent RATE of 3840 fpm.

And since the A319 was in climb, a change to a descent would have involved a total V/S change larger than simply descending from level flight. Say, a climb of 2000 fpm converting rapidly to a descent of 3840 fpm = net V/S change of 5840 fpm. Mild "vomit comet" maneuver.

Hold it. TCAS doesn't try to achieve any set altitude difference. It simply asks for a change to the flight path to miss the offending aircraft. Ms Cory doesn't know what she is talking about.

The 3840 is a red herring, as is adding 2000ft/min to it. If the TCAS gave over 2000ft/min change (ie a smooth pitch change of around 3-4° max) I'd be very very surprised.

I'll also wager that the continuing reduction in stick time (because of more use of the AP) will see more of these types of incidents. If you're not used to handflying, suddenly grabbing the stick and smoothly, gently but positively following the TCAS commands is difficult. A couple of practices twice a year in the SIM when you know it's coming isn't enough. No wonder Airbus is investigating the AP itself following the TCAS command without pilot intervention...

[bubbers44]

Capn Bloggs is right on. The first post made it obvious they had no clue how to go from autopilot to hand flying with no experience in hand flying an aircraft so they botched it and didn't just stay in the green area of an RA but put the aircraft in a negative G totally unnecesary dive.
The distance and altitude between them wasn't critical. 1.6 miles and 400 feet is not a near miss.
We did these maneuvers all the time in training and they are smooth pitch changes to stay in the green arc. If you never fly without an autopilot at altitude this might cause abrupt maneuvers. Spirit requires an RA alert to turn off autopilot, FD, AT and stay in the green arc.
I understand the Spirit pilots are encouraged to turn the autopilot on shortly after take off and leave it on until final approach.

We old guys don't agree with autopilot reliance because as has been seen recently AF and now Spirit has shown what autopilot reliance does to pilots flying skills.
Just let these pilots handfly so they don't do this any more. If your checklist says autopilot off then that means the pilot can hand fly. He can't if his company doesn't allow it.

[A4]

Spirit requires an RA alert to turn off autopilot, FD, AT and stay in the green arc.

Agree with points about hand flying....but taking out AT as well will load up these guys even more. When the FD's go OFF the AT goes into SPEED Mode and will provide the required thrust to maintain the current speed. I can see a situation where a TCAS Descent is rapidly followed by Alpha Floor because they "forget" to put the thrust back in all the excitement.

Another common error seen in the sim many times is the "rebuild" of the Autos and flight path after the event.....:rolleyes:

[DozyWannabe]

I guess the first question to ask would be whether the descent was initiated via the FCU panel and handled by the autopilot, or whether AP was disengaged and the descent commanded manually via the sidestick.

I'm speculating here, but I do know that the A320 series has an "emergency avoidance"* mode in the pitch axis, which kicks in when a sudden and significant reversal is made (such as when a climbing aircraft is ordered to descend in an expedited manner, and vice versa). This mode effectively doubles the commanded vertical speed rate until the aircraft is commanded to level off. I wonder if that's relevant here?

* - Actually "Rapid Pitch Change" mode, apparently...

[A4]

Have you got a reference for that Dozy? The only thing I'm aware of is EXPedite Mode which is selected by a button on the FCU - however this wouldn't be used in an immediate avoidance scenario. It results in a target speed of GN DOT for EXP CLB or Barbers Pole for EXP DES and aircraft entry into the mode is "positive" i.e. not blended for pax comfort.

[NOLAND3]

Also interested in this too. Have never heard of this before.

[ironbutt57]

Airbus procedure is all automatics/FD off

[DozyWannabe]

Have you got a reference for that Dozy?

There's an oblique reference (to a "safety feature in the autopilot") in this Wiki page on Air Inter 148:

Air Inter Flight 148 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Inter_Flight_148)

I'll try to find something more in-depth, but I remember reading about it years ago, and I think it was mentioned in the Mayday/ACI episode on the subject.

@ironbutt57 - Sure, but in a pinch (especially sudden warnings) sometimes procedure is not followed.

EDIT : Here you go - Air Inter Flight 148 - Analysis - AviationKnowledge (http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/asi:air-inter-flight-148) - under "Rapid Pitch Change". Note that as I understand it, this would only be relevant in this case if the TCAS descent was performed by dialling in the descent on the FCU panel.

[Mr Pax]

This thread reminds me of a flight I was on back in 2006:eek:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/247503-ba-2166-tampa.html

[CONF iture]

I'm speculating here, but I do know that the A320 series has an "emergency avoidance" mode in the pitch axis, which kicks in when a sudden and significant reversal is made (such as when a climbing aircraft is ordered to descend in an expedited manner, and vice versa). This mode effectively doubles the commanded vertical speed rate until the aircraft is commanded to level off. I wonder if that's relevant here?
Total bs again.
Bring up official references, not Mayday type.
Maybe time to go to Spectators Balcony (Spotters Corner) - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner-52/) or Jet Blast - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/) and see if they tolerate your disinformation there ...

[DozyWannabe]

Bring up official references

See section : 117.542 - Détermination de l'instant de désaturation du mode PA vertical

F-GGED (http://www.bea.aero/docspa/1992/f-ed920120/htm/f-ed920120.htm)

[BARKINGMAD]

Long time ago on the 747 "Classic", before the advent of "red coffins" wandering around glass PFDs, the advice given when the "fishfinder" detected an intruder was to anticipate by dividing 1,000 by ones TAS and using that pitch change as a starter to avoid the enemy when the RA finally shouted.

Obviously that required HANDFLYING (!) and in a Jumbo of geriatric pedigree, it was practised and performed smoothly and gently despite the adrenalin rush.

But that was a long time ago and handflying, whether 'bus or Boeing or any other type, appears to be a dying art judging from the postings in this forum...?

Children of Magenta line again.......................................... ??? :sad:

[JW411]

Have things changed since I stopped teaching five years ago?

An RA only required a SMOOTH climb or descent of 1,500 fpm to stay in the green band.

It was only if that proved to be insufficient and an Increase Climb/Descent was commanded that the rate should be increased to 2,500 fpm.

In any event, there really was no need to plaster the ceiling with 380 gin and tonics.

[DozyWannabe]

But that was a long time ago and handflying, whether 'bus or Boeing or any other type, appears to be a dying art judging from the postings in this forum...?

Children of Magenta line again.......................................... ??? :sad:

Airbus procedure is all automatics/FD off

Emphasis above is mine.

[BARKINGMAD]

Dozy, nobody is saying handflying for RAs is not SOP, but as BUBBERS said, it's the transition from fully automatic to fully manual, in short order and in "startle" mode which should not faze anyone professionally trained and in practice.

And it can still be smooth and avoid launching CC and pax into astronaut mode whilst achieving the desired result.

Are we in agreement that manual flying skills are in decline and airline management/training departments have to take some share of the blame?

[KBPsen]

I think we can all agree that that there are a fair amount of people who "used to be somebody" who have problems with the "used to be".

[Capn Bloggs]

Dozy, as is often the case, is again out of his non-pilot depth.

Dozy's theory: A crew, contrary to SOPs, uses Vertical Speed to instigate an RA manoeuvre, realise they've stuffed it so does a big reversal of the VS, then monsieur Airbus says "right, instigating super-over-reaction feature" and so generates so much negative G that the FAs and food/gin hit the ceiling. Get real.

Are we in agreement that manual flying skills are in decline and airline management/training departments have to take some share of the blame?
You'll never get agreement on that from a non-pilot. They simply don't/won't understand (nor do they listen to the pilots).

[DozyWannabe]

Dozy, nobody is saying handflying for RAs is not SOP, but as BUBBERS said, it's the transition from fully automatic to fully manual, in short order and in "startle" mode which should not faze anyone professionally trained and in practice.

Sure, and I'm not saying any different - the point I was getting at is that using automatics in that situation is not sanctioned by the manufacturer - that is all.

Are we in agreement that manual flying skills are in decline and airline management/training departments have to take some share of the blame

I don't know first-hand - I haven't been in an airliner flight deck on the line since I was a teenager. But based on the conversations I've had, it's a fairly common perception. As I understand it, I don't think training departments are a root cause - they can only work with what they're given and have little say beyond that. I think that management quality has declined in the aviation industry much as it has elsewhere, thanks to the ubiquitous MBA generation.

Dozy's theory: A crew, contrary to SOPs, uses Vertical Speed to instigate an RA manoeuvre, realise they've stuffed it so does a big reversal of the VS, then monsieur Airbus says "right, instigating super-over-reaction feature" and so generates so much negative G that the FAs and food/gin hit the ceiling. Get real.

That's not "my theory" - it was merely a suggestion of a possibility given that the descent rate was unexpectedly severe and the crew announced it as a "flight control problem" over the PA. Right now we have very little hard info and I stated clearly that I wondered whether it might be relevant. Not that it was definitely relevant, nor that it was what I thought happened (because I don't).

You'll never get agreement on that from a non-pilot. They simply don't/won't understand (nor do they listen to the pilots).

On the contrary, this non-line pilot listens very attentively to what pilots have to say.

He won't, on the other hand, blindly accept statements that he knows to be false.

[JoeyBalls]

Being a Spirit pilot myself, reading these replies makes me cringe, do you guys even fly airplanes professionally?

[DozyWannabe]

@JoeyBalls - everything so far on this thread is just speculation, whether the poster is a line pilot or not. Don't take it to heart.

[Capn Bloggs]

As I understand it, I don't think training departments are a root cause - they can only work with what they're given and have little say beyond that.
My point exactly; not a very good understanding of the real world of aviation. Training departments could easily require/encourage more hand-flying, either in the aircraft or in the SIM. Read Sabena-boy's posts. Full of handflying! Flying a precise but gentle manoeuvre such as an RA is easier if you're used to and practised at hand-flying.

[JoeyBalls]

Understood

[DozyWannabe]

My point exactly; not a very good understanding of the real world of aviation. Training departments could easily require/encourage more hand-flying, either in the aircraft or in the SIM. Read Sabena-boy's posts. Full of handflying! Flying a precise but gentle manoeuvre such as an RA is easier if you're used to and practised at hand-flying.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the hand-flying front. As SLF, I'd feel much more secure if the situation were better than it seems to be. But training departments (like any other department) have a fixed budget which they cannot exceed. Practicing handflying takes time and sim time is expensive. If senior management cannot be made to understand the importance of this in spite of efforts to convince them, then the training department has no choice but to make the best of it.

Look, I may be a tech guy for a living - but if anything that serves only to make me more cognisant of the limits of technology. I don't see technology itself as a factor, but I sure as hell worry about the misuse of technology at the behest of those who don't properly understand it.

[Sky Slug]

I am NYC-based and my biggest fear isn't a fat Canadian Goose, it's a Bell helo or a Cessna/Piper/Cirrus. The tower/dep/arr controllers at LGA/JFK clear these aircraft through our airspace like they are non-existant. I've shot my arm out a few times in past couple years in the right seat yelling, "Traffic!" The news helicopters and GA traffic out of HPN and TEB have seemingly have free reign over the safety of our commercial aircraft. LAX had a couple well-known instances of mid-airs in the 80s. I'm afraid we might be on the same track in NYC.

[westhawk]

The tower/dep/arr controllers at LGA/JFK clear these aircraft through our airspace like they are non-existant.

Whose airspace? Your airspace? The airlines airspace?

You know, maybe you're worried about the wrong thing entirely.

[Sky Slug]

I have 130+ passengers behind me. They expect me to get them to California, Florida, Utah, Washington, or Georgia safely.

The dope in the Bell or Cessna is either reporting on traffic, bringing folks to the Hamptons, or is giving them a nice view of the skyline.

Personally, I think I have priority.

This isn't Daytona Beach or Grand Forks.

[westhawk]

I've heard this kind of nonsense before so I'm not shocked. Let someone fly a jet and they start thinking they're somebody important. Oh and the "people behind me" line doesn't give your opinion any more weight. The fact is, ALL of aviation is entitled to use the airspace and you'll have to learn to live with it. Your energy might be better spent working on your SA and learning to be calmer. The airspace and everyone using it isn't going to change just to accommodate you or your employer. Best to learn to adapt to the flying environment as you find it rather than expecting it to adapt to you!

Keep a good traffic watch, keep improving your ability to form a 4D mental "picture" of what's going on around you and do the best job you can. You'll either make it or you won't. :) BTW, it seems to me most of the IFR traffic separation losses occur between airline traffic these days, so watch out for airliners!

Cerritos and San Diego are ancient history. The FAA expanded the limits of the SAN and LAX TCAs long before the airspace reclassification made them Bravo. Airline pilot unions whined about being unable to level off at at 2,000 feet at LAX so the shoreline route was closed to VFR traffic. That made some airline types happy but it shouldn't because it just forces more VFR traffic into less space, increasing the traffic crossing right over the airport. Now they route IFR jet traffic along the shoreline at 4,000' so watch that climb rate or expect a TCAS wakeup call. Pretty much like NYC.

I've flown VFR and IFR in spam cans and in bizjets in both places so I know it can be stressful if you let it be. Don't. Just be a pilot and let the politicians and management hacks be what they are. Worrying steals your piloting ability.

[sharksandwich]

Since most passengers and crew on commercial airliners are there for commercial and/or economic reasons, shouldn't recreational users of airspace ( light aircraft, sailplanes,Para divers, etc.) just keep well out of their way? Like, keep away from traffic routes? Or is this too simplistic?

[Ditchdigger]

Or is this too simplistic?


I've never flown anywhere for a "commercial and/or economic reason". I have paid to be flown to my vacation. Does that give me more right to the airspace than half a dozen people who've paid to be flown to 10,000 feet so they can jump out?

[westhawk]

Well Sharky, you'll be the one deciding who has priority use of US airspace then? ;)

Who should I make the check out to in order to receive my special dispensation? :ok:

I guess that since in your world those flying for business reasons get priority, we'll now be required to inquire as to the purpose of each passenger's travel so that their flight can be assigned a priority index. That's fine, the business owner flying his Cirrus to a business meeting gets priority over the jumbo full of vacationers headed to Honolulu. "United 123, cancel takeoff clearance, hold your position, the Cirrus pilot has a meeting to get to. Break, Cirrus 321 cleared for immediate takeoff" :D

That ought to be good news for Bizav! :)

Might be worth thinking this through...

I'm glad our country's move towards socialism hasn't progressed quite THAT far... Yet! :confused:

Anyway, you can probably tell I'm not in favor of the government deciding whose use of the airspace is more "important" or "legitimate". Lifeguard and certain other special flights are of course given priority as required. Other than that, for the time being anyway, it's generally first come, first served. For the most part anyway. ATC has to operate on a "triage" basis to some extent so private flights sometimes need to be pretty flexible when it comes to using major airports and the costs are often enough to dissuade anyway.

As far as using the NAS goes, everyone is equal in the eyes of ATC and is treated according to their needs and to available capacity. Considering the challenges, the "system" works pretty well for the most part. Weather, peak traffic periods created by airline hub and spoke schedule considerations and other factors sometimes conspire to to create delays and inconveniences. Occasionally something transpires which leads to a loss of traffic separation or worse. People get all wound up about these statistical outliers and start making ridiculous assertions and equally ridiculous proposals to "fix" the problem.

I guess this same idea should be applied to road traffic too?

Good luck with that!

[Lon More]

From an early post "Flight Control problem" probably translates as "Air Traffic Control problem"

[SLFguy]

Being a Spirit pilot myself, reading these replies makes me cringe, do you guys even fly airplanes professionally?

Umm.. gotta admire their post-retirement age policy!

[island_airphoto]

Since most passengers and crew on commercial airliners are there for commercial and/or economic reasons, shouldn't recreational users of airspace ( light aircraft, sailplanes,Para divers, etc.) just keep well out of their way? Like, keep away from traffic routes? Or is this too simplistic?

:mad:YES!
In the USA at least we ALL have rights to the roads, air, and water. Do private cars stay off the roads to allow trucks and busses better access? Are private boats banned from New York so the ferries can run with less trouble? Do you think private cars should stay off of I-95 when truckers need to get someplace.
If I am flying an Aztec full of freight should I get to cut off an Aztec full of people going on vacation? I can't ever recall New York approach telling me something like "fly around in circles over JFK and LGA because we don't care who you hit" . If you aren't LANDING at some airport in the Class B or have an IFR flight plan they are not exactly open for random tourism unless a LOT has changed recently.

[overstress]

Airliners tend to have more people in them than the
chap in his Cirrus justifying the expense by flying himself to a "business meeting"....

[bubbers44]

All pilots have the same priority in their airspace. Airliners don't have any priority over GA pilots flying smaller aircraft. Trucks don't have priority over private cars either on the highway. Being bigger only works in high school until the kid you beat up is your boss because he was smarter. and studied.

[island_airphoto]

>>
Airliners tend to have more people in them than the
chap in his Cirrus justifying the expense by flying himself to a "business meeting"....
>>

I don't care if the Cirrus pilot is flying around spying on nude sunbathers. Unless some airline has somehow bought the public airspace of the USA while I was sleeping they can get in line with everyone else or go find another country to fly in.

[jetdriverbr]

Quote:
"Airliners tend to have more people in them than the
chap in his Cirrus justifying the expense by flying himself to a "business meeting"...."

Biz jets and Cirrus contain the innovators that create most of the jobs filled by the passengers in the airliners.

Everyone gets to use the airspace, class B included.

[cockney steve]

In the maritime world, "Steam gives way to sail"

Next time you're out in your 20 foot yacht, try telling that to the Master of the 20,000 -ton tanker , bearing down on you and needing 5 miles to stop, 2 to change course by a few degrees.

Same situation......An airliner isn't the same as a Pitts in the manouverability-stakes. It appears "common-sense" isn't very common.

[island_airphoto]

Steam DOES give way to sail. I sail offshore quite a bit and work out crossings with commercial shipping all the time. The skippers mostly know and obey the COLREGS. Inland where a ship may be confined to a narrow channel there is a special rule to give the deep-draft ship right-of-way because they can't really turn even if they wanted to.

As for Pitts vs. Airliners - :confused::confused:
How often do biplanes get around to the right side of a jet and try and make them change course? Are there uncontrolled fields where airliners on final get tormented by a Pitts turning inside them and claiming right-of-way for being lower?
I have been flying since the 1980s and can't recall anyone EVER doing anything like this.

[bubbers44]

See and avoid works quite well in the US. Needing a computer to see who has the highest gross takeoff weight for right of way would be quite complex. Most engines would be difficult too. I flew a corporate 4 engine jet for a while so would a 757 give way to me or not?

Let's leave things just the way they are and don't run into anybody.

[learner001]

For first encounters with 'TCAS RA manoeuvring' here is some practice that I use during training . . .

I use a, relatively unstable, carton cup of water, placed in a bowl on the floor, while training the various, different 'response-actions to a TCAS RA' . . .


I mention nothing at all, initially, and the cup usually falls and empties in the bowl.

Then,

I stress to: "just try to imagine", that our pax should not be aware of any of our 'TCAS RA response-manoeuvring' . . .


Now, after having drawn attention to the 'pax-thinking-thing' (just as an aid . . .) and having 'disclosed' the 'cup in the bowl', the bowl NEVER gets wet anymore.

"Clear of conflict . . . !"


So far, this has really worked out very positive . . .

Kind regards, learner . . . ;)

[visibility3miles]

A minute later, the Spirit jet received an automated TCAS warning that required him to begin an immediate 1,600-foot descent to 12,800 feet from a previous altitude of 14,400 feet."

Wouldn't it be safer to go over and behind it?

I'm not sure why you'd want to dive under a skydiving plane at that altitude. Jump planes typically want to dump their load at 12,500 feet above ground level so the jumpers get around 60 seconds of free fall before deploying their chute.

Hence 12,800 feet may be close to their high altitude. At 14,400 feet or more, you should wear an oxygen mask in most jump planes, which is a bother.

Diving under them that high means you may miss the jump plane, but you could have parachutes sucked into your engines. :yuk: :=

[Tomescu]

TCAS gives you a message : " monitor vertical speed!", "climb!, climb!" or "descend!descend!". The crew will do IAW TCAS's message. They probably had a "descend! descend!" message.

[bubbers44]

TCAS messages require you to follow TCAS messages even though it doesn't seem right. Do what you have to do but if you don't follow it problems may occure.