PDA

View Full Version : AirAsia A330 vs Jetstar A320


PoppaJo
29th Jul 2016, 04:11
No prizes for who's at fault here. The said carrier has had multiple near accidents in this country over the last few years yet no sanctions. When will Australia show some leadership in this corner? Ban them...

Busted altitudes into Perth this year...drove an A320 into the water...departed of 16R and went off course...busted altitude into Gold Coast...

To give you an idea, that's the distance of two A330s between both aircraft, incredibly close.


Loss of separation involving Airbus A330, 9M-XXS and Airbus A320, VH-VFO near Gold Coast Airport, Qld on 21 July 2016

Investigation number: AO-2016-084
Investigation status: Active

Summary
The flightpaths of the inbound Airbus A320 and the outbound Airbus A330 resulted in a loss of separation. Both aircraft received a traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) [1] resolution advisory (RA), [2] with the crew of the A320 conducting a climb to increase separation.
[1] Traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) is an aircraft collision avoidance system. It monitors the airspace around an aircraft for other aircraft equipped with a corresponding active transponder and gives warning of possible collision risks.
[2] Traffic Collision Avoidance System Resolution Advisory, when an RA is issued pilots are expected to respond immediately to the RA unless doing so would jeopardize the safe operation of the flight.

Keg
29th Jul 2016, 04:18
Is there any evidence the Air Asia crew were not flying their clearance? Was this an ATC error or a crew error? Hard to tell from this report.

I'm more concerned about why it takes 12 months to investigate something like this? It's the 21st century. BASI used to have reports out much more quickly in the pre computer/ email days.

wheels_down
29th Jul 2016, 04:28
Jetstar held a press conference about an hour ago indicating AirAsia went off course.

Icarus2001
29th Jul 2016, 06:53
I'm more concerned about why it takes 12 months to investigate
VH-VFO near Gold Coast Airport, Qld on 21 July 2016

Do you need some new reading glasses Keg?:sad:

I particularly liked this part...While these aircraft came closer than normal separation standards there was no risk of collision as the systems and the aircraft crews manoeuvred to avoid any further conflict.

Clearly if an RA was commanded by the TCAS there was a risk of collision.

Lookleft
29th Jul 2016, 07:06
You have answered your own question as to why it takes 12 months Keg. The 21st century requires process, legal certainty and less people to do more work! In the days of BASI there were fewer aircraft, internationals only went to capital city airports, reports were a lot thinner than they are now and the people running the place had operational experience. Unfortunately what we are left with now is an extended time frame for completion and the opportunity to learn the lessons from an incident has long since disappeared.

Awol57
29th Jul 2016, 07:14
Quote:
I'm more concerned about why it takes 12 months to investigate
Quote:
VH-VFO near Gold Coast Airport, Qld on 21 July 2016
Do you need some new reading glasses Keg?

I imagine he was referring to the expected completion date listed as Jul 2017.

Icarus2001
29th Jul 2016, 07:20
Quite possible, if so sorry Keg. ;)

As a general rule ALL of these investigations take too long. Which either means that the resources are not available that are required or it is in everyone's interest to delay the final report and do a "release it on Christmas eve" type trick, favoured by politicians over the years.

Capn Bloggs
29th Jul 2016, 07:52
Webtrak...

http://s26.postimg.org/iqqn9zl1l/TCAS_RA_XAX_JST_OOL_21_July16_v2.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

From LiveATC:

Jetstar cleared to 5000ft.

AirAsia was advised by the tower of crossing traffic.

AirAsia, on calling Approach (after takeoff) reported passing 2100ft climbing 4000ft.

AirAsia did see the JQ; ATC told them to maintain visual separation.

Note: these are not all the calls that were made.

Chief galah
29th Jul 2016, 11:26
to maintain visual separation

The curse of the half instruction. Lacks the clearance to climb.

Seems unnecessary when positive vertical separation has been established.

Also requires them to have eyes behind them.

Might be more in the other transmissions.

Pakehaboy
29th Jul 2016, 20:31
Quote,Poppajo....No prizes for who's at fault here.

Seems that way doesn't it ?!One holding an altitude,one about to bust one.Correct me if I'm wrong,300ft deviation from assigned altitude constitutes a bust????

gordonfvckingramsay
29th Jul 2016, 21:07
All accidents begin with a series of unmitigated latent threats which lead to a cultural belief that all is ok. No question we are becoming a little less safe every year, it's now a matter of where, when and to whom it will occur. Banning them will mitigate one very obvious latent threat in my opinion.

faheel
29th Jul 2016, 21:32
So a loss of separation occurred,it will be investigated,blame apportioned,recommendations tabled and disciplinary action may or may not be required.
But...this armchair discussion just takes up bandwidth and goes on ad nauseam !!
Just give it a rest and wait for the report :ugh:

Pakehaboy
29th Jul 2016, 21:38
faheel,.....good point,no ones forcing you to participate in the discussion ,so don't,!!.... Democracy is a lovely thing....

Icarus2001
30th Jul 2016, 00:42
No question we are becoming a little less safe every year Where an earth do you get that idea? Can you back up that thought bubble with some statistics or a study or should we just believe you?

LostProperty
30th Jul 2016, 00:44
Some readers might find amusement in this online reader comment about yesterday's article in the Oz about this incident:

'Last year, before retiring Warren Truss approved an instrument landing system (outdated technology) for Cooly airport. Australian airlines don't need to use ILS because Aussie pilots are trained in how to actually land a plane. ILS's are used by low budget airlines from overseas. Once the ILS is installed, the flight path for landing will be a straight line directly over the Gold Coast, not an approach over the sea (see illustration above). If a tragedy were to occur like the near miss reported, the wreckage would full onto the main residential areas. Which according to the map would be directly over my house in Palm Beach! The local member Steve Ciobo was initially against the idea of an ILS, but now that he has the power to overturn this stupid decision as Minister for Trade, Tourism & Investment has strangely become mute on this issue that effects the whole glitter strip.'

Toruk Macto
30th Jul 2016, 01:25
The huge numbers of Asian middle class who are attaining the wealth that allows them to travel , initially on low cost , will mean carriers like Air Asia are only going to increase over the next 20 years . Then you got the Chinese carriers all ramping up their plans for Australia . Not an option to ban them , Australia is only getting closer to Asia not further away ( 7 cm a year ) so it needs to be managed , putting in an ILS is a good idea in my opinion , planes fly ILS 's nicely . low cost base , huge networks with direct links in the future it's going to be interesting to see how Austrailan carriers respond . Not sure why Aust kids not learning mandarin in schools ?

underfire
30th Jul 2016, 02:48
From the other thread
http://i64.tinypic.com/2h38nkp.jpg

http://i66.tinypic.com/2dkcyea.jpg

http://i68.tinypic.com/2qsxg77.jpg

As a scale reference, when JS crossed the actual path, the AA was about 1200m down the track. Certainly not 150m as reported.The 'evasive' manoeuvre consisted of climbing 10m...

Capn Bloggs
30th Jul 2016, 03:05
From The West, 30 July 16:
New AirAsia inquiry after close call
Australia’s crash investigator is inquiring into yet another safety incident involving the AirAsia group after one of its planes came within 152m of a Jetstar flight on the Gold Coast last week.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has three AirAsia investigations under way, including one into an incident in Perth on February 19when the plane flew 300m too low on approach to Perth Airport at night.

In the Gold Coast incident, on July 21, it is alleged by industry sources that the crew of the Air-Asia X flight, which had just taken off from the Gold Coast, did not follow air traffic control instructions , bringing their A330 too close to a Jetstar flight coming into land.

The Jetstar pilots were monitoring their traffic collision avoidance system and avoided the plane.

However, an AirAsia X spokesman told The Weekend West yesterday that its pilots had “followed the flight path according to the heading and altitude provided by the air traffic controller” .

It confirmed its pilots had been warned by the traffic collision avoidance system and responded by reducing the vertical speed.

Can Altitude Capture be disengaged by using VS in the Airbus?

Goat Whisperer
30th Jul 2016, 03:09
I think you'll find the 150m quoted, or 152, as it often is, refers to the 500 feet of vertical separation.

morno
30th Jul 2016, 03:37
Can Altitude Capture be disengaged by using VS in the Airbus?

No........

underfire
30th Jul 2016, 03:38
There was always more than 500 feet of separation.

Gear in transit
30th Jul 2016, 04:32
Quote:
Can Altitude Capture be disengaged by using VS in the Airbus?
No........

Actually, it's the ONLY way to disengage an alt Capture mode in a 320/330. Whether it be pressing v/s 0, or winding the alt window more than 250' both methods disengage alt* and leave you in a v/s mode.

morno
30th Jul 2016, 07:39
Well I guess if you want to be technical, yes it can disengage alt*. But it won't fly it past an FCU altitude if it's engaged below it.

Shot Nancy
30th Jul 2016, 08:13
Dear Morno,

Yes. I would like to get "technical" otherwise untruths and propaganda from people like you go unchallenged and garner a grain of undeserved truth.

"Push to level off" will always over ride ALT* (altitude capture or acquire to the Luddites).

Some people have problems managing high rates of climb or descent at the lower levels when traffic is a threat. If a lower rate is required whilst in ALT* then "push to level off" (if the AP is ON it is quite snappy) then select an appropriate V/S. Some companies' procedures suggest not more than 1000 feet per minute, others not more than 1500 feet per minute.

V/S is V/S. If you are below the FCU ALT and select a positive V/S then you will capture that ALT. Conversely if you are above a FCU ALT and have a negative V/S selected you will capture the ALT.

If in any doubt turn the autopilot and flight directors off and fly the aircraft.

morno
30th Jul 2016, 08:58
Untruths and propaganda?

I couldn't be bothered arguing because it's wasted energy, so you go enjoy your technical explanations.

Pakehaboy
30th Jul 2016, 12:55
Quote Nancy"If in any doubt turn the autopilot and flight directors off and fly the aircraft."

Well there you go right there!!! That's what they must have done,very technical indeed.

Metro man
30th Jul 2016, 14:55
If you are climbing or descending at high rates and change the altitude to something close to your present passing level, the system may not capture the selected altitude. I was descending at 2500fpm and suddenly instructed to level off 700ft below the level I was passing, the autopilot failed to capture and I had to disconnect and manually return to the cleared level.

A TCAS RA overrides an instruction from ATC, once you have called "TCAS RA" the controller is no longer responsible for separation. When you report clear of conflict you will usually return to your previously cleared level, however a revised clearance may be issued.

Hempy
30th Jul 2016, 15:08
What Metro man says is true. It's the 'Überlingen mandate'.

p.s Mm, piss poor ATC to cut you off that late given the rate. Well done for pulling yourself up, you probably saved an investigation. :ok:

Metro man
30th Jul 2016, 15:27
I had been held high and was trying to make a constraint, when it became apparent that even at that ROD I wasnt going to make it I informed ATC and was recleared to a higher level. I dipped slightly below and quickly returned without pulling too much G, so it may not have registered. Next moment the ATC supervisor took over.

Ida down
1st Aug 2016, 11:54
You have answered your own question as to why it takes 12 months Keg. The 21st century requires process, legal certainty and less people to do more work! In the days of BASI there were fewer aircraft, internationals only went to capital city airports, reports were a lot thinner than they are now and the people running the place had operational experience. Unfortunately what we are left with now is an extended time frame for completion and the opportunity to learn the lessons from an incident has long since disappeared.
BASI was nothing more then A RAAF old boys club. Having the misfortune to end up there after 89 in the bid to feed the family, and used to the discipline of the Flight Deck, it was a whole new experience watching the Public Service at work and play,and was too much for this bloke, who fled OS and back to the Flight Deck, which made sense.

wheels_down
2nd Aug 2016, 21:18
Some of you are being very quick to judge and apportion blame, based purely on speculation and reputation. Like any incident, there is always more to the story. Perhaps wait for at least an interim report.
Last time I checked this site is all about speculation, rumours and allegations. Just don't mention Etihad...

Hempy
3rd Aug 2016, 10:59
In all fairness, given that one of the protagonists has, shall we say, a 'less than rosey' safety record when it comes to this type of thing, that speculation is warranted on a Rumour Network in this case.

zkdli
4th Aug 2016, 09:09
Okay, don't usually post on this type of event, but it appears we have two aircraft on crossing track ,one descending to 5,000 one climbing to 4,000. The loss of separAtion appears to have occurred after the crossing point,so at the time that vertical separation was lost the aircraft were diverging so horizontal separation was building. The cause of the alt deviation could be one of many things as already stated -
A) a failure to capture the correct altitude
B) incorrect altimeter setting meaning that the crew believed that they were not yet at their assigned altitude
C) crew reacting to a TCAS resolution the resulted in the aircraft passing through cleared level but ensuring that the aircraft never were going to collide

The thing to remember in C) is that TCAS is aimed at preventing a collision not providing separation. This scenario is not uncommon when you have high performance aircraft climbing/descending and crossing.