Avoiding Action: what do ATC assume?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Y'all can make the hardest turn you want and spill the drink in my lap when I'm in the back.
Coffee stains vs. Aluminium stains ? I know which one I want.
Don't worry about us. We'll be fine. Tell us after the fact .
Just one other point. It would seem unlikely to me that one would be showing 450 kts TAS below 10,000 in fact one would be a lot slower, where most of these incidents may be happening. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Coffee stains vs. Aluminium stains ? I know which one I want.
Don't worry about us. We'll be fine. Tell us after the fact .
Just one other point. It would seem unlikely to me that one would be showing 450 kts TAS below 10,000 in fact one would be a lot slower, where most of these incidents may be happening. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: land of the long BLUE cloud
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VERY interesting thread!
What I want to know is... could I be given "avoiding action" just because I may pass within 4.9nm of another aircraft?
Or is it as I think it should be... "you're continued survival is in doubt" ?
In these days of litigation due to giving passengers a fright, [stress, trauma] it seems to me that a lot of captains will think twice before risking that.
And I agree you arent paid enough!
Nor are we!
Or is it as I think it should be... "you're continued survival is in doubt" ?
In these days of litigation due to giving passengers a fright, [stress, trauma] it seems to me that a lot of captains will think twice before risking that.
And I agree you arent paid enough!
Nor are we!
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Ayr, Scotland
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitoon,
Thank you for your contribution - it really added to the discussion.
Just what is it you want me to accept?
The world may not be perfect but that is no reason not to strive for better knowledge or understanding. My point, not clearly made perhaps, is that your expectations as a controller are different to mine as a pilot. If my enquiries so far are anything to go by, the "avoiding action" call has many meanings to controllers and just as many responses by pilots.
Thank you for your contribution - it really added to the discussion.
Just what is it you want me to accept?
The world may not be perfect but that is no reason not to strive for better knowledge or understanding. My point, not clearly made perhaps, is that your expectations as a controller are different to mine as a pilot. If my enquiries so far are anything to go by, the "avoiding action" call has many meanings to controllers and just as many responses by pilots.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: france
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little late in returning to the thread because I was training on a new type. I wanted to thank all contributors for fantastic response. I am certainly much more confident and will be taking it up with our company. As CRMI I need to be sure of my facts as well. If nothing else it has raised a point of assumptions made by pilots and ATC.
Findo didn't mean to snap, but the irresponsibility of some on reporting points can trivialise what to me was a very serious point. Hopefully Capt Pprunes STICKY will clean the forum up a bit. My apologies, no harm meant
A further point arising is that does the separation account for wake turbulence, ie if the 5nm clearance was between 2 heavies would that be a further consideration. Blip driving at LATCC we most certainly sent 747 on more than rate one turns for avoidance, as anything less with the speed involved would have made an even bigger turning circle and collision. Of course no idea what the g force would have been, but pop up traffic or human error will always be with us so we need to be sure what is expected by both parties. Hopefully few of us will encounter this.
Thanks to all and ATC always get my vote. It's those lovely friendly voices!
Findo didn't mean to snap, but the irresponsibility of some on reporting points can trivialise what to me was a very serious point. Hopefully Capt Pprunes STICKY will clean the forum up a bit. My apologies, no harm meant
A further point arising is that does the separation account for wake turbulence, ie if the 5nm clearance was between 2 heavies would that be a further consideration. Blip driving at LATCC we most certainly sent 747 on more than rate one turns for avoidance, as anything less with the speed involved would have made an even bigger turning circle and collision. Of course no idea what the g force would have been, but pop up traffic or human error will always be with us so we need to be sure what is expected by both parties. Hopefully few of us will encounter this.
Thanks to all and ATC always get my vote. It's those lovely friendly voices!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: united kingdom
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just read the June GASIL. It contains a piece on CAP 717 referred to earlier on this thread -- a report from the 'Avoiding Action Working Group.'
However, the GASIL article distinguishes between two phrases with the following paraphrased explaination:
" 'G-AAA, turn right 60 degrees for avoiding action' (standard separation can not be or has not been achieved, the aircraft to which the advice is being given will come close to the other one)"
and
" 'G-AAAA, avoiding action, turn right 60 degrees' (the controller is concerned that a real risk of collision exists if the advice given is not followed immediately)'
I can see no mention of the first type of phrasology in MATS pt 1 and it seems to me to be dangerous to have two very similar phrases with quite different levels of urgency.
This thread has already shown that ATCOs and pilots do not all interpret this life-saving instruction in the same way. This article seems to confuse an unclear situation still further.
Regards
However, the GASIL article distinguishes between two phrases with the following paraphrased explaination:
" 'G-AAA, turn right 60 degrees for avoiding action' (standard separation can not be or has not been achieved, the aircraft to which the advice is being given will come close to the other one)"
and
" 'G-AAAA, avoiding action, turn right 60 degrees' (the controller is concerned that a real risk of collision exists if the advice given is not followed immediately)'
I can see no mention of the first type of phrasology in MATS pt 1 and it seems to me to be dangerous to have two very similar phrases with quite different levels of urgency.
This thread has already shown that ATCOs and pilots do not all interpret this life-saving instruction in the same way. This article seems to confuse an unclear situation still further.
Regards
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
plane*jane - see the recently published airprox 128/01. The prompt action of the J41 and the B737 crews saved a serious loss of separation - opposite direction at the same level in an airway.
For those who believe TCAS will indicate the seriousness of the situation, one of the aircraft was not TCAS equipped. There will continue to be non TCAS aircraft for decades.
For those who believe TCAS will indicate the seriousness of the situation, one of the aircraft was not TCAS equipped. There will continue to be non TCAS aircraft for decades.
