Virgin 737 in near miss
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Lets look at it a different way, if a flaw is found in an aircraft component, the whole fleet is grounded until a thorough examination of each individual component is completed.
A flaw has been found in a component of NAS, should it not be grounded, till all, or most of the flaws have been erradicated?
Anyone agree? HH.
A flaw has been found in a component of NAS, should it not be grounded, till all, or most of the flaws have been erradicated?
Anyone agree? HH.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thanks tobzalp, I am not anti NAS, just think it needs a thorough rework with true industry consultation. Otherwise myself, other pilots, ATC's and the fare paying public are all at risk.
Might need to go back to driving those trucks!!
HH
PS: Of course we can all contact the minister [email protected] and have our say.
I just have.
PPS: Woomera I hope its Ok for me to post the email as it is available in the public domain.
Might need to go back to driving those trucks!!
HH
PS: Of course we can all contact the minister [email protected] and have our say.
I just have.
PPS: Woomera I hope its Ok for me to post the email as it is available in the public domain.
Last edited by Howard Hughes; 4th Dec 2003 at 10:48.
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that one massive factor in making NAS unsafe is going almost unmentioned, and what limited details we have of the Virgin episode would indicate it's possibly relevant there as well. That factor is the Pseudo-VFR flight.
We have heard from lots of proponents of the big sky theory scoffing at the likelihood of there being any significant numbers of VFR aircraft in E airspace, especially above 10,000, and on the surface that seems reasonable. But every ATC in the country and every IFR GA pilot know that IFR flights are blasting off into cloud calling themselves VFR to avoid charges. A chief pilot of my acquaintance with every instrument rating known to mankind admits that he plans VFR TL-MK because it saves him about $20 in enroute charges.
I accepted that before NAS. GA is a tough game and if my beloved employer was stupid enough to put into place a charging regime that encouraged pilots to lie, then more fool them. No skin off my nose; in Class C airspace, full separation was given anyway. But this is now a different ball game.
I'm not accusing anybody of anything here, but what was a high performance twin like a Conquest doing VFR? I suppose we should be grateful that he was at least on the right frequency.
If this abortion of a system is going to stay, I think individual ATC's will have to think about putting incident reports on "Pseudo-VFR" flights. And to ASA; as ye sow, so shall ye reap.
We have heard from lots of proponents of the big sky theory scoffing at the likelihood of there being any significant numbers of VFR aircraft in E airspace, especially above 10,000, and on the surface that seems reasonable. But every ATC in the country and every IFR GA pilot know that IFR flights are blasting off into cloud calling themselves VFR to avoid charges. A chief pilot of my acquaintance with every instrument rating known to mankind admits that he plans VFR TL-MK because it saves him about $20 in enroute charges.
I accepted that before NAS. GA is a tough game and if my beloved employer was stupid enough to put into place a charging regime that encouraged pilots to lie, then more fool them. No skin off my nose; in Class C airspace, full separation was given anyway. But this is now a different ball game.
I'm not accusing anybody of anything here, but what was a high performance twin like a Conquest doing VFR? I suppose we should be grateful that he was at least on the right frequency.
If this abortion of a system is going to stay, I think individual ATC's will have to think about putting incident reports on "Pseudo-VFR" flights. And to ASA; as ye sow, so shall ye reap.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Not the beach
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good grief!
Different flight categories with different airspace requirements on different frequencies all sharing the same airspace without radar separation is nothing short of stupidity – this is NOT a deregulated change– it is a completely unregulated change.
Not a change in the culture of safety at all, it is just plain unsafe.
If you believe I have it wrong – you just let me know.
Different flight categories with different airspace requirements on different frequencies all sharing the same airspace without radar separation is nothing short of stupidity – this is NOT a deregulated change– it is a completely unregulated change.
Not a change in the culture of safety at all, it is just plain unsafe.
If you believe I have it wrong – you just let me know.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It wasn't a Conquest guys, it was a C421.
Why was a VFR tracking to Essendon via a major IFR approach point for the area??? I guess this guy only looked at the pretty pictures in the educational comics that most of us got. I hazard a guess that the only thing that registered here with this guy is he doesn't need a clearance for E anymore.
YOU LITTLE RIPPER
Let's go.
Why was a VFR tracking to Essendon via a major IFR approach point for the area??? I guess this guy only looked at the pretty pictures in the educational comics that most of us got. I hazard a guess that the only thing that registered here with this guy is he doesn't need a clearance for E anymore.
YOU LITTLE RIPPER
Let's go.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Oh come on Barg be fair, he was on the "appropriate frequency" and hearsay indicates that he took action!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://news.com.au/common/story_page...E28101,00.html
Pilot denies collision threat
By Paul Colgan
December 4, 2003
THE pilot of the light aircraft allegedly involved in a near miss with a passenger jet over Melbourne yesterday says he is "surprised anyone bothered to mention it" because it "seemed nothing out of the ordinary".
John Knispel, a former air force pilot, said he believed there was never any threat his Cessna aircraft would collide with the Virgin Blue flight, and that air traffic controllers were in command of the situation at all times.
Union bosses opposed to the introduction of a new system of controlling national airspace have claimed the Virgin Blue 737 and Mr Knispel's Cessna were within 20 seconds of a mid-air collision.
Virgin and Federal Transport Minister John Anderson said today the matter was under investigation but they did not believe the incident threatened safety at any time.
Mr Knispel's account of the matter adds weight to Mr Anderson's argument that unions were exaggerating aviation incidents to stifle change in the industry.
The pilot-turned-executive, who now runs a family citrus business in Adelaide, disagreed with the assessment that his plane was within 20 seconds of a collision. "My general impression was that everything was under control," he said. "I'm rather puzzled to find there's quite a bit of media interest in it today."
Three separate investigations are underway into the incident after a collision alarm sounded in the cockpit of the 737 as it descended into Melbourne after a flight from the Gold Coast.
Mr Knispel said he was in contact with radar controllers and the pilots of other aircraft in the area at the time.
"There were two aircraft behind me going into Melbourne," he said.
"As far as I am aware, the radar controller was watching all of us on his screen. He was telling us what to do.
"As the Virgin aircraft approached me from behind, he asked me to turn right.
"(The Virgin plane) went past me. As I understand it, he had a device on board which tells you when other aircraft are around, and it was triggered off.
"The Virgin aircraft advised that this had happened, but it was all very relaxed. I formed the opinion from the way it was discussed that it was nothing out of the ordinary.
Mr Knispel did not see the Boeing 737 passing him. "I understood he was 500 feet higher than us. We had turned off the track we were following, so in addition to the altitude separation, the air traffic controller was watching us."
The air traffic controllers and the 737 pilot seemed relaxed, he said. "I was surprised that anybody concerned bothered to mention it after the event. I was rather fascinated to hear that the device had been triggered off, but I'm not familiar with what the parameters are for triggering it off."
An Air Ambulance Victoria plane operated by the Royal Flying Doctor Service was the other aircraft involved. Air Ambulance Victoria said today the pilot of its plane was under the guidance of Melbourne air traffic control.
"At no time did the Air Ambulance represent a safety risk to the Virgin aircraft or the Cessna," Air Ambulance Victoria said.
NEWS.com.au
Pilot denies collision threat
By Paul Colgan
December 4, 2003
THE pilot of the light aircraft allegedly involved in a near miss with a passenger jet over Melbourne yesterday says he is "surprised anyone bothered to mention it" because it "seemed nothing out of the ordinary".
John Knispel, a former air force pilot, said he believed there was never any threat his Cessna aircraft would collide with the Virgin Blue flight, and that air traffic controllers were in command of the situation at all times.
Union bosses opposed to the introduction of a new system of controlling national airspace have claimed the Virgin Blue 737 and Mr Knispel's Cessna were within 20 seconds of a mid-air collision.
Virgin and Federal Transport Minister John Anderson said today the matter was under investigation but they did not believe the incident threatened safety at any time.
Mr Knispel's account of the matter adds weight to Mr Anderson's argument that unions were exaggerating aviation incidents to stifle change in the industry.
The pilot-turned-executive, who now runs a family citrus business in Adelaide, disagreed with the assessment that his plane was within 20 seconds of a collision. "My general impression was that everything was under control," he said. "I'm rather puzzled to find there's quite a bit of media interest in it today."
Three separate investigations are underway into the incident after a collision alarm sounded in the cockpit of the 737 as it descended into Melbourne after a flight from the Gold Coast.
Mr Knispel said he was in contact with radar controllers and the pilots of other aircraft in the area at the time.
"There were two aircraft behind me going into Melbourne," he said.
"As far as I am aware, the radar controller was watching all of us on his screen. He was telling us what to do.
"As the Virgin aircraft approached me from behind, he asked me to turn right.
"(The Virgin plane) went past me. As I understand it, he had a device on board which tells you when other aircraft are around, and it was triggered off.
"The Virgin aircraft advised that this had happened, but it was all very relaxed. I formed the opinion from the way it was discussed that it was nothing out of the ordinary.
Mr Knispel did not see the Boeing 737 passing him. "I understood he was 500 feet higher than us. We had turned off the track we were following, so in addition to the altitude separation, the air traffic controller was watching us."
The air traffic controllers and the 737 pilot seemed relaxed, he said. "I was surprised that anybody concerned bothered to mention it after the event. I was rather fascinated to hear that the device had been triggered off, but I'm not familiar with what the parameters are for triggering it off."
An Air Ambulance Victoria plane operated by the Royal Flying Doctor Service was the other aircraft involved. Air Ambulance Victoria said today the pilot of its plane was under the guidance of Melbourne air traffic control.
"At no time did the Air Ambulance represent a safety risk to the Virgin aircraft or the Cessna," Air Ambulance Victoria said.
NEWS.com.au
A TCAS RA: a very relaxing experience. Yeh right. WTF was an RPT jet in a situation where a TCAS RA was issued anyway??!! Because of NAS, that's why. Can't wait til it's an A380 in a few years. But then, I guess it would simply be a case of "Melbourne, I think we've just had a birdstrike". At least you still have to put in an ATSB report for a birdstrike...
"No big deal, I didn't see nuffin (thanks snarek) until a nice shiny red jet appeared in front of me going like the clappers...".
Funny the cesspit ace didn't mention anthing about his quick upgrade to IFR. I Wonder if the AsA meter kicked into action when it heard "request IFR"?
"No big deal, I didn't see nuffin (thanks snarek) until a nice shiny red jet appeared in front of me going like the clappers...".
Funny the cesspit ace didn't mention anthing about his quick upgrade to IFR. I Wonder if the AsA meter kicked into action when it heard "request IFR"?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...351697164.html
Anderson labels mid-air close call reports irresponsible
December 4, 2003 - 11:36AM
A union was today accused of scaremongering over claims a plane was within 20 seconds of a mid-air disaster near Melbourne.
Transport Minister John Anderson said the claim was horrendous.
He said it was simply one of more than 60 incidents from the past week since new airspace rules took effect that would be reported to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).
Ted Lang, president of the air traffic controllers union Civil Air, claimed Virgin flight DJ980 from the Gold Coast to Melbourne was believed to be 20 seconds from colliding with a twin-engine Cessna yesterday when an alarm was triggered yesterday as it was descending north-west of Melbourne.
Mr Anderson said he could not guarantee there would never be a mid-air crash but said the government would not have implemented the new system if it did not believe it was safe.
"Can I guarantee there will never be an incident? No I can't, of course I can't," he said.
"You can't guarantee wherever human beings are involved, wherever mechanical contrivances are involved, total and absolute safety, you can't."
He described claims of a near miss by the union representing air traffic controllers and Mr Lang, as outrageous.
"I hear all of this irresponsible talk about close collisions and 20 seconds and so forth," Mr Anderson said.
"The ATSB has a responsibility now to investigate it.
"This happened in controlled airspace, all the scaremongering that Ted Lang's been engaging in has been about uncontrolled airspace.
"The aircraft, both of them were in contact with the tower."
Mr Anderson said he believed the new airspace system would enhance safety.
"A lot of this centres on so called incidents and it is horrendous to describe something as a near miss when a responsible person knows full well that an incident does not constitute a near miss."
Mr Anderson said there were around 50 incidents reported each week and this had risen to more than 60 in the week since the new rules were introduced.
Earlier, Virgin Blue spokesman David Huttner said the airline would consider in its investigation whether the new National Airspace System was to blame. But he said anyone speculating on the possible cause of the incident "would be doing so without all the facts".
Mr Huttner cast doubt the claim that the aircraft were only 20 seconds from crashing. "Certainly at this point in time nobody has all the facts to make such a statement. It's speculative at best."
AAP
Edit: Sorry just noticed this also posted in the "NAS Reform..." thread. I'll leave it up here as it seems quite relevant to this thread.
Anderson labels mid-air close call reports irresponsible
December 4, 2003 - 11:36AM
A union was today accused of scaremongering over claims a plane was within 20 seconds of a mid-air disaster near Melbourne.
Transport Minister John Anderson said the claim was horrendous.
He said it was simply one of more than 60 incidents from the past week since new airspace rules took effect that would be reported to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).
Ted Lang, president of the air traffic controllers union Civil Air, claimed Virgin flight DJ980 from the Gold Coast to Melbourne was believed to be 20 seconds from colliding with a twin-engine Cessna yesterday when an alarm was triggered yesterday as it was descending north-west of Melbourne.
Mr Anderson said he could not guarantee there would never be a mid-air crash but said the government would not have implemented the new system if it did not believe it was safe.
"Can I guarantee there will never be an incident? No I can't, of course I can't," he said.
"You can't guarantee wherever human beings are involved, wherever mechanical contrivances are involved, total and absolute safety, you can't."
He described claims of a near miss by the union representing air traffic controllers and Mr Lang, as outrageous.
"I hear all of this irresponsible talk about close collisions and 20 seconds and so forth," Mr Anderson said.
"The ATSB has a responsibility now to investigate it.
"This happened in controlled airspace, all the scaremongering that Ted Lang's been engaging in has been about uncontrolled airspace.
"The aircraft, both of them were in contact with the tower."
Mr Anderson said he believed the new airspace system would enhance safety.
"A lot of this centres on so called incidents and it is horrendous to describe something as a near miss when a responsible person knows full well that an incident does not constitute a near miss."
Mr Anderson said there were around 50 incidents reported each week and this had risen to more than 60 in the week since the new rules were introduced.
Earlier, Virgin Blue spokesman David Huttner said the airline would consider in its investigation whether the new National Airspace System was to blame. But he said anyone speculating on the possible cause of the incident "would be doing so without all the facts".
Mr Huttner cast doubt the claim that the aircraft were only 20 seconds from crashing. "Certainly at this point in time nobody has all the facts to make such a statement. It's speculative at best."
AAP
Edit: Sorry just noticed this also posted in the "NAS Reform..." thread. I'll leave it up here as it seems quite relevant to this thread.
Someone made a comment that VFR pilots are to keep away from IFR reporting points and/or IFR approachs, great in theory but 90% of your local VFR pilots don't have DAPs or any idea of where locations IFR approaches are at.
The statements made by the Adelaide pilot are PRECISELY the problem with NAS.
We are relying upon people who quite obviously don't have a clue to determine if there is a problem between themselves and RPT jet and turboprop traffic - that is assuming that they are on an "appropriate" frequency and know about the potential problem in the first place.
IT WAS ALL VERY RELAXED....it sounded all very relaxed because the people in the jet and the ATC are professionals - they don't burst into tears and sob hysterically everytime something goes wrong - but is "it sounded very relaxed" a measure of risk??
This guy had no reason under NAS to speak with controllers as a VFR aeroplane and I wonder how he knew he was going to be told "to turn right".
The very people that we now rely upon to determine if they are a problem to us and then let us know - if they are on the right frequency - are the ones that have no appreciation of what we would consider to be a problem.
Here is a question for Snarek - if you missed a jet by half a mile and a couple of hundred feet would most of your members consider that to be a reasonably large miss?
I reckon that most VFR pilots would consider that if they don't look like ACTUALLY hitting an aeroplane they will keep quiet as it isn't a problem.....
The 'ole wouldn't hit in a fit standard!
Just as a matter of interest Snarek and all of you pro NAS people. If I said to a VFR pilot that I was 57 DME Melbourne on the 308 melbourne omni radial - would they know what I was talking about?
Would they appreciate that I cover about 6-7 miles per minute on descent, and decend at about 2-3000 feet per minute?
Would they respond with a geographic location if asked for a position " I am just crossing the Gullagargabone to Timbuktoo road near bugeredifIknow"? cause of they did I wouldn't know where they are - I rely upon navaids etc to fix position..
How precisely are these people - who probably won't appreciate that there is a problem in the first place - tell me where they are if they do reckon its a problem???? and am I likely to hit them during the resultant confusion because they didn't allow for my ground speed or rate of descent when they called me initially????
for these and other exciting answers stay tuned to NAS - 'National airspace STUFFUP
PS maybe Open Mike or Dick Smith would like to give me a sensible answer???
We are relying upon people who quite obviously don't have a clue to determine if there is a problem between themselves and RPT jet and turboprop traffic - that is assuming that they are on an "appropriate" frequency and know about the potential problem in the first place.
"As the Virgin aircraft approached me from behind, he asked me to turn right.
"(The Virgin plane) went past me. As I understand it, he had a device on board which tells you when other aircraft are around, and it was triggered off.
"The Virgin aircraft advised that this had happened, but it was all very relaxed. I formed the opinion from the way it was discussed that it was nothing out of the ordinary.
"(The Virgin plane) went past me. As I understand it, he had a device on board which tells you when other aircraft are around, and it was triggered off.
"The Virgin aircraft advised that this had happened, but it was all very relaxed. I formed the opinion from the way it was discussed that it was nothing out of the ordinary.
This guy had no reason under NAS to speak with controllers as a VFR aeroplane and I wonder how he knew he was going to be told "to turn right".
The very people that we now rely upon to determine if they are a problem to us and then let us know - if they are on the right frequency - are the ones that have no appreciation of what we would consider to be a problem.
Here is a question for Snarek - if you missed a jet by half a mile and a couple of hundred feet would most of your members consider that to be a reasonably large miss?
I reckon that most VFR pilots would consider that if they don't look like ACTUALLY hitting an aeroplane they will keep quiet as it isn't a problem.....
The 'ole wouldn't hit in a fit standard!
Just as a matter of interest Snarek and all of you pro NAS people. If I said to a VFR pilot that I was 57 DME Melbourne on the 308 melbourne omni radial - would they know what I was talking about?
Would they appreciate that I cover about 6-7 miles per minute on descent, and decend at about 2-3000 feet per minute?
Would they respond with a geographic location if asked for a position " I am just crossing the Gullagargabone to Timbuktoo road near bugeredifIknow"? cause of they did I wouldn't know where they are - I rely upon navaids etc to fix position..
How precisely are these people - who probably won't appreciate that there is a problem in the first place - tell me where they are if they do reckon its a problem???? and am I likely to hit them during the resultant confusion because they didn't allow for my ground speed or rate of descent when they called me initially????
for these and other exciting answers stay tuned to NAS - 'National airspace STUFFUP
PS maybe Open Mike or Dick Smith would like to give me a sensible answer???
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMAZING STUFF.
Just heard Mr Anderson on 7 news saying that he comes within 1/2 sec of a semi-trailer every time he is on the road. The analogies this guy is using are remarkable to say the least. What a semi-trailer (on the ground and very visible from a long way off and very very slow) has to do with a near miss is beyond me..
I agree that we should wait to see and hear the facts but as Bloggs says, an RA is an RA. It is an collision avoidance manoeuvre . Nothing emotional or upbeat about that, just the facts. B737 RA's are activated approx 25 seconds from the closest point of approach (to use boeing language), depending on may variables.
So Mr Anderson, 25 secs before you drive into the semi, you will see him mate. You can follow his progress all the way to your impact point. You will probably only kill yourself and the unfortunate souls with you. We on the other hand can not generally see the other traffic and will take out a large group of innocent victims.
Will someone please give Mr Anderson a big dose of reality prior to his relaese back into the main stream community. This guy is fast becoming the biggest joke in Oz politics.
Just heard Mr Anderson on 7 news saying that he comes within 1/2 sec of a semi-trailer every time he is on the road. The analogies this guy is using are remarkable to say the least. What a semi-trailer (on the ground and very visible from a long way off and very very slow) has to do with a near miss is beyond me..
I agree that we should wait to see and hear the facts but as Bloggs says, an RA is an RA. It is an collision avoidance manoeuvre . Nothing emotional or upbeat about that, just the facts. B737 RA's are activated approx 25 seconds from the closest point of approach (to use boeing language), depending on may variables.
So Mr Anderson, 25 secs before you drive into the semi, you will see him mate. You can follow his progress all the way to your impact point. You will probably only kill yourself and the unfortunate souls with you. We on the other hand can not generally see the other traffic and will take out a large group of innocent victims.
Will someone please give Mr Anderson a big dose of reality prior to his relaese back into the main stream community. This guy is fast becoming the biggest joke in Oz politics.
I've been flying RPT between MEL-SYD-BNE for the past 8 years. TCAS RA's around this part of Aus are, as far as I know, extremely rare. Can any ATC's comment, please? And now: we get one, just ONE WEEK after Nov 27, apparently at D55 MEL, which is clearly in Class E if DJ was on a normal descent profile. Kinda says it all, huh? 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To those who know,
How often would you expect to get a TCAS AR in say flight hours ?
thanks,
PS: spare a thought for airports in G class which under NAS 2c will have 737, Bae, etc mixing with Ga no calls no radar and no transponders and no big sky as they are crowding in to a single point.
How often would you expect to get a TCAS AR in say flight hours ?
thanks,
PS: spare a thought for airports in G class which under NAS 2c will have 737, Bae, etc mixing with Ga no calls no radar and no transponders and no big sky as they are crowding in to a single point.
Bottums Up
Heard on ABC Radio National in Darwin on the way home today (Thurs) that "an ATC controller has been stood down over the Virgin incident. I can't say that I am at all surprised as I and others predicted that the NAS would be devoid of blame and pilots or ATCOs would be the scape goats.
On a related note, a colleague descending out of A, through E, and on into D the otherday, did manage to contact a VFR who happened to be on the correct appropriate frequency, except the dill was maintaining F105!!!!!
VFR Drivers
Reading many of the posts on NAS in the various threads, it seems to me that VFR pilots may well form the opinon that they are not welcome in our airspace.
I can only speak for myself but believe many IFR pilots would share my view, that in reality VFR pilots are more than welcome. The airspace is there for all of us to use.
All I'd like is to know where you are so that I can make my own decision as to whether there may be a conflict and thus take appropriate action.
Similarly, if you decide there's a conflict and want something done, it's incumbent upon me to accept your wishes and come to an agreeable separation arrangement.
As things are now with NAS, I must rely on you to determine that there is a conflict and you to speak up. Effectively I've been taken out of the loop to a signifficant degree.
To steal from Alice Welcome to our airspace!
As I type Mrs Claret is in-transit in BNE enroute to Canberra. As an extremely nervous, ney frightened passenger, she has just phoned asking why the Virgin pilots had been stood down? She thinks that she heard the story on a terminal telly but is not sure. Can anyone confirm or deny this possibility?
She also expressed disgust at Anderson's analogy of a 20 second semi-trailer. Her fear levels rise!
On a related note, a colleague descending out of A, through E, and on into D the otherday, did manage to contact a VFR who happened to be on the correct appropriate frequency, except the dill was maintaining F105!!!!!
VFR Drivers
Reading many of the posts on NAS in the various threads, it seems to me that VFR pilots may well form the opinon that they are not welcome in our airspace.
I can only speak for myself but believe many IFR pilots would share my view, that in reality VFR pilots are more than welcome. The airspace is there for all of us to use.
All I'd like is to know where you are so that I can make my own decision as to whether there may be a conflict and thus take appropriate action.
Similarly, if you decide there's a conflict and want something done, it's incumbent upon me to accept your wishes and come to an agreeable separation arrangement.
As things are now with NAS, I must rely on you to determine that there is a conflict and you to speak up. Effectively I've been taken out of the loop to a signifficant degree.
To steal from Alice Welcome to our airspace!
As I type Mrs Claret is in-transit in BNE enroute to Canberra. As an extremely nervous, ney frightened passenger, she has just phoned asking why the Virgin pilots had been stood down? She thinks that she heard the story on a terminal telly but is not sure. Can anyone confirm or deny this possibility?
She also expressed disgust at Anderson's analogy of a 20 second semi-trailer. Her fear levels rise!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post CC;
Having spent a good deal of today dealing with this incident, I feel qualified to discuss it (although not allowed to).
But...
The B737 got traffic, the Golden Eagle called, the BE20 got pushed down to get out of the way.
The VFR Golden Eagle did call for a clearance VFR through C (inside ML TMA) for ADES YMEN; this was not available for many reasons, including inclement weather. So the GE requested an IFR clearance.
This is why it is complicated, not only is it a VFR and two IFRs, it's now possibly three IFRSs.
I can safely say that the ATC involved not only had a sleepness night; but so did many of his colleagues. (Including me)
Calmness over the air, maybe it is because he's a professional, total wreck emotionally is another way of describing it... Everything is OK hey SNAREK, shame on you and your kind.
This is a totally NAS realted problem; the aircraft involved got 'over serviced'. The C421's transponder wasn't showing mode C until he recycled it as part of the request a clearance procedure and subsequent identification, hence the TCAS (RA) trigger.
The ATC involved did an outstanding job, fact.
The system is absolutely dangerous, as predicted. It only takes one small error, such as this type of transponder issue and all the system defenses (sic) are gone.
They would have been a very close miss (or hit) if the VFR had of requested his clearance ten miles later. He's only required to call at 46 ML, he requested it a 65 ML... As it was it was 1NM and 400 feet...
Luck saved the day, lets hope we stay lucky.
John Anderson, stop this and stop it now, you have been tragically miss advised. "in contact with the tower" indeed, you fool.
Bottle of Rum
Having spent a good deal of today dealing with this incident, I feel qualified to discuss it (although not allowed to).
But...
The B737 got traffic, the Golden Eagle called, the BE20 got pushed down to get out of the way.
The VFR Golden Eagle did call for a clearance VFR through C (inside ML TMA) for ADES YMEN; this was not available for many reasons, including inclement weather. So the GE requested an IFR clearance.
This is why it is complicated, not only is it a VFR and two IFRs, it's now possibly three IFRSs.
I can safely say that the ATC involved not only had a sleepness night; but so did many of his colleagues. (Including me)
Calmness over the air, maybe it is because he's a professional, total wreck emotionally is another way of describing it... Everything is OK hey SNAREK, shame on you and your kind.
This is a totally NAS realted problem; the aircraft involved got 'over serviced'. The C421's transponder wasn't showing mode C until he recycled it as part of the request a clearance procedure and subsequent identification, hence the TCAS (RA) trigger.
The ATC involved did an outstanding job, fact.
The system is absolutely dangerous, as predicted. It only takes one small error, such as this type of transponder issue and all the system defenses (sic) are gone.
They would have been a very close miss (or hit) if the VFR had of requested his clearance ten miles later. He's only required to call at 46 ML, he requested it a 65 ML... As it was it was 1NM and 400 feet...
Luck saved the day, lets hope we stay lucky.
John Anderson, stop this and stop it now, you have been tragically miss advised. "in contact with the tower" indeed, you fool.
Bottle of Rum
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS RA's around this part of Aus are, as far as I know, extremely rare.
a. ATC error
b. aircraft malfunction/emergency (e.g decompression/descent)
c. TCAS malfunction
d. In the TMA, sometimes an a/c or helo on high rate of climb to a vertically separated level beneath a jet on approach would set off the TCAS based on CPA (although this was mostly a TA and the jet was given traffic and new the a/c below was climbing to a safe level)
Mr Knispel did not see the Boeing 737 passing him. "I understood he was 500 feet higher than us. We had turned off the track we were following, so in addition to the altitude separation, the air traffic controller was watching us."
(so much for the briefing material). He had called ATC to request a clearance to EN just before the RA, and had he not called at that time and been told to squawk Mode C, the VOZ wouldn't have got an RA, and the ATC would have given no "separation" advice. Makes you wonder how many other poorly educated (either through appathy or *shudder* poor training) private pilots are out there. Oh, and while there was 500" between them, the VOZ had been cleared to A090.
it was all very relaxed. I formed the opinion from the way it was discussed that it was nothing out of the ordinary.
ust heard Mr Anderson on 7 news saying that he comes within 1/2 sec of a semi-trailer every time he is on the road.
