Virgin 737 in near miss
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if there are some contingency strategy meetings happening right now - and I wonder who is and isn't invited (or who will turn up anyway).
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sgt Kurtz, RTB: have I struck a nerve or what? The more you guys rely on childishness and insults, the more I doubt you.
Sticks and stones....
Andy
Sticks and stones....
Andy
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the proof for you though Andy. F175 is in E. No correct Transponder usage. Obviously not avoiding the IFR route. Obviously failing to see and avoid. I guess one thing was that they were on the appropriate thing. This is obviously safer than pre 27th Nav. To the sun rising in the east mob, it appears that it has started to swing. Please be shutting up now.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tobzalp,
true ... although fingers crossed the DJ hadn't been tracked direct ... wouldn't want him to be off that published IFR route all those VFRs are trying to avoid, now would we?
true ... although fingers crossed the DJ hadn't been tracked direct ... wouldn't want him to be off that published IFR route all those VFRs are trying to avoid, now would we?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Farcome,
Good idea ... except my guess is that that won't stop VFR above 8500', it'll just encourage them to turn their transponders off (because of course, they are all on now aren't they?!)
Good idea ... except my guess is that that won't stop VFR above 8500', it'll just encourage them to turn their transponders off (because of course, they are all on now aren't they?!)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: brisbane
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears the education process did not work very well. Over 22 incidents already logged and being investigated, many involving VFR a/c not using mode C.
Yesterday a Be20 did a radical turn to avoid a no mode C a/c on climb out of LIS. Pilot tried contacting VFR to asertain level but that a/c was on an "appropriate" frequency and could'nt be contacted. Be20 asked for a radar heading to avoid traffic because could not get a visual on the VFR.
The VFR must have been above A045 due radar coverage, a unnecessary occurance for an air ambulance.
One of the safety mitigators for NAS was pilot education.
Yesterday a Be20 did a radical turn to avoid a no mode C a/c on climb out of LIS. Pilot tried contacting VFR to asertain level but that a/c was on an "appropriate" frequency and could'nt be contacted. Be20 asked for a radar heading to avoid traffic because could not get a visual on the VFR.
The VFR must have been above A045 due radar coverage, a unnecessary occurance for an air ambulance.
One of the safety mitigators for NAS was pilot education.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aussie Andy,
You complain of childishness yet you call what tobzalp said "twaddle". Did you ever consider that tobzalp might actually know the details of the incident? For you to say that he has made it up implies that you know differently. Do you? Do you know differently?
If not, then until you know more, you should be taking your own advice and not comment on the incident, or on those who may know what happened.
You complain of childishness yet you call what tobzalp said "twaddle". Did you ever consider that tobzalp might actually know the details of the incident? For you to say that he has made it up implies that you know differently. Do you? Do you know differently?
If not, then until you know more, you should be taking your own advice and not comment on the incident, or on those who may know what happened.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew past a class D non radar tower a few days ago, VFR in the adjoining class E airspace. Transponder & lights on, good look out, & monitoring the tower frequency etc. In line with the new regs I refrained from making any calls unless they were warrented. I was about 20miles west of the field and a jet called inbound at 50 or 60 miles from the same direction. I made a tower and all stations call and seperation was sorted out after four or five radio calls. There was no conflict but it was unorganised and inefficiant in comparison to the previous system in place. About 3 minutes later a turbo prop was airbourne at the same field and once again extra radio calls were required to maintain adaquate situational awareness. Previously I would have had an airways clearance, the tower would have know exactly where I was, and given the arriving & departing aircraft accurate traffic information. Someone new to that area or with minimal experiance would have had difficulty maintaining S.A. in that situation. Unable to quickly and accuratly broadcast their position and intentions. Overall safety in that area is without a doubt comprimised. Good luck to all!!
GG
GG
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tobzalp might actually know the details
Night night
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right Ausy Andy
- I should not have lowered myself to the level of mud-slinging but that was part humour and part frustration as I am seeing the result of what the experts informed the other experts of what the result will be.
Quite frankly I did not expect it to be this soon, of this quantity and this vivid.
I went home after a shift last week and felt quite sick from watching a bunch of people nearly die. It's happened a few times during my life in aviation, and I know death in aviation but I saw it and I knew it was directly the result of this change .
That's that mate - I am but human.
- I should not have lowered myself to the level of mud-slinging but that was part humour and part frustration as I am seeing the result of what the experts informed the other experts of what the result will be.
Quite frankly I did not expect it to be this soon, of this quantity and this vivid.
I went home after a shift last week and felt quite sick from watching a bunch of people nearly die. It's happened a few times during my life in aviation, and I know death in aviation but I saw it and I knew it was directly the result of this change .
That's that mate - I am but human.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Up until this point I had tried to convince myself that the new NAS wouldn't be a problem if we were operating in Class E airspace with radar coverage. This incident would tend to disprove that theory.
I simply do not understand how this system is supposed to be safe. We are relying on transponders which must be switched on but at no point do we ever have to check that those transponders are actually working when the switch is in the on position. I would love to meet the individual(s) that came up with this 'fool proof' system.
I understand that this system is proven in the USA. I have not operated in the US so I cannot comment from personal experience. I would however suggest that the United States is very different because of the fact that the country is blanketed in radar coverage (probably to see the Russians coming in the old days!).
Furthermore, I do not understand this constant obsession with emulating the USA. Have you ever been to the USA? We should be doing everything possible to avoid becoming like the US!
The NAS should not only be suspended immediately, it should be squashed completely. I refuse to believe it is the only option for airspace reform.
RM.
I simply do not understand how this system is supposed to be safe. We are relying on transponders which must be switched on but at no point do we ever have to check that those transponders are actually working when the switch is in the on position. I would love to meet the individual(s) that came up with this 'fool proof' system.
I understand that this system is proven in the USA. I have not operated in the US so I cannot comment from personal experience. I would however suggest that the United States is very different because of the fact that the country is blanketed in radar coverage (probably to see the Russians coming in the old days!).
Furthermore, I do not understand this constant obsession with emulating the USA. Have you ever been to the USA? We should be doing everything possible to avoid becoming like the US!
The NAS should not only be suspended immediately, it should be squashed completely. I refuse to believe it is the only option for airspace reform.
RM.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red,
That was kinda my question. Being only a pesky VFR pilot I am coming to terms with how NAS affects me.
I am trying to learn from the professionals what the mayor issues are with NAS and safety.
And my question was: if this new system is emulating the USA, (and RED rightly asks, why do we want to be like the US), why haven't there been accidents, issues, incidents in the US. If it is as bad a everyone is saying, then surely the US could not operate anywhere near like it does. Lots more traffice in the US etc etc.
There must be different circumstances here in OZ to make NAS so unsafe?
As I said, I dont know much about NAS only from a VFR point of view.
Regards
Noodle
That was kinda my question. Being only a pesky VFR pilot I am coming to terms with how NAS affects me.
I am trying to learn from the professionals what the mayor issues are with NAS and safety.
And my question was: if this new system is emulating the USA, (and RED rightly asks, why do we want to be like the US), why haven't there been accidents, issues, incidents in the US. If it is as bad a everyone is saying, then surely the US could not operate anywhere near like it does. Lots more traffice in the US etc etc.
There must be different circumstances here in OZ to make NAS so unsafe?
As I said, I dont know much about NAS only from a VFR point of view.
Regards
Noodle
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: At lunch
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right on Aussie Andy,
We'll shove our heads up our arses and pretend it didn't happen whilst three-six months pass while the official report is being compiled, and then another couple of months while the AsA spin is applied to blame
1) Either and/or both pilots
2) An individual Controller
In the meantime, thank phuque that this was 'only' a serious incident. How many more will occur while we are doing what Andy said and waiting for the report.
As someone who has seen the system as
A VFR pilot, IFR pilot, ATC (not necessarily in that order) can anyone tell me how post 27/11 is safer, more time efficient for both crew and ATC or going to cost less ??
What is it going to take for some people (read Anderson, CASA, AsA) to get the message.
We'll shove our heads up our arses and pretend it didn't happen whilst three-six months pass while the official report is being compiled, and then another couple of months while the AsA spin is applied to blame
1) Either and/or both pilots
2) An individual Controller
In the meantime, thank phuque that this was 'only' a serious incident. How many more will occur while we are doing what Andy said and waiting for the report.
As someone who has seen the system as
A VFR pilot, IFR pilot, ATC (not necessarily in that order) can anyone tell me how post 27/11 is safer, more time efficient for both crew and ATC or going to cost less ??
What is it going to take for some people (read Anderson, CASA, AsA) to get the message.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aussie Andy,
I said that tobzalp MIGHT know the details, and again you imply that what he said is false. In doing so you imply that you know what the situation was.
I ask again - do you know any different? Do you know for sure tobzalp is incorrect? If not then, as I said before, you would do well to follow your own advice and not comment on this serious incident or the people involved until you know something about it.
Does he? He doesn't say so... Let's just hope the Australian public aren't gullible enouh to believe everything they read in the papers, eh!?
I ask again - do you know any different? Do you know for sure tobzalp is incorrect? If not then, as I said before, you would do well to follow your own advice and not comment on this serious incident or the people involved until you know something about it.
Evertonian
I heard John Anderson calling this a "beat up", implying it was just discrediting NAS!
This, from the guy that thought ANZ's Ansett figures were incorrect & believed every word of QF's!!!!!
This, from the guy that thought ANZ's Ansett figures were incorrect & believed every word of QF's!!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy,
I have been trying to be nice. But you know sweet FA about what you talk about and try to 'mix it'with the ATCers who are directly involved in this day to day - never mind me.
I am just a pilot. My biggest concern is for me, my crew and my pax.
Frankly my worry is that if my aircraft cleans up a clown like you, on another frequency (might make a mistake with what frequency was 'appropriate') forgot to turn on your transponder, or had your head in the 'pit looking at your engine instrument for just that moment , well it's a waste of your life and it would be no consolation for (if we didn't go down a la PSA) me or your bereaved that you were operating in an airspace that was more reliant on flawed principles, was implemented without proper consultation or safety case, or just that one or two lines of defense were removed, (that resulted in your event) but was ádequately safe', based on a 'proven system (partly), and would provide 'cost savings'.
We play for keeps on a daily basis, which increases our risks exponentially as compared to guys like you.
I have been trying to be nice. But you know sweet FA about what you talk about and try to 'mix it'with the ATCers who are directly involved in this day to day - never mind me.
I am just a pilot. My biggest concern is for me, my crew and my pax.
Frankly my worry is that if my aircraft cleans up a clown like you, on another frequency (might make a mistake with what frequency was 'appropriate') forgot to turn on your transponder, or had your head in the 'pit looking at your engine instrument for just that moment , well it's a waste of your life and it would be no consolation for (if we didn't go down a la PSA) me or your bereaved that you were operating in an airspace that was more reliant on flawed principles, was implemented without proper consultation or safety case, or just that one or two lines of defense were removed, (that resulted in your event) but was ádequately safe', based on a 'proven system (partly), and would provide 'cost savings'.
We play for keeps on a daily basis, which increases our risks exponentially as compared to guys like you.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you keep encouraging this Andy he will not go away. Best thing to do is ignore him because his ramblings are as per the rest of the low time non professionals that are to blame for this stuff in the first place. To make it easy just click the link http://www.pprune.org/forums/member2...e&userid=19584 and while you are at it I suggest you add winstun as I am yet to see anything of worth come from him.
Captain Noodle. I suggest you do a bit of research before sprouting this type of obviously uneducated comment. Even thread here on this board will show you that you should think first. I suggest to go to www.google.com and use they key words 'mid air collision united states' and have a real good read. Add 1998 to that search and you will see that there were 21 mid airs directly as a result of the pilots failing to see and avoid.
I posted the link in another thread here so go have a look. An assumption you make is that we have the US model here. We do not. The US have 550% the amount of radar that we have 20 times the controllers, 20 times the aircraft movements plus Flight Following and Flight Service Stations. Controllers in Aus have more movements per person that the Yanks and they also have flight service and Flight Following to further decrease their workload.
why haven't there been accidents, issues, incidents in the US
I posted the link in another thread here so go have a look. An assumption you make is that we have the US model here. We do not. The US have 550% the amount of radar that we have 20 times the controllers, 20 times the aircraft movements plus Flight Following and Flight Service Stations. Controllers in Aus have more movements per person that the Yanks and they also have flight service and Flight Following to further decrease their workload.
Last edited by tobzalp; 5th Dec 2003 at 09:20.