Some truth about the ML incident
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snarek
Let me prefix this with the following disclaimer: I know no more about the ML incident than is general knowledge within the place I work. I have no inside knowledge of this particular incident.
Not quite. We provide traffic information (as opposed to advisory) on VFR. An advisory service is a higher level of service and is not a feature of Class E.
A controller only has ‘control’ of an aircraft when it is subject to a clearance. Thus, a controller in Class E can suggest a heading to a VFR aircraft – perhaps in order to facilitate a clearance and later control. (i.e. “A clearance is not available in your current position – but if you fly heading XXX it will be”)
This is where your assumption leads you to incorrect conclusions. IFR/IFR separation would have been 1,000FT. Stopping the B737 at FL180 did not achieve (nor is there any evidence to suggest it was intended to achieve) IFR/IFR separation.
I am by no means suggesting that there was a ‘breakdown of NAS’. This appears to be exactly what NAS was designed to achieve. I just don’t think that 500FT with no lateral (or 400ft with 1NM according to some unconfirmed sources) between a B737 and a C421 with the inevitable resultant TCAS climb is what I want to base a ‘safe, orderly and expeditious’ flow of air traffic upon.
I contend that the previous system was:
a) safer – the aircraft would all have been known to the controller and separated by at least 1,000FT or 5NM;
b) more orderly -as both the B737’s TCAS RA and the C421’s turn would not have been required; and
c) more expeditious – as a planned sequence of events would have avoided the extra fuel burn etc.
Given the above, I really shake my head and wonder what benefits we have achieved to throw away safety, money and a system that worked?
Let me prefix this with the following disclaimer: I know no more about the ML incident than is general knowledge within the place I work. I have no inside knowledge of this particular incident.
My understanding is, in E, ATC provides separation to IFR and advisory on VFR.
So by turning the Cessna s/he had 'taken control'
and on that basis I can only assume was providing IFR/IFR separation.
Now I have absolutely no problems with that, that is the 'culture' everyone says we don't have in Oz. It is just that if it is true, then it is not a breakdown of NAS.
I contend that the previous system was:
a) safer – the aircraft would all have been known to the controller and separated by at least 1,000FT or 5NM;
b) more orderly -as both the B737’s TCAS RA and the C421’s turn would not have been required; and
c) more expeditious – as a planned sequence of events would have avoided the extra fuel burn etc.
Given the above, I really shake my head and wonder what benefits we have achieved to throw away safety, money and a system that worked?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snarek.
You don't seem to understand. This incident was directly caused by a breakdown in the NAS 2b.
"Pilots operating VFR should be aware of airspace where there may be a concentration of aircraft
operating IFR. This is particularly important in proximity to non-towered aerodromes. Remain
vigilant when operating in the vicinity of arrival/departure tracks to runways and navigation aids
Ask an IFR pilot or instructor about areas of high IFR traffic at your aerodrome
AVOID HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS
VFR AIRMANSHIP"
Do you understand the above statement taken word for word from the "Airspace reform - Inflight Guide"?
Your VFR 421 friend was in direct contravention of this advice. He was not only in a high traffic area but he was also approaching, as I have said in previous unanswered posts, a major IFR approach point (Canty) into a major capitol city airport.
Now I may have been able to let this one slip through to the keeper if he was at a lower level, say 5500' or 7500' but this einstein was at FL175, right in amongst the descent profiles of Melbourne bound jets. WHY?
You don't seem to understand. This incident was directly caused by a breakdown in the NAS 2b.
"Pilots operating VFR should be aware of airspace where there may be a concentration of aircraft
operating IFR. This is particularly important in proximity to non-towered aerodromes. Remain
vigilant when operating in the vicinity of arrival/departure tracks to runways and navigation aids
Ask an IFR pilot or instructor about areas of high IFR traffic at your aerodrome
AVOID HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS
VFR AIRMANSHIP"
Do you understand the above statement taken word for word from the "Airspace reform - Inflight Guide"?
Your VFR 421 friend was in direct contravention of this advice. He was not only in a high traffic area but he was also approaching, as I have said in previous unanswered posts, a major IFR approach point (Canty) into a major capitol city airport.
Now I may have been able to let this one slip through to the keeper if he was at a lower level, say 5500' or 7500' but this einstein was at FL175, right in amongst the descent profiles of Melbourne bound jets. WHY?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Black stump
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why the right hand turn???
... and the controller was initiating evasive action ... ???
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bargearse, You wanna explain how a low life VFR pilot is supposed to know where an IFR (an invisable point in space that cannot be seen VISUALY) waypoint is, so he can avoid HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS?.(only, supposing that he wouldnt have DAP's and all that guff)
Also, just to point out how stupid that suggestion really is, isn't a VFR pilot allowed to fly into a high traffic airport anymore?. bloody difficult to avoid a place if you intend landing there. regardless of whether you reckon you could let it slip to the keeper if he was at a lower level or not, its still quite legal to fly VFR up to a certain hight isn't it?. isn't 17500ft within that allowance?
Also, just to point out how stupid that suggestion really is, isn't a VFR pilot allowed to fly into a high traffic airport anymore?. bloody difficult to avoid a place if you intend landing there. regardless of whether you reckon you could let it slip to the keeper if he was at a lower level or not, its still quite legal to fly VFR up to a certain hight isn't it?. isn't 17500ft within that allowance?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: bris
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other day a VFR RV4 departed MC airpot on a south west'ly heading on climb to FL165. His track crossed both the jet and prop in bound routes into Brisbane about 40-50 nm north, and straight through the holding patterns for both these routes, whilst at about FL120-130 and still climbing. Luckily this happened at 11.00 am so traffic into bris was light. Now while all the training documents disscourage this, the point is it was not illegal. It is just dumb that this could be aloud to happen. Someone pro NAS please convince me how this is a safer way to do things, i must be missing something.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the wizard of auz , Maaate.
Where in my post did I sugest VFR aircraft avoid high traffic aerodromes?
Well according to the NAS 2b education material :
Have you actually read any of the education material about this wiz .
It appears not.
Now, Snarek , your welcome to enlighten me any time now.
Where in my post did I sugest VFR aircraft avoid high traffic aerodromes?
You wanna explain how a low life VFR pilot is supposed to know where an IFR (an invisable point in space that cannot be seen VISUALY) waypoint is, so he can avoid HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS?.(only, supposing that he wouldnt have DAP's and all that guff)
Pilots operating VFR should be aware of airspace where there may be a concentration of aircraft operating IFR. This is particularly important in proximity to non-towered aerodromes. Remain
vigilant when operating in the vicinity of arrival/departure tracks to runways and navigation aids
Ask an IFR pilot or instructor about areas of high IFR traffic at your aerodrome.
AVOID HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS
VFR AIRMANSHIP"
vigilant when operating in the vicinity of arrival/departure tracks to runways and navigation aids
Ask an IFR pilot or instructor about areas of high IFR traffic at your aerodrome.
AVOID HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS
VFR AIRMANSHIP"
It appears not.
Now, Snarek , your welcome to enlighten me any time now.
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read some of it but it got to hard.
VFR airmanship indeed........... I cant ask any IFR pilots or instructors about any of this guff........ there aint none here.
VFR airmanship indeed........... I cant ask any IFR pilots or instructors about any of this guff........ there aint none here.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Think of a happy place. Think of a happy place. Think of a happy place
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the ATSB resort:" At 23:06:05 the controller instructed the pilot of the C421 to turn right onto a heading of 270 degrees to facilitate the provision of an IFR clearance. "
My question is, if the controller did not turn the aircraft onto the 270 heading, would it have been in conflict with the 737?
TBT?
My question is, if the controller did not turn the aircraft onto the 270 heading, would it have been in conflict with the 737?
TBT?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes is the short answer; would there have been 5 miles, no; would the VFR have penetrated class C without a standard being available, yes; would there have been an RA if the turn didn't happen, no; what would have been the distance between the C421 and the 737? about 1.3 miles by plotting it. Seems safe enough; but the C step was fast approaching, no clearance was available; can't turn left, due pucka, must have turned right to avoid a VCA... Was it ugly... yes.
Did the ATC do the right thing; hindsight is wonderful... At the time definetly yes, the subsequent enquiry found they didn't hit, so he did didn't he?
Did the ATC do the right thing; hindsight is wonderful... At the time definetly yes, the subsequent enquiry found they didn't hit, so he did didn't he?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prior to the 27 November changes, both aircraft would have required an airways clearance and would have been provided with a separation standard. In this occurrence, all aircraft were in Class E airspace and there was no prescribed separation standard applicable, therefore there was no infringement of separation standards.
The circumstances of this occurrence did not constitute an airprox occurrence.
The circumstances of this occurrence did not constitute an airprox occurrence.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Here. Over here.
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, everything is OK then.
Come as close as you like to each other. There can be no breakdown in separation when no separation service is provided. The sounds of RAs all over the country will be music to our ears.
Why do I get the impression that this is a Monty Python sketch?
Come as close as you like to each other. There can be no breakdown in separation when no separation service is provided. The sounds of RAs all over the country will be music to our ears.
Why do I get the impression that this is a Monty Python sketch?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Think of a happy place. Think of a happy place. Think of a happy place
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So it was either a VCA or an RA.....
Bu@@er of a choice. Glad I didn't have to make it. Makes me wonder if the 421 would have ploughed into IMC to avoid the VCA or if he would have commenced an orbit which would have achieved the same RA.
TBT
Bu@@er of a choice. Glad I didn't have to make it. Makes me wonder if the 421 would have ploughed into IMC to avoid the VCA or if he would have commenced an orbit which would have achieved the same RA.
TBT
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABC News Online
Thursday, December 18, 2003. 7:45pm (AEDT)
Report clears the air on near miss
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) says there was no infringement of airspace in a near miss reported near Melbourne last month.
The ATSB has released its finding from the investigation following the introduction of new airspace operating procedures last month.
On December 3, a Boeing 737 en route from Coolangatta was making its descent at Melbourne Airport when its collision warning system activated as a Cessna below it was cleared to move.
At the time air traffic controllers claimed the Boeing 737 flight with 104 people on board was just 20 seconds away from disaster.
However the bureau's deputy director, Allan Stray, says the investigation has found all aircraft involved were entitled to be in the space they were flying in.
"The Cessna was in class E Airspace and the 737 entered class E airspace when it reached flight level 180 - that's 18,000 feet on its descent," he said.
"There was no prescribed separation standard applicable in that airspace, therefore there was no infringement of separation standards at this time."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, December 18, 2003. 7:45pm (AEDT)
Report clears the air on near miss
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) says there was no infringement of airspace in a near miss reported near Melbourne last month.
The ATSB has released its finding from the investigation following the introduction of new airspace operating procedures last month.
On December 3, a Boeing 737 en route from Coolangatta was making its descent at Melbourne Airport when its collision warning system activated as a Cessna below it was cleared to move.
At the time air traffic controllers claimed the Boeing 737 flight with 104 people on board was just 20 seconds away from disaster.
However the bureau's deputy director, Allan Stray, says the investigation has found all aircraft involved were entitled to be in the space they were flying in.
"The Cessna was in class E Airspace and the 737 entered class E airspace when it reached flight level 180 - that's 18,000 feet on its descent," he said.
"There was no prescribed separation standard applicable in that airspace, therefore there was no infringement of separation standards at this time."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There was no prescribed separation standard applicable in that airspace, therefore there was no infringement of separation standards at this time."
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the time air traffic controllers claimed the Boeing 737 flight with 104 people on board was just 20 seconds away from disaster.
Andy
Aussie Andy,
Let me quote you direct from one the Boeing flight manuals:
A Resolution Advisory (RA) is an immediate-threat prediction that traffic aircraft will enter the TCAS collision airspace within approximately 20-30 seconds....
How much plainer do you need it? That's what an RA means. Those aircraft were, timewise, that far apart at one point. Barring a stuff up, that wouldn't have happened pre 27 Nov. Now I happen to think the paying, travelling public deserve better than that on the eastern seaboard.
Interesting that the report doesn't say what type of RA it was, ie, "CLIMB CLIMB" or "MONITOR VERTICAL SPEED", ie the 737's pitch attitude needing changing or not. I think that is pretty relevant here. Why no mention in the report?
I think the ATSB's observations of the separation is "interesting". There was no breakdown in separation because no such separation standards exist???? Maybe this is their diplomatic way of saying Class E is crap. But the ATSB shouldn't need to be so diplomatic, right?
Yes, maybe acceptable separation is "just don't hit".
What is it going to take?
Let me quote you direct from one the Boeing flight manuals:
A Resolution Advisory (RA) is an immediate-threat prediction that traffic aircraft will enter the TCAS collision airspace within approximately 20-30 seconds....
How much plainer do you need it? That's what an RA means. Those aircraft were, timewise, that far apart at one point. Barring a stuff up, that wouldn't have happened pre 27 Nov. Now I happen to think the paying, travelling public deserve better than that on the eastern seaboard.
Interesting that the report doesn't say what type of RA it was, ie, "CLIMB CLIMB" or "MONITOR VERTICAL SPEED", ie the 737's pitch attitude needing changing or not. I think that is pretty relevant here. Why no mention in the report?
I think the ATSB's observations of the separation is "interesting". There was no breakdown in separation because no such separation standards exist???? Maybe this is their diplomatic way of saying Class E is crap. But the ATSB shouldn't need to be so diplomatic, right?
Yes, maybe acceptable separation is "just don't hit".
What is it going to take?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope the ATSB are remaining truly independent here. I am sure they are but how do you reconcile:
with:
and with:
???
Aussie Andy,
FYI Ted Lang has not retracted nor does he have any reason to retract anything he has stated, although the nature of the media sound byte certainly leaves him (and all sides of the argument for that matter) often out of context.
Further CivilAir have followed up tonight with a Press Release
2 An 'airprox' is defined as an occurrence, in which two or more aircraft come into such close proximity, that a threat to the safety of the aircraft exists, or may exist, in airspace where the aircraft are not subject to an air traffic separation standard, or where separation is a pilot responsibility
A Resolution Advisory (RA) is an immediate-threat prediction that traffic aircraft will enter the TCAS collision airspace within approximately 20-30 seconds....
The circumstances of this occurrence did not constitute an airprox occurrence.
Aussie Andy,
FYI Ted Lang has not retracted nor does he have any reason to retract anything he has stated, although the nature of the media sound byte certainly leaves him (and all sides of the argument for that matter) often out of context.
Further CivilAir have followed up tonight with a Press Release