Some truth about the ML incident
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Statement + no proof = rubbish.
If what you say is true, back it up. I can only go on what I was told and I was not told that by the VB crew concerned.
As for the RA, you are twisting the reason in my post.
AK
If what you say is true, back it up. I can only go on what I was told and I was not told that by the VB crew concerned.
As for the RA, you are twisting the reason in my post.
AK
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep digging that hole, snarek....
Statement + no proof = rubbish
I really don't think you meant to imply that you had spoken to the VB crew, but we should be clear about it, shouldn't we?
Prove me wrong if you will.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Black stump
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asbestos pants on ….
"Statement + no proof = rubbish"
This goes both ways. No one can provide PROOF via this forum … so we need to rely on reasonable discussion to determine the credibility of the writer and judge their comments.
Unfortunately, some have destroyed their credibility with their one-eyed comments.
"just operate like pros"
Most pilots (RPT, IFR, VFR ….) are professional and display good airmanship … but just like this and other forums … there's always a few that don't. They're the one's to worry about.
In this case I fail to understand the airmanship of a pilot who flies a good performing IFR-capable twin, VFR into a busy IFR area:
- Failing to "see and avoid"
- Without contacting ATC until fairly late
- Intending to proceed into C airspace at a major airport without a flight plan
- Eventually submitting flight details via the ATC frequency - the least preferred method
- Expecting a VFR clearance to a destination where wx reports and forecasts reflected non VFR conditions.
On the "see and avoid" … it's pretty hard to see and avoid aircraft closing at a great rate of knots from above/below and behind. By the same token … I seem to recall that the forward and down visibility from the B737 flightdeck is pretty limited.
ATC, too, are pretty professional. That might explain the cool R/T even under difficult circumstances.
As an aside …. And I'll really be flamed for this … but, generally, ATC know more about flying and aircraft performance, than pilots know about ATC operations and procedures. It's part of the ATC job to know, but not a part of a pilot's job to know how to do ATC.
TCAS is an automated system that interrogates other transponders - neither the crew nor ATC have any input, and, I believe, pilots are required to respond to RA's reported by their TCAS. An RA in controlled airspace generally requires immediate notification to ATSB.
And just to get the facts in order ... VOZ didn’t report sighting the C421 til AFTER the RA !
Still the scariest thing I've ever seen.
Is it safe to take the asbestos off now ???
"Statement + no proof = rubbish"
This goes both ways. No one can provide PROOF via this forum … so we need to rely on reasonable discussion to determine the credibility of the writer and judge their comments.
Unfortunately, some have destroyed their credibility with their one-eyed comments.
"just operate like pros"
Most pilots (RPT, IFR, VFR ….) are professional and display good airmanship … but just like this and other forums … there's always a few that don't. They're the one's to worry about.
In this case I fail to understand the airmanship of a pilot who flies a good performing IFR-capable twin, VFR into a busy IFR area:
- Failing to "see and avoid"
- Without contacting ATC until fairly late
- Intending to proceed into C airspace at a major airport without a flight plan
- Eventually submitting flight details via the ATC frequency - the least preferred method
- Expecting a VFR clearance to a destination where wx reports and forecasts reflected non VFR conditions.
On the "see and avoid" … it's pretty hard to see and avoid aircraft closing at a great rate of knots from above/below and behind. By the same token … I seem to recall that the forward and down visibility from the B737 flightdeck is pretty limited.
ATC, too, are pretty professional. That might explain the cool R/T even under difficult circumstances.
As an aside …. And I'll really be flamed for this … but, generally, ATC know more about flying and aircraft performance, than pilots know about ATC operations and procedures. It's part of the ATC job to know, but not a part of a pilot's job to know how to do ATC.
TCAS is an automated system that interrogates other transponders - neither the crew nor ATC have any input, and, I believe, pilots are required to respond to RA's reported by their TCAS. An RA in controlled airspace generally requires immediate notification to ATSB.
And just to get the facts in order ... VOZ didn’t report sighting the C421 til AFTER the RA !
Still the scariest thing I've ever seen.
Is it safe to take the asbestos off now ???
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: North of Antarctica
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snarek I have been following this incident with keen interest and from afar and up until now have kept right out; but you have just given me the absolute s##ts!!! Why don't you keep your opinions to yourself and stop dropping yourself in the proverbial poo pile. Nothing you have to say is helping and your constant conjecturing on what might or might not have happened based on your conversations with your uncle's, aunts, half-sister on your mother's side; who just happened to be a pilot; is infuriating!!!! Let the process run its course and stop pretending to be an expert on something that you obviously have little or no knowledge. "Something" happened and there was an incident and an aircraft full of paying passengers had to take avoiding action due to a systemic breakdown of procedures somewhere and at this point in time that systemic breakdown appears to be NAS!!
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barra Tuesday says:[list=1][*]
[*]
[/list=1] Don't you think that's just a teensy bit hypocritcal and self-contradicting? I think both pro- and anti- sides of this "debate" might do well to adhere to the first of the two points made above...
Andy
Let the process run its course
systemic breakdown appears to be NAS!!
Andy
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feather #3
In that case, he would have been applying Class C procedures in CLass E airspace, which is against the intent and procedures applicable in NAS. If Class E is to work, it must be allowed to work on its own merits, not by ATC overservicing to compensate for perceived safety deficiencies.
The short answer, of course, is that everyone would have gone home safely and had a good night's sleep. (As they did prior to Nov 27th)
The inherent problem (apart from safety) as I see it in Class E:
1) ATC provides IFR with traffic on observed VFR and the IFR descends.
2) IFR pilot sees an aircraft, and decides he can avoid it, coninuing descent. (IT can never be confirmed the the aircraft seen by the pilot is the same one the ATC sees on radar)
3) TCAS generates an RA.
4) IFR pilot must respond to the RA, e.g. by climbing. (It can never be confirmed that the aircraft triggering the RA is the same one seen by either the pilot or the ATC)
Result: Less orderly descent profiles, less safety, more cost.
That's NAS for you.
Just a random thought;
Wot if the ATCO had told VB to level at FL185?
Wot if the ATCO had told VB to level at FL185?
The short answer, of course, is that everyone would have gone home safely and had a good night's sleep. (As they did prior to Nov 27th)
The inherent problem (apart from safety) as I see it in Class E:
1) ATC provides IFR with traffic on observed VFR and the IFR descends.
2) IFR pilot sees an aircraft, and decides he can avoid it, coninuing descent. (IT can never be confirmed the the aircraft seen by the pilot is the same one the ATC sees on radar)
3) TCAS generates an RA.
4) IFR pilot must respond to the RA, e.g. by climbing. (It can never be confirmed that the aircraft triggering the RA is the same one seen by either the pilot or the ATC)
Result: Less orderly descent profiles, less safety, more cost.
That's NAS for you.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferris
If the report comes out blaming NAS we shall have a bloody good look at it and our support for NAS.
Someone (4-7-11??) said something about a VFR not being allowed in C at flight levels. Really, point me to the CAR please.
So far I see no evidence to suggest the breakdown was NAS and that pre-NAS would have been any different.
As for the other threats and insults, the bulldust and w@nker proof shields are still holding up just fine
AK
If the report comes out blaming NAS we shall have a bloody good look at it and our support for NAS.
Someone (4-7-11??) said something about a VFR not being allowed in C at flight levels. Really, point me to the CAR please.
So far I see no evidence to suggest the breakdown was NAS and that pre-NAS would have been any different.
As for the other threats and insults, the bulldust and w@nker proof shields are still holding up just fine
AK
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some good fishing here; thanks 4711 !
The nub here is the difference between US and Oz procedures [as perceived by AsA's Masters!!??] You can't just dump a system on a country without bringing the culture over as well. A US ATCO would have used lateral or vertical sep to make SURE the two didn't conflict [unless one could ack 'see&avoid.]
With TCAS equipped a/c, 500' is an RA, like it or not. Methinks the ATCO's here aren't being given the full story on how this REALLY works in the US [for starters, VFR are welcomed, given workload!]
G'day
The nub here is the difference between US and Oz procedures [as perceived by AsA's Masters!!??] You can't just dump a system on a country without bringing the culture over as well. A US ATCO would have used lateral or vertical sep to make SURE the two didn't conflict [unless one could ack 'see&avoid.]
With TCAS equipped a/c, 500' is an RA, like it or not. Methinks the ATCO's here aren't being given the full story on how this REALLY works in the US [for starters, VFR are welcomed, given workload!]
G'day
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the report comes out blaming NAS we shall have a bloody good look at it and our support for NAS.
1. C421 with a U/S transponder is missed by 1 mile and 0ft by a 737 in Class E. Both pilots saw each other's aircraft only as they crossed. Did NAS work in this case?
2. C421 with a U/S transponder is missed by a wingtip by a 737 in Class E. Both pilots saw each other's aircraft, but say that there was no time for avoiding action. Did NAS work in this case?
3. C421 with a U/S transponder is hit by a 737 in Class E. Both pilots saw each other's aircraft at the last second, but with no time for avoiding action. Did NAS work in this case?
My point is, does it matter how close they get as to whether the system works? In case 1, one could argue that the system worked. Case 2 you could try to argue, but the miss seemed to be only due to luck. But how close is too close? In Case 3, it would be extemely difficult to say that the system worked. But what is the difference between Case 3 and the other 2? Luck? Then surely the system failed in all three cases.
If all system defences are bypassed, and it is left to chance as to whether a collision occurs or not, then the system has failed. You don't have to wait for a collision to say this. You don't need to stick your finger in a boiling cup of water to know that it is hot.
I am not saying that the ML incident was left all up to chance (at least one system defence was in effect). I am saying that, compared to our previous system, NAS allows for chance to be the final arbiter in more scenarios, because it has removed some of the previously existing defences (such as Class C, frequencies and boundaries etc).
NAS is too dependant upon fully functioning transponders and see and avoid. It actively removes any of the added protection afforded by radio alerted situational awareness or ATC clearances. It's as simple as that. Once a VFR aircraft makes a flight through Class E airspace with a U/S transponder, then collision avoidance is left up to unlerted see and avoid - it is left up to chance.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that the transponder WAS NOT U/S! Peddling more bull.
And we are a lot less likely to consider anything that is put forward by the same people peddling anti-NAS lies here or in the media.
I suggest you let less agressive and slightly more persuasive people fight your fight, ferris, 4-7-11 and DehavDrver seem to be able to make a point without going too far below the belt.
The rest of you, that's what the shields are for!
AK
And we are a lot less likely to consider anything that is put forward by the same people peddling anti-NAS lies here or in the media.
I suggest you let less agressive and slightly more persuasive people fight your fight, ferris, 4-7-11 and DehavDrver seem to be able to make a point without going too far below the belt.
The rest of you, that's what the shields are for!
AK
Bottums Up
snarek
It seems your post of 16th December 2003 03:18 is in response to Here to Help's post of 16th December 2003 02:59.
If so, I can't see where H2H has suggested that the C421's txpdr failed. I believe from media reports and PPRuNe posts that it wasn't turned on properly.
Either way, your response strikes me as somewhat petulant and childish.. a bit like a child who knows the argument is lost but must have the last word.
Have you operated a high speed aircraft in E? I don't believe I am peddling anti NAS lies, yet I have not seen any sound or logical justification for much of the change and am seriously concerned for the safety of myself, my fellow crew and the passengers I am responsible for.
This concern is mine, I've not been instructed by any person or any industrial body as to how I should think. Being a somewhat independant person, I'm quite capable of assessing the new airspace and determining how it will impact me. I must say that I find your asertions that any one who is anti NAS must be a union stooge, or stupid, or some other insult, very condescending.
If so, I can't see where H2H has suggested that the C421's txpdr failed. I believe from media reports and PPRuNe posts that it wasn't turned on properly.
Either way, your response strikes me as somewhat petulant and childish.. a bit like a child who knows the argument is lost but must have the last word.
Have you operated a high speed aircraft in E? I don't believe I am peddling anti NAS lies, yet I have not seen any sound or logical justification for much of the change and am seriously concerned for the safety of myself, my fellow crew and the passengers I am responsible for.
This concern is mine, I've not been instructed by any person or any industrial body as to how I should think. Being a somewhat independant person, I'm quite capable of assessing the new airspace and determining how it will impact me. I must say that I find your asertions that any one who is anti NAS must be a union stooge, or stupid, or some other insult, very condescending.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilot's statement, while not proof, seems to me to be admissable, reliable and persuasive evidence.
So, the 'opposition' what have you got??? just more insults.
Your lack of professionalism is losing this argument.
Pat
So, the 'opposition' what have you got??? just more insults.
Your lack of professionalism is losing this argument.
Pat
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snarek,
When have I ever done so before, and when did I do it in my last post? When have I ever posted "anti-NAS lies"?
Calm down please.
I had no intention of implying that the ML incident C421 had a complete transponder failure, I listed 3 hypothetical incidents for the purpose of discussion that involve a U/S transponder. Please reread and consider my post and it's valid questions and arguments. I am interested in your opinion.
Peddling more bull
Calm down please.
I had no intention of implying that the ML incident C421 had a complete transponder failure, I listed 3 hypothetical incidents for the purpose of discussion that involve a U/S transponder. Please reread and consider my post and it's valid questions and arguments. I am interested in your opinion.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK
Here to help
Sorry, your point was mistaken as an attack and an RA sounded in the presense of multiple PPRuNe targets interestingly eminating from a single IP Address at Brisbane Center.
(Careful Plazbot, big brother is watching
)
OK, 1, 2 and 3.
U/S Transponder, the aircraft should NOT BE IN E.
Let me expand on your scenario.
"C421 approaching Cairns from overhead Townsville at 14,500 on Nov 24 2001 with Transponder U/S and having miscalculated a position due to a 50-kt tailwind mistakes Cape Cleveland for Cape Bowling Green and misses a 717 climbing out of Tvl by 50 feet and 100 meters."
So, how would 'C' prevent this???
In E I put it to you that both pilots would at lease know their see and avoid responsibilities.
AK
Sorry, your point was mistaken as an attack and an RA sounded in the presense of multiple PPRuNe targets interestingly eminating from a single IP Address at Brisbane Center.
(Careful Plazbot, big brother is watching
)OK, 1, 2 and 3.
U/S Transponder, the aircraft should NOT BE IN E.
Let me expand on your scenario.
"C421 approaching Cairns from overhead Townsville at 14,500 on Nov 24 2001 with Transponder U/S and having miscalculated a position due to a 50-kt tailwind mistakes Cape Cleveland for Cape Bowling Green and misses a 717 climbing out of Tvl by 50 feet and 100 meters."
So, how would 'C' prevent this???
In E I put it to you that both pilots would at lease know their see and avoid responsibilities.
AK
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am interested to know how big brother is watching and just what he intends to do. Is this some form of threat? Is that what I am to understand. Making threats on the Internet is actually lower than what I thought you were. Incase you did not know the entire AsA centre will give up the same proxy ident. Are you telling me that you accessed the Airservices web server without permissions to ascertain where this IP was originating? OMG all the ATCs must be the same person!!! This IP talk actually concerns me. I have had suspicions for some time that this woomera moderator is very much in the GA groove and is far from consistent if thread lockings and censorship of people. I look over into the other D and G forums and see threads over 100 posts kicking along unlocked and idiots banning/censoring only the apparnet concerned about NAS posters. Additionally but probably more to the point I wonder if you yourself have this moderator account password as well.
This forum has only gone to show that this is not where this battle is going to be won. With the whipping boy of the week sticking their head in with the tired old scaremongering accusations any substance went long ago.
I will sit back as I have been doing so and making sure that I can impart the required knowledge to the people that matter in this debate now, my workmates. As I have stated before we are not going to be the ones who are going to die when 2 hit. As long as we tin plate our backsides when using E airspace then I see nothing wrong. VFR climb and descent.. not available. VFR on top...not available. IFR Pick up...stand by for traffic, I'll get around to your clearance when every single other thing is taken care of. Non mode C paints going to be within 5nm of a paint anywhere at any level..'Observed traffic is' to what ever level from A090 to FL410. VFR pop up calls for clearance.. call flight watch and submit details then get back to me. Going into IMC? whooops ESIR.
I think it is high time that the rest of the ATCs and Pilots who fly for food give these idiots less assistance with fixing their mess and make them fully accountable for their actions come the revolution. We have voiced our concerns. They are on record. They always will be.
This forum has only gone to show that this is not where this battle is going to be won. With the whipping boy of the week sticking their head in with the tired old scaremongering accusations any substance went long ago.
I will sit back as I have been doing so and making sure that I can impart the required knowledge to the people that matter in this debate now, my workmates. As I have stated before we are not going to be the ones who are going to die when 2 hit. As long as we tin plate our backsides when using E airspace then I see nothing wrong. VFR climb and descent.. not available. VFR on top...not available. IFR Pick up...stand by for traffic, I'll get around to your clearance when every single other thing is taken care of. Non mode C paints going to be within 5nm of a paint anywhere at any level..'Observed traffic is' to what ever level from A090 to FL410. VFR pop up calls for clearance.. call flight watch and submit details then get back to me. Going into IMC? whooops ESIR.
I think it is high time that the rest of the ATCs and Pilots who fly for food give these idiots less assistance with fixing their mess and make them fully accountable for their actions come the revolution. We have voiced our concerns. They are on record. They always will be.
