Yet Another DJ Near Miss
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, will the NASIG actually listen to the industry now - or is everybody else still luddites/scaremongers/unionists/paranoid/fearful of change/protecting their jobs/trying to keep recreational pilots out of the air/wrong?
PE Persawat: Pre Nov27, the TB10 would have required a clearance to enter Class C, and would have been in contact with ATC and under their control (unless it was a VCA - but that's another story).
Point is - the new system allowed a 'radio silent' aircraft to share the same airspace as high speed jet aircraft - unannounced and unseen (except by TCAS).
By all accounts, the TB10 pilot was doing what he was supposed to do as per crap procedures.
Great, just GREAT!
PE Persawat: Pre Nov27, the TB10 would have required a clearance to enter Class C, and would have been in contact with ATC and under their control (unless it was a VCA - but that's another story).
Point is - the new system allowed a 'radio silent' aircraft to share the same airspace as high speed jet aircraft - unannounced and unseen (except by TCAS).
By all accounts, the TB10 pilot was doing what he was supposed to do as per crap procedures.
Please do not make broadcast transmissions or engage in chatter on an ATC frequency. The safety of others depends on you not doing this
The pilot of the 737 replied with his callsign - as per the report - simply because he had yet to make a determination of what he/she intended to do - being at 15 odd DME means that they had a little while to make a final determination
The tower simply gave them the option of either.
To rely on those sort of radio transmissions to maintain seperation and make sure that no collision risk existed is just pure lunacy!
I don't believe that the TB-10 pilot made a determination that being on tracks 2 degrees apart was OK until AFTER the event - I reckon he sat down and thought about it after the proverbial hit the fan.
The idiocy of this system just astounds me! - as for you pesawat - well you should abide by the old adage, better to let people think that you are an idiot than open your mouth (or in this case keyboard) and prove that you are!
Can anyone explain to me - including you Dick Smith - how the opposition to NAS by professional pilots and controllers is an industrial campaign????
The tower simply gave them the option of either.
To rely on those sort of radio transmissions to maintain seperation and make sure that no collision risk existed is just pure lunacy!
I don't believe that the TB-10 pilot made a determination that being on tracks 2 degrees apart was OK until AFTER the event - I reckon he sat down and thought about it after the proverbial hit the fan.
The idiocy of this system just astounds me! - as for you pesawat - well you should abide by the old adage, better to let people think that you are an idiot than open your mouth (or in this case keyboard) and prove that you are!
Can anyone explain to me - including you Dick Smith - how the opposition to NAS by professional pilots and controllers is an industrial campaign????
Last edited by Dehavillanddriver; 19th Jan 2004 at 11:48.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US controllers have told me that to change their E to C would require an enormous number of new controllers- controllers they don't have- and that their system is so overloaded it wouldn't be feasible (they are looking at making changes though). That is why they have E. They certainly don't kid themselves that their system is 'safe'. It's just 'expeditious'.
I think Dick has taken that to mean that if he changes C to E in Australia, he will be able to make a corresponding reduction in controller numbers. I also think he will find that assumption, well, flawed.
He therefore views any opposition to the changes, no matter how well reasoned, as an industrial campaign (even if the opposition is coming from pilots).
Am I wrong, Mr Smith?
I think Dick has taken that to mean that if he changes C to E in Australia, he will be able to make a corresponding reduction in controller numbers. I also think he will find that assumption, well, flawed.
He therefore views any opposition to the changes, no matter how well reasoned, as an industrial campaign (even if the opposition is coming from pilots).
Am I wrong, Mr Smith?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Black stump
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What no-one has considered is the airspace split between Tower and En-route, and the effect the airspace structure has on pilot situational awareness.
The airspace step is such that the B737 must maintain F150 til 30Nm LT to stay in "controlled" airspace (ie E). This results in high rates of descent for jets - in this case … about 2500ft/min
The division between LT Tower and the overlying en-route sector is A085. Technically, the B737 entered the Tower airspace only seconds before the TA. Typically, En-route transfer aircraft to the Tower early, 40Nm. It was the initial call by the B737 to the Tower that assisted the Tobago pilot's traffic awareness and influenced his ability to sight the jet.
If En-route required the jet on frequency, and didn't make the transfer to the Tower until closer to the actual boundary (and the TCAS TA/RA point) … what chance would the Tobago pilot have of sighting a jet descending at 2500ft/min and closing at 360kts with minimal time to assimilate the jet's initial call … I'd suggest - very minimal.
Just as an aside ... the response to the RA put the B737 back in En-Route E as they climbed to 9200FT!
pesawat_terbang
Not sure which version of the report you read … but the ATSB report states that the B737 crew advised "we'll be overflying for a left circuit" and following receipt of traffic info changed this to "we can accept a right circuit. We might just join final at about 5 miles"
The airspace step is such that the B737 must maintain F150 til 30Nm LT to stay in "controlled" airspace (ie E). This results in high rates of descent for jets - in this case … about 2500ft/min
The division between LT Tower and the overlying en-route sector is A085. Technically, the B737 entered the Tower airspace only seconds before the TA. Typically, En-route transfer aircraft to the Tower early, 40Nm. It was the initial call by the B737 to the Tower that assisted the Tobago pilot's traffic awareness and influenced his ability to sight the jet.
If En-route required the jet on frequency, and didn't make the transfer to the Tower until closer to the actual boundary (and the TCAS TA/RA point) … what chance would the Tobago pilot have of sighting a jet descending at 2500ft/min and closing at 360kts with minimal time to assimilate the jet's initial call … I'd suggest - very minimal.
Just as an aside ... the response to the RA put the B737 back in En-Route E as they climbed to 9200FT!
pesawat_terbang
Not sure which version of the report you read … but the ATSB report states that the B737 crew advised "we'll be overflying for a left circuit" and following receipt of traffic info changed this to "we can accept a right circuit. We might just join final at about 5 miles"
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's face it, under the old system there would have to have been a stuff up for this sort of incident to occur. Either the ATC was dyslexic and got the levels wrong, one of the pilots busted his level, or someone was in the airspace without a clearance. Same result, a near miss but under this NAS it seems that everyone was applying the correct procedures. To me that would indicate the system is flawed. Reminds me of the good ole' days back in Townsville when it was a joint user mil/civil ATC base. Thursday was radar maintenance day. Didn't matter whether it was broke or not it had to have the Thursday maintenance and the poor techs would set about their work, just because the procedures said they had to. Come Friday they had to fix what they did on Thursday.
Motto....if it aint broke don't fix it!!!!!
Motto....if it aint broke don't fix it!!!!!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I asked previously, what were the pilots doing for the 30-40 prior to the aural traffic warning when the aircraft was displayed, assuming it popped up at 2700' below. I assume it was displayed from then because if it had just popped up with an immediate TA it would have been mentioned in the report. I am not attempting to blame the pilots, but rather to see where the other errors were made. Was the training they received regarding the new airspace lacking, are VBs procedures regarding instrument scanning missing something, were the crew just too complacent (been into Launceston a thousand times etc)?
I am by no means totally convinced with the new procedures, but it is here, and we should attempt educate crews/pilots better to ensure these errors don't occur again. Pretty much all of the GA pilots I have encountered over the years are not intent on having a mid air, so I think everyone is interested in avoiding these situations.
Just out of interest in 2002 there were 2 mid air collisions at GAAP airfields, killing quite a number of people, with debris falling onto suburban areas. I can't recall any outcry, demanding the closure of GAAPs
I am by no means totally convinced with the new procedures, but it is here, and we should attempt educate crews/pilots better to ensure these errors don't occur again. Pretty much all of the GA pilots I have encountered over the years are not intent on having a mid air, so I think everyone is interested in avoiding these situations.
Just out of interest in 2002 there were 2 mid air collisions at GAAP airfields, killing quite a number of people, with debris falling onto suburban areas. I can't recall any outcry, demanding the closure of GAAPs
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vref+5.
Maybe there should've been an outcry, but calling for full control services? After all, isn't Dick and NAS all about applying resources where the greatest risk exists?
Be careful what you wish for.......
Maybe they were LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW as they are allegedly supposed to? You can't have it both ways- either they are 'seeing and avoiding', OR misusing TCAS as some sort of traffic spotting device (see previous discussions about TCAS limitations). I wasn't aware TCAS had been certified, or that CASA had authorised the SOPs, to allow pilots to stop looking out of the window and monitor the TCAS instead. Care to fill us in?
NAS. It's a liability lawyer's dream.
can't recall any outcry, demanding the closure of GAAPs
Be careful what you wish for.......
what were the pilots doing
NAS. It's a liability lawyer's dream.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets also remember that TCAS is not perfect.
Yesterday I had a B737 on right base with a helicopter inbound to the east of final, cleared on a segregated flight path. Helicopter & B737 were showing on Tower display & I had both visual.
I gave traffic info the B737 as required. Pilot response was to request confirmation of helicopter position as it was not showing on TCAS. Helicopter was approx 4 miles in 11 o'clock to the jet.
Again, everthing was being done correctly as per the new system, but the potential for problems was there should have only 1 other mitigator been absent.
Yesterday I had a B737 on right base with a helicopter inbound to the east of final, cleared on a segregated flight path. Helicopter & B737 were showing on Tower display & I had both visual.
I gave traffic info the B737 as required. Pilot response was to request confirmation of helicopter position as it was not showing on TCAS. Helicopter was approx 4 miles in 11 o'clock to the jet.
Again, everthing was being done correctly as per the new system, but the potential for problems was there should have only 1 other mitigator been absent.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: yssy
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't seen any comments on how close to Launceston this incident occurred. If is was quite close, then the VFR a/c was not following one of the basic suggestions of the NAS - keep clear of IFR and heavy IFR traffic areas.
Any comments?
Any comments?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kimwest - good question, doubt if you'll get a reasonable answer.
While we're at it, how does the use of TCAS sit with CAR 162 (2) & (4), to wit
?CG
While we're at it, how does the use of TCAS sit with CAR 162 (2) & (4), to wit
Rules for prevention of collision
(2) When two aircraft are approaching head-on or approximately so and there is danger of collision, each shall alter its heading to the right.
and
(4) An overtaking aircraft shall not pass the aircraft that it is overtaking by diving or climbing.
(2) When two aircraft are approaching head-on or approximately so and there is danger of collision, each shall alter its heading to the right.
and
(4) An overtaking aircraft shall not pass the aircraft that it is overtaking by diving or climbing.
During a TCAS RA the last thing I would consider is whether I'm approaching head on....or overtaking the traffic...or approaching from the left or the right...see the point!!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Black stump
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kimwest
From the ATSB report, the B737 was 14.2Nm LT when they received the RA. The Tobago was at 11Nm LT
The Tobago was essentially following the IFR route between LT-FLI (give or take a couple of degrees)
Haven't seen any comments on how close to Launceston this incident occurred.
The Tobago was essentially following the IFR route between LT-FLI (give or take a couple of degrees)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Townsville Qld.
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kimwest
Are you familiar with the ERC Low for that area. Have a look and tell me how a VFR going Launie-Mainland is supposed to avoid an IFR route (unless it is carrying drop tanks that is).
Avoiding IFR routes, en-route, is impractical. That is what quadrantal levels are for (which of course don't work if an a/c is on descent).
And yes, I will admit that is a weakness with NAS. Perhaps descending aircraft need to give way????
On another weakness (apart from education which is APPALLING), is the freqs on maps. I am advised this is being fixed.
AK
Are you familiar with the ERC Low for that area. Have a look and tell me how a VFR going Launie-Mainland is supposed to avoid an IFR route (unless it is carrying drop tanks that is).
Avoiding IFR routes, en-route, is impractical. That is what quadrantal levels are for (which of course don't work if an a/c is on descent).
And yes, I will admit that is a weakness with NAS. Perhaps descending aircraft need to give way????
On another weakness (apart from education which is APPALLING), is the freqs on maps. I am advised this is being fixed.
AK
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferris, I totally agree, the Mark I eyeball is the primary tool to be used for spotting traffic. But for 2 pilots to be continually scanning outside for about a minute with neither looking in at any of the displays (I am in no way suggesting this is what happened incidentally-that is what investigations are for) is a bit strange.
I am aware of the limitations on TCAS thank you. But if it wasn't supposed to be used to increase SA and assist in traffic spotting, why does it display aircraft +-2700', with later some systems giving you an option of +-10 000'? It may not have been it original purpose, but it sure does help spot aircraft. I guess it's like the GPS system. The US DoD originally designed it to guide cruise missiles onto enemy targets, not for lighties to conduct GPS approaches. Not the original design concept but very useful nevertheless.
I fly a high performance jet into some extremely busy MBZs and CTAFs and have found it incredibly useful. Yes some aircraft are not shown but it certainly assists finding the majority.
I am aware of the limitations on TCAS thank you. But if it wasn't supposed to be used to increase SA and assist in traffic spotting, why does it display aircraft +-2700', with later some systems giving you an option of +-10 000'? It may not have been it original purpose, but it sure does help spot aircraft. I guess it's like the GPS system. The US DoD originally designed it to guide cruise missiles onto enemy targets, not for lighties to conduct GPS approaches. Not the original design concept but very useful nevertheless.
I fly a high performance jet into some extremely busy MBZs and CTAFs and have found it incredibly useful. Yes some aircraft are not shown but it certainly assists finding the majority.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 Degrees?
I find it quite amazing that the pilot of the Tobago calculated, based on the fact that he thought the 737 was on the 009 Radial and he was on the 007 radial, that extrapolate the 2 degree difference out to 15-odd NM LT and you find you will miss by a whopping 0.2 NM - enough, appaently, not to warrant anything to be said.
MATS specifies a 5.5 degree tolerance on VOR radials; bring that in with the other aircraft tracking using the VOR and it is obvious that when two aircraft tracking using VOR radials are within 11 degrees of each other, they will never be separated.
An over-reliance perhaps on modern avionics?
MATS specifies a 5.5 degree tolerance on VOR radials; bring that in with the other aircraft tracking using the VOR and it is obvious that when two aircraft tracking using VOR radials are within 11 degrees of each other, they will never be separated.
An over-reliance perhaps on modern avionics?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amos 2 - bit harsh.
I think the issue that is being raised is that legislation must match rules (or rather the other way round in the heirarchy of power).
Therefore (and of course this has been said before) - to implement US NAS in AUS you need to ensure that AUS legislation matches US legislation where required to support the RULES. This extends to to other legislation involving safety in the air and on the ground such as OH&S and on and on. Otherwise there is contradiction and ambiguity.
Oh bu@@er it! let's just take the whole shopping cart and avoid the Pandoras box.
Good plan that reform but little consideration.
Australia that other state just SW of HAWAII.
and the governor could be.............................
I think the issue that is being raised is that legislation must match rules (or rather the other way round in the heirarchy of power).
Therefore (and of course this has been said before) - to implement US NAS in AUS you need to ensure that AUS legislation matches US legislation where required to support the RULES. This extends to to other legislation involving safety in the air and on the ground such as OH&S and on and on. Otherwise there is contradiction and ambiguity.
Oh bu@@er it! let's just take the whole shopping cart and avoid the Pandoras box.
Good plan that reform but little consideration.
Australia that other state just SW of HAWAII.
and the governor could be.............................
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When did you last fly?
P_t,
When was the last time you flew? Quadrantal Levels??? What are they? Don't you fly hemispherical levels??
Descending acft give way? So what happened to priorities for RPT acft? What happened to priorities for acft that are inbound for landing?
Freqs on maps...now there's a thought!!
p_t why don't you go away and have a good long think before you post to these forums. Remember it is better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth (or post) and remove all doubt.
Hasta la vista.
When was the last time you flew? Quadrantal Levels??? What are they? Don't you fly hemispherical levels??
Descending acft give way? So what happened to priorities for RPT acft? What happened to priorities for acft that are inbound for landing?
Freqs on maps...now there's a thought!!
p_t why don't you go away and have a good long think before you post to these forums. Remember it is better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth (or post) and remove all doubt.
Hasta la vista.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question for QF and DJ (VOZ) jet jockeys.
If your TCAS is known to be u/s, do you have any additional company policies with respect to operating in class E or G?
Blue skies
If your TCAS is known to be u/s, do you have any additional company policies with respect to operating in class E or G?
Blue skies