Yet Another DJ Near Miss
Thread Starter
Yet Another DJ Near Miss
Reports today of another near miss when a Virgin Blue TCAS alert activated due to conflict with a light aircraft on a flight from Sydney to Launceston.
Looks like another winning effort down to NAS.
How many more will it take???
Looks like another winning effort down to NAS.
How many more will it take???
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Black stump
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it a Dick-E airspace issue?
. B737 on visual approach through E airspace to a non-radar tower;
. B737 takes evasive climbing action in response to TCAS RA at A075;
. VFR lightie says he was the traffic and that remaining silent was part of the new procedure to reduce chatter;
. B737 crew later reported the aircraft missed by 200FT!!
How many more will it take???
Last edited by Chapi; 24th Dec 2003 at 19:17.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAP
Virgin plane in second 'near miss'
December 24, 2003
THE crew of a Virgin Blue passenger plane activated a collision avoidance system as they approached Launceston this afternoon when a light aircraft was detected nearby.
The Virgin Boeing 737 flight, en route from Sydney, was north of Launceston when the incident occurred about 1.35pm (AEDT), Airservices Australia (ASA) spokesman Richard Dudley said.
He said the Boeing 737's collision avoidance system was activated and the pilot took avoidance action during the incident.
The matter will be investigated by ASA's safety personnel and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Mr Dudley said.
It is believed the other aircraft was a four-seater single-engine plane, however this could not be confirmed by ASA.
Virgin Blue spokeswoman Amanda Bolger said no one was in any danger during the incident.
She said the Virgin plane's crew activated a proximity alert after they became aware of the other plane, carried out a level change and landed as normal.
Ms Bolger could not confirm how many people were on board the Boeing 737 which can carry up to 144 passengers.
She said the airline did not want to speculate about the cause of the incident until investigations were concluded.
"Last time certain organisations made wild speculative statements and they turned out to be false," she said.
"We're certainly confident that our crew responded appropriately to the proximity alert."
Civil Air president Ted Lang blamed the incident on new federal air traffic control rules.
The National Airspace System, which came into effect late last month, allows light planes into areas used by commercial airliners.
Mr Lang called on federal Transport Minister John Anderson to consider an alternative plan which keeps light planes out of the flight path of commercial planes.
This latest incident comes less than a month after another controversy concerning a Virgin passenger plane and a Cessna in Melbourne.
Civil Air claimed at the time that the two aircraft had a near-miss when collision avoidance measures were activated.
However, an Australian Transport Safety Bureau report released last week found the planes did not come close to having a near miss.
AAP
=============================================
Virgin plane in second 'near miss'
December 24, 2003
THE crew of a Virgin Blue passenger plane activated a collision avoidance system as they approached Launceston this afternoon when a light aircraft was detected nearby.
The Virgin Boeing 737 flight, en route from Sydney, was north of Launceston when the incident occurred about 1.35pm (AEDT), Airservices Australia (ASA) spokesman Richard Dudley said.
He said the Boeing 737's collision avoidance system was activated and the pilot took avoidance action during the incident.
The matter will be investigated by ASA's safety personnel and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Mr Dudley said.
It is believed the other aircraft was a four-seater single-engine plane, however this could not be confirmed by ASA.
Virgin Blue spokeswoman Amanda Bolger said no one was in any danger during the incident.
She said the Virgin plane's crew activated a proximity alert after they became aware of the other plane, carried out a level change and landed as normal.
Ms Bolger could not confirm how many people were on board the Boeing 737 which can carry up to 144 passengers.
She said the airline did not want to speculate about the cause of the incident until investigations were concluded.
"Last time certain organisations made wild speculative statements and they turned out to be false," she said.
"We're certainly confident that our crew responded appropriately to the proximity alert."
Civil Air president Ted Lang blamed the incident on new federal air traffic control rules.
The National Airspace System, which came into effect late last month, allows light planes into areas used by commercial airliners.
Mr Lang called on federal Transport Minister John Anderson to consider an alternative plan which keeps light planes out of the flight path of commercial planes.
This latest incident comes less than a month after another controversy concerning a Virgin passenger plane and a Cessna in Melbourne.
Civil Air claimed at the time that the two aircraft had a near-miss when collision avoidance measures were activated.
However, an Australian Transport Safety Bureau report released last week found the planes did not come close to having a near miss.
AAP
=============================================
Persona non grata
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a serious query, it is certainly NOT a joking matter. 
I am not very familiar with the TCAS system, however I am curious as to the reason that this is another Virgin Blue incident.
Is it just bad luck, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or IF there is the ability to set limits on the TCAS?? Do Virgin Blue have different criteria/values set to say Qantas?
What I mean is do Virgin Blue have their TCAS warnings set at too fine, thus causing them to get more warnings than other carriers??
I am not very familiar with the TCAS system, however I am curious as to the reason that this is another Virgin Blue incident.
Is it just bad luck, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or IF there is the ability to set limits on the TCAS?? Do Virgin Blue have different criteria/values set to say Qantas?
What I mean is do Virgin Blue have their TCAS warnings set at too fine, thus causing them to get more warnings than other carriers??
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
The parameters that TCAS utilise are not able to be modified by the crews, and are "factory set",lame.
Depending on the type of transponder that the lighties are using (whether or not it incorporates altitude reporting), may cause the crew of the other aircraft interrogating the lighties Tx (in this case VB) to receive a warning. If the lightie does not have Alt reporting on its Tx, and it comes within a specified range, then TCAS assumes that both aircraft are at the same altitude (when in fact they might be separated by a 1,000' or more).
If the other aircraft does have Alt reporting, then rate of closure is incorporated into TCAS' calculations, and advisories are issued to both aircraft.
So although the ATC'er may have been aware that both aircraft had sufficient vertical separation, TCAS may have issued a command to the VB crew - which is an aural warning, and REQUIRES the crew to disconnect the autopilot, if engaged, and follow the TCAS command, regardless of ATC instructions.
Hope that clarifies things a little.
Depending on the type of transponder that the lighties are using (whether or not it incorporates altitude reporting), may cause the crew of the other aircraft interrogating the lighties Tx (in this case VB) to receive a warning. If the lightie does not have Alt reporting on its Tx, and it comes within a specified range, then TCAS assumes that both aircraft are at the same altitude (when in fact they might be separated by a 1,000' or more).
If the other aircraft does have Alt reporting, then rate of closure is incorporated into TCAS' calculations, and advisories are issued to both aircraft.
So although the ATC'er may have been aware that both aircraft had sufficient vertical separation, TCAS may have issued a command to the VB crew - which is an aural warning, and REQUIRES the crew to disconnect the autopilot, if engaged, and follow the TCAS command, regardless of ATC instructions.
Hope that clarifies things a little.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Black stump
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So although the ATC'er may have been aware that both aircraft had sufficient vertical separation
I believe the passengers on the B737 got a good look at the lightie as they zipped by.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"However, an Australian Transport Safety Bureau report released last week found the planes did not come close to having a near miss. "
Really????
Come in spinner.
Really????
Come in spinner.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deputy Prime Minister Anderson.
Raise above saving political face. It is time to fix a poor decision before there is an avoidable loss in our skies.
We have had close, extreemly close. Do we really want to wait for the third time?
Stop serving out on the Union for calling things for what they are, you urgently need to review your position and admit that a miscalculation has been made.
Class C is safer than E. We should have never be coerced into changing.
For all those concerned, please make this your New Years resolution.
I am an ATC and a Civil Air member for those who might wonder.
Raise above saving political face. It is time to fix a poor decision before there is an avoidable loss in our skies.
We have had close, extreemly close. Do we really want to wait for the third time?
Stop serving out on the Union for calling things for what they are, you urgently need to review your position and admit that a miscalculation has been made.
Class C is safer than E. We should have never be coerced into changing.
For all those concerned, please make this your New Years resolution.
I am an ATC and a Civil Air member for those who might wonder.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't you people get it. This is not an incident. the NCD test was applied and passed.
All TCAS RA's are incidents, it just wasn't a Breakdown of Separation because no seperation standard exists.
Persona non grata
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptin M,
Yes I realise that the Crew would not be able to adjust it.
I thought maybe different Airlines had different figures built in(factory set) by the Manufacturer?
So you are saying that every Aircraft in the World, that has TCAS fitted, has the same alerts and at exactly the same distances, yes?
IF that is true, it is odd that it seems to be only Virgin Blue having these near misses.
"Lame"
PS. Did you get my email?
Yes I realise that the Crew would not be able to adjust it.
I thought maybe different Airlines had different figures built in(factory set) by the Manufacturer?
So you are saying that every Aircraft in the World, that has TCAS fitted, has the same alerts and at exactly the same distances, yes?
IF that is true, it is odd that it seems to be only Virgin Blue having these near misses.
"Lame"
PS. Did you get my email?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I don’t pretend to have any inside knowledge re the recent TCAS warnings, I can’t help but feel it may be more to do with inexperience and a basic understanding of just how TCAS works.
Both recent incidents have occurred on climb / descent. Traffic or targets just don’t suddenly appear. If you have operated in some of the very busy environments overseas you soon become intimate with TCAS and how it works, including some of it’s limitations, especially operational techniques which will cause hard warnings.
Basic airmanship will in most cases warn you of the possibility of an imminent hard warning, enabling the crew to adjust the climb or descent rates to avoid this sort of incident.
Current software may have sorted out the so-called “Dallas Bump” when a TCAS warning occurred when one aircraft was on a high rate of descent and an aircraft climbing up on the reciprocal track could cause a warning even though both aircraft were separated by 1000’ or more.
On all the glass cockpit aircraft I have flown the so called targets were clearly visible enabling crew to adjust their ROC or ROD.
Perhaps we should be looking at operating techniques rather than blaming the system.
Both recent incidents have occurred on climb / descent. Traffic or targets just don’t suddenly appear. If you have operated in some of the very busy environments overseas you soon become intimate with TCAS and how it works, including some of it’s limitations, especially operational techniques which will cause hard warnings.
Basic airmanship will in most cases warn you of the possibility of an imminent hard warning, enabling the crew to adjust the climb or descent rates to avoid this sort of incident.
Current software may have sorted out the so-called “Dallas Bump” when a TCAS warning occurred when one aircraft was on a high rate of descent and an aircraft climbing up on the reciprocal track could cause a warning even though both aircraft were separated by 1000’ or more.
On all the glass cockpit aircraft I have flown the so called targets were clearly visible enabling crew to adjust their ROC or ROD.
Perhaps we should be looking at operating techniques rather than blaming the system.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good one Mike Smith, John Anderson et al. Your airspace system works really well. Can someone please turn their lights on as they are wandering around without their transponder turned on. Also they are not looking out their windscreens as their heads are between their ... (well they would say they dropped a pen between the rudder pedals). Here's a start:
TCAS RA doesnt mean "NAS system worked as planned" it means the last link in the chain didnt break
If a collision occurs you cant say "The pilots failed to see and avoid" because you have been told (by scientific research-see ATSB report) that see and avoid has its limitations ie you probably wont see a lightie when you are approaching head on at 250kt and the other is say 110kt. ie 360kt closing speed 6nm/min or 1nm/10sec.
If Mr Anderson mentions another semi trailer again it means he still has no idea and is intent on proving this to everyone.
TCAS RA doesnt mean "NAS system worked as planned" it means the last link in the chain didnt break
If a collision occurs you cant say "The pilots failed to see and avoid" because you have been told (by scientific research-see ATSB report) that see and avoid has its limitations ie you probably wont see a lightie when you are approaching head on at 250kt and the other is say 110kt. ie 360kt closing speed 6nm/min or 1nm/10sec.
If Mr Anderson mentions another semi trailer again it means he still has no idea and is intent on proving this to everyone.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Strathallan, Relaxed, Scotland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have spoken to the pilot of the light aircraft involved. It was in level flight at 7,500ft and the pilot had the Virgin Jet in sight at all relevant times, and heard it on the radio.
There was no risk of collision. The Virgin Jet was speed-limited to 250 knots and the weather was crystal clear. The light aircraft pilot was monitoring the frequency which the Virgin Jet was working, and was looking at the Virgin Jet.
Had there been a collision risk he would have spoken up or taken avoiding action. He was flying some family members to be with other family members for Christmas and was not in a suicidal mood.
This is a simple old-fashioned beat-up unworthy of any Australian genuinely concerned with Air Safety.
Boyd Munro
President
AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA
PO Box 172 Unley SA 5061
[email protected]
There was no risk of collision. The Virgin Jet was speed-limited to 250 knots and the weather was crystal clear. The light aircraft pilot was monitoring the frequency which the Virgin Jet was working, and was looking at the Virgin Jet.
Had there been a collision risk he would have spoken up or taken avoiding action. He was flying some family members to be with other family members for Christmas and was not in a suicidal mood.
This is a simple old-fashioned beat-up unworthy of any Australian genuinely concerned with Air Safety.
Boyd Munro
President
AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA
PO Box 172 Unley SA 5061
[email protected]
Mr Munro,
Please explain, if there was no risk of collision, why the 737 took avoiding action. Surely there would at least have been a breakdown in separation had they not done so? And to have the 737 visual at all "relevant times". I admit I don't know the relative flight paths but a 250 kt "speed limited" 737 sure can creep up pretty fast. I believe it would have at least been prudent for the single engine driver to speak up.
I'll have to wait for the report to know the facts. And as far as near misses go, it won't be the first or last time an aircraft which has been the cause of avoiding action will claim it saw the other aircraft.
Please explain, if there was no risk of collision, why the 737 took avoiding action. Surely there would at least have been a breakdown in separation had they not done so? And to have the 737 visual at all "relevant times". I admit I don't know the relative flight paths but a 250 kt "speed limited" 737 sure can creep up pretty fast. I believe it would have at least been prudent for the single engine driver to speak up.
I'll have to wait for the report to know the facts. And as far as near misses go, it won't be the first or last time an aircraft which has been the cause of avoiding action will claim it saw the other aircraft.
Boyd Munro
Boyd, how about you ask the crew of the Virgin aircraft what they saw before saying this was a non-event. I can assure you trying to see a light aircraft while doing 250 kts + is next to impossible sometimes. If they did get an RA as has been advertised then this is definitely another serious breakdown in separation by international standards even if Australia doesn’t recognize this anymore. This is just a political excuse to try and ram down our throat this whole NAS BS. I can assure you when, not if, there is a mid air caused by this new airspace, all you NAS people will go scurrying off into your little holes. Rest assured though that those responsible will be held accountable.
Boyd, how about you ask the crew of the Virgin aircraft what they saw before saying this was a non-event. I can assure you trying to see a light aircraft while doing 250 kts + is next to impossible sometimes. If they did get an RA as has been advertised then this is definitely another serious breakdown in separation by international standards even if Australia doesn’t recognize this anymore. This is just a political excuse to try and ram down our throat this whole NAS BS. I can assure you when, not if, there is a mid air caused by this new airspace, all you NAS people will go scurrying off into your little holes. Rest assured though that those responsible will be held accountable.