Yet Another DJ Near Miss
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Boyd Munroe,
After the last incident , I am more sceptical of initial reports, however , if the GA pilot saw the 737 and considered there was no collision imminent. I would still expect him to advise the 737 of his position.
I would prefer the 737 captain to make a decision as to whether any adjustment to his flight path was required, rather than rely on the GA pilots judgement.
There is little use in having an exceptionally well-trained and experienced pilots on the RPT aircraft if in in tight situations he's not in the position to command: you need situational awareness to command.
This has been a concerned regards the CTAF and the continued reference to see and avoid procedures. We are worried that this exact situation will occur in approaches to our major regional uncontrolled airports. We do not want the GA aircraft pilot , who may have 50 hours flying experience, making the crucial decision. That being the decision" not to make a call" as he feels no conflict is going to occur.
Regardless of the what the exact proximity of the two aircraft would have been, had the Virgin Blue flight not altered course ,surely you can see that the decision to make or not make a call based upon the GA pilot's prediction of conflict is not nearly as safe as allowing the professional captain of the 737 to make that decision.
Mandatory calls at major regional airports will help by transferring the information to the 737 captain , so that his professional decision can be made.
The Australian passengers are expecting him to make that decision and he has been trained and has sufficient skill and experience to make the best decision possible.
We believe the Australian regulators in designing an airspace system must ensure that in uncontrolled airspace with a high density of flights, where ever possible the rules must allow the RPT pilot to be aware of any possible conflicts.
Hence our extremely strong stand against CTAF and see and procedures that encourage the GA pilots in uncontrolled airspace to fail to inform the RPT captain of his close proximity.
I'm not qualified with regards to en route airspace . however , it does appear that if E class is a controlled airspace then surely those who have a responsibility to control it can do a better job if they are aware of all traffic within that airspace.
I believe the average Australian passenger expects that his safety is being guarded by either the RPT captain or the ATC operator.
After the last incident , I am more sceptical of initial reports, however , if the GA pilot saw the 737 and considered there was no collision imminent. I would still expect him to advise the 737 of his position.
I would prefer the 737 captain to make a decision as to whether any adjustment to his flight path was required, rather than rely on the GA pilots judgement.
There is little use in having an exceptionally well-trained and experienced pilots on the RPT aircraft if in in tight situations he's not in the position to command: you need situational awareness to command.
This has been a concerned regards the CTAF and the continued reference to see and avoid procedures. We are worried that this exact situation will occur in approaches to our major regional uncontrolled airports. We do not want the GA aircraft pilot , who may have 50 hours flying experience, making the crucial decision. That being the decision" not to make a call" as he feels no conflict is going to occur.
Regardless of the what the exact proximity of the two aircraft would have been, had the Virgin Blue flight not altered course ,surely you can see that the decision to make or not make a call based upon the GA pilot's prediction of conflict is not nearly as safe as allowing the professional captain of the 737 to make that decision.
Mandatory calls at major regional airports will help by transferring the information to the 737 captain , so that his professional decision can be made.
The Australian passengers are expecting him to make that decision and he has been trained and has sufficient skill and experience to make the best decision possible.
We believe the Australian regulators in designing an airspace system must ensure that in uncontrolled airspace with a high density of flights, where ever possible the rules must allow the RPT pilot to be aware of any possible conflicts.
Hence our extremely strong stand against CTAF and see and procedures that encourage the GA pilots in uncontrolled airspace to fail to inform the RPT captain of his close proximity.
I'm not qualified with regards to en route airspace . however , it does appear that if E class is a controlled airspace then surely those who have a responsibility to control it can do a better job if they are aware of all traffic within that airspace.
I believe the average Australian passenger expects that his safety is being guarded by either the RPT captain or the ATC operator.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had there been a collision risk he would have spoken up or taken avoiding action
Any pilot who thinks that; another aircraft responded to an RA, yet no collision risk existed (in a non-controlled situation, such as NAS classE), either wouldn't know if his arse was on fire or is doing practice intercepts in an F18 (although that never happens, right
)
was not in a suicidal mood
You ought to be ashamed, Mr Munroe. "Air Safety Australia". Is that like Airservices Australia?
Nunc est bibendum
NMAC- Near Mid Air Collision
Boyd, in the USA, ATC ask you to report RAs as NMACs or 'Near Mid Air Colllisions' so that they keep the tapes, investigate it, whatever. If we are going to move to the US NAS system, can we use the same NMAC stuff? I don't see why we shouldn't.
NEAR MID AIR COLLISION is what has happened!! Get it?
NEAR MID AIR COLLISION is what has happened!! Get it?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boyd says:
So there you have it. Investigation complete. From an unbiased source. Who lives in Europe.
What I have gathered from the news reports today:
A spokesman for Mr Anderson said the union's campaign was political "because they believe it will be of benefit to the Labor Party".
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E23349,00.html
"The new system has been run very well so far," the spokesman said. "It is working as it's meant to work
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E23349,00.html
A Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson said that while CASA had not been involved in designing or implementing the new system it had conducted a safety audit of its operation and determined there was nothing inherently unsafe about it. http://www.examiner.com.au/story.asp?id=210340
A spokesman for Mr Anderson says Mr Lang was proved wrong over claims about a similar incident earlier this month and says he is engaging in politically motivated scaremongering.
http://www.abc.net.au/tasmania/news/200312/s1016064.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/ra/newstories/...es_1016030.htm
How on earth do you associate helping the ALP with CivilAir's stance Anderson? Are you completely devoid of the concept of professional concern? I hope your attitude of trying to simlify and dumb down all of this into neat notional political side-taking is remembered at the next Federal election and you are sent off to where you belong.
How on earth is the latest Civil Air Press release scarmongering or sensational?? http://www.civilair.asn.au/cgi-bin/y...pl?board=prpub
Nice of you to finally join the NAS argument Boyd.
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
What I have gathered from the news reports today:
A spokesman for Mr Anderson said the union's campaign was political "because they believe it will be of benefit to the Labor Party".
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E23349,00.html
"The new system has been run very well so far," the spokesman said. "It is working as it's meant to work
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E23349,00.html
A Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson said that while CASA had not been involved in designing or implementing the new system it had conducted a safety audit of its operation and determined there was nothing inherently unsafe about it. http://www.examiner.com.au/story.asp?id=210340
A spokesman for Mr Anderson says Mr Lang was proved wrong over claims about a similar incident earlier this month and says he is engaging in politically motivated scaremongering.
http://www.abc.net.au/tasmania/news/200312/s1016064.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/ra/newstories/...es_1016030.htm
How on earth do you associate helping the ALP with CivilAir's stance Anderson? Are you completely devoid of the concept of professional concern? I hope your attitude of trying to simlify and dumb down all of this into neat notional political side-taking is remembered at the next Federal election and you are sent off to where you belong.
How on earth is the latest Civil Air Press release scarmongering or sensational?? http://www.civilair.asn.au/cgi-bin/y...pl?board=prpub
Nice of you to finally join the NAS argument Boyd.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Black stump
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the FAA (USA): ...
In this case ...
. TCAS RA and subsequent avoiding action by B737 due possibility of a collision;
. B737 crew reports miss by 200FT
. B737 crew submitted report.
Yep ... guess this one qualifies !!
Near Midair Collision (NMAC) - an incident associated with the operation of an aircraft in which the possibility of collision occurs as a result of proximity of less than 500 feet to another aircraft, or a report is received from a pilot or flight crewmember stating that a collision hazard existed between two or more aircraft.
. TCAS RA and subsequent avoiding action by B737 due possibility of a collision;
. B737 crew reports miss by 200FT
. B737 crew submitted report.
NEAR MID AIR COLLISION is what has happened!!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Queensland
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No speaka da english
From one VFR driver to another (AND i don't have all of the facts) why would you NOT talk to the DJ driver. Whilst I cohabit the skies with DJ also, it is in class D, but I also cohabit with Son of Skippy into MBZ's. When they make their call, I can ascertain where they are and what their intentions are...but I cannot read minds and i don't know if, for some reason, they have to change their intentions, so i talk to 'em. Nice bunch generally on the odd occassion when we have had pilot to pilot social intercourse. We both know where each other is situated and what our individual intentions are. I have on occassion done an orbit or extended downwind or whatever to facilitate an RPT...he's bigger than me.
To say that under the new rules you can't talk in E is a cop out. Do you REALLY think that is what they mean? When DO you think you can talk in E?
I have to agree with the ATCers, change E to C so we can all be "stayin' alive, stayin' alive" (sorry JT). In the meantime, if i see a bloody big red or red and white thing anywhere near me I'll be the first to break the rules and speak up on Area Frequency and / or CTAF/MBZ and if that don't elicit a respnse 121.5
I don't want to be the next report in AAP as venturing into areas where comercial jets fly. Funny 'bout that, where the hell did I fly before >FL40 only to be beamed down to the closest Mackers carpark to land
To say that under the new rules you can't talk in E is a cop out. Do you REALLY think that is what they mean? When DO you think you can talk in E?
I have to agree with the ATCers, change E to C so we can all be "stayin' alive, stayin' alive" (sorry JT). In the meantime, if i see a bloody big red or red and white thing anywhere near me I'll be the first to break the rules and speak up on Area Frequency and / or CTAF/MBZ and if that don't elicit a respnse 121.5
I don't want to be the next report in AAP as venturing into areas where comercial jets fly. Funny 'bout that, where the hell did I fly before >FL40 only to be beamed down to the closest Mackers carpark to land
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Done Under
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a butcher's at the AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA website - no mention of directors, offices etc. Its veerrryy supportive of Dick tho'. The ASIC website doesn't help either.
Could well be another one of the SIF with his "own" organisation - a bit like the "Pedestrian Council".
Could well be another one of the SIF with his "own" organisation - a bit like the "Pedestrian Council".
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: down on the farm
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skinny Dog,
I have to go with your comments, we can have a similar "Bump" out of Sydney 34R leveling at 5000' with crossing inbound traffic at 6000' and 34 departures from Melbourne with 27 arrivals when they sometimes meet at BAKER. Simple solution is to reduce the RoD/RoC as you see the traffic on the TCAS and you can avoid the RA.
Did the Vigin crew get a TA prior to the RA and did they take any preventative action? Or do they just wait until they get close enough for the RA so they don't disturb the VNAV path?
Who is flying the aircraft?
I have to go with your comments, we can have a similar "Bump" out of Sydney 34R leveling at 5000' with crossing inbound traffic at 6000' and 34 departures from Melbourne with 27 arrivals when they sometimes meet at BAKER. Simple solution is to reduce the RoD/RoC as you see the traffic on the TCAS and you can avoid the RA.
Did the Vigin crew get a TA prior to the RA and did they take any preventative action? Or do they just wait until they get close enough for the RA so they don't disturb the VNAV path?
Who is flying the aircraft?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the uninformed and well informed comments on this and other threads it seems both of the incidents that have got press time were everybody having a brilliant NAS-type day. In one the jet crew acquired the VFR visually, in the other the VFR acquired the jet visually. Then the TCAS went off and it's a headline.
Maybe TCAS can't deal with the system? Is TCAS the problem???
If it happens here twice in a month, and there is any truth to the comparisons of statistics, it should happen 40 times a month in the oh-so-very-much-busier US system So does it?
Maybe TCAS can't deal with the system? Is TCAS the problem???
If it happens here twice in a month, and there is any truth to the comparisons of statistics, it should happen 40 times a month in the oh-so-very-much-busier US system
So does it?
Spodman
There is nothing wrong with the TCAS. It is working as it was designed. I have been flying to the US, Canada and Europe for a number of years now and while TA’s are not uncommon, RA’s are definitely not. Looking at out company stats system wide they are not very common at all and definitely are treated as a breakdown in separation. For a regulator like CASA/ASA or the ATSB to say that they aren’t fly’s directly in the face of international norms. I think John Anderson and the like need to wake up and smell the roses because very soon if they don’t they will be smelling s**t which will be on their faces.
There is nothing wrong with the TCAS. It is working as it was designed. I have been flying to the US, Canada and Europe for a number of years now and while TA’s are not uncommon, RA’s are definitely not. Looking at out company stats system wide they are not very common at all and definitely are treated as a breakdown in separation. For a regulator like CASA/ASA or the ATSB to say that they aren’t fly’s directly in the face of international norms. I think John Anderson and the like need to wake up and smell the roses because very soon if they don’t they will be smelling s**t which will be on their faces.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BLASToid - you're right - none of the 90 odd people who were watching this unfold and assisting in their own subtle way with see and avoid - were not in control of the aircraft. BUT - in my little world of make believe I know that they and I are Chocolate Biscuit buyers and we vote. When I discuss this debacle with family and friends I know that they too buy chocolate biscuits and vote and perhaps our system of democracy may, one day, fix this!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ozmate
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 X RA's in as many weeks in class "E"?
No, Mr. Experts, this is NOT “normal” nor is it acceptable!
Review this stupid situation immediately or have blood on your hands.
The TCAS RA procedure is in the "Non-Normal Manoeuvres" section of the B737 Operations Manual for a very good reason.
i.e. It is not supposed to be a weekly occurrence because of a system that allows an RPT jet on a normal descent path to be "surprised" by another A/C to the extent that it needs to take the last step in COLLISION (yes, that's what the "C" in TCAS stands for!) avoidance.
In addition, what about the potential for injury to unrestrained cabin crew and pax during one of these "routine" RA's?
As someone has already stated, “TCAS RA doesn’t mean "NAS system worked as planned" it means the last link in the chain didn’t break”
As a regular user of airspace in Australia in an RPT jet I feel a lot less safe now than I did a month or so ago as a direct result of the NAS.
Are you listening?
This is NOT acceptable.
Get it?
No, Mr. Experts, this is NOT “normal” nor is it acceptable!
Review this stupid situation immediately or have blood on your hands.
The TCAS RA procedure is in the "Non-Normal Manoeuvres" section of the B737 Operations Manual for a very good reason.
i.e. It is not supposed to be a weekly occurrence because of a system that allows an RPT jet on a normal descent path to be "surprised" by another A/C to the extent that it needs to take the last step in COLLISION (yes, that's what the "C" in TCAS stands for!) avoidance.
In addition, what about the potential for injury to unrestrained cabin crew and pax during one of these "routine" RA's?
As someone has already stated, “TCAS RA doesn’t mean "NAS system worked as planned" it means the last link in the chain didn’t break”
As a regular user of airspace in Australia in an RPT jet I feel a lot less safe now than I did a month or so ago as a direct result of the NAS.
Are you listening?
This is NOT acceptable.
Get it?
Last edited by woftam; 26th Dec 2003 at 13:06.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmmm......oxymoronic sounds like an apt description of an AN 767 Flight Engineer!! However, this continuing NAS whining from union bludging ATC and B grade airline pilots is becoming more than rather repetitive and tiresome. You people all really need to get out more....and get a life please!!
Why some Aussies think they know better than a far superior airspace system that has worked well in the US for years is beyond me...is this just some pathetic patriotic prattle? 
I would be most interested to know how these neurotics behave behing the wheel of a motor vehicle..if in fact they ever have the nerve to drive. One could not imagine them managing day to day without a multiple recurring heart attack...
Why some Aussies think they know better than a far superior airspace system that has worked well in the US for years is beyond me...is this just some pathetic patriotic prattle? I would be most interested to know how these neurotics behave behing the wheel of a motor vehicle..if in fact they ever have the nerve to drive. One could not imagine them managing day to day without a multiple recurring heart attack...
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhh! Winstun. The point is that we don't have the US system yet, our current system has (supposedly) just been made a little more US-like, with the aim of making it a lot more US-like in the future.
If there are differences in outcome between the US system and ours it may mean there is something wrong with our current hybrid.
The (previously reliable) batsman has let a couple through to the keeper. Sooner or later the bowler will get one on the stumps.
I'll bet you like looking at train crashes too
If there are differences in outcome between the US system and ours it may mean there is something wrong with our current hybrid.
The (previously reliable) batsman has let a couple through to the keeper. Sooner or later the bowler will get one on the stumps.
I'll bet you like looking at train crashes too
Winstun, come on you're believing John Anderson's propaganda now.
I drive a car doing up to 60 knots every day. That's on a straight, 2 dimensional road and I know where the other cars are coming from - on the black stuff on the other side of the road. Give me a break.
You simply cannot draw an analogy between the road and our airspace system.
From someone who drives - and flies - in Australia and the US.
I drive a car doing up to 60 knots every day. That's on a straight, 2 dimensional road and I know where the other cars are coming from - on the black stuff on the other side of the road. Give me a break.
You simply cannot draw an analogy between the road and our airspace system.
From someone who drives - and flies - in Australia and the US.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who the hell this J. Anderson is I care not.
Damn right Your (lack of) risk perception is astonshing. You are quite content to know where other cars "are coming from"...save the small fact that they are inches from head on collision with you 24/7, quite likely poorly maintained, and driven by the unskilled, distracted, fatigued, tipsy, high or even neurotic... seen the figures on the dead and disabled? Let you in on a little secret..60 knots or 500 knots, yous a gonner.. The fact that a unionised 1970s style, pencil pushing, public servant type airspace system has survived in Australia for so long, is no reason not to change it. 
You simply cannot draw an analogy between the road and our airspace system.
Let you in on a little secret..60 knots or 500 knots, yous a gonner.. The fact that a unionised 1970s style, pencil pushing, public servant type airspace system has survived in Australia for so long, is no reason not to change it.
Last edited by Winstun; 27th Dec 2003 at 19:23.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Winstun,
What have you got against:
1. Unions,
2. Pencils,
3. The 1970's - man?
Seriously,
I hope you are approaching puberty soon so that your hands will have a more constructive use that they have on your keyboard.
What have you got against:
1. Unions,
2. Pencils,
3. The 1970's - man?
Seriously,
I hope you are approaching puberty soon so that your hands will have a more constructive use that they have on your keyboard.
People I suggest you ignore Winstun as he is wasting a very precious resource we all hold dear, air. Frankly I’m surprised his mother didn’t strangle him at birth because of the great gasps of it he was consuming.
Winstun, my point was that at 110 km/hr I usually know the other car's there, have time to see it coming and time to do something about avoiding hitting it - a luxury I don't enjoy at 400 odd kts TAS on climb or descent. This is now the primary means of seperation in Australian Class E airspace.
The jobs got enough "threats" without introducing new ones, like the "Minister for Transport and Regional Services, The Hon. John Anderson MP's", NAS.
Incidentally, on a per departure basis, the road is a far safer place to be in spite of the "unskilled, distracted, fatigued, tipsy, high or even neurotic". Tell you anything?
And without casting aspersions on our Recreational Pilots some of them, who are now responsible for avoiding a collison with 400 odd people, may fall into any of your first three categories. No offence intended.
The jobs got enough "threats" without introducing new ones, like the "Minister for Transport and Regional Services, The Hon. John Anderson MP's", NAS.
Incidentally, on a per departure basis, the road is a far safer place to be in spite of the "unskilled, distracted, fatigued, tipsy, high or even neurotic". Tell you anything?
And without casting aspersions on our Recreational Pilots some of them, who are now responsible for avoiding a collison with 400 odd people, may fall into any of your first three categories. No offence intended.