Qantas, Air NZ jets in near miss
Qantas, Air NZ jets in near miss
From news.com.au
"A QANTAS Boeing 747 and a similar Air New Zealand jet were involved in a near miss over Auckland International Airport on the weekend, New Zealand's Transport Accident Investigation Commission (TAIC) said today.
The two jets were unacceptably close and infringed the required separation between aircraft, TAIC said in a statement.
Qantas flight QF43 was said to be on an instrument approach to the airport when air traffic controllers noticed an unidentified aircraft tracking towards its approach path.
Controllers told the Qantas cockpit crew to abort the approach, turn right and climb to 3,000 feet.
At that time, Air New Zealand flight NZ124 was following on an instrument approach to the same runway, and had been cleared to descend to an altitude of 4,000 feet.
As the Qantas jet climbed away, its crew received a ground proximity warning and, in response, initiated a pull-up to 5,000 feet.
The pull-up occurred about one to one-and-a-half nautical miles from NZ124, which was then descending through 4,500 feet.
TAIC said it was investigating the incident."
The way this reads is that ATC instructed a climb into conflicting traffic.
Anyone know the real story?
DJ737
The Roo Rooter
"A QANTAS Boeing 747 and a similar Air New Zealand jet were involved in a near miss over Auckland International Airport on the weekend, New Zealand's Transport Accident Investigation Commission (TAIC) said today.
The two jets were unacceptably close and infringed the required separation between aircraft, TAIC said in a statement.
Qantas flight QF43 was said to be on an instrument approach to the airport when air traffic controllers noticed an unidentified aircraft tracking towards its approach path.
Controllers told the Qantas cockpit crew to abort the approach, turn right and climb to 3,000 feet.
At that time, Air New Zealand flight NZ124 was following on an instrument approach to the same runway, and had been cleared to descend to an altitude of 4,000 feet.
As the Qantas jet climbed away, its crew received a ground proximity warning and, in response, initiated a pull-up to 5,000 feet.
The pull-up occurred about one to one-and-a-half nautical miles from NZ124, which was then descending through 4,500 feet.
TAIC said it was investigating the incident."
The way this reads is that ATC instructed a climb into conflicting traffic.
Anyone know the real story?
DJ737
The Roo Rooter
Last edited by DJ737; 11th Apr 2005 at 08:33.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way this reads is that ATC instructed a climb into conflicting traffic.
Maybe you're reading it upside down??? The clearance limit is reported as 3000 ft (probibly due to the other jet which was cleared to 4000), further climb was reportedly initiated due to a GPWS warning. I don't know how they could be within 1.5 miles of each other if on the same approach though unless a tight 180 degree turn was made. Of course the GPWS warning sounds a bit curious in this context, TCAS climb would be more fitting.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just from reading the article, it looks like ANZ on downwind, about to be turned onto the ILS. Qf, on the ILS, gets told to turn away from the unidentified conflict and climb to 3000' under the ANZ descending 4000' on the downwind. Qf gets the GPW and climbs to 5000' (company SOP?). Sound reasonable?
Raises a lot of questions. Hierarchy of instructions, authority etc. eg. If the hierarchy is GPW, TCAS, ATC, visual/avoid having a prang, this would be a perfect example of common sense being removed from the equation and the domination of following set procedures to the detriment of safety. ie trying to write checklists for every possible situation.
Raises a lot of questions. Hierarchy of instructions, authority etc. eg. If the hierarchy is GPW, TCAS, ATC, visual/avoid having a prang, this would be a perfect example of common sense being removed from the equation and the domination of following set procedures to the detriment of safety. ie trying to write checklists for every possible situation.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was on the late news on TV1 tonight. I might have misunderstood, but they made it sound like the jets passed within 500 feet of each other. Not likely.
Also, why would you get a GPWS warning while over 3000 feet and climbing? No high ground in the area??
Also, why would you get a GPWS warning while over 3000 feet and climbing? No high ground in the area??
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: South of zero
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wont be on the ILS chaps, the runway works are going on and therefore you only have the LLZ for 05L or 23R (green pages).
Sounds a little messy but I guess we will have to wait and see the report.
splat
Sounds a little messy but I guess we will have to wait and see the report.
splat
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't anyone read?
why would you get a GPWS warning while over 3000 feet and climbing?
They were climbing TO 3000 feet, they may have been at 10 feet when they got the warning, it doesn't say.What ever was going on, noone was flying an ILS as there is no such approach available.
I agree with ferris, this does raise questions about following standard proceedures when there seem to be strong contra-indications. There is absolutely no terrain above 1000 feet when turning right off either final and this should be painfully obviouse to the crew. Also under radar vectors, you would expect protection. On the flip side, there have been numerous major accidents caused by hessitation in following GPWS warnings for these very reasons. I guess the ground is much bigger and easier to hit than another aircraft.
Of course we won't know the full detail for a while, and I will be interested to see if anything else comes out - it doesn't quite add up yet.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Speightsville
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some clearer facts - if you believe the NZH!
Two Boeing 747s carrying hundreds of passengers came unacceptably close to each other in airspace above Auckland, accident investigators said yesterday.
The Transport Accident Investigation Commission said a Qantas jet came within two to three kilometres of an Air New Zealand aircraft shortly after 5pm on Saturday, infringing the required separation space.
But commission spokesman John Mockett said the two jets were not in any particular danger.
"The Qantas aircraft went up about a mile and a half [2.4km] behind the Air New Zealand aircraft. There was no danger of collision, but you’re supposed to have a three-mile [4.8km] separation."
He said all parties involved seemed to have acted appropriately, but the separation distance was infringed and an investigation is required.
A commission statement said Flight QF43, from Sydney, was coming in to Auckland Airport when air traffic control told it to abort its landing approach because a light aircraft was heading towards its path.
It turned towards the central city. As it manoeuvred, a ground proximity warning forced the crew to start climbing to 1500m.
In doing so, QF43 came within two to three kilometres of Flight NZ124 from Melbourne, which was descending through 1370m.
Mr Mockett said the planes were not damaged.
Air New Zealand chief pilot Captain David Morgan said the airline’s role was not being investigated.
"We are an involved party, but it’s a Qantas incident.
"The Qantas aircraft moved through our aircraft’s altitude space."
Captain Morgan said 281 passengers and 15 crew were on board Flight NZ124.
Mr Mockett said the Air New Zealand aircraft was an unaffected third party. He said further investigations would continue.
"We don’t even know yet what may have caused the ground proximity warning to go off."
The report would be finished in October at the earliest.
The Transport Accident Investigation Commission said a Qantas jet came within two to three kilometres of an Air New Zealand aircraft shortly after 5pm on Saturday, infringing the required separation space.
But commission spokesman John Mockett said the two jets were not in any particular danger.
"The Qantas aircraft went up about a mile and a half [2.4km] behind the Air New Zealand aircraft. There was no danger of collision, but you’re supposed to have a three-mile [4.8km] separation."
He said all parties involved seemed to have acted appropriately, but the separation distance was infringed and an investigation is required.
A commission statement said Flight QF43, from Sydney, was coming in to Auckland Airport when air traffic control told it to abort its landing approach because a light aircraft was heading towards its path.
It turned towards the central city. As it manoeuvred, a ground proximity warning forced the crew to start climbing to 1500m.
In doing so, QF43 came within two to three kilometres of Flight NZ124 from Melbourne, which was descending through 1370m.
Mr Mockett said the planes were not damaged.
Air New Zealand chief pilot Captain David Morgan said the airline’s role was not being investigated.
"We are an involved party, but it’s a Qantas incident.
"The Qantas aircraft moved through our aircraft’s altitude space."
Captain Morgan said 281 passengers and 15 crew were on board Flight NZ124.
Mr Mockett said the Air New Zealand aircraft was an unaffected third party. He said further investigations would continue.
"We don’t even know yet what may have caused the ground proximity warning to go off."
The report would be finished in October at the earliest.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Straight from the TAIC, think that about clears it up.
Sounds much more like a TCAS alarm would have been sounded than GPW; given GPW doesn't usually go off on a well-flown final, and I can't imagine the crew of the QF34 doing anything other than best practice.
I don't think the TAIC spokesman was on the flight deck during this incident, just wondered if anyone has spoken with the crew that was flying and might have some facts?
Thanks anyway...
VHCU
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By way of some information on SOPs (to stop some of the misinformation on this thread so far):
1) TCAS and GPWS warnings take priority over ATC considerations - remember that the Russian airliner involved in the DHL midair followed ATC instructions instead of TCAS.
2) GPWS warnings are to be followed in all instances except when in day VMC - in this instance (only) a GPWS warning does not need to be followed if a visual terrain assessment confirms that there is no danger to the aircraft.
1) TCAS and GPWS warnings take priority over ATC considerations - remember that the Russian airliner involved in the DHL midair followed ATC instructions instead of TCAS.
2) GPWS warnings are to be followed in all instances except when in day VMC - in this instance (only) a GPWS warning does not need to be followed if a visual terrain assessment confirms that there is no danger to the aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Rainforest
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A left turn off 05(due traffic on your right ie downwind RH 05)could give you a nice little GPWS over the Waitakeries.There has been more than one incident of A/C recieving GPWS warninings while being radar vectored left base for a short app to 05.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Earth
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are doing an approach to a runway that is not in the GPWS data base (05L/23R ?) and Terrain Overide is not engaged (QF43 ?) then GPWS will activate regardless of the terrain (as it thinks you are going to land in a paddock).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
McGoo,
That used to be the case when this temporary runway was first used for operations with EGPWS, but the databases were amended long ago and this should no longer be a factor.
What seems to be getting little airplay is the "unidentified light aircraft". As I recall, during green chart operations, the Auckland Terminal area is supposed to be closed to GA operations.
Who was the "unidentified" light aircraft? I hope he gets the rocket he deserves.
That used to be the case when this temporary runway was first used for operations with EGPWS, but the databases were amended long ago and this should no longer be a factor.
What seems to be getting little airplay is the "unidentified light aircraft". As I recall, during green chart operations, the Auckland Terminal area is supposed to be closed to GA operations.
Who was the "unidentified" light aircraft? I hope he gets the rocket he deserves.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ive only seen the herald extract but which includes.....
air traffic control told it to abort its landing approach because a light aircraft was heading towards its path.
Three bars, close... GA types are still going in - its itinerant VFR's that are being kept away.
So I guess that leaves the question as to what the lighty was doing (and of course wheather he was at fault). An IFR lighty on the visual approach, Auckland based VFR operator?
Wasnt me anyway
air traffic control told it to abort its landing approach because a light aircraft was heading towards its path.
Three bars, close... GA types are still going in - its itinerant VFR's that are being kept away.
So I guess that leaves the question as to what the lighty was doing (and of course wheather he was at fault). An IFR lighty on the visual approach, Auckland based VFR operator?
Wasnt me anyway
Guest
Posts: n/a
Three Bars, a point of order, my reading of the NNM is that if you brief of an expected GPWS warning in day VMC and it occurs it may be disregarded.
To encounter a warning and then justify it is not what it says.
Maybe your operator is providing guidance contrary to Boeings?
To encounter a warning and then justify it is not what it says.
Maybe your operator is providing guidance contrary to Boeings?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it QANTAS's SOP's to make a mandatory climb to 5000' from a GPWS warning?
If the ATC instruction was to commence a missed approach due traffic and climb to 3000', why when a GPWS warning follows closey behind, does the crew think 3000' under radar control is not safe enough for us we are going to climb to 5000'?
The decision to climb to 5000' is the major contributing factor here.
RWY 23R must have been in use. Two jets from Oz arriving in AA would not cross paths with each other on RWY 05L as it is a straight in approach from the Tasman Sea. My understanding is the Air NZ jet was right hand downwind for RWY 23R (over the city sector) descending to 4000' when the QANTAS jet passed 1.5Nm behind on it's way to 5000'.
S2K
If the ATC instruction was to commence a missed approach due traffic and climb to 3000', why when a GPWS warning follows closey behind, does the crew think 3000' under radar control is not safe enough for us we are going to climb to 5000'?
The decision to climb to 5000' is the major contributing factor here.
RWY 23R must have been in use. Two jets from Oz arriving in AA would not cross paths with each other on RWY 05L as it is a straight in approach from the Tasman Sea. My understanding is the Air NZ jet was right hand downwind for RWY 23R (over the city sector) descending to 4000' when the QANTAS jet passed 1.5Nm behind on it's way to 5000'.
S2K