Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

It's good someone was awake.

Old 24th Dec 2009, 18:47
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: A cheap seat at the front of a 777 :-)
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's good someone was awake.

On 22/12 there was a breakdown in separation between a Cathay Pacific A330 (B-HLV) (HKG-MEL) and a Virgin Blue B737 (VH-VUJ) (MEL-DRW) at FL370 somewhere over NT.

from the ATSB
An Airbus Industrie A330 was southbound at FL370 and a Boeing Company 737 was northbound on the reciprocal track also at non-standard FL370. When the crew of the A330 questioned the controller, the controller instructed the A330 crew to climb to FL380 and cleared the aircraft to divert right of track. The crew of the 737 then advised the controller they were diverting 10 NM right of track. There was a breakdown of separation standards. The investigation is continuing.
Merry Christmas
DJ737
7378FE is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2009, 22:58
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Paradise
Age: 67
Posts: 1,548
Received 48 Likes on 17 Posts
Non-standard levels are a risk especially outside radar coverage. If I ever end up at a non-standard level (rare), I fly a strategic lateral offset. The accuracy of modern nav systems is too good........

What irks me even more are people who ask for block levels covering about 4,000'. In turbulence maybe a 2,000' block can be justified, but some carriers are just plain inconsiderate when regularly requesting block levels.
chimbu warrior is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2009, 00:09
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I noticed in the last ammendment in the ATC section of Jepps it now states that any request for a non standard level has to include the phrase "due to operational requirement".
I would not consider winds or travelling closer to optimum level an operational requirement unless fuel critical. Maybe ATC needs to be less generous with non standard level approvals unless pilots start using this phrase and they have a genuine need for a non standard level.
Checkerboard is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2009, 04:17
  #4 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,583
Received 11 Likes on 2 Posts
...but some carriers are just plain inconsiderate when regularly requesting block levels.
If it's not available ATC don't grant it. If having been granted it the clearance will subsequently become a problem ATC modify or cancel it. I'm not sure what the issue is for you if someone else gets a block clearance whether it's 2000' or 10,000'.
Keg is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2009, 13:11
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And further to Kegs post,

I'm not sure what relevance "operational requirements" should have on whether or not a non standard level should be requested or given.

Like Keg says, either its available or its not. If you're at a non standard level, you're the first one to get shifted if it doesn't suit anyway (in my experience).
waren9 is offline  
Old 26th Dec 2009, 21:28
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
either its available or its not
Yeah, but you are talking about error catching. In the ME, we don't use N/S levels for cruise, and only ever (rarely) as a confilct fix. Just removes another 'hole'.
ferris is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2009, 00:29
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: far east
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah, but you are talking about error catching. In the ME, we don't use N/S levels for cruise, and only ever (rarely) as a confilct fix. Just removes another 'hole'.
Given the standard of ATC & level of traffic congestion in some parts of the ME, especially India, I wouldn't be requesting non standard anything !! Thankfully OZ is a totally different case IMHO.
preset is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2009, 01:30
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
All that is absolutely fair enough and I agree, but we're talking an incident in Australian airspace and a new requirement (AFAIK) in the Australian ATC Jepp section (page AU-805).

If you're in the middle of nowhere and don't feature on a screen somewhere then fair enough, but up and down the east coast of Aussie? Surely we have the capability and skill to do non standard levels quite safely. Surely??


Worlds best pract..............and all that.

Any comment from a controller?
waren9 is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2009, 01:55
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wellington,NZ
Age: 66
Posts: 1,676
Received 8 Likes on 4 Posts
Removing holes is generally regarded as a good thing in ATM.

If they can't be removed or plugged, then some kind of operating practice/tips/auto-alert thingy provided to mitigate a perceived high risk situation.

This has been an evolving practice in a lot of ANS providers since day one, hugely aided (and at the same time made more complex) more recently by technology.

Unfortunately it seems to me that in mitigating against a lot of these "gotchas", the exposure of the human element in dealing with unusual or non-standard procedures has become very limited.

In ancient times the "non-standard" was almost the norm, most were well practiced at dealing with it and the tools used were regularly dusted off and given a work out. There were other "gotchas" that could catch the unwary out, but I believe the operating environment "way back then" cultivated and encouraged a different order of situational awareness and maintain-a-good-scan type mentality.

With the more systems-based technology we are now using it is more likely in my opinion that doing things in a non-standard manner, or approving a non-standard operation rarely is more likely to be risky than approving it (space and procedure permitting) either more regularly, or not at all. Ever.

It's my view that it's best to not try and come up with rarely used procedures aimed at mitigating risk for infrequent situations. The procedure will be forgotten unless called on regularly. If it is in a QRH, one has to remember and know there is a procedure in the QRH, then look for it. And at the same time the OS still requires monitoring, there is often less time and attention available for dealing with ancillary tasks.

Not a thing to want to be doing (if applicable) at 2.52 in the morning.

Either (1) make the procedure routine enough, and train for it, so it is almost instinctive to carry out safely, or (2) never use the procedure. I think ATM generally is moving toward option (2).
Whether that is the correct direction to be moving, I don't know. In my experience, sooner or later, there will always be a legitimate and sometimes pressing requirement to handle something non-standard.
Originally Posted by A380-800 driver
thank goodness for TCAS!!!!
I say thank goodness to an alert flight crew that had the situational awareness, and the luxury of a common language, to query it.
Without wanting to second-guess the result of the inquiry, that was possibly the second last hole in the cheese.
Originally Posted by waren9
<Worlds best pract..............and all that.>
That's where we're all heading.

[edit to add:] My comments, in case it is not obvious, are concerning occurrences of this type, particularly where a non-standard element is involved, generally. I have no inside knowledge of this one, nor of the way area control is performed in Australia.
I think it is high time a holistic overview of training/technology is entered into.

Last edited by Tarq57; 27th Dec 2009 at 05:07.
Tarq57 is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2009, 02:33
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Direct no speed it's the same with GA, while ever there are people prepared to work those hours for that pay under that pressure then it's only going to get worse. Does knowing those conditions are dangerous and still working breach your duty of care legally? You have to watch those legal folks always out for income maximumisation. Isn't stating an opinion of such on a public forum an admission of problems? Can'o'worms stuff.

Last edited by Super Cecil; 27th Dec 2009 at 02:34. Reason: spelling, still didn't get it right
Super Cecil is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2009, 04:30
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Mangina
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No supervisor awake though. I find it odd that there is no night shift supervisor in that part of the world seeing as it is the peak of complexity and traffic around 3am.
STFU is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2009, 09:37
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 62
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You can expect a standard knee jerk reaction to this incident...the use of non-standard levels will probably be henceforth banned.

There are probably multiple factors to consider here.
First is the "can do" culture that has sprung up in Oz over the past 20 years.
There is also the push from management that the controllers have to facilitate their "customers" as much as possible, often to the detriment of safety.

I have no idea of the circumstances of this incident other than what has been mentioned here, but making a stab at it anyway, IMHO controllers in Oz are trained these days to pretty much say "yes" to most requests...in the old days some were trained to think "no" and then look for a reason to justify it. If no reason could be found, he got the level/routing etc.
There has to be a happy medium there somewhere.

The "back of the clock", disengaged workforce argument I do not think is the reason (although I hasten to add, I do not work in Oz anymore).
We have had two nose to nose STCA (Short Term Conflict Alert) sorted incidents in my patch in Europe recently, in full radar coverage, with a fully engaged and well rested workforce.

Sh!t happens, humans make mistakes, and happily all the holes in the cheese didn't line up.
Good work from the pilots for having good situational awareness.
divingduck is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2009, 10:49
  #13 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,583
Received 11 Likes on 2 Posts
ferris, I was responding to someone's comments about large block clearances rather than operations at non standard levels.

I don't mind using non standard levels* if I need to but I make sure that I'm more tuned in with the traffic around me if I do.

*(current operations limit this to Continental Australian Airspace. I'd never do it in Indonesia, Phillipine, Thai, Indian, Pakistani, or Burmese airspace.....and probably a few others that I haven't included there also).
Keg is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2009, 10:54
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Havent most of QFs incidents in Indonesian/Asian airspace occurred when we were operating at standard levels?

Quite frankly i don't think it matters if you re at standard or non standard levels... you can still be at risk. (Think of jets changing levels through yours - deviating around weather without a clearance - loss of comms through indo /Philippine airspace with crossing traffic)
blueloo is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2009, 12:35
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 47
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The introduction of RVSM in Australian airspace has produced a parcel of "convenient" levels above F290 that were not an option in prior times. The natural tendency has been to make use of these levels as desired, consigning the 'non-standard' aspect to the 'doesn't matter' bin.
Over the North Atlantic, and similar, RVSM has a real needed purpose. In Australia it is a luxury. (but, dare I say, world's best practice?)
40years is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2009, 12:50
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GC Paradise
Posts: 1,096
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
It's kind of funny to reflect that we fly along designated air routes (railway tracks in the sky) at set altitudes within +/- 50 feet vertically and +/- 100 metres laterally to such an extent that two a/c pass each other head-on at 1800 km/h in the middle of absolutely nowhere on a regular basis with only 1000' of separation. The much reduced probability of this happening if aircraft used random tracks and altitudes in remote areas (no ATC) would seem to be a far better option sometimes.

Someone with a brilliant theoretical, but practical mind will solve this problem sometime in the future and we will all sit back and say, why didn't I think of that?
FlexibleResponse is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2009, 22:00
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Keg, I wasn't responding to you either- the quote was taken from waren9's post. I was talking about (from an ATC perspective) the use or not of n/s levels.

In oz, although being a legitimate sep standard, we never used assigned rates of climb/descent. In the international environment, people do it all the time. N/S levels used for cruise in oz, not elsewhere (M.E.).

Could go into a big post about risk and the GAFA, but no time. Agree with DD that there will prob be a knee-jerk rule made. It's the way modern management operate.

FR: the world is moving away from opp direction tracks, which is the only place where offsetting helps. But where opp dir. tracks still exist- yes, offset should be mandated (in the RPT world).
ferris is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2009, 22:33
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Zoo
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's kind of funny to reflect that we fly along designated air routes (railway tracks in the sky) at set altitudes within +/- 50 feet vertically and +/- 100 metres laterally to such an extent that two a/c pass each other head-on at 1800 km/h in the middle of absolutely nowhere on a regular basis with only 1000' of separation. The much reduced probability of this happening if aircraft used random tracks and altitudes in remote areas (no ATC) would seem to be a far better option sometimes.

Someone with a brilliant theoretical, but practical mind will solve this problem sometime in the future and we will all sit back and say, why didn't I think of that?
David Gunson summed it up beautifully... "We force them down narrow corridoors, therby greatly increasing the risk of collision, while at the same time justifying the job of the Air traffic controllers to keep them apart."

Flying on North Atlantic routes, pilots now have the approved option of flying 2nm off track (to the right!) this beautifully solves the head on case and the difference in speeds of following traffic should really make it a non-event.
kalavo is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2009, 02:54
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Melb
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The problem associated with the non-standard level debate is that unfortunately they are sometimes required to facilitate an expeditious flow of traffic. During the night over central australia there can sometimes be up to 30+ aircraft in a congo line heading to YSSY/YBBN/YMML... Without non-standard levels we would have people cruising at FL280 ect ect... However it must be said that whenever a controller assigns a clearance then seperation becomes HIS/HER responsibility. We can say we are all pissed off/fatigued ect ect but once we plug in and assume control then we are bound by law/duty to perform our role.
dsham is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2009, 03:11
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wellington,NZ
Age: 66
Posts: 1,676
Received 8 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by dsham
The problem associated with the non-standard level debate is that unfortunately they are sometimes required to facilitate an expeditious flow of traffic. During the night over central australia there can sometimes be up to 30+ aircraft in a congo line heading to YSSY/YBBN/YMML... Without non-standard levels we would have people cruising at FL280 ect ect... However it must be said that whenever a controller assigns a clearance then seperation becomes HIS/HER responsibility. We can say we are all pissed off/fatigued ect ect but once we plug in and assume control then we are bound by law/duty to perform our role.
Absolutely.
So, having, say, chosen to approve a non-standard level at, say, 3 in the morning (or any time, really) what are you personally going to do to mitigate against the possibility that you might not notice someone coming the other way?
Are there any tricks you use? Does the unit give you any guidance, or a procedure to follow? Are there any automated warning systems? Or is it just down to you keeping your eye on the ball? (Lets face it, that's what is often the case.) There are a handful of controllers around the world who probably relied on that last method, sometimes in adverse conditions, (Like eqp outages, or poor display design) who probably have a few serious regrets.
Not to get too maudlin, here, but really, what do you do?
Tarq57 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.