QF near miss over Great Australian Bight
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard a report one of the TCAS was not working but I dont know which acft
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation industry are changing maint practices, they are lining up the hole in the cheese,look at Cootes truck all cutting corners until a incident take place, all authorities panicky.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that this just highlights that TCAS has an error rate, too (like ALL things).
To have a safety system that fails to tell you it has failed might be unusual, but knowing it's possible should serve to reduce complacency.
To have a safety system that fails to tell you it has failed might be unusual, but knowing it's possible should serve to reduce complacency.
ATsB report on LOS
Slight thread drift but there is definitely relevance. The ATSB have just released a report into LOS incidents between Jan 2008 and Jun 2012,
take the time to read and absorb it is worth the effort!
:
LOS between aircraft in Australian airspace
Here is part of the media release comment:
And here are the recommendations: AO 2012-012-SI-01
AO 2012-012-SI-02
AO 2012-012-SI-03
AR-2012-034-SI-01
AR-2012-034-SI-02
AR-2012-034-SI-03
AO-2011-144-SI-01
AO-2011-144-SI-02
AO-2011-144-SI-03
So comments anyone??
take the time to read and absorb it is worth the effort!
:LOS between aircraft in Australian airspace
Here is part of the media release comment:
Report reveals low aircraft separation risk in Australia
Date: 18 October 2013
A research report released today by the ATSB reveals that the vast majority of loss of aircraft separation occurrences in Australia present little or no risk of collision, but more can be done to improve safety. (A loss of separation occurs when two aircraft under air traffic control come closer than a minimum separation distance.)
The report shows that Australia has one of the lowest loss-of-separation occurrence rates, attributable to civilian air traffic control, in the world. A loss of separation (LOS) between aircraft under air traffic control happens on average once every 3 days. In almost 90 per cent of LOS occurrences there was no or a low risk of aircraft colliding. Australia has about six LOS occurrences each year that represent an elevated safety risk. However, a LOS does not normally indicate that there was a near-collision between aircraft. There have been no midair collisions in Australia involving aircraft being provided with a separation service by air traffic control.
The report also reveals that half of all LOS occurrences are attributable to air traffic controller actions, while the other half result from pilot actions. The ATSB considers that more can be done to learn from LOS occurrences attributable to pilot actions in civil airspace.
The number of LOS occurrences under military control was found to be relatively high and most are the result of controller actions. The report finds that current regulatory arrangements do not enable the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to give the same level of safety assurance for civilian aircraft under military control as it does for aircraft under civilian control. The ATSB has issued safety recommendations to the Department of Defence and CASA to address the safety issues identified in the report.
The release of this report coincides with the release of two other ATSB investigation reports into separate incidents (one near Ceduna, SA and the other about 900 km northwest of Karratha, WA) that involved losses of separation between passenger aircraft under air traffic control. As part of the Karratha investigation, the ATSB issued two safety recommendations to Airservices Australia. These recommendations were issued in response to the limited formal guidance available on the monitoring of newly endorsed controllers and the use of clearances that allow aircraft to operate anywhere between two flight levels, rather than at a single level.
Date: 18 October 2013
A research report released today by the ATSB reveals that the vast majority of loss of aircraft separation occurrences in Australia present little or no risk of collision, but more can be done to improve safety. (A loss of separation occurs when two aircraft under air traffic control come closer than a minimum separation distance.)
The report shows that Australia has one of the lowest loss-of-separation occurrence rates, attributable to civilian air traffic control, in the world. A loss of separation (LOS) between aircraft under air traffic control happens on average once every 3 days. In almost 90 per cent of LOS occurrences there was no or a low risk of aircraft colliding. Australia has about six LOS occurrences each year that represent an elevated safety risk. However, a LOS does not normally indicate that there was a near-collision between aircraft. There have been no midair collisions in Australia involving aircraft being provided with a separation service by air traffic control.
The report also reveals that half of all LOS occurrences are attributable to air traffic controller actions, while the other half result from pilot actions. The ATSB considers that more can be done to learn from LOS occurrences attributable to pilot actions in civil airspace.
The number of LOS occurrences under military control was found to be relatively high and most are the result of controller actions. The report finds that current regulatory arrangements do not enable the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to give the same level of safety assurance for civilian aircraft under military control as it does for aircraft under civilian control. The ATSB has issued safety recommendations to the Department of Defence and CASA to address the safety issues identified in the report.
The release of this report coincides with the release of two other ATSB investigation reports into separate incidents (one near Ceduna, SA and the other about 900 km northwest of Karratha, WA) that involved losses of separation between passenger aircraft under air traffic control. As part of the Karratha investigation, the ATSB issued two safety recommendations to Airservices Australia. These recommendations were issued in response to the limited formal guidance available on the monitoring of newly endorsed controllers and the use of clearances that allow aircraft to operate anywhere between two flight levels, rather than at a single level.
AO 2012-012-SI-02
AO 2012-012-SI-03
AR-2012-034-SI-01
AR-2012-034-SI-02
AR-2012-034-SI-03
AO-2011-144-SI-01
AO-2011-144-SI-02
AO-2011-144-SI-03
So comments anyone??
Discussion - Airprox Board in Oz?
Maybe it might be considered overkill here in Oz 
(given the volume of traffic here vs in UK airspace)?? But maybe the idea could have merit solely to stop the 'he said'...'she said' between all directly interested parties to an Airprox/LOS:
(given the volume of traffic here vs in UK airspace)?? But maybe the idea could have merit solely to stop the 'he said'...'she said' between all directly interested parties to an Airprox/LOS:
UK Airprox Board
The UK Airprox Board’s primary objective is to enhance flight safety in the UK, inparticular in respect of lessons to be learned and applied from Airprox occurrences reported within UK airspace.
To emphasise both the scope of its work and its independence, UKAB is sponsored jointly – and funded equally – by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and theUK Ministry of Defence (MoD).
The sole objective of the UK Airprox Board is to assess reported Airprox in the interests of enhancing flight safety. It is not the purpose of the Board to apportion blame or liability. To encourage an open and honest reporting environment, names of companies and individuals are not published in UKAB's reports.
Our Website
Our website is intended to contribute to the UK’s continuing drive to enhance flight safety. Details of specific Airprox events are provided together with ‘lessons identified’ and action flowing from UKAB Safety Recommendations. Our publications can be accessed through this site:subject to our copyright notice, please use these for flight safety purposes. We also use our website to provide general background information regarding UKAB and its activities.
Definition of an Airprox
An Airprox is a situation in which, in the opinion of a pilot or a controller, the distance between aircraft as well as their relative positions and speed have been such that the safety of the aircraft involved was or may have been compromised.
What are the benefits to flight safety from the UK’s Airprox system?
The most immediate benefit accrues to those involved in each Airprox event. Pilots and controllers each receive their own full copy of the Board's final report which sets out what happened and why. Final reports are disidentified to encourage open and honest reporting. All language of blame is avoided and instead, straightforward statements are made on what took place with the emphasis placed on identifying lessons of benefit to all. Safety Recommendations are made where appropriate, aimed at reducing the risk of recurrence of a particular Airprox.
Twice a year, the UKAB's findings for a six-month period are compiled and distributed in both book and CD format, throughout the UK (civil and military) aviation community. These reports are also available on this website. The aim is to raise awareness and understanding by sharing widely the unfortunate experiences of the few for the benefit of the many. Finally, an analysis of UK Airprox numbers, rates and trends is produced - also available in the twice-yearly books/CDs and through this website.
The sole objective of all these elements is to promote tangible improvements in airsafety standards.
The UK Airprox Board’s primary objective is to enhance flight safety in the UK, inparticular in respect of lessons to be learned and applied from Airprox occurrences reported within UK airspace.
To emphasise both the scope of its work and its independence, UKAB is sponsored jointly – and funded equally – by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and theUK Ministry of Defence (MoD).
The sole objective of the UK Airprox Board is to assess reported Airprox in the interests of enhancing flight safety. It is not the purpose of the Board to apportion blame or liability. To encourage an open and honest reporting environment, names of companies and individuals are not published in UKAB's reports.
Our Website
Our website is intended to contribute to the UK’s continuing drive to enhance flight safety. Details of specific Airprox events are provided together with ‘lessons identified’ and action flowing from UKAB Safety Recommendations. Our publications can be accessed through this site:subject to our copyright notice, please use these for flight safety purposes. We also use our website to provide general background information regarding UKAB and its activities.
Definition of an Airprox
An Airprox is a situation in which, in the opinion of a pilot or a controller, the distance between aircraft as well as their relative positions and speed have been such that the safety of the aircraft involved was or may have been compromised.
What are the benefits to flight safety from the UK’s Airprox system?
The most immediate benefit accrues to those involved in each Airprox event. Pilots and controllers each receive their own full copy of the Board's final report which sets out what happened and why. Final reports are disidentified to encourage open and honest reporting. All language of blame is avoided and instead, straightforward statements are made on what took place with the emphasis placed on identifying lessons of benefit to all. Safety Recommendations are made where appropriate, aimed at reducing the risk of recurrence of a particular Airprox.
Twice a year, the UKAB's findings for a six-month period are compiled and distributed in both book and CD format, throughout the UK (civil and military) aviation community. These reports are also available on this website. The aim is to raise awareness and understanding by sharing widely the unfortunate experiences of the few for the benefit of the many. Finally, an analysis of UK Airprox numbers, rates and trends is produced - also available in the twice-yearly books/CDs and through this website.
The sole objective of all these elements is to promote tangible improvements in airsafety standards.
One problem could be that anonymity may not be guaranteed but at least pilots and controllers would be assured that the incidents would be independently reviewed by their peers (so to speak) and there would be proactive action taken/recommended that would better address safety issues.
Here is an example of an airprox event investigated by UKAB and reported by ASNet:
Ben has got hold of the above LOS event over Scotland and the full UKAB report is also worth a read given certain board members intimate knowledge of the area the two aircraft were operating in...
: Why did BA and LH turn on each other in UK airspace?
And full UKAB report pdf page 61: Assessment Summary Sheet for UKAB Meeting On 11 September 2013
: Why did BA and LH turn on each other in UK airspace?And full UKAB report pdf page 61
: Assessment Summary Sheet for UKAB Meeting On 11 September 2013 Last edited by Sarcs; 22nd Oct 2013 at 05:42.
