QF near miss over Great Australian Bight

[waren9]

wasbones tcas we are taught shows relative travel direction, not actual.

afaik we all use it for sa and because pilots dont have the whole picture, im not surprised you get some requests that appear odd to you.

and without having a reference to hand, i thought we needed an operational reqmnt to justfy asking for a non std lvl? any mention of that yet?

found this
cutnpaste frm jepp

3.3.2.1 Pilots must only request a level not conforming to the table of cruising levels when it is determined by the pilot in command to be essential to the safety of the flight and its occupants. In such circumstances, the phrase “DUE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT” must be included with the level change request. 3.3.3 ATC will only assign cruising levels not conforming to these tables when traffic or other operational circumstances require.

and didnt this relatively recent amendment come about because of a near hit over darwin or somewhere?

[Jack Ranga]

I thought every level request was an operational requirement?

[waren9]

i didnt. some you do for comfort or efficiency. or to catch an earlier crew bus.

bit of a bull**** term i think because i am no more or less likely to receive a clearance that conflicts with other traffic just because i use the phrase as quoted. not as if atc will shift other traffic just because i want a certain level.

the other issue i have is, you dont request (as worded) based on operational requirements, you require. either you need it or you dont.

[neville_nobody]

bit of a bull**** term i think because i am no more or less likely to receive a clearance that conflicts with other traffic just because i use the phrase as quoted.

I agree. In fact about 50% of the AIP is made up of such BS. Written by bureaucrats who really have no idea. Then change the same terms on a 5 year cycle just to keep themselves employed and make it impossible for anyone to keep up. CTAF/MTAF/MBZ/Restricted Areas/Prohibited areas/Operational Requirements/Minimum Fuel etc etc.

Can't wait to see how we bugger up all the new RNP tracking requirements coming soon!!

[C441]

and without having a reference to hand, i thought we needed an operational reqmnt to justfy asking for a non std lvl? any mention of that yet?

Neither aircraft was maintaining or climbing to a non-standard level.
QF 576 (PER-SYD) was at FL390.
QF 581 was initially at FL380 and was cleared to FL400, thus climbing through FL390, QF 576's level.

[waren9]

cheers c441

[haughtney1]

First with respect to offsetting, its essential today, I achieve it in Oz airspace by asking for up to 2nm right of track, ask and ye shall receive. Generally speaking you will get a datalink message or VHF query to report on track, which I will acknowledge, but while I find it necessary to maintain the "deviation" I will maintain it.
Why in Oz airspace there is this anal/dogmatic requirement for centre-line adherence I honestly can't fathom it.
If this incident happened on a two way airway, then with SLOP it could have added up to 4nm of lateral separation...currently I feel more confident flying through Indian airspace than I do in Oz.
I cant say I blame the ATC guys/girls, you lot are doing your job to the best of your ability, just like me, but the seemingly continual reporting of what I consider to be serious incidents..knocks my confidence in the Oz system.
Lets hope its sorted out.

[Andu]

asking for up to 2nm left of track,

(MY BOLDFACE) haughtney1, unless you miskeyed, I think you'll find that by SLOPping left of track, you're putting yourself exactly on line with every other pilot who employs this measure. AFAIK, right of track is considered the standard way to go.

Quite a few years ago, I had an extraordinary conversation with my FO (an Englishman who made no attempt to hide the fact that he considered that automatically made him superior to any mere colonial). He was convinced that if we offset to the right on an outbound leg, we'd have to offset left on the way home to make it work. Even when I used the example of the joke - (so old, it's been around since Pontious was a copilot) - of the two aero club aces who agreed to do a simultaneous beat up of their airfield from opposite directions: "Right, I'll fly down the right side of the runway, you fly down the left", he still didn't get it.

[haughtney1]

Andu...correct, I go right.. dooh!

[Jack Ranga]

This issue will not be fixed or go away until the mistakes of the past are admitted to & rectified. The arrogance & spin has to stop & recruitment & training has to return to 2 strikes & you're out.

[donpizmeov]

No haughtney you go where your capt let's you

The don

[mikk_13]

Hey, it's completely possible that the controller was on his tenth shift in a row. I've done it. I've watched others do it.

I wonder how long ago he did adverse situation recovery training in the Simulator. My guess- a long time.

I worked with guys that had no sim training for 'emergency separation or loss of separation recovery for 8 years. Would airline crew get away with no sim training for engine failures. Engine failures only happen on average every 20 years per crew member so a sim session every 15 years should cover them right?

[GaryGnu]

Airway structure

I know there are many airways to follow between SYD and PER (and back). But why in this day and age do two of the most commonly used one way routes have to cross at AD VOR?

Can those in the know tell me why it is too hard to create segregated one way RNAV routes in that area for use by the transcontinental flights?

[Nautilus Blue]

First with respect to offsetting, its essential today,

How does it help on one way routes?

Can those in the know tell me why it is too hard to create segregated one way RNAV routes in that area for use by the transcontinental flights?

Its not, most are, but tracks have to cross somewhere. Particularly when tracks across the bight are chosen for favourable winds. (UPR/flex tracks are worse, they completely undermine the systemic separation of a route structure).

recruitment & training has to return to 2 strikes & you're out.

Would that apply to rated controllers as well?

PS SLOP is an approved procedure in some Australian airspace, but we all know that don't we.

[DirectAnywhere]

I sometimes ask for level changes when I know I can't get them YET if there's an aircraft from another carrier sniffing around for a level change that will likely block my desired level. Get in early I reckon - even if I know I can't yet get the level I want I've got my request in before the other bloke.

[Knackers]

recruitment & training has to return to 2 strikes & you're out

That was always the standard until the non-ATCers took over a few years ago. Now everyone gets pushed until they stagger over the line.

[LeadSled]

It would be more correct to call it a near-hit....

Which is what FAA now frequently call such incidents.

Tootle pip!!

[004wercras]

What will Warren do?

Ben has some very reliable and well positioned sources in the know. Anybody who is oblivious to this fact is, well.........

This 'incident' is a fine welcome for Mr Truss and friends. Yes indeed, a welcome to Australian aviation at one of its lowest ebbs. A welcome to the legacy of decades of mismanagement by CAsA, failures at ASA and incompetent ATSBeaker investigations.
This is a relatively straight forward failure, albeit serious, and will no doubt become a fully fledged wildfire when CAsA deny the claim they are not adequately oversighting ASA, and when the ATSBeaker write a half arsed report based upon a half arsed investigation sanctioned by whom some say an organisation lead by half arsed management.

Poor Hoody, seems to end up in the middle of a firefight every time he starts working somewhere new!! Watch your back young fella, they may try to hang this one on you as well.

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Haughtney

Why in Oz airspace there is this anal/dogmatic requirement for centre-line adherence I honestly can't fathom it.

Because some of our one-way routes are based on the minimum separation with the other, oppo direction ones: My understanding is that GPSRNAV tolerance is +/-7nm, with the tracks separated by 15nm. You start flogging along unannounced 2nm offset (the "correct" side ) you're infringing the design standard. Why are they so close? Because it can't be set up otherwise; too many airroutes required to make them well-spaced (non-radar).

I have on occasions asked for 1nm off route.

Now if FMSs could be set to 0.1nm offset (our Honeywell minimum is 1nm), then ATC would probably be able to turn a blind eye. An inch is as good as a mile...

[haughtney1]

So in essence Bloggsy your saying that in order to give minimum separation on one way routes, they've been designed in such a way as to effectively negate the ability to offset, as doing so actually reduces separation? Sort of give with one hand, and yet take away with the other? i.e you have to accept the merge...cos offsetting causes another merge..
If so, thats gotta be the dumbest bit of airspace design ever done..sort of like "fighting for peace" or "screwing for virginity"..
Have I got that right? (offset to the right?)