ATSB Concerned over Military Control Loss of Separation Events
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lookleft: Please define 'safe.'
Bloggs: Exactly in respect of 'train as you fight.' However, check ERSA in respect of 'joint-user' - last time I looked it ain't!
The only two airfields classified as joint-users are DAR and TVL. And the term 'joint-user' is a misnomer anyway. 'Joint-user' does not imply 'joint-ownership,' as some people believe. Both are Defence airfields. The subtle difference that's lost on many is that one does not need military approval to operate at the joint-users, whereas Defence approval is needed at WLM. For instance, if an airline wants to alter its schedules/frequency into DAR/TVL it can do so autonomously if gate-space is available. The same does not apply at WLM - Defence approval is required. Consequently, if JQ wants to run additional A320s into WLM, beyond the current allowance (as an example), Defence can veto that request if it believes it has good reason.
Bloggs: Exactly in respect of 'train as you fight.' However, check ERSA in respect of 'joint-user' - last time I looked it ain't!
The only two airfields classified as joint-users are DAR and TVL. And the term 'joint-user' is a misnomer anyway. 'Joint-user' does not imply 'joint-ownership,' as some people believe. Both are Defence airfields. The subtle difference that's lost on many is that one does not need military approval to operate at the joint-users, whereas Defence approval is needed at WLM. For instance, if an airline wants to alter its schedules/frequency into DAR/TVL it can do so autonomously if gate-space is available. The same does not apply at WLM - Defence approval is required. Consequently, if JQ wants to run additional A320s into WLM, beyond the current allowance (as an example), Defence can veto that request if it believes it has good reason.
Not doing 600kts in the circuit as advocated by some. From what I have read from Tony Kerns the military will still have limits placed around exercises e.g heights to be flown and procedures in case of loss of SA that should be observed that keep the operations "safe".
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotta love the al or nothing comments from some. Progress does not happen by maintaining the status quo. The problem needs some creativity and common sense applied so that the Mil maintains the required training and operational flexibility while civvies are kept safe. There is a solution but it needs some leadership from both sides.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: australia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Move CTA 9000' to 30NM to north is a good start + sort out south airspace.
RAAF is getting the new Super Hornet, 20mil pop. growing to 23mil population numbers covers that cost but more want to live on/near Newcastle so suck it up with more Pax booking seats to Newy.
Y30min holding fuel already carried on CAVOK day so happy to do a orbit if F18 wants a 600kt+ arrival.
Don't forget. F18 pilot/hawk pilot could have as little as 2yrs flying experience and be required to return to base with min reserves. Not much room for error.
ATIS is happily given on 130.35 if you don't like NDB.....
FFRATS
RAAF is getting the new Super Hornet, 20mil pop. growing to 23mil population numbers covers that cost but more want to live on/near Newcastle so suck it up with more Pax booking seats to Newy.
Y30min holding fuel already carried on CAVOK day so happy to do a orbit if F18 wants a 600kt+ arrival.
Don't forget. F18 pilot/hawk pilot could have as little as 2yrs flying experience and be required to return to base with min reserves. Not much room for error.
ATIS is happily given on 130.35 if you don't like NDB.....
FFRATS
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moving the airspace around was on the cards whilst I was there, however management at the unit was far too swamped with other things (more broken things) than dealing with the airspace changes.
Moving the airspace out a little to the north (R583B) seems simple enough, but that would potentially interfere with non pressureized overfliers that do the WMD-NICLA run at A100, It would also generally mean less access to the area which people use to go around WLM airspace.
As for the south, there isnt a lot of room to go. A right circuit pattern to the ILS R12 is tight, and always will be tight for airliners because of the airspace and afore mentioned west maitland aerodrome. There isnt much wiggle room there. Having said that its not the approaches south of the airfield that most airline pilots are concerned with.
There is a lot of airspace to play with up there, and the squadrons dont make the most efficient use of it. the Restricted areas to the north east of the field are often used, but at the higher levels I have to wonder why when most of the time being over land is not required for the sorty. In a perfect world, STARS would always be inbound from the NICLA track, and a SID outbound that goes out somewhere abouts the 020 radial with a height requirement. This would give RPT the track miles to descend rather than coming in via PLO or somewhere like that, and with height requirements built in to SIDS, give the jets room to dive under departing traffic.
A lot to do, but simply defence has very very few people (none) to devote to a project like this.
Moving the airspace out a little to the north (R583B) seems simple enough, but that would potentially interfere with non pressureized overfliers that do the WMD-NICLA run at A100, It would also generally mean less access to the area which people use to go around WLM airspace.
As for the south, there isnt a lot of room to go. A right circuit pattern to the ILS R12 is tight, and always will be tight for airliners because of the airspace and afore mentioned west maitland aerodrome. There isnt much wiggle room there. Having said that its not the approaches south of the airfield that most airline pilots are concerned with.
There is a lot of airspace to play with up there, and the squadrons dont make the most efficient use of it. the Restricted areas to the north east of the field are often used, but at the higher levels I have to wonder why when most of the time being over land is not required for the sorty. In a perfect world, STARS would always be inbound from the NICLA track, and a SID outbound that goes out somewhere abouts the 020 radial with a height requirement. This would give RPT the track miles to descend rather than coming in via PLO or somewhere like that, and with height requirements built in to SIDS, give the jets room to dive under departing traffic.
A lot to do, but simply defence has very very few people (none) to devote to a project like this.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those who have not seen it, there is an interesting related thread on Pprune Rumours :: Final Report – Near miss :: interesting discussion and food for thought.
Good catch "K"!
Quite nicely summarised here
:
:
Collision alert overridden in serious Swiss airprox
Pilots of a business jet obeyed an air traffic control instruction to descend, despite a contradictory collision-avoidance warning, aggravating a serious airprox incident in Swiss airspace.
As a result the Beechcraft Premier 1 faced a “high risk of collision” with an Airbus A319, says Swiss accident investigation authority BFU.
The incident is reminiscent of the fatal July 2002 mid-air collision – also in Swiss airspace – which occurred after a Tupolev Tu-154 crew followed air traffic control directions instead of a resolution advisory.
BFU says Geneva area control had cleared the Hahn Air Premier 1 to climb to 27,000ft after it departed Zurich on 10 June 2011.
Geneva had already cleared the Germanwings A319, inbound to Stuttgart on a virtually opposite heading, to descend to 25,000ft before handing the flight to Zurich area control.
But the A319’s cleared altitude had been entered into the Geneva system as 28,000ft, in line with an agreement between Geneva and Zurich area control which allowed handovers at this altitude without additional co-ordination.
The discrepancy went unnoticed by the Geneva sector controllers – which included a trainee being instructed by a coach – while information from Mode-S radar stations, which had detected the A319 crew’s selected altitude, was unavailable to Geneva and Zurich.
Controllers at both area centres identified the conflict as the A319 passed through 28,000ft, converging with the climbing business jet, and Geneva asked Zurich to stop the A319’s descent.
Within 12s a short-term conflict alert system activated in both centres and on-board collision-avoidance warnings sounded in both aircraft. Each crew immediately followed the resolution advisories, says BFU.
Controllers in both centres attempted to intervene by ordering each aircraft to make immediate left turns, but the Geneva controller handling the business jet – believing there was no time for consultation with other sectors – instructed it to descend to 26,000ft.
The Premier 1 crew confirmed the descent instruction. Despite the resolution advisory, active for 14s, ordering the jet to climb, the pilots broke off the climb and began to descend.
BFU says the resolution advisory remained valid for another 18s. The Premier 1 was descending as demanded by air traffic control, it states, while the collision-avoidance system was still instructing the pilots to climb at 1,500-2,000ft/min.
While the aircraft, at their crossing point, were separated by 1.3nm laterally and 75ft vertically, they had been just 0.6nm and 50ft apart at the closest point.
Although BFU highlights the worrying decision to prioritise an air traffic instruction over the collision-avoidance system, it points out that five air traffic controllers failed to notice the discrepancy between the A319’s cleared altitude and the clearance entered into the system, from which the conflict evolved. It adds that military exercises had led to a heavier workload and a “more difficult overview” for civil air traffic control.
Pilots of a business jet obeyed an air traffic control instruction to descend, despite a contradictory collision-avoidance warning, aggravating a serious airprox incident in Swiss airspace.
As a result the Beechcraft Premier 1 faced a “high risk of collision” with an Airbus A319, says Swiss accident investigation authority BFU.
The incident is reminiscent of the fatal July 2002 mid-air collision – also in Swiss airspace – which occurred after a Tupolev Tu-154 crew followed air traffic control directions instead of a resolution advisory.
BFU says Geneva area control had cleared the Hahn Air Premier 1 to climb to 27,000ft after it departed Zurich on 10 June 2011.
Geneva had already cleared the Germanwings A319, inbound to Stuttgart on a virtually opposite heading, to descend to 25,000ft before handing the flight to Zurich area control.
But the A319’s cleared altitude had been entered into the Geneva system as 28,000ft, in line with an agreement between Geneva and Zurich area control which allowed handovers at this altitude without additional co-ordination.
The discrepancy went unnoticed by the Geneva sector controllers – which included a trainee being instructed by a coach – while information from Mode-S radar stations, which had detected the A319 crew’s selected altitude, was unavailable to Geneva and Zurich.
Controllers at both area centres identified the conflict as the A319 passed through 28,000ft, converging with the climbing business jet, and Geneva asked Zurich to stop the A319’s descent.
Within 12s a short-term conflict alert system activated in both centres and on-board collision-avoidance warnings sounded in both aircraft. Each crew immediately followed the resolution advisories, says BFU.
Controllers in both centres attempted to intervene by ordering each aircraft to make immediate left turns, but the Geneva controller handling the business jet – believing there was no time for consultation with other sectors – instructed it to descend to 26,000ft.
The Premier 1 crew confirmed the descent instruction. Despite the resolution advisory, active for 14s, ordering the jet to climb, the pilots broke off the climb and began to descend.
BFU says the resolution advisory remained valid for another 18s. The Premier 1 was descending as demanded by air traffic control, it states, while the collision-avoidance system was still instructing the pilots to climb at 1,500-2,000ft/min.
While the aircraft, at their crossing point, were separated by 1.3nm laterally and 75ft vertically, they had been just 0.6nm and 50ft apart at the closest point.
Although BFU highlights the worrying decision to prioritise an air traffic instruction over the collision-avoidance system, it points out that five air traffic controllers failed to notice the discrepancy between the A319’s cleared altitude and the clearance entered into the system, from which the conflict evolved. It adds that military exercises had led to a heavier workload and a “more difficult overview” for civil air traffic control.
It has a lot to do with a poor understanding of RA's and possibly has a bit to do with the rapid increase in business aircraft sharing the airspace. I can only guess that the training offered to corporate pilots is variable.The constant training that airline pilots get regarding RA's offers more of an instinctive reaction to such warnings.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A speculator.
Had an interesting discussion yesterday related to the legal 'head of power' allowing a pilot to disregard an ATCO 'instruction' with a RA, (not to be confused with TA). The discussion became scenario specific and 'technical', but it was agreed that there could be situations where time, RT traffic and in flight conditions preclude advising ATC before taking action. SOP are (even for the humble Flight Safety trained crew) clear, RA first.
Anyway, the debate was on the legal position of a PIC acting in defiance of ATC 'suggestion' during an RA action. Could they be 'done over'? (if the mood was right). Breach of SOP or breach of regulation. Any thoughts??..
Anyway, the debate was on the legal position of a PIC acting in defiance of ATC 'suggestion' during an RA action. Could they be 'done over'? (if the mood was right). Breach of SOP or breach of regulation. Any thoughts??..
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure it's written somewhere K, just can't recall where at the moment.
From my recollection, the ultimate responsibility of a PIC is the safety of his/her aircraft. If that responsibility requires the PIC to deviate from an ATC instruction, their ass is covered (in simplistic terms).
From my recollection, the ultimate responsibility of a PIC is the safety of his/her aircraft. If that responsibility requires the PIC to deviate from an ATC instruction, their ass is covered (in simplistic terms).
Historically I believe it was unclear before the Überlingen mid-air whether to follow ATC or TCAS. After that investigation the directive has always been follow ATC until an RA is issued then follow the RA.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers Bloggsy...
AIP references [AIP 1.1 – 55 (24.5 TCAS). 68 (39.7)] were acknowledged; the rump covering rule was CAR 100 (2A) (a) (ii), an easement of CAR 100 (2) "a notification in the AIP etc". Note: that CAR reference is from an old version on my bookshelf, so it may not be current. (Yes, I know, idle to the bone).
It was just the wording "if an emergency arises" etc. got me thinking. I guess with an 'in the ashtray, wearing blue socks' type of close call, it's fairly clear cut argument. None from me, at least not within the first 35 seconds....Call it the curse of curiosity....
AIP references [AIP 1.1 – 55 (24.5 TCAS). 68 (39.7)] were acknowledged; the rump covering rule was CAR 100 (2A) (a) (ii), an easement of CAR 100 (2) "a notification in the AIP etc". Note: that CAR reference is from an old version on my bookshelf, so it may not be current. (Yes, I know, idle to the bone).It was just the wording "if an emergency arises" etc. got me thinking. I guess with an 'in the ashtray, wearing blue socks' type of close call, it's fairly clear cut argument. None from me, at least not within the first 35 seconds....Call it the curse of curiosity....
