Interesting argument for a new runway....
There was no supervisor from what I read. There was someone doing COORD and someone training on ADC with an OJTI watching. Perfectly legitimate. The COORD position sounds like they had OCA at the time but they were not a supervisor.
I am not saying in that instance that the aircraft were assigned their own separation, it was just an example.
Having read the interim information and knowing the location of the tower it seems perfectly plausible to me that the tower could visual separate the aircraft at night with the go around off 34 passing behind the 27 go around. Without more timings or an actual radar paint that is speculation on my part but the OJTI and ATSB also thought it was not an issue.
I am not saying in that instance that the aircraft were assigned their own separation, it was just an example.
Having read the interim information and knowing the location of the tower it seems perfectly plausible to me that the tower could visual separate the aircraft at night with the go around off 34 passing behind the 27 go around. Without more timings or an actual radar paint that is speculation on my part but the OJTI and ATSB also thought it was not an issue.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
donpizmeov,
Firstly, why don't you get yourself a more sensible "handle", your present one, if indeed you are a Captain, suggests to me that you are "one of those captains "
Secondly, you say F/O's should be kept away from the P.A. Would you care to tell me how they are supposed to learn the great wisdom that you obviously have ?
Firstly, why don't you get yourself a more sensible "handle", your present one, if indeed you are a Captain, suggests to me that you are "one of those captains "
Secondly, you say F/O's should be kept away from the P.A. Would you care to tell me how they are supposed to learn the great wisdom that you obviously have ?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it seems perfectly plausible to me that the tower could visual separate the aircraft at night with the go around off 34 passing behind the 27 go around. Without more timings or an actual radar paint that is speculation
The assumption at that stage is that you don't have both go around (once in 175 years). There may be very little time to do anything once they do go around. Do ATC really visually judge crossing aircraft that finely at night (or even during the day?)
The report also suggests that turning one aircraft (for wake turbulence avoidance) below minimum vector altitude was not the right thing to do, which implies there is little you can do by turning aircraft either. Not that a turn would make much difference for aircraft crossing at near enough 90 degrees.
If speed and direction are fixed, altitude is dictated by the parameters of the missed approach, exactly what tools do ATC have to adjust separation in this situation - visually or otherwise?
OJTI and ATSB also thought it was not an issue
I suppose some may suggest that.
Agreed about the 0.5nm apart if you ignore the fact that the intersection is approximately 1.4nm from the threshold of 34 and 0.6nm from threshold of 27. So you gain about another 0.8nm. The one on final 27 goes around first so is accelerating and then the 34 guy is turned right slightly due wake turbulence to pass behind the other one. If he turned him left slightly he was going to have problems but he didn't.
From the information we have available there isn't anything to cover up. If you don't trust ATC to visually separate you then I guess you can ask for a 3nm radar standard at all times.
Agreed about the 0.5nm apart if you ignore the fact that the intersection is approximately 1.4nm from the threshold of 34 and 0.6nm from threshold of 27. So you gain about another 0.8nm. The one on final 27 goes around first so is accelerating and then the 34 guy is turned right slightly due wake turbulence to pass behind the other one. If he turned him left slightly he was going to have problems but he didn't.
From the information we have available there isn't anything to cover up. If you don't trust ATC to visually separate you then I guess you can ask for a 3nm radar standard at all times.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks AWOL, I was going to mention the distance to the intersection.
Andrew, as for your question "Do ATC really visually judge crossing aircraft that finely at night (or even during the day?)" Yes.
Andrew, as for your question "Do ATC really visually judge crossing aircraft that finely at night (or even during the day?)" Yes.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed about the 0.5nm apart if you ignore the fact that the intersection is approximately 1.4nm from the threshold of 34 and 0.6nm from threshold of 27. So you gain about another 0.8nm.
But the important question is not so much exactly what happened in this incident.The important questions are:
Is LAHSO conducted in a way that always allows simultaneous go arounds from both runways at any point in the approach without compromising separation,
and
If not, should it be?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ADCs use various separation methods, vertical, lateral, wake, radar, visual and RWY separation standards (distance and time). They are able to rapidly swirch between standards as required. E.g. From radar to visual as radar distance reduces below the minimum required. All ADCs are trained in compromised separation techniques which include a double LAHSO go around.
When you live....
A query from the sidelines:
Are dual LAHSO arrivals sequenced at all by approach so that they don't hit their respective thresholds at the same time and hence dual-go-around into each other?
Are dual LAHSO arrivals sequenced at all by approach so that they don't hit their respective thresholds at the same time and hence dual-go-around into each other?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No. Non LAHSO acft are sequenced.
Remember that two aircraft arriving at the thresholds simultaneously are a long way apart as the ML RWY 34 threshold is about 2500 metres from the intersection whereas the RWY 27 threshold is much closer. If both go around at the threshold, the acft for RWY 34 will very high over the intersection, RWY27 much lower. aircraft are given mutual traffic with the landing clearance so crews are aware of each other. The ADC is able to visually separate. If required, the 34 arrival may be turned right towards the 27 threshold, it will pass well behind the 27 arrival.
Remember that two aircraft arriving at the thresholds simultaneously are a long way apart as the ML RWY 34 threshold is about 2500 metres from the intersection whereas the RWY 27 threshold is much closer. If both go around at the threshold, the acft for RWY 34 will very high over the intersection, RWY27 much lower. aircraft are given mutual traffic with the landing clearance so crews are aware of each other. The ADC is able to visually separate. If required, the 34 arrival may be turned right towards the 27 threshold, it will pass well behind the 27 arrival.
When you live....
Thanks - just curious - probably would have been better asking if they were sequenced so that at go around from 34 would not be lined up with a go around from 27 (which happened later) but your points on altitude is obviously the key differential. Would the same be true at Adelaide?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know about Adelaide. I only ever held an SMC endorsement there in 1976 and they weren't doing LAHSO then. After that it was Parafield, Alice, Essendon and Melbourne.
Fujii, if what you are saying is AsA policy/mindset, I am worried. Are you seriously suggesting that a mitigator for a simultaneous G/A is the different heights that the aircraft will cross at? Just as concerning is your suggestion that "if required the 34 aircraft could be turned towards the 27 threshold". In the short time available, I seriously doubt whether the controller could accurately predict which way/how much to turn. Do they have dogfight training?
What is the visual standard when two aircraft are basically on a collision course within a couple of miles of each other with no organised vertical separation? Turn one so it missed the other by 500m?
I'm all for LAHSO, but not like happened there.
What is the visual standard when two aircraft are basically on a collision course within a couple of miles of each other with no organised vertical separation? Turn one so it missed the other by 500m?
I'm all for LAHSO, but not like happened there.
What is the visual standard when two aircraft are basically on a collision course within a couple of miles of each other with no organised vertical separation? Turn one so it missed the other by 500m?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember that two aircraft arriving at the thresholds simultaneously are a long way apart as the ML RWY 34 threshold is about 2500 metres from the intersection whereas the RWY 27 threshold is much closer. If both go around at the threshold, the acft for RWY 34 will very high over the intersection, RWY27 much lower.
If both aircraft go around in the last 30 seconds of approach, ATC will be hard pressed to do anything. If they issue instructions to the first aircraft, they may not even find out the second aircraft has gone around until it is past the intersection due to frequency congestion. It is fairly likely that ATC and the second aircraft would step on each other's radio transmissions.
The visual standard is to maintain azimuth.
- Azimuth will always reduce to zero when one aircraft crosses the line between a second aircraft and the observer.
- For an observer at the airport, aircraft on a collision course will have azimuth separation right up to the point of impact.
In the scenario as played out on the video I believe from ML TWR it would have been possible to keep azimuth throughout the incident. As the 27 go around went through the intersection (from which the video is shot) the RWY 34 aircraft would be to the ADC's front and right and the 27 aircraft would be to his left and moving behind to the left. Might it have looked close out the window? I wasn't there so couldn't say.
Is there a point where if both aircraft went around they could conceivably reach the intersection at the same time and same altitude. I suppose so. I have no doubt ATC would have a plan of action if that was looking like it was going to be the case. I'd like to think the aircrew would as well given they are all told about each other.
Is there a point where if both aircraft went around they could conceivably reach the intersection at the same time and same altitude. I suppose so. I have no doubt ATC would have a plan of action if that was looking like it was going to be the case. I'd like to think the aircrew would as well given they are all told about each other.
I'd like to think the aircrew would as well given they are all told about each other.
In my view, ATC must build in decent lateral separation/stagger for these types of LAHSOs.
