E190 near collision Mildura May 16 - ASI bulletin 56
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I presume the ATSB interviewed the crew and other pilots so the report is a fact finding exercise.
So the data would be from a combination of reports from crew, other pilots, ATC and TCAS data to get an accurate picture. A combination of TCAS alerts and a visual confirmation from the crew obviously paint a clear picture. Andrewr, you seem to basing your judgement only using the TCAS data. Did you interview the crew and other witnesses. I'm sure the ATSB did.
I'll keep it simple. The point is that both aircraft were aiming for the same runway and both didn't know each other were there. This is the 'scary bit'
Just saying ok
So the data would be from a combination of reports from crew, other pilots, ATC and TCAS data to get an accurate picture. A combination of TCAS alerts and a visual confirmation from the crew obviously paint a clear picture. Andrewr, you seem to basing your judgement only using the TCAS data. Did you interview the crew and other witnesses. I'm sure the ATSB did.
If 2 miles and 500 feet isn't sufficient then what is?
Just saying ok
Last edited by Utradar; 31st Jan 2017 at 11:37.
It's pointless trying to reason with these people, andrewr. In their world, merely seeing another aircraft in uncontrolled airspace is a collision risk.
The irony is that XGA was not the aircraft that came closest to ZPJ on that flight.
The other irony is that if ZPJ had had no TCAS, it would have just been another ordinary day at the CTAF and we wouldn't have to put up with all this posturing on PPRuNe. Just as ZPJ was blissfully ignorant of the aircraft that came closest to it on that day, ZPJ would have turned final blissfully ignorant of XGA behind it and losing ground on the straight in approach.
The passengers of ZPJ should count themselves lucky that the 'mutually agreed' separation strategy did not result in a mid air during the unnecessary go around.
The irony is that XGA was not the aircraft that came closest to ZPJ on that flight.
The other irony is that if ZPJ had had no TCAS, it would have just been another ordinary day at the CTAF and we wouldn't have to put up with all this posturing on PPRuNe. Just as ZPJ was blissfully ignorant of the aircraft that came closest to it on that day, ZPJ would have turned final blissfully ignorant of XGA behind it and losing ground on the straight in approach.
The passengers of ZPJ should count themselves lucky that the 'mutually agreed' separation strategy did not result in a mid air during the unnecessary go around.
Respectfully, the only posturing I see here is from you two.
Insisting that these guys simply being pilots by talking to other pilots to try and ensure the safety of their aircraft is "amateur ATC" is stupid. Show me a pilot of any caliber that will sit in silence during an impending collision, and I'll show you a fool.
Insisting on referring to TCAS data that you yourself recognise is not accurate, to say that there would have been possibly no conflict is silly. TCAS is not designed to give exact data for the purposes of incident investigation. The ATSB simply provide its data because it is the only data available to try and help describe the event.
Insisting that two aircraft of greatly different categories, one on base, one on final, with no knowledge of each other is not a significant collision risk is beyond silly.
It's really seems that you have your nose out of joint for some reason. Perhaps you were involved in either this or another incident... whatever it was, I hope that your posturing doesn't prevent you learning from and seeing a risk to you and your passengers in the future.
Insisting that these guys simply being pilots by talking to other pilots to try and ensure the safety of their aircraft is "amateur ATC" is stupid. Show me a pilot of any caliber that will sit in silence during an impending collision, and I'll show you a fool.
Insisting on referring to TCAS data that you yourself recognise is not accurate, to say that there would have been possibly no conflict is silly. TCAS is not designed to give exact data for the purposes of incident investigation. The ATSB simply provide its data because it is the only data available to try and help describe the event.
Insisting that two aircraft of greatly different categories, one on base, one on final, with no knowledge of each other is not a significant collision risk is beyond silly.
It's really seems that you have your nose out of joint for some reason. Perhaps you were involved in either this or another incident... whatever it was, I hope that your posturing doesn't prevent you learning from and seeing a risk to you and your passengers in the future.
You assume there was an "impending collision".
You assume there was "a significant collision risk".
You assume that decisions to mitigate collision risks - actual or perceived - necessarily result in a reduction in risk.
You assume that because TCAS data was the only data available it is somehow more accurate.
It really seems that you're yet another person who cannot entertain the possibility that the reaction in the circumstances resulted in ZPJ and XGA getting closer than they otherwise would have. And it seems you're yet another person who is unable to comprehend what I have written repeatedly in this thread about my frequent and voluntary engagement in mutually agreed separation arrangements in CTAFs.
"Amateur ATC" is an accurate description, except in the cases in which the pilot/s happen to be holders of a current ATC licence.
You assume there was "a significant collision risk".
You assume that decisions to mitigate collision risks - actual or perceived - necessarily result in a reduction in risk.
You assume that because TCAS data was the only data available it is somehow more accurate.
It really seems that you're yet another person who cannot entertain the possibility that the reaction in the circumstances resulted in ZPJ and XGA getting closer than they otherwise would have. And it seems you're yet another person who is unable to comprehend what I have written repeatedly in this thread about my frequent and voluntary engagement in mutually agreed separation arrangements in CTAFs.
"Amateur ATC" is an accurate description, except in the cases in which the pilot/s happen to be holders of a current ATC licence.
I don't assume anything, I believe the pilots of the day. I believe "stationary in the window" equals collision risk.
I didn't not say that the TCAS was accurate, learn to read. I said it wasn't. I said it isn't designed for incident analysis. I said YOU keep referring to its inaccuracies in order to say that there was no issue. FORGET the TCAS.... read the report ... "Stationary in the window"...
https://www.casa.gov.au/file/110651/...token=_tsIbwnK
https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/...l.aspx?id=6851
Tell me this is not a risk. Tell me you would have said nothing.
I didn't not say that the TCAS was accurate, learn to read. I said it wasn't. I said it isn't designed for incident analysis. I said YOU keep referring to its inaccuracies in order to say that there was no issue. FORGET the TCAS.... read the report ... "Stationary in the window"...
https://www.casa.gov.au/file/110651/...token=_tsIbwnK
"The unfortunate as- pect of this is that a target that moves relative to the observer is not generally a collision risk. If two aircraft flying on a constant heading and at constant speed are going to collide, they will maintain a constant relative bearing to one another and appear to remain station- ary in the windscreen (see figure 2)."
Blossom Effect
This limitation is compounded by the fact that at a distance, an aircraft on a collision course with you will appear to be motionless. It will remain in a seemingly stationary position, without appearing either to move or to grow in size for a relatively long time, and then suddenly bloom into a huge mass filling one of your windows. This is known as "blossom effect." Since we need motion or contrast to attract our eyes' attention, this effect becomes a frightening factor when you realize that a large bug smear or dirty spot on the windshield can hide a converging plane until it is too close to be avoided.
This limitation is compounded by the fact that at a distance, an aircraft on a collision course with you will appear to be motionless. It will remain in a seemingly stationary position, without appearing either to move or to grow in size for a relatively long time, and then suddenly bloom into a huge mass filling one of your windows. This is known as "blossom effect." Since we need motion or contrast to attract our eyes' attention, this effect becomes a frightening factor when you realize that a large bug smear or dirty spot on the windshield can hide a converging plane until it is too close to be avoided.
You evidently either haven't read through this thread or haven't comprehended what was said.
It was only a page ago that andrewr said:
If you'd read and comprehended earlier pages, you would know that I initially identified the "stationary in the window" fact as conclusive of a collision risk. I then considered and researched what andrewr posted, and changed my view.
I call that being "objective".
If you'd read and comprehended earlier pages, you would know that I have never suggested that the pilot of ZPJ should have "said nothing".
A test of your objectivity: Does any and every decision to mitigate a collision risk - perceived or actual - necessarily reduce the risk of a collision?
If you take a deep breath, think about the question and resist the urge to quote the number of hours in your logbook, you should answer: No.
That's my point.
It was only a page ago that andrewr said:
An object far away will appear stationary in the windscreen even if you're not on a collision course. The "stationary in the windscreen" idea is that it remains stationary up to the point of impact. You don't run into everything that appears stationary in the windscreen.
I call that being "objective".
If you'd read and comprehended earlier pages, you would know that I have never suggested that the pilot of ZPJ should have "said nothing".
A test of your objectivity: Does any and every decision to mitigate a collision risk - perceived or actual - necessarily reduce the risk of a collision?
If you take a deep breath, think about the question and resist the urge to quote the number of hours in your logbook, you should answer: No.
That's my point.
Ha, the chip on your should is so blinding its now funny. I've never referred to hours in my logbook...
To answer your question, no it doesn't. Happy? It's irrelevant however. I still fully support their actions to mitigate a real risk they encountered. You may not run into everything that's stationary in the window, but that still leaves the door open to something. And these guys were not distant... so that door is wide open...
You know, I entered into this conversation to provide a perspective that you seemed interested in understanding. Pointless though, it seems you are more interested in beating your chest. "Posturing", "amateur atc", "hours in logbook" are all terms used to inflame and insult the people you share the sky with. Good luck to you mate...
To answer your question, no it doesn't. Happy? It's irrelevant however. I still fully support their actions to mitigate a real risk they encountered. You may not run into everything that's stationary in the window, but that still leaves the door open to something. And these guys were not distant... so that door is wide open...
You know, I entered into this conversation to provide a perspective that you seemed interested in understanding. Pointless though, it seems you are more interested in beating your chest. "Posturing", "amateur atc", "hours in logbook" are all terms used to inflame and insult the people you share the sky with. Good luck to you mate...
So, you've correctly acknowledged that not all decisions to mitigate a collision risk - perceived or actual - necessarily reduce the risk of a collision.
Are you also prepared to acknowledge that it is possible - just possible - that the decisions made in this case resulted in an increase in the risk of a collision? Just possible?
You will hopefully not dispute the fact that even though the decisions were made with the best of intentions, those intentions do not alter the objective risks arising from the implemented decisions.
If it were true that the decisions made in this case did result in an increase in the risk of collision, would you agree that it might be appropriate to consider how to reduce the likelihood of those decisions being made? I note the sentence starts with an "if".
Are you also prepared to acknowledge that it is possible - just possible - that the decisions made in this case resulted in an increase in the risk of a collision? Just possible?
You will hopefully not dispute the fact that even though the decisions were made with the best of intentions, those intentions do not alter the objective risks arising from the implemented decisions.
If it were true that the decisions made in this case did result in an increase in the risk of collision, would you agree that it might be appropriate to consider how to reduce the likelihood of those decisions being made? I note the sentence starts with an "if".
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You assume there was an "impending collision".
You assume there was "a significant collision risk".
You assume that decisions to mitigate collision risks - actual or perceived - necessarily result in a reduction in risk.
You assume there was "a significant collision risk".
You assume that decisions to mitigate collision risks - actual or perceived - necessarily result in a reduction in risk.
LB, I dont know why you're hung up on the decisions the pilots made to go around. The report says the crew of the jet were not stabilised so couldn't continue the approach so broke off to the south (dead side of circuit).
From the report: 'After receiving an acknowledgement from the pilot of XGA, the flight crew on board ZPJ turned their attention to the execution of their go-around manoeuvre as their turn onto the final leg of the circuit was late due to their preoccupation with monitoring XGA.
and here;
The PF on board ZPJ decided to discontinue their approach to land on runway 09, as they were too late for their turn onto final and therefore not in a stabilised condition.
It's pointless trying to reason with these people, andrewr.
The "factual report" from the ATSB is based on TCAS data.
Let's assume for the moment that the TCAS data is accurate. During what manoeuvre does the ATSB report say the aircraft were at their closest?
Why was XGA at that position?
Let's assume for the moment that the TCAS data is accurate. During what manoeuvre does the ATSB report say the aircraft were at their closest?
Why was XGA at that position?
Post #90:
Post #81
Should I presume that you assume presume means something substantially different from assume? Or that more than one person has the Utradar login?
No one's assuming anything LB except for you by the sounds of it. ..
I presume the ATSB interviewed the crew and other pilots so the report is a fact finding exercise.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is getting tiring LB
'It is not a function of the ATSB to apportion blame or determine liability. At the same time, an investigation report must include factual material of sufficient weight to support the analysis and findings.'
TCAS was only one method of data used.
From the report:
'The flight crew looked out the right window of the flight deck and identified the traffic to their right and high against the skyline. The traffic appeared to them to be stationary in the windscreen relative to their own aircraft and with a high closure rate.
So, it's also based on crew observations and XGA pilot and maybe others who were presumably contacted for their story.
You tell me why XGA was in that position?
'It is not a function of the ATSB to apportion blame or determine liability. At the same time, an investigation report must include factual material of sufficient weight to support the analysis and findings.'
The "factual report" from the ATSB is based on TCAS data.
From the report:
'The flight crew looked out the right window of the flight deck and identified the traffic to their right and high against the skyline. The traffic appeared to them to be stationary in the windscreen relative to their own aircraft and with a high closure rate.
So, it's also based on crew observations and XGA pilot and maybe others who were presumably contacted for their story.
You tell me why XGA was in that position?
It's getting tiring for you because you do not want to address the substance of the points I am making.
According to the "factual" report, the aircraft were at their closest during the go around manoeuvre and XGA was at that point as a consequence of the 'mutually agreed' decision that XGA turn toward that point.
What do you think would have happened if the pilot of XGA had instead simply pulled the nose up, put the flaps down and slowed to 60kts IAS?
Are you capable of considering whether actions other than those that occurred would have resulted in a different and lower risk of collision than the risk you perceive?
According to the "factual" report, the aircraft were at their closest during the go around manoeuvre and XGA was at that point as a consequence of the 'mutually agreed' decision that XGA turn toward that point.
What do you think would have happened if the pilot of XGA had instead simply pulled the nose up, put the flaps down and slowed to 60kts IAS?
Are you capable of considering whether actions other than those that occurred would have resulted in a different and lower risk of collision than the risk you perceive?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. Are you capable of considering whether actions other than those that occurred would have resulted in a different and lower risk of collision than the risk you perceive?
image.jpeg
A long time.
But an Airvan is not a space shuttle.
That's kinda my point.
But an Airvan is not a space shuttle.
That's kinda my point.
There are many presumptuous assumptions that are assumed by some who like to assume.
But at the end of the day when you are assuming assumptions it is best done with an audience who like to listen to such assumptions being assumed.
If your own particular assumptions aren't assumed in such a way that you would assume them the same yourself, then it is hard to convince others that your own assumptions are correct.
Of course sometimes, when you are trying to convince others of your assumptions and they keep staring at your mouth wondering why your uvula is upside down, it doesn't take a genius to quickly come to the assumption that it's really just the top of a rather large branch that's come all the way from your anus and is poking up out the top of your throat.
It's called having a big stick up your arsehole.
That's kinda my point.
But at the end of the day when you are assuming assumptions it is best done with an audience who like to listen to such assumptions being assumed.
If your own particular assumptions aren't assumed in such a way that you would assume them the same yourself, then it is hard to convince others that your own assumptions are correct.
Of course sometimes, when you are trying to convince others of your assumptions and they keep staring at your mouth wondering why your uvula is upside down, it doesn't take a genius to quickly come to the assumption that it's really just the top of a rather large branch that's come all the way from your anus and is poking up out the top of your throat.
It's called having a big stick up your arsehole.
That's kinda my point.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's difference in airmanship and professionalism between RPT pilots and 'casual' pilots. It's usually ends up being the casual pilots who make it difficult for the RPT guys due to lack of skill, awareness, experience etc. That's why the initiative of separation by radio usually comes from the RPT pilots.
I'm not in that sort of league by a very long shot but I try to be "professional" in what I do in the air and on the ground to the best of my ability. Like my many flying friends, I routinely wait to the side to give a bigger aircraft a clear run and sometimes I get a "thanks" in return.
A little respect and thoughtfulness for our fellow pilots goes a long way...I call that airmanship.