Unfortunately alot of it has to do with keeping your "situational awareness" ect ect, what I personally do is set a timer (an audible alarm) for 20 minutes before the 2 contacts meet. That gives me enough time to issue the requirement to ensure separation before 10 minutes to time of passing. However at 3 in the morning, the caffeine has worn off, you are on your 9th shift in a row and your neighbours garage band was practicing all arvo and you have had 2 hours sleep.... well, then anything is possible. The scary thing is that in procedural airspace the first alarm we receive is you guys responding to a TCAS RA.
|
Some areas of the media have reported this as a "Near miss" which is typical of them.
Does anyone know if if was actually a near miss (as reported) or a breakdown of sep and by how much ? I feel for the individual who was plugged in, a sep breakdown is never a good feeling but well done to the aircrew's SA. |
Second hand information tells me the required separation standard was not infringed. This was not due to positive control, the aircraft decided to move themselves off track.
In large pieces of airspace such as this, an unfortunate happpening is that aircraft are at the same level and are known that in the future they will be in conflict. This can be known for hours in advance. There are memory prompts that can be used to remind of who is going to hit who but often the aircraft are only in the airspace that they will break down in for a small time and these memory prompts can not be used. What happens then is that a situation you are on purpose forgetting, get forgotten. As a contrast in a small scale radar environment, a conflict is seen and pretty much immediately fixed. For the record I do not work on the airspace this occured in and am just summarising a rumour I heard. |
In Radar environments in Oz there is Short Term Conflict Alert - 90 second look ahead and not really about collision risk, focussed upon break down of radar separation.
GAFA (no surveillance) no alert yet available. Flight Plan Conflict Probe (utilising pilot reporting) is functional but not yet operationally validated and implemented. It will be as good as the data fed into it. Awaiting system upgrades prior to roll out. Regardless of how good the alerts might or might not be, the best defence is alert controllers and pilots. Either can make a mistake and what's important is that something is done to fix the mistake when recognised - TCAS, STCA, GPWS etc. are all last ditch defences. The systems should be robust enough that you don't get to the last throw of the dice. Random tracks work on the big sky theory but navigational tolerances on some aircraft can be huge. Proving separation when not on fixed route structures without significant system improvements will push controller workload in some airspaces so high that there will be an elevated risk of operator errors. Reciprocal tracks at standard levels help, plenty of track crossings where standard levels put you at the same level. A place for everything. There are probably multiple factors to consider here. First is the "can do" culture that has sprung up in Oz over the past 20 years. No doubt this incident will attract very close scrutiny. It's not the first time that it's happened, nor will it be the last. The reporting will always strive to sensationalise. I look forward to reading the final report on the investigation. What we don't need is a knee jerk trying to make someone a scapegoat, rather the simple "just culture" premise that we need to focus upon preventing repeat occurrences and treat those involved fairly. DNC |
Originally Posted by dsham
Unfortunately alot of it has to do with keeping your "situational awareness" ect ect, what I personally do is set a timer (an audible alarm) for 20 minutes before the 2 contacts meet.
One thing I used to do in such a situation (when I was an area controller) is also let the pilot know the future plan. I'm a big fan of keeping the crew in the picture.
Originally Posted by dsham
there can sometimes be up to 30+ aircraft in a congo line heading to YSSY/YBBN/YMML... Without non-standard levels we would have people cruising at FL280
If that's the case it might actually be time to start saying "unavailable" when at all busy, or below par due to time of day etc. I don't know. There is nothing wrong at all with a "can do" culture- I think most of us want to do the best we can for the flight crews, but it needs to be backed-up by a "can do" attitude from management in regard to tech upgrades. Time for radar (or similar), perhaps? The powers that are capable of making decisions about expensive upgrades often can only act or press for funding for same when enough operators complain about it loud enough.
Originally Posted by Dick N Cider
What we don't need is a knee jerk trying to make someone a scapegoat, rather the simple "just culture" premise that we need to focus upon preventing repeat occurrences and treat those involved fairly
|
Originally Posted by STFU
What happens then is that a situation you are on purpose forgetting, get forgotten.
What do you do? Maybe say "unavailable, one coming the other way at that level"? Sounds like maybe it needs a bit of work from Aus's finest minds. |
Tarq57,
Yep, good old fashioned procedural (now called non-radar) but in a plan-view display scenario. Bugger all navaids and dependent upon aircraft nav capability anything from the suite up to 10 minutes. |
I have said it before - and now I'll say it again;
In a modern Nav environment two way routes are a dangerous and stupid anachronism. I takes only a little imagination to establish race tracks where possible - and where there isn't room for race tracks, formalise the strategic lateral offset. The large navigation tolerances ATC apply to aircraft are largely fantasy in this day and age - if two are going to hit in the cruise, it will happen on track, not 14NM either side of it. |
Originally Posted by WhatWasThat I takes only a little imagination to establish race tracks where possible - and where there isn't room for race tracks, formalise the strategic lateral offset. Originally Posted by WhatWasThat The large navigation tolerances ATC apply to aircraft are largely fantasy in this day and age - if two are going to hit in the cruise, it will happen on track, not 14NM either side of it. |
7, 14, 30, or 50 cross track might be fantasy but ATCs don't get to choose. ICAO sets the standards, all we can do is apply them.
|
It happened near Tindal and was in radar coverage - 2 acft nose to nose, same level - seems most likely to me the controller f..ked up - but, these days, instead of admitting it, we try to find every other excuse under the sun. :rolleyes::rolleyes::ugh::ugh::ugh:
|
Oh dear
direct.no.speed,
But let me suggest you have a look at staffing levels, shift lengths, FRMS, mandated overtime, and working on the back of the clock on top of all that - add to that morale, aggressive management practices / Industrial Relations techniques, and what has happened over the last 5 years in all of those aspects of Australian ATC. |
When did incidents start being reported in the media? |
We are told ADSB will fix this and 5NM between a/c can be used....... We need offset tracks right now! |
direct no speed
there you go, Topdrop has it all wrapped up - judge, jury and executioner. |
Originally Posted by topdrop
<It's become more and more prevalent in the last 10 years>
|
Pilots nuts are on the line, put your nuts on the line as well or move on http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/wink2.gif |
Keg and Topdrop have pretty much got it right I reckon You want to get paid $144,000:00 a year, take some responsibility. Radar or no radar? What's the difference? If 370 is in the CFL you still cleared it there. Racetrack or not, you still cleared it there. Weather diversions or not, if you clear an aircraft to a level, separate it with other weather diversions. That's your job. Pilots nuts are on the line, put your nuts on the line as well or move on How many pilots get stood down when ATC may have made an error that they may have caused? I can tell you about 2 incidents that have happened to me where formal counselling and stand down happened because of Pilots mistakes (im an ATC):ugh: No, I'm fed up with controllers that won't take responsibility for their own actions. |
I believe the sectors involved are very short of staff. Is this true?
This probably wouldn't even be reported in europe. You want to get paid $144,000:00 a year, take some responsibility. Radar or no radar? What's the difference? |
Ok, so would be you be happy to be paid $72,000 a year and take the same responsibility? Having said that, if you don't like the responsibility, there are plenty of jobs out there where you can turn up, f**k up, and go home. This isn't one of them. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:11. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.