Qantas near-miss?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas near-miss?
Whilst spending some of that fabulous time in the hotel room between trips, I happened to be watching the only english TV channel available CNN(ok BBC was available as well but the interlude music has not changed in so long that it might just drive you insane if you were to watch it more than 30 mins) I happened to catch the end of a headline on the bottom ticker tape news that said something about two Qantas aircraft nearly colliding over the mid Pacific. No other details were given. Does anyone have a link or know the details?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw something about how the aircraft coming from LAX was assigned FL310 by a French Polynesia traffic controller when it should have been at either FL320 or FL300. The aircraft flying to LAX was at FL310 as is as i believe is normal for that flight (hemispherical rule)
I think TCAS alerted both aircraft to the impending collision and one aircraft climbed 500ft and the other dived 500ft. Total lateral seperation i believe was about 15km between the aircraft
Please correct me if im wrong
I think TCAS alerted both aircraft to the impending collision and one aircraft climbed 500ft and the other dived 500ft. Total lateral seperation i believe was about 15km between the aircraft
Please correct me if im wrong
Guest
Posts: n/a
Both a/c at FL 330 from memory. QF 26 warned by adjacent a/c in between there was potential conflict. They saw it on ND before either of QF a/c. I think that that QF 26 was operating at non-standard altitude to save the company a dollar. I believe TCAS did not activate because they got sufficient warning and separated themselves.
[ 18 February 2002: Message edited by: Skol ]</p>
[ 18 February 2002: Message edited by: Skol ]</p>
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is nothing wrong in operating at a non standard level with ATC permission, we have done it a few times in the north pacific. The QF aircraft were under Tahiti control and I believe the controller on duty has been stood down, pending investigation.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sydney Morning Herald article 16/02/02.
[SMH Home | Text-only index]
Qantas 747s swerved 38 seconds from disaster . .Date: 16/02/2002
By Scott MacLeod
Two Qantas jumbo jets carrying up to 800 people came within 38 seconds of colliding head-on early this month.
An air traffic controller is under investigation after the two Boeing 747-400s on the Auckland-Los Angeles route flew towards each other at the same altitude over a remote part of the Pacific Ocean on February 1.
An airline source said the jets were about one minute apart when collision-avoidance systems were activated.
One jumbo rose 500 feet and the other dipped 500 feet as the pilots responded.
An air traffic controller in French Polynesia is thought to have given permission for flight QF26 from Los Angeles to cruise at 33,000 feet - the same altitude as flight QF25 from Auckland.
A common policy for jets flying from Los Angeles to Auckland is to cruise at an "even number" altitude, such as 32,000 feet or 34,000 feet, to avoid oncoming aircraft.
The French Polynesian air navigation body, Service D'Etat De L'Aviation Civile, said records of the incident were being studied. Its chief of aerial navigation, Annie Coutin, said a controller had been stripped of the right to control certain aircraft movements unless supervised.
"For the moment we don't know yet how to explain what happened. All the possibilities have to be explored."
Qantas initially said it had no record of the close call, but a spokeswoman, Melissa Thomson, later confirmed that two aircraft were at the same altitude on February 1 while under French Polynesian control.
The airline said in a statement that the captains took "necessary action". The aircraft had not come closer than 17 kilometres to each other.
[SMH Home | Text-only index]
Qantas 747s swerved 38 seconds from disaster . .Date: 16/02/2002
By Scott MacLeod
Two Qantas jumbo jets carrying up to 800 people came within 38 seconds of colliding head-on early this month.
An air traffic controller is under investigation after the two Boeing 747-400s on the Auckland-Los Angeles route flew towards each other at the same altitude over a remote part of the Pacific Ocean on February 1.
An airline source said the jets were about one minute apart when collision-avoidance systems were activated.
One jumbo rose 500 feet and the other dipped 500 feet as the pilots responded.
An air traffic controller in French Polynesia is thought to have given permission for flight QF26 from Los Angeles to cruise at 33,000 feet - the same altitude as flight QF25 from Auckland.
A common policy for jets flying from Los Angeles to Auckland is to cruise at an "even number" altitude, such as 32,000 feet or 34,000 feet, to avoid oncoming aircraft.
The French Polynesian air navigation body, Service D'Etat De L'Aviation Civile, said records of the incident were being studied. Its chief of aerial navigation, Annie Coutin, said a controller had been stripped of the right to control certain aircraft movements unless supervised.
"For the moment we don't know yet how to explain what happened. All the possibilities have to be explored."
Qantas initially said it had no record of the close call, but a spokeswoman, Melissa Thomson, later confirmed that two aircraft were at the same altitude on February 1 while under French Polynesian control.
The airline said in a statement that the captains took "necessary action". The aircraft had not come closer than 17 kilometres to each other.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taken from another site. I hope the writer. 'Mmo', doesn't mind me quoting him, because he says it better than I can.
[quote]How often do you call up on the ‘numbers’ to ensure you avoid a head-on with a closing speed of over 1800 km and hour over a fifteen hour sector LAX-SYD, Jack? And how do you ensure the other bloke’s similarly bored to the point where he’ll be listening out on the frequency?
I agree with 410. Offsetting should be made mandatory outside terminal areas and when not under direct radar control – and ASAP. See also the article on it on <a href="http://www.airborne.org/flying/forum_fly2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.airborne.org/flying/forum_fly2.htm</a> , which I believe was written quite some years ago.
What amazes me is that in places where it would be most beneficial, like the awful bottleneck in Jordan and Syria, the local regulators specifically issue Notams forbidding it.(!) And as transiting aircraft on their way to or from Europe squeeze through the very restricted area, frequently being forced to change levels to fit, any number of other aircraft on their way to and from Amman and Damascus, (and many of them of Russian origin with very ‘sus’ transponders that are not always compatible with Western ones – and therefore unreliable for TCAS), are climbing and descending through the levels, sometimes with less than minimum separation and relying on visual separation on the part of the crews.
When the collision occurs – (and it has already, more than once, like off the coast of Africa some years ago, but they were military transports and the media pretty well ignored it, and in India, where very few Westerners were involved) – the lawyers are going to have a field day suing the rrrrsus off all sorts of people who were in a position to have prevented it with one simple change of the regulations. But ATC and the Regulators seem to think it’s an admission of failure on their part to admit that humans are capable of making a mistake.
Wouldn’t it be nice if just once we could bring in a change in procedures that’s screaming to be changed before people first have to die first in such large numbers that the media and the public force the bureaucrats to get off their rrrsus and do something?
. .<hr></blockquote>
[ 18 February 2002: Message edited by: 410 ]</p>
[quote]How often do you call up on the ‘numbers’ to ensure you avoid a head-on with a closing speed of over 1800 km and hour over a fifteen hour sector LAX-SYD, Jack? And how do you ensure the other bloke’s similarly bored to the point where he’ll be listening out on the frequency?
I agree with 410. Offsetting should be made mandatory outside terminal areas and when not under direct radar control – and ASAP. See also the article on it on <a href="http://www.airborne.org/flying/forum_fly2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.airborne.org/flying/forum_fly2.htm</a> , which I believe was written quite some years ago.
What amazes me is that in places where it would be most beneficial, like the awful bottleneck in Jordan and Syria, the local regulators specifically issue Notams forbidding it.(!) And as transiting aircraft on their way to or from Europe squeeze through the very restricted area, frequently being forced to change levels to fit, any number of other aircraft on their way to and from Amman and Damascus, (and many of them of Russian origin with very ‘sus’ transponders that are not always compatible with Western ones – and therefore unreliable for TCAS), are climbing and descending through the levels, sometimes with less than minimum separation and relying on visual separation on the part of the crews.
When the collision occurs – (and it has already, more than once, like off the coast of Africa some years ago, but they were military transports and the media pretty well ignored it, and in India, where very few Westerners were involved) – the lawyers are going to have a field day suing the rrrrsus off all sorts of people who were in a position to have prevented it with one simple change of the regulations. But ATC and the Regulators seem to think it’s an admission of failure on their part to admit that humans are capable of making a mistake.
Wouldn’t it be nice if just once we could bring in a change in procedures that’s screaming to be changed before people first have to die first in such large numbers that the media and the public force the bureaucrats to get off their rrrsus and do something?
. .<hr></blockquote>
[ 18 February 2002: Message edited by: 410 ]</p>
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hotdog I do not agree at all with ANYTHING non standard unless safety dictates otherwise. It is exactly how accidents happen. If QF do it as a matter of course, I think they are wrong. Many accidents are as a direct result of so called "non-standard" operations by pilots. Whether they are trying to save the company cash or trying to put their own personal touch (re-interpretation of the rules/SOP's etc) is irrelevant. Just keep EVERTHING standard and we all have alot less to worry about.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Shakespeare,. .Couldn't agree more. Too many in our business are "boys with toys", twisting the rules to prove how good they are or how much they know or trying to save money without considering the consequenses of bending one of these things.
[ 18 February 2002: Message edited by: Skol ]</p>
[ 18 February 2002: Message edited by: Skol ]</p>
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
As much as YOU disagree, and don't do it, Shakespeare and Skol, the "system" ALLOWS it - there is nothing non-standard in requesting a block between levels when flying the Pacific to/from the US, nor levelling off at intermediate FL's when cleared to "climb/descend at pilot discretion" in some countries airspace. The ability and legality is incorporated within those countries air regs.. .So pilots WILL continue to do it!!
The real solution lies in flying parallel, offset tracks - as 410 mentioned in his post - and was discussed on PPRuNe some years ago.. .It is SIMPLE, SAFE and has the potential to AVOID DISASTER.. .Any pilot who has flown European/Middle/East/Indian airspace will vouch for the DEAD ACCURACY (literally, one day) of today's navigation equipment - the skies in those areas are akin to major highways, with vertical separation of 1,000 feet.
Simply offsetting the tracks by (say) 3 miles RIGHT, keeps the aircraft within the designated airway, and increases SAFETY enormously.
The real solution lies in flying parallel, offset tracks - as 410 mentioned in his post - and was discussed on PPRuNe some years ago.. .It is SIMPLE, SAFE and has the potential to AVOID DISASTER.. .Any pilot who has flown European/Middle/East/Indian airspace will vouch for the DEAD ACCURACY (literally, one day) of today's navigation equipment - the skies in those areas are akin to major highways, with vertical separation of 1,000 feet.
Simply offsetting the tracks by (say) 3 miles RIGHT, keeps the aircraft within the designated airway, and increases SAFETY enormously.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: LA, Cal, USA
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trips to Africa, India and parts of Europe, lots of us offset 1/2 mile right of the nominal centreline.
With the accuracy of GPS, this is an excellent safety measure.
How many accidents have been prevented by this technique? Who knows. But it gets around the ATC error factor.
With the accuracy of GPS, this is an excellent safety measure.
How many accidents have been prevented by this technique? Who knows. But it gets around the ATC error factor.
15 kms and 38 seconds....
do the sums in your head....
each aircraft then travelling at 7kms in 38 seconds = 4nm/38 seconds = 6 nm in 60 seconds = 360kts...
Edited to correct mathematical stupidity due to it being before noon (thanks KM).... <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
[ 19 February 2002: Message edited by: compressor stall ]</p>
do the sums in your head....
each aircraft then travelling at 7kms in 38 seconds = 4nm/38 seconds = 6 nm in 60 seconds = 360kts...
Edited to correct mathematical stupidity due to it being before noon (thanks KM).... <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
[ 19 February 2002: Message edited by: compressor stall ]</p>
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Melbourne - Australia
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This very topic cropped up about 12 months ago I'm sure but I recall 2 points out of it:
1. Flying offset is all well and good as long as everybody flies right of track!
2. ATC had a bit of input on the other thread indicating that flying offset (but not advising ATC) causes minor headaches when they try to estimate separation at converging intersections as the times they calculate might not reflect reality since the actual intersecting point is different.
1. Flying offset is all well and good as long as everybody flies right of track!
2. ATC had a bit of input on the other thread indicating that flying offset (but not advising ATC) causes minor headaches when they try to estimate separation at converging intersections as the times they calculate might not reflect reality since the actual intersecting point is different.
Lurk R I would reply to that with this...
The most basic Rules Of The Air say:
(Australian Civil Aviation Regulations 162 Rules for prevention of collision.)
"When two aircraft are approaching head-on or approximately so and there is danger of collision, each shall alter its heading to the right."
So it should come naturally to anyone who hasn't forgoten the basics to choose an "R" offset.
It has been rightly pointed out that a 3 nm offset will only work if everyone offsets on the same side and there is a real possibility that this will not always occur. But there is an easy way to null this threat.
I reckon that those aircraft heading EAST and therefore have ODD standard levels eg F330, should choose an odd number offset eg 1 nm right of track, and those heading WEST with EVEN standard levels should choose an even number offset eg 2 nm right.
Therefore in the case that someone absentmindedly (or otherwise) chooses to offset to the left, they will still pass each other with at least a nominal lateral distance of 1nm.
With regard to an intersection becoming an area rather than a point due to offsets, well the length of that area would be 1/sin@ x offset distance, where @ the angle between the two routes. So if the angle between two airways is 10 degrees and an offset of 1nm and 2nm is used as in the example I used above, the intersection then becomes 17 nm long.
At 430 kts this equates to an extra 2.5 minutes of possible conflict that would have to be accounted for in areas that rely on procedural separation.
And if the offsets were sanctioned by ATC, then these offsets could be accounted for and the intersection could again be considered a point in space.
Actually if the intersection is that acute, lateral separation would come in to play a long way before the intersection was reached. And at an intersection that is at right angles, what's 3 miles at 7 or 8 miles a minute?
The concept of having a two lane road for automobile traffic is so obvious that it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Why is it so hard for some to apply the same sound concept to the air. Yes it may create some new problems but hey, what century are we living in???
[ 19 February 2002: Message edited by: Blip ]</p>
The most basic Rules Of The Air say:
(Australian Civil Aviation Regulations 162 Rules for prevention of collision.)
"When two aircraft are approaching head-on or approximately so and there is danger of collision, each shall alter its heading to the right."
So it should come naturally to anyone who hasn't forgoten the basics to choose an "R" offset.
It has been rightly pointed out that a 3 nm offset will only work if everyone offsets on the same side and there is a real possibility that this will not always occur. But there is an easy way to null this threat.
I reckon that those aircraft heading EAST and therefore have ODD standard levels eg F330, should choose an odd number offset eg 1 nm right of track, and those heading WEST with EVEN standard levels should choose an even number offset eg 2 nm right.
Therefore in the case that someone absentmindedly (or otherwise) chooses to offset to the left, they will still pass each other with at least a nominal lateral distance of 1nm.
With regard to an intersection becoming an area rather than a point due to offsets, well the length of that area would be 1/sin@ x offset distance, where @ the angle between the two routes. So if the angle between two airways is 10 degrees and an offset of 1nm and 2nm is used as in the example I used above, the intersection then becomes 17 nm long.
At 430 kts this equates to an extra 2.5 minutes of possible conflict that would have to be accounted for in areas that rely on procedural separation.
And if the offsets were sanctioned by ATC, then these offsets could be accounted for and the intersection could again be considered a point in space.
Actually if the intersection is that acute, lateral separation would come in to play a long way before the intersection was reached. And at an intersection that is at right angles, what's 3 miles at 7 or 8 miles a minute?
The concept of having a two lane road for automobile traffic is so obvious that it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Why is it so hard for some to apply the same sound concept to the air. Yes it may create some new problems but hey, what century are we living in???
[ 19 February 2002: Message edited by: Blip ]</p>
Its likely that both were flying on UPR's (user preferred routing). In other words, the best track of the day taking winds into account and not on airways. NZ, QF and UA all fly UPRs on these routes. Therefore there would be no need to offset, because your the only person flying that track.... unless of course both tracks have identical portions..