Near Miss Coolangatta.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: QLD
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Near Miss Coolangatta.
I saw the thread was closed, but actually want to defend the newspapers on how close this really was. A family member saw it and initially thought they were flying formation, before common sense clicked in and they realised something had gone really wrong.
According to ASA Webtrack, (12 Oct 9:16am) WebTrak , they aircraft were less than 100ft apart vertically and not much horizontally.
Everyone keeps dismissing this as "fear-mongering"... but this was actually a bloody close call in the scheme of things.
According to ASA Webtrack, (12 Oct 9:16am) WebTrak , they aircraft were less than 100ft apart vertically and not much horizontally.
Everyone keeps dismissing this as "fear-mongering"... but this was actually a bloody close call in the scheme of things.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yep, that was close, enough to get an investigation and a heap of paperwork on your desk.
Imagine the view from the B737 with the nose pitching up and a little 'slowtation' under it somewhere……pucker factor
A few earlier shots show it was close like air wolf said. The VA crew earned their pay for the year right there!
Imagine the view from the B737 with the nose pitching up and a little 'slowtation' under it somewhere……pucker factor
A few earlier shots show it was close like air wolf said. The VA crew earned their pay for the year right there!
.
Hmmm... Looks like just another muppet beat up of a non event...
""...An Air Services Australia spokeswoman confirmed the incident was not as serious as it may have appeared.
“They were potentially going to come a little bit too close so a procedural assurance was given,” said the spokeswoman.
“There was never any danger to anyone and no loss of separation.”
She said loss of separation assurances were commonplace in Australian aviation and generally of no concern.""
No Cookies | The Courier-Mail
.
Hmmm... Looks like just another muppet beat up of a non event...
""...An Air Services Australia spokeswoman confirmed the incident was not as serious as it may have appeared.
“They were potentially going to come a little bit too close so a procedural assurance was given,” said the spokeswoman.
“There was never any danger to anyone and no loss of separation.”
She said loss of separation assurances were commonplace in Australian aviation and generally of no concern.""
No Cookies | The Courier-Mail
.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I think that pic and the radar traces are about in synch as it gets.
ASA media release might be a bit of wet blanket technique.
For once the media muppets are a bit less muppet like, apart from the loop.
ASA media release might be a bit of wet blanket technique.
For once the media muppets are a bit less muppet like, apart from the loop.
What a fantastic shot!
Depends on whether they left it all up to ATC who left it far too late, and why they didn't break right as soon as the nose was above the horizon to build in some lateral separation. 
Originally Posted by Jabba
The VA crew earned their pay for the year right there!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Bloggs,
Perhaps the Captain elected to keep the C525 in sight until he had the situation under control and had a clear spatial picture before committing the RH turn, rather than blindly losing sight without knowing.
I bet the formation guru's will give us a good education in not losing sight and what to do and not do if you do.
back at ya! 
Perhaps the Captain elected to keep the C525 in sight until he had the situation under control and had a clear spatial picture before committing the RH turn, rather than blindly losing sight without knowing.
I bet the formation guru's will give us a good education in not losing sight and what to do and not do if you do.
back at ya!
I bet the formation guru's will give us a good education in not losing sight and what to do and not do if you do.
Was azimuth lost for there to be a breakdown visually? I am not familiar with Goldcoast aerodrome but looking at ERSA and webtrak I'd say the controller likely never lost azimuth. Sure, it got close but no doubt everyone knew about each other.
The fact the aircraft went around meant there more than likely wasn't a runway separation incident (though more than likely there would have been had Virgin landed).
If it's done visually, you don't need vertical.
I think I'd rather listen to the tapes and see the radar tapes with GS etc before I hang anyone over this one.
The fact the aircraft went around meant there more than likely wasn't a runway separation incident (though more than likely there would have been had Virgin landed).
If it's done visually, you don't need vertical.
I think I'd rather listen to the tapes and see the radar tapes with GS etc before I hang anyone over this one.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Awol57
The way I see it is that separation must be established and maintained as the transition is made from one separation standard to another.
As runway separation, IMHO, never existed, it is difficult to argue that any other standard existed until the two tracks diverged at about 9:16:28
The event occurs from about 9:15:59 which is the first time both aircraft appear on the WebTrack display, to 9:16:28 which is when track divergence occurs.
The aerodrome elevation is 21' AMSL. WebTrack altitudes may well be incorrect, but relatively to both aircraft, should be accurate enough.
At 9:15:59 the C25A is possibly airborne at 98' with VOZ 511 passed the runway threshold at 354' and 400-500m behind.
This is not runway separation, the first standard that needs to be applied.
From 9:15:59 to 9:16:17 I believe there may possibly be visual azimuth separation from the Tower, but it won't last long. The C25A is below VOZ511 by 60-100', and 300-400m ahead. Not being a B738 pilot, I don't know if an aircraft is visible from the cockpit in this position i.e. below and between 1100-1130 o'clock. The C25A pilot has no way of seeing or knowing the position of the other aircraft. So relying on pilot participation during this fairly critical phase, is problematic.
From 9:16:17 to 9:16:28 visual azimuth separation from the Tower is not sustainable. VOZ511 is still above the C25A, and still within 400m and with very little angular distance between them from the Tower.
In my experience, this would not be enough to claim "visual separation". (The favourite catch call)
There is no visual separation, vertical separation, radar separation or any other type of separation as I see it.
Also, IMHO and in hindsight, I think it is safer for the B738 to land because it is a close situation that won't get any closer.
With both aircraft in the air, it's a close situation that gets closer until they end up diverging.
The way I see it is that separation must be established and maintained as the transition is made from one separation standard to another.
As runway separation, IMHO, never existed, it is difficult to argue that any other standard existed until the two tracks diverged at about 9:16:28
The event occurs from about 9:15:59 which is the first time both aircraft appear on the WebTrack display, to 9:16:28 which is when track divergence occurs.
The aerodrome elevation is 21' AMSL. WebTrack altitudes may well be incorrect, but relatively to both aircraft, should be accurate enough.
At 9:15:59 the C25A is possibly airborne at 98' with VOZ 511 passed the runway threshold at 354' and 400-500m behind.
This is not runway separation, the first standard that needs to be applied.
From 9:15:59 to 9:16:17 I believe there may possibly be visual azimuth separation from the Tower, but it won't last long. The C25A is below VOZ511 by 60-100', and 300-400m ahead. Not being a B738 pilot, I don't know if an aircraft is visible from the cockpit in this position i.e. below and between 1100-1130 o'clock. The C25A pilot has no way of seeing or knowing the position of the other aircraft. So relying on pilot participation during this fairly critical phase, is problematic.
From 9:16:17 to 9:16:28 visual azimuth separation from the Tower is not sustainable. VOZ511 is still above the C25A, and still within 400m and with very little angular distance between them from the Tower.
In my experience, this would not be enough to claim "visual separation". (The favourite catch call)
There is no visual separation, vertical separation, radar separation or any other type of separation as I see it.
Also, IMHO and in hindsight, I think it is safer for the B738 to land because it is a close situation that won't get any closer.
With both aircraft in the air, it's a close situation that gets closer until they end up diverging.
I agree with you 100% about letting the second one land. In my experience it's better (and safer) to cop the runway sep breakdown than have 2 in the air on upwind.
I am am not familiar enough with goldcoast to speculate any more. I understand it's in as a LOSA so I assume there was visual sep but it wasn't what you might call "ideal" conditions, or that it wasn't assigned to the pilot.
Either way, it's one of those situations you never let happen again (or at least try to avoid at all costs)
I am am not familiar enough with goldcoast to speculate any more. I understand it's in as a LOSA so I assume there was visual sep but it wasn't what you might call "ideal" conditions, or that it wasn't assigned to the pilot.
Either way, it's one of those situations you never let happen again (or at least try to avoid at all costs
)