Near miss over Hungary?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hot and Humid
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Near miss over Hungary?
Anybody heard of a near miss over Hungary last Saturday involving Air France A340 and JAT B737?
They missed by few hundred feet and were on FL340.
It was reported by Hungarokontrol today.
They missed by few hundred feet and were on FL340.
It was reported by Hungarokontrol today.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: India
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another instance of wildly diverging accounts of the same incident.
Hungarocontrol claim that the distance between a JAT aircraft and an Air France aircraft was 500 m (no details as to whether this was vertical or horizontal), whereas the Hungarion ATC union - who alerted the press - claims there was a distance of only 60 m at around 31,000 ft.
Hungarocontrol claim that the distance between a JAT aircraft and an Air France aircraft was 500 m (no details as to whether this was vertical or horizontal), whereas the Hungarion ATC union - who alerted the press - claims there was a distance of only 60 m at around 31,000 ft.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: is a point of view
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well can't comment on said (near-)misshapp but the other day i was over HGR and had to descent thousand 
to let passing traffic (R to L) same level pass, and then back up again;where as a simple vector would have been sufficient 
; was not happy with this lazy 
controller , and i made sure he knew i wasn't (still being my pollite self, but with a bite) 
Pointer
to let passing traffic (R to L) same level pass, and then back up again;where as a simple vector would have been sufficient ; was not happy with this lazy controller , and i made sure he knew i wasn't (still being my pollite self, but with a bite) Pointer
Pointer, you make some provocative unqualified assumptions in your post. Please understand that, for a variety of reasons, vectors are NOT always possible. Believe me, you on the flightdeck, only get to hear and see a very small part of the total picture.
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say I received a requestet to descend and then climb again somewhere down that way recently.
I can't recall having received such a request in any other airspace and it would seem to be an unusual way to manage enroute seperation.
It is not a particularly efficient way to fly an aeroplane.
IF, and I emphasize the IF, there is an ATC unit that is using this tactic instead of using radar vectors then I hope that they stop it soon.
I can't recall having received such a request in any other airspace and it would seem to be an unusual way to manage enroute seperation.
It is not a particularly efficient way to fly an aeroplane.
IF, and I emphasize the IF, there is an ATC unit that is using this tactic instead of using radar vectors then I hope that they stop it soon.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fmgc, your IF was about any ATC unit that uses descent as a tactic to avoid a midair collision rather than vectors. EVERY ATC unit will have to use this tactic occasionally as avman refers. It is a last resort to alter levels but sometimes it has to be done, and something I know happens EVERY DAY in the London FIR en-route, you just will not realise all the time that its happenning.
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, but this is different, it is very rare to get asked to descend 1000' and then 10 mins later get asked to climb back up 1000'.
I am sure that in the London FIR you may get asked to descend and then stay there. I have never known London to ask me to descnd and then climb again (I am sure that it might happen, but I am also sure that it is rare).
I know what my IF was about as I wrote it, it was about maintaining separation, not avoiding mid air collision. I suggest that you re-read my post.
I am sure that in the London FIR you may get asked to descend and then stay there. I have never known London to ask me to descnd and then climb again (I am sure that it might happen, but I am also sure that it is rare).
I know what my IF was about as I wrote it, it was about maintaining separation, not avoiding mid air collision. I suggest that you re-read my post.
I re read your post and despite the "IF" you "hope they stop it soon". To me that indicates that you believe that this is some sort of deliberate act undertaken to pi$$ crews off. I very much doubt it. They may well have (temporary?) airspace restrictions (for military reasons perhaps) which prevents them from using the option to give vectors in the specific area concerned. If one of the two conflicting a/c (there could be more) are near to destination, then that one will go down 1000 or 2000 feet and stay there. If, however, both are in the middle of a long sector, it will be a case of doing a yo-yo.
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF, and I emphasize the IF, there is an ATC unit that is using this tactic instead of using radar vectors then I hope that they stop it soon.
TCAS notwithstanding, you do not have the whole picture, you are not alone in the sky and there are many reasons why a vector can not always be given Visit a Centre sometime and see for yourself.
Plumbum Pendular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Avionics Bay
Age: 55
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right this i going to be my last posting on this issue as I am fed up.
IF THEY ARE USING DESCENTS INSTEAD OF RADAR VECTORS TO MAINTAIN SEPERATION. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT LOUD BANGS WHEN METAL COLLIDES, I AM USING IF AS YOU ARE RIGHT I DO NOT HAVE THE WHOLE PICTURE
If I had said that I thought that they were doing it on purpose to p1ss me off, or had I said that I thought that they were doing it for being lazy then I would understand your bereating my comments BUT IAM NOT, I said IF IF IF not WERE WERE WERE!!
IF THEY ARE USING DESCENTS INSTEAD OF RADAR VECTORS TO MAINTAIN SEPERATION. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT LOUD BANGS WHEN METAL COLLIDES, I AM USING IF AS YOU ARE RIGHT I DO NOT HAVE THE WHOLE PICTURE
If I had said that I thought that they were doing it on purpose to p1ss me off, or had I said that I thought that they were doing it for being lazy then I would understand your bereating my comments BUT IAM NOT, I said IF IF IF not WERE WERE WERE!!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest YOU reread ALL of our posts and UNDERSTAND that there are occasions where vectors CANNOT be used so the yo-yo descent/climb WILL happen. End of. IF you don't like it, TOUGH LUCK, it can be the ONLY safe way to resolve a LOUD BANG, the alternative is always going into the open FIR and trying to find a unit that can give you a RAS
You are right, it does happen in the London FIR, and it is rare.
Maintaining separation and avoiding a midair collision to a controller means EXACTLY the same.
You are right, it does happen in the London FIR, and it is rare.
Maintaining separation and avoiding a midair collision to a controller means EXACTLY the same.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When on a flight from Budapest to LGW on the 17th of August, our aircraft came, what seemed to be very close to a citation jet while climbing to the cruise. As a passenger on this flight, I was a little bit unnerved by it. Whether or not it was "too" close I don't know but having flown all around europe and the UK as a passenger, I have never seen my trusty steed come this close to another aircraft. On the outbound leg of the same trip, a few minutes before the initial decent, we also had a Lufthansa A340 go very close over our heads.
Each of the encounters were strange but having 2 in the one trip was exceptionally odd in my eyes.
Each of the encounters were strange but having 2 in the one trip was exceptionally odd in my eyes.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suggest that you ATC chaps UNDERSTAND the we are user of the area in question, and therefore have EXPERIENCE of how ATC chooses to provide separation. Compared to the rest of Europe the descent/climb technique is used uncommonly often by Hungarian ATC. And it is both during the day and the night. It also appears to have little to do with the levels of traffic, as it happens even at 3AM with hardly anybody on the frequency.
WINGMAN 863
I do quite a bit of flying myself and I have often seen other a/c in close proximity. Be aware that 1000 feet vertical seperation doesn't look like much to the naked eye. I remember flying in a Gulfstream 1 with a BA B747 going by 1000 below in a turn. If, like you, I hadn't known better, I would have been screaming AIRMISS. It wasn't!
CLARENCE OVEUR
You have in fact NO experience in ATC procedures from a controller's perspective, and what constraints Hungarian ATC may be working with at present. You are making assumptions without factual substance, the very thing you pilot chaps detest about non-pilots telling you how to fly your aeroplanes.
I do quite a bit of flying myself and I have often seen other a/c in close proximity. Be aware that 1000 feet vertical seperation doesn't look like much to the naked eye. I remember flying in a Gulfstream 1 with a BA B747 going by 1000 below in a turn. If, like you, I hadn't known better, I would have been screaming AIRMISS. It wasn't!
CLARENCE OVEUR
You have in fact NO experience in ATC procedures from a controller's perspective, and what constraints Hungarian ATC may be working with at present. You are making assumptions without factual substance, the very thing you pilot chaps detest about non-pilots telling you how to fly your aeroplanes.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you would stop being so defensive for a minute, you would notice that I am not making any assumptions at all.
I am saying that we have experience in HOW ATC provides separation, not WHY they do it in the way they do. That is a fact.
I have experienced the descent/climb method of separation uncommonly often in Hungarian airspace compared to the rest of Europe. That is a fact.
Now, perhaps you could be constructive, and enlighten us all by giving us some examples of why it would be necessary with this descent/climb method, even in the middle of the night.
I am saying that we have experience in HOW ATC provides separation, not WHY they do it in the way they do. That is a fact.
I have experienced the descent/climb method of separation uncommonly often in Hungarian airspace compared to the rest of Europe. That is a fact.
Now, perhaps you could be constructive, and enlighten us all by giving us some examples of why it would be necessary with this descent/climb method, even in the middle of the night.
Now, perhaps you could be constructive, and enlighten us all by giving us some examples of why it would be necessary with this descent/climb method, even in the middle of the night.
. The reason may have nothing to do with traffic density but with some sort of airspace restriction which could also be valid at night. Oh, and you guys never get defensive about your job? 