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 320 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.
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>
