Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Close call- A319 vs. B747

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Close call- A319 vs. B747

Old 28th May 2010, 15:43
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: VA, USA
Age: 58
Posts: 578
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Close call- A319 vs. B747

************************************************************

NTSB INVESTIGATING NEAR MIDAIR COLLISION OF US AIRWAYS A319
AND CARGOLUX AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL 747 IN ALASKA

************************************************************

The National Transportation Safety Board has launched an
investigation into the near midair collision of a passenger
jetliner and a cargo jumbo jet.

On May 21, 2010, at about 12:10 a.m. Alaska Daylight Savings
Time, an Airbus A319, operating as US Airways flight 140,
and a Boeing 747-400, operating as Cargolux Airlines
International flight 658, came within an estimated 100 feet
vertically and a .33 mile lateral separation as the B747 was
departing Anchorage International Airport (ANC) and the A319
was executing go-around procedures at ANC.

The A319, with 138 passengers and crew aboard, was inbound
from Phoenix (PHX) to runway 14 and the B747, with a crew of
2, was departing Anchorage en route to Chicago (ORD) on
runway 25R. The incident occurred in night visual
meteorological conditions with 10 miles of visibility.

According to the TCAS report from the A319 crew, that
aircraft was approaching ANC when, because of the effects of
tailwinds on the aircraft's approach path, the crew
initiated a missed approach and requested new instructions
from air traffic control. The tower controller instructed
the A319 to turn right heading 300 and report the departing
B747 in sight. After the A319 crew reported the B747 in
sight, the controller instructed the A319 to maintain visual
separation from the B747, climb to 3000 feet, and turn right
heading 320. The A319 crew refused the right turn because
the turn would have put their flight in direct conflict with
the B747. The A319 crew then received a resolution advisory
to "monitor vertical speed" and the crew complied with the
descent command. During the descent, the A319 crew lost
sight of the B747. At about 1700 feet above ground level,
the A319 crew received a "clear of conflict" aural command.

There were no reported injuries or damage to either
aircraft.
Could have been nasty. How is "monitor vertical speed" interpreted as "descend"? Is the NTSB confused on this one?

- GY

Last edited by GarageYears; 29th May 2010 at 05:30. Reason: Thought about it some more
GarageYears is offline  
Old 28th May 2010, 16:02
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: HKG
Posts: 1,410
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have to say ANC ATC are very fond of trying to pressure crews into keeping visual separation. Difficult enough between B744 and A319 as reported, but trying to see all from a B744 at 250kts when there are light aircraft everywhere is an accident waiting to happen.
BusyB is offline  
Old 29th May 2010, 04:35
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The A319 crew then received a resolution advisory to "monitor vertical speed" and the crew complied with the descent command.
Since when is a "Monitor Vertical Speed" a command to descend?

GB
Graybeard is offline  
Old 29th May 2010, 08:26
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,532
Received 72 Likes on 41 Posts
When the green bit on the VSI is down, that's where you keep the VS.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 29th May 2010, 08:38
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: South of Watford
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BusyB


The skies around PANC are rarely full of light aircraft near midnight

The incident occurred in night visual
meteorological conditions with 10 miles of visibility
Sir Richard is offline  
Old 29th May 2010, 09:11
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why only in the US is this stupid ATC "maintain visual seperation" used?
Fatfish is offline  
Old 29th May 2010, 09:16
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fatfish..... but it isn't. In the UK it is frequently used during good weather for parallel approaches. In the event of a confliction with a go-around I can well understand why it was used in these circumstances.
HEATHROW DIRECTOR is offline  
Old 29th May 2010, 12:09
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank you Heathrow, stand corrected. Yup, I guess its called passing the buck. Why should a potential conflict be allowed to developed in the first place? On a Go Around, with upteen happenings per second in the cockpit and numerous blind spots, that would surely be a nice time to issue such a clearance. Maybe only the lost of life will hasten the demise of "maintain visual seperation".

Last edited by Fatfish; 29th May 2010 at 15:41.
Fatfish is offline  
Old 29th May 2010, 12:54
  #9 (permalink)  
Person Of Interest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Having been on both sides of the mike, including as ATC in the UK, I would suggest any pilot who doesn't want to "maintain visual" learn how to enter the hold until the skies are absoultely void of other traffic...

"ABC123 number 3 for 27L following the 737 turning final 10 O'clock 4 miles, report the traffic in sight."

"Traffic in sight, ABC123"

"ABC123 maintain visual seperation follow the 737 contact XYZ Tower..."

OR

"Negative contact ABC123."

"ABC123 roger, turn right heading 090 vectors for downwind. You'll be number 5 following a B-747 13 mile final..."

Get the picture?
DownIn3Green is offline  
Old 29th May 2010, 13:53
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Transgression Zone
Posts: 2,483
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
Yes! when visual you are expected to see and avoid [internationally] and maintain a wake vortex separation under that clearance...similar in nature, by analolgy when you are cleared from present position direct to an IAF...you are responsible for checking you altitude requirements and remaining clear of terrain and obstacles...and failure to do so may result in 91.13...or worse
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 29th May 2010, 14:16
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pugilistic Animus

you make an interesting point about terrain clearance. however, if one is cleared via ''radar vectors'' to the IAF one is given terrain clearance at or above minimum vectoring altitude.

while I encourage everyone to know the terrain and maintain clearance, on vectors this is usally done correctly (though ATC can make mistakes)

I'm sure you understand this is meant in a ''radar environment".
protectthehornet is offline  
Old 29th May 2010, 15:34
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DownIn3Green. Please refer posting 1 of this thread "came within an estimated 100feet".
Fatfish is offline  
Old 29th May 2010, 16:21
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: HKG
Posts: 1,410
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sir Richard,
Doesn't change my comments for when they are flying. I have operated there innumerable times and heard this request with any number of unidentified TCAS a/c.
BusyB is offline  
Old 29th May 2010, 20:37
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: West
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Having been on both sides of the mike, including as ATC in the UK, I would suggest any pilot who doesn't want to "maintain visual" learn how to enter the hold until the skies are absoultely void of other traffic...
I'm sure more complete (and accurate) information will come out in the months ahead.

It's not that a crew would never take a "maintain visual" clearance, but rather that there might have been a good reason for them to not take this one.

It's 0100 (airport of origin time), it's a mountainous area, they see lights that appear to be the 747, they see a lot of lights out there, they are cleaning up and working the go around, it's 0100 at the airport of origin (yep, I said that twice).

I am certain this crew has taken many "maintain visual..." clearances and will continue to do so. Like you, I would be interested to hear more about what is reported in the news media. I am happy to wait for an official statement.
None is offline  
Old 30th May 2010, 20:35
  #15 (permalink)  
Person Of Interest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah Fat..."estimated 100'", but almost 1/2 mile laterally...no big deal for professional pilots...
DownIn3Green is offline  
Old 31st May 2010, 00:04
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wood's Hole (N4131.0 W07041.5)
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
0100LT 28MAY in ANC

None - a few points of order/clarification are needed.

ANC has mountains to the north east - these would not effect either the departure off 25R or the GA off 14 (either published or assigned heading to 300M).

0100LT on 28 MAY would have been a great twilight, given that there was a full moon (risen) on 28MAY.

Numerous lights - yeh, but only from the departing B744. A right turn heading 300 off RWY 14 would have the A319 pointing into a void - no ground lights, etc. but a full moon.

Also, check the NOTAMs for RWY14 ILS - I believe you will find that it is OTS for a couple of months (including 28MAY).

I not suggesting anything, but if you haven't briefed for a visual approach RWY14 with a 3.2deg path, it will get interesting when you get to KANDY expecting to find the beams.

Now, wait for summer to really get underway with the many light aircraft transiting the GA lanes or landing at Lake Hood/Merrill Field - it will get messy.

I wait with interest for the tapes and radar traces, and official report.
Weapons_Hot is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2010, 22:21
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: West
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ANC has mountains to the north east - these would not effect either the departure off 25R or the GA off 14 (either published or assigned heading to 300M).
"ICAO defines Mountainous Area as a gain or loss of 3000’ of elevation
within a distance of 10 NM."

I choose to apply ICAO operating considerations for Mountainous Area when operating at ANC due to high terrain in the vicinity.

0100LT on 28 MAY would have been a great twilight, given that there was a full moon (risen) on 28MAY.

The 0100 time is intended to offer you the idea that the crew is at the end of their best performance time line. It was not intended as a suggestion of atmospheric lighting.

...but thanks for clarifying your perspective.
None is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2010, 14:02
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
.33 x 6000' = 2000' lateral seperation

Sometimes I'd rather maintain visual seperation vs. waiting for the radar to see the movement, have the controller try to figure out what the intent of the movement is for, and for him to transmit a new vector to my aircraft.

In some incidents the guys at the pointy end have a much better idea of what's happening. Did some BFM with a China Southern 747 going into LAX years ago. They turned base from the north downwind for Rwy 24R. They ended up south of 25L. Unfortunately that's the runway we were landing on. Co-altitude, nearest closure was 1700'.
misd-agin is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2010, 15:53
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Willemstad, Curacao
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Danger

sounds alot for professional pilots, but at 0100 lt, in a go-around. you dont wanna take the wake of a slow 747. around 3000'
s_bakmeijer is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2010, 19:47
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
would it have killed the atc to just have the Cargolux 747 wait on the runway while the A319 was landing? I've always wondered about the dangers of crossing runways when aircraft go around
413X3 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.