A320 - Loss of Separation departing KMSP
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
If positive separation was determined by the single pilot ops making the left turn after take-off, the controller missed the first opportunity to avoid this when BMJ46 failed to read-back the turn instruction before take off, and then again when 2:30 elapsed before he queried the lack of turn. With parallel take-offs it seems that the positive clearance mechanism (one of them turning immediately) was not positive enough, especially given they were IMC.
Add to that split tower frequencies, so they were both blissfully unaware of the other's intentions and it's another classic, "it used to work fine right up until the big fireball" scenario. Even a basic risk assessement would identify positive acknowledgement of the clearing turn as an absolute minimum requirement before issuing the take off clearance. I'm sure it was, but in this case it got missed and a lot of people nearly had a bad day.
Add to that split tower frequencies, so they were both blissfully unaware of the other's intentions and it's another classic, "it used to work fine right up until the big fireball" scenario. Even a basic risk assessement would identify positive acknowledgement of the clearing turn as an absolute minimum requirement before issuing the take off clearance. I'm sure it was, but in this case it got missed and a lot of people nearly had a bad day.
Courtesy of TopBunk on another thread
Out of hours so had to nightstop before flying back the next day - empty flight and achieved 5000ft by end of runway having some fun!
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATPMBA:
How about semi-annual recurrent training and pass-or-fail proficiency checks?
One they are journeymen there is no more formal training. Most of the training after initial qualification is of the "frick teaches frack" variety.
How about controllers getting 1,500 hours of closely supervised work before they gt turned loose? And if the fail two performance reviews they get the boot.
One they are journeymen there is no more formal training. Most of the training after initial qualification is of the "frick teaches frack" variety.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oakape:
Once isn't the norm.
Crossing the end of the runway at 5,000 feet, agl, isn't the norm either.
I am sure you had fun, though.
I once crossed the upwind end of a 2,800m runway at 5,000' AGL in a B767-200. So no, it wasn't necessarily a military fighter!
Crossing the end of the runway at 5,000 feet, agl, isn't the norm either.
I am sure you had fun, though.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<6,000 feet before the end of the runway? It must have been a military fighter.>>
Learjet.
<<How about controllers getting 1,500 hours of closely supervised work before they gt turned loose? And if the fail two performance reviews they get the boot.>>
In the UK controllers get a hell of a lot of time fully supervised before they take exams to go solo. They're also subject to regular checks, just like pilots.
Learjet.
<<How about controllers getting 1,500 hours of closely supervised work before they gt turned loose? And if the fail two performance reviews they get the boot.>>
In the UK controllers get a hell of a lot of time fully supervised before they take exams to go solo. They're also subject to regular checks, just like pilots.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Add to that split tower frequencies, so they were both blissfully unaware of the other's intentions and it's another classic, "it used to work fine right up until the big fireball" scenario.
.Not like it hasn't (nearly) happened before (BOS, ORD, JFK etc.) as google will attest.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Add to that split tower frequencies, so they were both blissfully unaware of the other's intentions and it's another classic>>
I can't speak for the USA, but in the UK different frequencies are used for different runways at busy airfields. The controllers are sat close to each other and they work as a team, not "blissfully unaware" of what the other guy is doing..
I can't speak for the USA, but in the UK different frequencies are used for different runways at busy airfields. The controllers are sat close to each other and they work as a team, not "blissfully unaware" of what the other guy is doing..
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not a pilot and nor do I work in air traffic control, I'm just a regular aviation enthusiast with a safety background. I find it interesting that the air traffic controllers at MSP assign headings for each flight and not use the powerful safety tool of standard departure patterns out from their runways. These standard patterns are much more thought through than any heading command given orally from an air traffic controller to a pilot, and in addition with no risk of miscommunication as it clearly was in this close call.
All departures from my local airport (not that much smaller than MSP - two runway, mixed operation, will probably end up around 20 million passengers/220,000 movements this year) follow these standard patterns. As an example we got a clearance for TOMBO 5A departure from runway 01L in February 2006 (I say we because my boarding card said seat 0C for this short flight from OSL/ENGM to TRD/ENVA). Below is a short description of a TOMBO 5A departure (the flight is initially cleared for 7,000 feet):
Most operators at our airport has pre-programmed these departures in their FMC/FMS, and the picture below I took as we were DME 5.3 GRM at 4,000 feet with heading switching between 350° and 349°. Both primary flight displays (PFD) show the TOMBA 5A pattern as a solid magenta line.
How come that many US airports don't use standard departure patterns or even standard climb out direction to increase separation between aircraft to a safe/acceptable distance?
All departures from my local airport (not that much smaller than MSP - two runway, mixed operation, will probably end up around 20 million passengers/220,000 movements this year) follow these standard patterns. As an example we got a clearance for TOMBO 5A departure from runway 01L in February 2006 (I say we because my boarding card said seat 0C for this short flight from OSL/ENGM to TRD/ENVA). Below is a short description of a TOMBO 5A departure (the flight is initially cleared for 7,000 feet):
Climb on RWY track 015° to 1200 FT, then intercept and follow R-015 GRM to DME 4.5 GRM, then turn left and track 348° . At DME 6 GRM, turn right and track 053° to intercept and proceed on QDR 003° BGU to TOMBO.
FMS/RNAV (overlay): GM381 - GM383 - On track 053° to GM387 - TOMBO.
FMS/RNAV (overlay): GM381 - GM383 - On track 053° to GM387 - TOMBO.
How come that many US airports don't use standard departure patterns or even standard climb out direction to increase separation between aircraft to a safe/acceptable distance?
Well, many US airports do have SIDs (standard instrument departures) routes.
Standard instrument departure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
However:
a) note that some SIDs are "vectored" - i.e. under verbal ATC instructions as appears to have been the case for both craft in this event
b) if the pilot misses the instructions, it doesn't really matter if the instructions were "turn left to 180" or "cleared ALPOE 6 departure" - (s)he is still going to head off in the wrong direction.
c) if the SID that works for a given final course (e.g. eastbound) is the same for two planes being cleared for take-off at the same moment from different runways - they may still end up in close proximity.
While I understand the time pressures for both pilots and controllers at a hub like MSP during a "rush hour," I've got to question trying to cram too many instructions into one radio call.
It may add 15 seconds to each "movement" to say "Turn left 180 after liftoff" - and then wait for a positive readback - before than adding "Cleared for takeoff 30L." And those 15 seconds add up if there are 35 planes trying to depart in, say, one 20-minute window. But it may better ensure understanding.
The essence of communication is not what you say (and how fast you can say it) - but what the other person hears and understands.
Standard instrument departure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
However:
a) note that some SIDs are "vectored" - i.e. under verbal ATC instructions as appears to have been the case for both craft in this event
b) if the pilot misses the instructions, it doesn't really matter if the instructions were "turn left to 180" or "cleared ALPOE 6 departure" - (s)he is still going to head off in the wrong direction.
c) if the SID that works for a given final course (e.g. eastbound) is the same for two planes being cleared for take-off at the same moment from different runways - they may still end up in close proximity.
While I understand the time pressures for both pilots and controllers at a hub like MSP during a "rush hour," I've got to question trying to cram too many instructions into one radio call.
It may add 15 seconds to each "movement" to say "Turn left 180 after liftoff" - and then wait for a positive readback - before than adding "Cleared for takeoff 30L." And those 15 seconds add up if there are 35 planes trying to depart in, say, one 20-minute window. But it may better ensure understanding.
The essence of communication is not what you say (and how fast you can say it) - but what the other person hears and understands.
LN
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't speak for the USA, but in the UK different frequencies are used for different runways at busy airfields. The controllers are sat close to each other and they work as a team, not "blissfully unaware" of what the other guy is doing..
What is different is that the result was a a long overdue overhaul of the missed approach procedures etc. I don't think much is going to be done here except blame someone for making a mistake.
In the absence of obstacles, most operators will have an SOP to fly straight ahead if there is an engine failure. I have not come across a situation where this changed because there was a departure on the other runway that the crew are not aware of.
This is just as likely to have happened to a two crew heavy as it is to a single pilot light operation. The requirement to have two crew (or more) in certain aircraft is not in any way linked to the flight rules they operate under or the classes of airspace they fly in.
In the end, until ATC receive a correct readback of the clearance issued then they can't rely on the pilot to do what they expect. This is becoming a more and more frequent issue - London City dep vs Heathrow Arrival - and many more.
It is not the training hours that controllers receive that is an issue. Yes they are very small - typically (in very round terms) about 200 for an aerodrome controller and about twice that for radar and I would think that 600 is the absolute maximum before the ATC provider cuts their losses (and this is an important issue).
ATC training has low minimum hours that have stood the test of time (and traffic expansion) however, it is one area where ability is the determining factor in initial qualification rather than simply hours in a logbook (experience). I do wonder if the same system applied to flight training how many people would not be flying?
The call for better recurrent training and testing in ATC may be a good one. However, if ATC training starts to follow the Pilot version and starts giving people 1500 hours experience and a simple couple of tests to become qualified then it would be a severe retrograte step.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
Looking at LN-KGL's pic, I ask what had they 'backed up'?
Looking at LN-KGL's pic, I ask what had they 'backed up'?
PENKO
BOAC, they have the VOR needles pointing to different VOR's, so they're monitoring as far as I can tell! Let LNAV do the rest.
BOAC, they have the VOR needles pointing to different VOR's, so they're monitoring as far as I can tell! Let LNAV do the rest.
Here are the SID patterns used at OSL with winds from the north:
To see a Thai A346 do the OPA 3B departure is just fantastic - a striking similarity to the rwy 06 departure at the old (and now closed) Oslo Airport, Fornebu.
BOAC, not exactly shure what the problem is. They have VOR selected and identified, no idea about their ADF, but at least they are monitoring the initial part of the departure. And what's wrong with following the magenta line...it's an RNAV departure anyway, you might have no choice!
