Mid-Air Collision over Southern Germany (merged)
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA have just released this clarification on RA's, effectively removing "should"
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200219.pdf
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/FOD200219.pdf
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's OK; just put yourself on the CAA mailing list and you too will receive email notification.
http://www.caa.co.uk/publications/pu...ils.asp?id=498
subscription
http://www.caa.co.uk/publications/pu...ils.asp?id=498
subscription
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: India
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Questionable state of Aviation Safety Standards in Switzerland
The Business Affairs Committee of the Swiss upper house of parliament has expressed its serious concern over aviation safety in Switzerland. It will closely monitor investigations undertaken by BAZL/OFAC (Federal Office for Civil Aviation).
The committee has been alarmed by a string of aviation incidents, notably the two Crossair crashes at Nassenwil in January 2000 and at Bassersdorf in November 2001 as well as the recent mid-air collision over Ueberlingen. Flight safety in Switzerland was “in a seriously questionable” state, its press release states.
The committee also welcomes the recent announcement of an in-depth and independent investigation into the country’s overall ATC concept by Federal Minister Mortiz Leuenberger. (…..)
(above released 19th August 2002 by SDA)
The committee has been alarmed by a string of aviation incidents, notably the two Crossair crashes at Nassenwil in January 2000 and at Bassersdorf in November 2001 as well as the recent mid-air collision over Ueberlingen. Flight safety in Switzerland was “in a seriously questionable” state, its press release states.
The committee also welcomes the recent announcement of an in-depth and independent investigation into the country’s overall ATC concept by Federal Minister Mortiz Leuenberger. (…..)
(above released 19th August 2002 by SDA)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Not Jesusland (and not a Brit)
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, for once, I would like to hear from you, in your own words and without quoting other sources, your objective analysis based on:
your apparently invaluable expertise in ATC and all its facettes
and/or
your in depth knowledge of the procedures and SOPs within Skyguide
and/or
your personal experience as either a pilot or an ATCO
your apparently invaluable expertise in ATC and all its facettes
and/or
your in depth knowledge of the procedures and SOPs within Skyguide
and/or
your personal experience as either a pilot or an ATCO
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: India
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proceed As Cleared
The last time you demanded specific information from me, I promptly provided it on 11 August.
I also gave you two very specific and factual topics to air your views on:
- the absence of primary radar on Skyguide's patch
- the questionable insistence on integrating military and civil ATC
Instead of posting little angry faces (on another thread) and reducing the debate to a personal level, why don't you comment on these issues.
You might, whilst you're at it, also wish tell us what you think about the fact that Skyguide has recently appointed a new chairman (Franz Kellerhals), who is - in European investor circles, at least - best known for having nearly wiped Tornos off the face of the earth, and who promptly appointed Anton Menth (former Tornos CEO and equally responsible for the debacle there) as another Skyguide board member.
Maybe you should be addressing your questions about people's "invaluable ATC expertise" etc. to Skyguide's management and board?
I also gave you two very specific and factual topics to air your views on:
- the absence of primary radar on Skyguide's patch
- the questionable insistence on integrating military and civil ATC
Instead of posting little angry faces (on another thread) and reducing the debate to a personal level, why don't you comment on these issues.
You might, whilst you're at it, also wish tell us what you think about the fact that Skyguide has recently appointed a new chairman (Franz Kellerhals), who is - in European investor circles, at least - best known for having nearly wiped Tornos off the face of the earth, and who promptly appointed Anton Menth (former Tornos CEO and equally responsible for the debacle there) as another Skyguide board member.
Maybe you should be addressing your questions about people's "invaluable ATC expertise" etc. to Skyguide's management and board?
Last edited by Alpha Leader; 21st Aug 2002 at 04:11.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Not Jesusland (and not a Brit)
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What does the absence of primary radar have to do with the Midair collision??
Could you enlighten us as to how this might have contributed to the accident??
What does the "questionable insistence on integrating military and civil ATC" have to do with the Midair collision??
Could you enlighten as us to how this might have contributed to the accident??
And why is it "questionable"??
What does Franz Kellerhals' appointment as chairman have to do with the Midair collision??
Could you enlighten us as to how this might have contributed to the accident??
And speaking of "reducing the debate to a personal level", let me quote from one of your replies to me on the SWISS thread:
So much for that...
Could you enlighten us as to how this might have contributed to the accident??
What does the "questionable insistence on integrating military and civil ATC" have to do with the Midair collision??
Could you enlighten as us to how this might have contributed to the accident??
And why is it "questionable"??
What does Franz Kellerhals' appointment as chairman have to do with the Midair collision??
Could you enlighten us as to how this might have contributed to the accident??
And speaking of "reducing the debate to a personal level", let me quote from one of your replies to me on the SWISS thread:
Get your brain switched on (if you can find it)
So much for that...
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Dubai
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK guys, step back and take a breath, let's not get this thread blocked, locked or thrown away, if you wan't to get grrrrrrrrr with each other, send one another private msg's - Please
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Not Jesusland (and not a Brit)
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mea Culpa
Fair enough, guys. Got myself into a brawl with someone who unfortunately does not relate to the matter (the collision and its possible reasons that is) but instead resorts to general bashing of the company involved. And as you can maybe tell, it made my blood boil.
I'm asking for objectivity, that's all.
I'm asking for objectivity, that's all.
Last edited by Proceed As Cleared; 21st Aug 2002 at 10:25.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: India
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Stable
I apologize for the "noise".
Proceed As Cleared
In the interest of keeping this thread alive, suffice it to say that, for instance, the merits of accurate altitude information provided by primary radar and the possible implications with regard to the mid-air collision were discussed on another thread in the Tech Log forum quite a while ago. No need to re-hash it.
Given that Skyguide has staffing problems (which undeniably contributed to this mid-air collision), it is more than legitimate to ask the question as to whether the integration of military and civil ATC should be a primary objective, as it simply adds to the overall and already excessive workload. It is also a questionable objective from the point of view of overall European aviation safety, as it presents an insurmountable obstacle to an integrated European ATC concept.
Third, most people will agree that Skyguide has lots of work to do - there is a Federal inquiry underway following a report released by Swiss BFU on 26 June 2002. Again, the question as to whether a lawyer whose most recent public performance has been the near-collapse of what used to be a major Swiss industrial company is the right person to chair Skyguide is entirely legitimate.
I apologize for the "noise".
Proceed As Cleared
In the interest of keeping this thread alive, suffice it to say that, for instance, the merits of accurate altitude information provided by primary radar and the possible implications with regard to the mid-air collision were discussed on another thread in the Tech Log forum quite a while ago. No need to re-hash it.
Given that Skyguide has staffing problems (which undeniably contributed to this mid-air collision), it is more than legitimate to ask the question as to whether the integration of military and civil ATC should be a primary objective, as it simply adds to the overall and already excessive workload. It is also a questionable objective from the point of view of overall European aviation safety, as it presents an insurmountable obstacle to an integrated European ATC concept.
Third, most people will agree that Skyguide has lots of work to do - there is a Federal inquiry underway following a report released by Swiss BFU on 26 June 2002. Again, the question as to whether a lawyer whose most recent public performance has been the near-collapse of what used to be a major Swiss industrial company is the right person to chair Skyguide is entirely legitimate.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Not Jesusland (and not a Brit)
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Primary Radar does not provide altitude information.
2. Can you please specify how, in your opinion, the integration of military and civil ATC would increase the workload?
Fact is, that civil ATCOs will continue handling civil traffic and military ATCOs will continue handling military traffic.
Why should it present an obstacle to an integrated European ATC concept?
And if you think that a Single European Sky will ultimately lead to a safer sky, then ask IFATCA, what they believe...
3. Let me quote from a media release by the BFU concerning the report of 26.June 2002 and the collision:
"Ein zweiter Messflug am 5. Dezember 2000 lieferte Daten, die bezüglich der erwähnten Genauigkeit wesentlich besser waren. Die Vorgaben von Eurocontrol an die Genauigkeit der Darstellung auf dem Bildschirm zur Sicherstellung der minimalen seitlichen Separation wurden zum grossen Teil erfüllt.
Zum gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt gibt es keine Hinweise darauf, dass die Präzision der Positionsdarstellung der Flüge DHX611 und BTC2937 ungenügend war."
(A second calibration flight on 5.December 2000 delivered data, which were substantially better concerning accuracy. The requirements of Eurocontrol concerning the accuracy of the display on the screen in order to ensure the minimal lateral separation were met to a high extent.
At this stage, there are no indications, that the precision of the display of the positions of flights DHX611 and BTC2937 was insufficient.)
"Bezüglich der Kollision von Flug DHX611 mit Flug BTC2937 vom 1.Juli kann festgestellt werden, dass die verunfallten Flugzeuge durch die Sekundärradarsysteme kontinuierlich erfasst und auf den Bildschirmen des Flugverkehrsleiters dargestellt wurden. Der Umstand, dass keine primären Radarquellen zur Verfügung standen, hatte nach gegenwärtigem Erkenntnisstand keinen Einfluss auf das Unfallgeschehen."
(Concerning the collision between flight DHX611 and flight BTC2937 on 1.Juli 2002 it can be stated, that the aircraft had been continually picked up by the secondary radar system and had been displayed on the Air Traffic Controller's screens.
The fact, that there was no primary radar source available had, according to the present level of knowledge, no influence on the accident.)
http://www.bfu.admin.ch/de/html/medi...cht_040702.htm
2. Can you please specify how, in your opinion, the integration of military and civil ATC would increase the workload?
Fact is, that civil ATCOs will continue handling civil traffic and military ATCOs will continue handling military traffic.
Why should it present an obstacle to an integrated European ATC concept?
And if you think that a Single European Sky will ultimately lead to a safer sky, then ask IFATCA, what they believe...
3. Let me quote from a media release by the BFU concerning the report of 26.June 2002 and the collision:
"Ein zweiter Messflug am 5. Dezember 2000 lieferte Daten, die bezüglich der erwähnten Genauigkeit wesentlich besser waren. Die Vorgaben von Eurocontrol an die Genauigkeit der Darstellung auf dem Bildschirm zur Sicherstellung der minimalen seitlichen Separation wurden zum grossen Teil erfüllt.
Zum gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt gibt es keine Hinweise darauf, dass die Präzision der Positionsdarstellung der Flüge DHX611 und BTC2937 ungenügend war."
(A second calibration flight on 5.December 2000 delivered data, which were substantially better concerning accuracy. The requirements of Eurocontrol concerning the accuracy of the display on the screen in order to ensure the minimal lateral separation were met to a high extent.
At this stage, there are no indications, that the precision of the display of the positions of flights DHX611 and BTC2937 was insufficient.)
"Bezüglich der Kollision von Flug DHX611 mit Flug BTC2937 vom 1.Juli kann festgestellt werden, dass die verunfallten Flugzeuge durch die Sekundärradarsysteme kontinuierlich erfasst und auf den Bildschirmen des Flugverkehrsleiters dargestellt wurden. Der Umstand, dass keine primären Radarquellen zur Verfügung standen, hatte nach gegenwärtigem Erkenntnisstand keinen Einfluss auf das Unfallgeschehen."
(Concerning the collision between flight DHX611 and flight BTC2937 on 1.Juli 2002 it can be stated, that the aircraft had been continually picked up by the secondary radar system and had been displayed on the Air Traffic Controller's screens.
The fact, that there was no primary radar source available had, according to the present level of knowledge, no influence on the accident.)
http://www.bfu.admin.ch/de/html/medi...cht_040702.htm
Last edited by Proceed As Cleared; 21st Aug 2002 at 11:50.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Dubai
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the record,
I did not read the thread refered to above, but I can confirm that normal primary radar, as used in a civilian environment, does NOT provide any altitude data.
It is true that height finding equipment (used by the military in some locations) is able to determine height (above ground). This data is of no use to ATC at high levels, as there is no corrolation between the "pressure level" (what is seen by the flight deck crew & by ATC [after conversion]) and the raw radar (primary) return.
SID
(ATCO)
In the interest of keeping this thread alive, suffice it to say that, for instance, the merits of accurate altitude information provided by primary radar and the possible implications with regard to the mid-air collision were discussed on another thread in the Tech Log forum quite a while ago.
It is true that height finding equipment (used by the military in some locations) is able to determine height (above ground). This data is of no use to ATC at high levels, as there is no corrolation between the "pressure level" (what is seen by the flight deck crew & by ATC [after conversion]) and the raw radar (primary) return.
SID
(ATCO)
Chief PPRuNe Pilot
Join Date: May 1996
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 16,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Until there is new information with reference to the specific accident this thread is closed. Please feel free to continue any technical discussion in the Tech Log forum or safety discussion in the Safety, CRM & QA forum.
