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

MAS vs VIR @ LHR... ???

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

MAS vs VIR @ LHR... ???

Old 23rd Oct 2018, 16:58
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Southern Shores of Lusitania
Age: 48
Posts: 601
Question MAS vs VIR @ LHR... ???

is this for real ...???
Right now at FR24...

""...between Malaysian A359 (MH4) and Virgin B789 (VS251) ... Controller on duty has been relieved and a report has been filed...."
(From some place in FB & FR24 realms)

https://ibb.co/nuLowV
JanetFlight is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2018, 17:19
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 8,283
I tried to find this "incident" on PlaneFinder without success. How do you know that a controller was relieved?
HEATHROW DIRECTOR is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2018, 17:29
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 4,983
Looks like the planes got a little cozy at about the same altitude at 1557Z after a missed approach by MH4 and an attempt to place MH back in sequence in front of VS251:

Airbubba is online now  
Old 23rd Oct 2018, 17:41
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: jersey
Age: 70
Posts: 1,102
Originally Posted by JanetFlight View Post
is this for real ...???
Right now at FR24...

""...between Malaysian A359 (MH4) and Virgin B789 (VS251) ... Controller on duty has been relieved and a report has been filed...."
(From some place in FB & FR24 realms)

https://ibb.co/nuLowV
I checked this out on FR24 playback. The VIR251 is on a closing hdg to ILS somewhere near the Shard , when the MAS 4 appears on an ESE track heading towards the VIR. It appeared that, perhaps, the ATCO may have been trying to fit the MAS In ahead of the VIR ; or, that the MAS had come off a previous RDR hdg without authorization - I am only guessing - the VIR breaks off with a left turn to the SE, & the MAS is turned left , away from the VIR, before being turned back to the South & established on the ILS. Thereafter, the VIR is brought around with a Left turn to establish on the ILS from the south - nicely spaced behind the MAS. It was difficult to determine if RDR separation was infringed (from the map scale used); but, if the a/c hadn’t been turned, they would have been close. I have to say that I did not notice the vertical separation; maybe they would have been separated. I will look again.
kcockayne is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2018, 17:52
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: jersey
Age: 70
Posts: 1,102
[QUOTE=kcockayne;10290523]

I checked this out on FR24 playback. The VIR251 is on a closing hdg to ILS somewhere near the Shard , when the MAS 4 appears on an ESE track heading towards the VIR. It appeared that, perhaps, the ATCO may have been trying to fit the MAS In ahead of the VIR ; or, that the MAS had come off a previous RDR hdg without authorization - I am only guessing - the VIR breaks off with a left turn to the SE, & the MAS is turned left , away from the VIR, before being turned back to the South & established on the ILS. Thereafter, the VIR is brought around with a Left turn to establish on the ILS from the south - nicely spaced behind the MAS. It was difficult to determine if RDR separation was infringed (from the map scale used); but, if the a/c hadn’t been turned, they would have been close. I have to say that I did not notice the vertical separation; maybe they would have been separated. I will look again.
[/QUOTE
Looks like there was about 500 feet vertical separation - difficult to ascertain each a/cs’ alt. using FR 24. I am guessing that there was about 3nm separation (decreasing) at the time that the a/c were turned away from each other. Separation may not have been lost - but there wouldn’t have been much if they hadn’t been !
All in all, a successful resolution to a sticky problem. In the circumstances (such as I understand them ), well done.
kcockayne is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2018, 17:54
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,684
Based on Heathrow's own WebTrak radar playback, at their closest point of approach the two aircraft were around 2.6 nm apart with about 200 ft vertical separation.


Last edited by DaveReidUK; 23rd Oct 2018 at 18:04. Reason: Distance derived from GE
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2018, 21:11
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,684
A bit more time with the NATS radar data from WebTrak produces the following:



Suggesting that at the closest point of approach, give or take a couple of seconds (tick marks are at 3 second intervals), horizontal separation was 2.44 nm and vertical separation was 225 ± 25 ft.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2018, 22:53
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 508
if the a/c hadn’t been turned, they would have been close.
You could say that about most pairs of aircraft in busy airspace.

Is this what it’s come to? Trial by internet, by people that don’t know the rules, procedures, minima or circumstances?
Del Prado is online now  
Old 25th Oct 2018, 23:25
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,425
Well, if you know for sure that the controller was relieved, I would suggest someone is guilty of leaking inside information! If that is the case, I hope it won't go unpunished!
Hotel Tango is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2018, 03:39
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,057
Different event - 1700’ lateral separation, same altitude...after we deviated a mile south trying to stay away. Passenger after the flight “that plane looked pretty close.” “That’s because he was...”
misd-agin is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2018, 06:25
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 40
Posts: 4,311
Originally Posted by Del Prado View Post


You could say that about most pairs of aircraft in busy airspace.

Is this what it’s come to? Trial by internet, by people that don’t know the rules, procedures, minima or circumstances?
Yes, and this thread has been picked up by some anti-LHR people/groups on social media, quoting the above assertions as proof of responsibility and that ATC have been trialling new procedures to cram in more aircraft.
Gonzo is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2018, 17:17
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: jersey
Age: 70
Posts: 1,102
Originally Posted by Del Prado View Post


You could say that about most pairs of aircraft in busy airspace.

Is this what it’s come to? Trial by internet, by people that don’t know the rules, procedures, minima or circumstances?
I was not conducting a trial - merely giving an explanation of what seemed to have happened & the possible causes. I even stated that the a/c may not have lost separation. Finally, I stated that a potential problem had been safely resolved & congratulated all involved for having done so.
Hardly a trial ! And, after 38 years as an ATCO, I certainly do not lack knowledge of the rules, minima or circumstances.
kcockayne is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2018, 12:53
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Posts: 508
Hi K. Apologies, I wasn’t specifically flaming you, more the thought that people are now looking at FR24 and similar and bringing incidents and non-incidents into the public domain without any balance or knowledge of rules and procedures. I.e. the person that found and posted this on the internet originally.

However I’m sure someone such as yourself with 38 years experience will sympathise with the thought that a colleague’s best endeavours, regardless of pilot errors or equipment failures, are equivocated over by essentially lay men. I’m sure you are fully conversant with the rules and caveats regarding 2.5 mile separation.
Del Prado is online now  
Old 27th Oct 2018, 13:59
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: jersey
Age: 70
Posts: 1,102
Thanks for that. I was not very upset about your comments & did feel that you were addressing the originator, rather than myself. However, I did want to establish my credentials & re-emphasize my intentions. I was also very keen to stress that I was, in no way, attributing any blame to anyone - least of all the ATCO. I presume he was the one who took remedial action in this incident , & I stressed that , as far as I was concerned, he did a good job of conflict resolution, sequencing & expedition subsequent to the “event”. As regards the rest of your comments; I agree entirely with you.
Regards K
kcockayne is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2018, 11:47
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: etha
Posts: 286
There are many possible reasons why these two aircraft have come into conflict and not necessarily any errors on anyone's behalf, the resolving turns look like great execution of avoiding action showing that the safety networks in place have worked and prevented what could have been a far worse outcome. Wait for the outcome of the Airprox board before pointing fingers.
zonoma is offline  
Old 19th May 2019, 17:30
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 140
I see that the Airprox report was published.


https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uplo...%202018286.pdf


Selectively quoting
Looking first at the actions of the A350 pilot, the Board noted that the need to conduct a go-around was
always a high workload situation for pilots involving aircraft reconfiguration, climb instructions, speed
control, heading changes and likely reconfiguration of aircraft FMS data. In these circumstances, the
PNF would be communicating with ATC whilst the PF would be responding to any instructions from
ATC whilst reconfiguring and flying the aircraft. Notwithstanding, such eventualities are practiced and
subject to well-defined Crew Resource Management procedures that should be pre-briefed as a
potential eventuality before the approach. In this instance, although the PNF had correctly readback
the initial heading as 095°, it was likely that the PF had either misheard the clearance or had mistakenly
set 195° on the FCU instead. In discussing how this might have occurred, a Civil Airline Pilot member
suggested that there had possibly been a Crew Resource Management communication breakdown in
the cockpit. The pilots should have cross-checked the heading selected and, if there had been any
discrepancy, this would then have been resolved. Some members wondered how prepared the crew
were for the potential go-around, and whether the crew had been distracted by the increased workload.
Even when the controller had subsequently instructed the pilot to turn left immediately heading 080°
the pilot had readback heading 095°, and this hinted at a serious loss of situational awareness and lack
of assimilation of information by the A350 crew, especially given that the controller repeated the
instruction on two occasions with no further response received from the A350 crew. It was not until this
was followed by an avoiding action left turn heading 360° that the A350 crew readback the correct
information.
118.70 is offline  
Old 19th May 2019, 18:27
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 97
Have to say... the controllers at LHR are pretty awesome, imo
zero/zero is offline  
Old 20th May 2019, 11:03
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 281
so in 100 years of aviation advances and technological leaps, even going to the moon, the one thing that hasn't moved a millimetre is...

ATC and pilots communicating verbally over radio's...

G
groundbum is offline  
Old 20th May 2019, 12:53
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,425
the one thing that hasn't moved a millimetre is...

ATC and pilots communicating verbally over radio's...
Completely incorrect statement. There are however areas of ATC where radio contact is still the better option. I'm about to go out, so I'll leave it to someone with more time to inform you.
Hotel Tango is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.