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

Mid-air collision of 3 international flights averted over New Delhi!

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

Mid-air collision of 3 international flights averted over New Delhi!

Old 1st Jan 2019, 08:23
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,803
Received 199 Likes on 92 Posts
Originally Posted by SquintyMagoo
Why are people questioning whether NCA's TCAS was working? All the stories say its climb was a result of a TCAS warning.
I don't see how it could have been.

The NCA (FL310) was below the other two aircraft (FL320/FL330), so it's hard to see its TCAS issuing a Climb RA in those circumstances.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 1st Jan 2019, 23:50
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Eyjafjallajokull
Age: 36
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pilots mistaking an ATC " expect FL XXX " for a clearance to climb to FL XXX are unfortunately not that rare especially amongst Korean and Chinese crew.

I had personally encountered two incidents, one in Manila airspace, the other in Vietnam airspace. On a dark night a Korean Air flight asked to climb up to FL370. MNL ATC replied " standby for climb to FL370 ". Korean flight readback " roger, leaving FL350 climbing FL370 " That was stepped on by another transmission from another aircraft and MNL ATC did not pick that up! Luckily another Korean Air flight with a Malaysian or Singaporean English accent picked up on that and transmitted immediately to the offending KE flight on 121.5 that he WAS NOT CLEARED AT ALL to FL370. The offending flight crew sounded confused until a Korean pilot who was on the other KE flight manned by the Malaysian/Singaporean crew came screaming in Korean lingo, after which they sought verification from MNL ATC who categorically chastised them that THEY WERE NEVER CLEARED FL370!

The other incident involved a Chinese carrier in Vietnam airspace where a similar mistake was picked up by ATC radar.

The two incidents snuffed out my earlier plans to join any Korean or Chinese carriers.
Kilda Ste Hilda is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 06:08
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,546
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by SquintyMagoo
If planes on opposite courses are going to be assigned FL's 1,000 feet apart, TCAS needs to be programmed no to go off in the situation.
It is..........

wiggy is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 16:52
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kilda Ste Hilda
Pilots mistaking an ATC " expect FL XXX " for a clearance to climb to FL XXX are unfortunately not that rare especially amongst Korean and Chinese crew.

I had personally encountered two incidents, one in Manila airspace, the other in Vietnam airspace. On a dark night a Korean Air flight asked to climb up to FL370. MNL ATC replied " standby for climb to FL370 ". Korean flight readback " roger, leaving FL350 climbing FL370 " That was stepped on by another transmission from another aircraft and MNL ATC did not pick that up! Luckily another Korean Air flight with a Malaysian or Singaporean English accent picked up on that and transmitted immediately to the offending KE flight on 121.5 that he WAS NOT CLEARED AT ALL to FL370. The offending flight crew sounded confused until a Korean pilot who was on the other KE flight manned by the Malaysian/Singaporean crew came screaming in Korean lingo, after which they sought verification from MNL ATC who categorically chastised them that THEY WERE NEVER CLEARED FL370!

The other incident involved a Chinese carrier in Vietnam airspace where a similar mistake was picked up by ATC radar.

The two incidents snuffed out my earlier plans to join any Korean or Chinese carriers.
I would have also refused to fly through MNL airspace if that's the standard of phraseology being used by ATC. There is only one source of culpability in the first example and it isn't on the flight deck.
250 kts is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 17:09
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Let’s all reduce the chance of a midair by flying offsets. It’s only a matter of time before we have another completely avoidable collision....our industry is doing nothing. We MUST stop flying centrelines before it’s too late
birdspeed is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 17:39
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Near VTUU or EGPX
Age: 65
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Offsets cause other issues, such as when two parallel routes are deemed as separated ONLY if everyone is on the centrelines, traffic getting too close to Danger or Restricted Areas etc.

Oceanic is different, offset is acceptable.

As for the incident, it is still unclear who, if anybody, actually got an RA, the divergent headings may have just generated TAs.

For the ATCOs, if someone requests a level and it's not immediately available, don't mention the level, just give them a quick "rogering" !!!

For the pilots, always follow TCAS and ignore ATC, it will save your life.
The Fat Controller is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 17:45
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,803
Received 199 Likes on 92 Posts
Originally Posted by birdspeed
Letís all reduce the chance of a midair by flying offsets.
Out of interest, how would that be implemented for two aircraft flying an airway in the same direction, as in this case?
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 18:17
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
DaveReid, random offsets will help. 1,2, or 3nm. And surely a few NMs won’t cause ATC issues?
birdspeed is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 18:30
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by birdspeed
DaveReid, random offsets will help. 1,2, or 3nm. And surely a few NMs wonít cause ATC issues?
Oh yes it would! There are areas in the UK that even if we go 4 miles north of track on a radar heading it causes issues with other sectors and danger areas. Allowing you to go that distance on your own would be a no no.
250 kts is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 18:40
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 250 kts
Oh yes it would! There are areas in the UK that even if we go 4 miles north of track on a radar heading it causes issues with other sectors and danger areas. Allowing you to go that distance on your own would be a no no.
You could introduce a standard offset of 0.1 nmi to the right of the track. That would avoid a probably very slight head-on collision risk introduced by incredibly precise navigation.

I'm not saying that it would necessarily be a plus for safety but it wouldn't hurt would it? Anyway not really arguing the point, just wanted to add that you don't need a 1nmi offset when you are worried about navigation being "too precise". It would obviously not be meant for safe separation. Rather it would reduce the statistic likelihood.
wiedehopf is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 19:06
  #51 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
birdspeed :
And surely a few NMs wonít cause ATC issues?
in Delhi FIR, dense continental airspace ? I hope you are being sarcastic ,
Offset has been debated since decades, from embedded 0.1 NM, to 1 or 2 NM in oceanic, etc.. there are mathematical reasons against it. , so it will never pass ICAO. . google it if you want the discussions.
anyway as DaveReidUK pointed out , this incident is same direction, so would not have helped.
250 Kts :
I would have also refused to fly through MNL airspace if that's the standard of phraseology being used by ATC. There is only one source of culpability in the first example and it isn't on the flight deck.
Refusing to fly though an airpace , whow !, you can do that ? I am impressed . As to the source of culpability , have a look at ICAO phraseology manual (Doc 9432) it unfortunately does not prevent the phraseology used here or in Manilla. I have been trained in the 70'sin Europe to say for instance to an aircraft requesting a specific FL : e.g. "not available due traffic" and/or "expect 350 in 10 minutes." that was standard by then . . in the 90s, to avoid the above, we were in my unit recommended to use "higher" and "lower" instead of mentioning the Requested FL. but this not ICAO phraseology.
In any case unless the words " cleared to " or "Cimb to" are used it is not an instruction , and sometimes you do have to mention the next level in full , e.g in conditional clearances.
It is not ideal I agree, therefore it is important to pay attention, finally an English level 4 crew should be able to understand the difference between expect and clear to .
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 19:28
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: expat
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think the point ATC guys posting here miss is that understanding phraseology is not the problem. The usual cause is poor quality of transmission and or heavily accented English causing misinterpretation of messages.
Unless you’ve been in the cockpit during a busy period in, say, Manila, you simply wouldn’t believe it. Fading, three levels of echo due to retransmission, frequency saturation etc etc
It’s not like you experience in the sterile environment of a ground facility. It’s amazing that the job gets done night after night.
HPSOV L is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 08:03
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
ATC Watcher, before the introduction of GPS, aircraft would quite often be a few miles off track. No one minded then. Airways were 10nm wide. Now with GPS,RVSM we have increased the chances of a midair by a large factor. We must act now before we have another midair/wake upset. ATC must adapt to random offsets.
birdspeed is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 08:30
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
birdspeed :
in Delhi FIR, dense continental airspace ? I hope you are being sarcastic ,
Offset has been debated since decades, from embedded 0.1 NM, to 1 or 2 NM in oceanic, etc.. there are mathematical reasons against it. , so it will never pass ICAO. . google it if you want the discussions.
anyway as DaveReidUK pointed out , this incident is same direction, so would not have helped.
250 Kts :
Refusing to fly though an airpace , whow !, you can do that ? I am impressed . As to the source of culpability , have a look at ICAO phraseology manual (Doc 9432) it unfortunately does not prevent the phraseology used here or in Manilla. I have been trained in the 70'sin Europe to say for instance to an aircraft requesting a specific FL : e.g. "not available due traffic" and/or "expect 350 in 10 minutes." that was standard by then . . in the 90s, to avoid the above, we were in my unit recommended to use "higher" and "lower" instead of mentioning the Requested FL. but this not ICAO phraseology.
In any case unless the words " cleared to " or "Cimb to" are used it is not an instruction , and sometimes you do have to mention the next level in full , e.g in conditional clearances.
It is not ideal I agree, therefore it is important to pay attention, finally an English level 4 crew should be able to understand the difference between expect and clear to .
ICAO may not prevent it, but history has proved it is bad practice and should be "trained out" of the system.
250 kts is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 09:29
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: southampton
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by birdspeed
ATC Watcher, before the introduction of GPS, aircraft would quite often be a few miles off track. No one minded then. Airways were 10nm wide. Now with GPS,RVSM we have increased the chances of a midair by a large factor. We must act now before we have another midair/wake upset. ATC must adapt to random offsets.
And then airlines would then have to adapt to increased delays and loss of capacity. All current tools in development and planned airspace changes are predicated on knowing exactly where the aircraft are routing
1985 is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 10:01
  #56 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
250 Kts :
It wasn't meant literally!!
I did ! hence my sarcastic response. Sorry !
ICAO may not prevent it, but history has proved it is bad practice and should be "trained out" of the system.
Absolutely , I do not know the reasons/objections why it has not passed the ANC doc4444 changes..but phraseology regarding refusal requests should be adapted and universal,. There are lots of improvements needed in answering requests , e.g. the US/FAA uses " maintain" as clearance to climb/descent for instance , while we in Europe use it to make sure the aircraft is not climbing ...

Birdspeed :
ATC Watcher, before the introduction of GPS, aircraft would quite often be a few miles off track. No one minded then. Airways were 10nm wide. Now with GPS,RVSM we have increased the chances of a midair by a large factor. We must act now before we have another midair/wake upset. ATC must adapt to random offsets.
Before GPS there were inaccuracies preventing heads on but also a lot of accidents and CFIT when following VOR radials..
why not offset ?
OK, here we go again . I try the shorter version ( once more ) : ATC can accommodate embedded ( i.e not manual) 0.1 NM offset to the right without any problem . After the collision in Sioux Look out , Canada, in 1995, IFALPA campaigned in the 90s for it, I was involved in this . Could not pass ICAO for many reasons , main was the mathematical model showed increase in collision risk in crossings, then not all FMS/ PA working the same in turns ( still a problem today btw) and when to start /stop the offset , especially to make precision APP. In Sioux look out the 2 aircraft collided head on one was departing the other was on App. to the same fix. So we lost the argument. Anyway those were old times , now with RNP and routes/tracks separated by 5NM , not a chance to have the embedded or random offset debate again .
As 1985 correctly said above, the future is based on nav accuracy and the flavor of the day is capacity , less delays , more aircraft in the air in same airspace. So RNP is here to stay and offset is old news.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 12:25
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
ATC Watcher, we talking about offsetting on busy airways once in the cruise, not in terminal areas. These busy airways are on routes to and from the Far East and Middle East where there is a high density of aircraft all confined to the centreline.
birdspeed is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 14:45
  #58 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Birsspeed
we talking about offsetting on busy airways once in the cruise, not in terminal areas
I know, and it makes a lot of sense to everyone, but for the mathematicians the formula does not differentiate where you are , therefore no, and there were other issues, too long to elaborate here .
I do not think we will ever get a regulation mandating it , but if you fly offset yourself 0.1 or 0.2 of a NM to the right nobody will see it, especially not in oceanic airspace .

In the good old days of the CL44, we always flew 100 ft below westbound and 100ft above eastbound. the captains called it " life insurance" , but that was at a time where there was lot of traffic at FL240 and with old mode C transponders and where the ATC tolerance was 300ft...Unfortunately today mode S will spot you deviating 25 ft and with RVSM that is no longer an option either !
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2019, 18:42
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Down South
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 250 kts
Oh yes it would! There are areas in the UK that even if we go 4 miles north of track on a radar heading it causes issues with other sectors and danger areas. Allowing you to go that distance on your own would be a no no.
There's routes in the South of the UK FIR that are 7 miles apart both in the same direction and opposite direction. The whole reason they're there is because of the accuracy of RNAV kit. If you all decide to fly your own offsets then we'll end up with a loss of separation very quickly. It's not really a feasible option anywhere in UK airspace, at least not without checking first.
The Many Tentacles is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2019, 16:03
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 33
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Fat Controller

For the ATCOs, if someone requests a level and it's not immediately available, don't mention the level, just give them a quick "rogering" !!!
Yeap. I would have also thought that a Spartan "Roger, stand by" would be sufficient and efficient.
TheBat 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.