TCAS incident in the Amsterdam area.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS incident in the Amsterdam area.
A non aviation friend of mine mentioned to me that a TCAS event in the Amsterdam area was reported by the Dutch media yesterday. The event happened a week or more ago. Probably media sensationalism about nothing too drastic other than TCAS doing what it's designed to do, but does anyone have a little more info just to satisfy my curiosity?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NL
Age: 38
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uitgeest ontsnapte aan ramp twee botsende vliegtuigen - Binnenland - VK
Both a/c intercepting the localiser head- on, but the Garuda A330 should have been a 1000 feet higher, at least that is what the newspaper says.
It appears to have happened on the approach to rwy18 center.
The response from dutch media is, ofc, dramatic and the schiphol atc is not happy with the airprox being ,,leaked''.
Both a/c intercepting the localiser head- on, but the Garuda A330 should have been a 1000 feet higher, at least that is what the newspaper says.
It appears to have happened on the approach to rwy18 center.
The response from dutch media is, ofc, dramatic and the schiphol atc is not happy with the airprox being ,,leaked''.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the audio DIBO. Well this clears it up a bit, no TCAS to start with , and as to where the error lies, the last words on the tape (for those undestanding Dutch ), might clear it up too.
But both had visual , and no danger in fact.
Big media hype again.
But both had visual , and no danger in fact.
Big media hype again.
Overreacting media, sure, as always.
But... it's always a chain of events. This happened in VMC conditions, the Mark I Eyeball came in handy.
to start with: not sure if that was really intended: reciprocal course, same altitude...
1st event: "Right 160", followed by "Disregard, left turn 360" is not what one expects for smooth vectoring. But no harm done, except bringing the KLM slightly more to the east of the centerline
2nd event: pretty sure, that went not as planned. Indonesia seems to slightly overshoot the LLZ. ATC stepped in on 'Regionals' transmission, to make Indonesia turn to 160°. ATC's hartbeats must have been on the rise...
3rd event: luckily there wasn't any, otherwise TCAS would have stepped in. Only ATC apologizing (last words on the recording: "this was certainly not the intention, my apologies for that")
Some lessons to be learned for sure, but final conclusion: media overdramatizing
But... it's always a chain of events. This happened in VMC conditions, the Mark I Eyeball came in handy.
to start with: not sure if that was really intended: reciprocal course, same altitude...
1st event: "Right 160", followed by "Disregard, left turn 360" is not what one expects for smooth vectoring. But no harm done, except bringing the KLM slightly more to the east of the centerline
2nd event: pretty sure, that went not as planned. Indonesia seems to slightly overshoot the LLZ. ATC stepped in on 'Regionals' transmission, to make Indonesia turn to 160°. ATC's hartbeats must have been on the rise...
3rd event: luckily there wasn't any, otherwise TCAS would have stepped in. Only ATC apologizing (last words on the recording: "this was certainly not the intention, my apologies for that")
Some lessons to be learned for sure, but final conclusion: media overdramatizing
Last edited by DIBO; 9th Dec 2012 at 10:36.
Well, without knowing EXACTLY what happened it would APPEAR that the procedures for parallel landings need to be reviewed.
For instance; traffic from W approaches descending to 2000' and from E descending to 2500' or 3000' and also, of course, further out.
For instance; traffic from W approaches descending to 2000' and from E descending to 2500' or 3000' and also, of course, further out.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Northern skyport
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stuckgear,
The first time the joke about Schools,orphanages, terrified, plunging,falling etc was mentioned it was mildly amusing. After 100 repeats it became a bit wearing but now after a 1000 repeats it has become positively annoying. It is almost as annoying as those inane golf spectators who shout `Get in the hole` after every shot. Every time I see this comment I need at least one bottle of wine to calm down. For the sake of my liver, please desist.
The first time the joke about Schools,orphanages, terrified, plunging,falling etc was mentioned it was mildly amusing. After 100 repeats it became a bit wearing but now after a 1000 repeats it has become positively annoying. It is almost as annoying as those inane golf spectators who shout `Get in the hole` after every shot. Every time I see this comment I need at least one bottle of wine to calm down. For the sake of my liver, please desist.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although DIBO's link is for 36, surely the same must apply?
"a minimum of 1000 ft vertical separation or 3 NM radar separation shall
be provided until aircraft are established inbound on the ILS localiser
course"
What on earth happened here? Where is the safety net for R/T failure, blocked tx etc, dozy crew etc?
I agree - this needed public airing.
"a minimum of 1000 ft vertical separation or 3 NM radar separation shall
be provided until aircraft are established inbound on the ILS localiser
course"
What on earth happened here? Where is the safety net for R/T failure, blocked tx etc, dozy crew etc?
I agree - this needed public airing.
Luckily I never became an ATCO, can't even keep north from south 
Next try: procedures for parallel landings
Although not stated in the factsheet, even Arrival seems to work on seperate frequencies. Doesn't improve the situational awareness for the crews involved...
Next try: procedures for parallel landings
Although not stated in the factsheet, even Arrival seems to work on seperate frequencies. Doesn't improve the situational awareness for the crews involved...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strange, I would have thought that traffic for 18R would go down to 2000ft and 18C to 3000ft. After all, the threshold of 18C is almost a runway length south of 18R.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At Heathrow, assuming weather and other conditions are met, vertical separation is maintained until pilots see each other and are told to provide their own separation. From then on, they are turned on to the ILS without vertical separation. (Is that still the case?)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC, unfortunately the link doesn't work any longer (for me anyway). From what I can recall it referred to 36C and 36R. This incident took place on the approach to 18C and 18R. Perhaps I missed something in my haste but as I say I can't open it anymore.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good, we're all agreed then 
BOAC, you yourself mentioned that DIBO's (original) link was for 36. I guess his second link was for the 18s but I'd missed that - and still can't open it btw.
BOAC, you yourself mentioned that DIBO's (original) link was for 36. I guess his second link was for the 18s but I'd missed that - and still can't open it btw.