Aircraft Proximity report
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the Army we had a hard and fast rule...Say **** all...and let the person who is paid and trained for to speak to the jornos. That way any little phrase that you say even in jest, cannot be interpreted as a shock horror story for the gutter.
They will do it, it is our jobs that we are speaking about, some of you should be ashamed of yourselves... probably spotters...if the cap fits, wear it. Shut Up.
I listerned to radio one today, and I can only say that the radio news service is complete and utter garbage...garbage and yet more dumb garbage.
The language and content of the news stories is insulting to the listener much is fabricated. It is amazing how the real news is missed for sentsationalism.
I am sure that you have observed how many have read this forum and not commented.
"Please help ASAP..." says it all really...
They will do it, it is our jobs that we are speaking about, some of you should be ashamed of yourselves... probably spotters...if the cap fits, wear it. Shut Up.
I listerned to radio one today, and I can only say that the radio news service is complete and utter garbage...garbage and yet more dumb garbage.
The language and content of the news stories is insulting to the listener much is fabricated. It is amazing how the real news is missed for sentsationalism.
I am sure that you have observed how many have read this forum and not commented.
"Please help ASAP..." says it all really...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just taking a pause from the main thread for a while, and just delving into the journo-bashing bit.
I would just like to take 2 minutes of the collective audience from the media to suggest something. And that is, once an article is written why don't you send it to the Ops department for the airline/airport concerned for them to comment on its factual content. If they don't want it published then that’s one thing, but they may be able to point out that the 'Jumbo' was in fact something completely different. Post Sep11 we need passengers to have a positive attitude to flying, by taking out the little mistakes contained in the articles may enhance that a little. You may even get some more respect from the readers of this forum!
Your thoughts please...Cough
I would just like to take 2 minutes of the collective audience from the media to suggest something. And that is, once an article is written why don't you send it to the Ops department for the airline/airport concerned for them to comment on its factual content. If they don't want it published then that’s one thing, but they may be able to point out that the 'Jumbo' was in fact something completely different. Post Sep11 we need passengers to have a positive attitude to flying, by taking out the little mistakes contained in the articles may enhance that a little. You may even get some more respect from the readers of this forum!
Your thoughts please...Cough
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does seem rather unlikely that having descended to a level 1000above the dash 8, that TCAS would command a further descent..........it doesn't work that way.
Seems that this is what actually happenned. We'll wait for the final investigation to take place but the results I fear will not be in favour of TCAS. This has happenned before on a much less severe scale, and is triggered by high rate of descent/climb, TCAS assesses the closure rate and decides to act accordingly. Its why ATC, when able, will give traffic info to IFR in Classes A/B. Our conflict alert will be activated, so we ensure both aircraft are aware of each other and re-inforce the cleared levels. I say 'when able' as its not a requirement, and there are times when far more important things need to be done.
Seems that this is what actually happenned. We'll wait for the final investigation to take place but the results I fear will not be in favour of TCAS. This has happenned before on a much less severe scale, and is triggered by high rate of descent/climb, TCAS assesses the closure rate and decides to act accordingly. Its why ATC, when able, will give traffic info to IFR in Classes A/B. Our conflict alert will be activated, so we ensure both aircraft are aware of each other and re-inforce the cleared levels. I say 'when able' as its not a requirement, and there are times when far more important things need to be done.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: etha
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are pilots losing faith in TCAS or even ATC as a result of all these incidents?? I ask as the usual night time short cuts we ATCers are happy to comply with, seem to be getting turned down recently as soon as the 'outside CAS it'll be a RAS' is added. Its very unusual for this to happen as in my experiences a/c are not descended below FL100, and its officially night time, so if anything is out there it has to display Mode A AND C and will normally be in contact with an ATC unit somewhere. Even if its not our unit we can decifer from the Squalk which it is and then communicate accordingly. Have airlines imposed any restrictions concerning this because it baffled me when one after another turned down the short cut 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I'll still be following the TCAS. We have yet to see anything concrete on the TCAS status of the Tu154, or whether or not it issued an RA, or whether or not it was followed were it issued. That, to me, means there is no evidence of a TCAS failure in this situation. A smoking hole in the ground there may be, but until such time as there is proof positive of a TCAS failure I'll go with the untold number of potential collisions averted rather than the one incident in which it may have been a causal factor. What I think we will see is an increased awareness of the risks of high climb/descent rates when proximate with other traffic and a reduction in the number of RAs as a result. Perhaps its time to specify maximum as well as minimum rates of climb and descent in congested airspace?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: London
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Journo bashing
Hope I'm not too late to get involved in this or add my tuppence worth, but I think the idea of having some
members who are willing to talk the press is a great idea. And yes I work for a newspaper. Personally speaking,
I think the idea of having experts in their fields to talk to is incredibly useful and would welcome links
between journos and professionals on here.
In an ideal world a paper's transport correspondent would have contacts who could answer all their questions,
and would be available on the end of a phone as and when they needed to talk to them. Unfortunately that doesn't
always happen. Transport corrs usually cover a huge area - trains, planes, boats, cars, unions involved with
these areas, professional bodies, regulatory bodies, the government to name but a few. It's a lot of work and
it will not always be easy to get answers from official press officers who may be trained to withhold information
(when there's a disaster of some sort) rather than release it as and when they get it.
Now, I've only recently found this website, but I've found it very useful. Mostly in terms of understanding terms
and things because I haven't really had much contact with anyone else on it. In trying to answer cough's
question: in my own experience I haven't had the luxury of time to send copy to airlines to get them to go
through it for mistakes. I've been working nights and the two recent crashes I've covered (simply because I'm
working - I'm not the transport corr and have no background in transport) have been a matter of hours before our final deadlines. They've also happened in the evenings and that's also not a good time to get most people at work.
When you do get someone they seem more concerned at limiting liability than telling you what happened.
Professionally speaking I, like most journalists I would think, don't like to get things wrong but it does happen
given the time constraints we work under. The paper I work for has a policy of trying to correct any mistakes
as soon as possible if we're notified of them. I believe the paper is happy to do this, because we know we don't
always get it right. We also think it means people will trust us more if we're seen to be willing to correct our
errors. A case of we got it wrong, we'll hold our hands up and say, sorry we'll try not to do it again.
As for why we try to find out what has happened I think it is because people want to know. If there's been a
crash or a near miss, that is news and people want to know about it. I'm not advocating that we speculate as
to why these things happen, but if by talking to professionals who can give educated opinions on something
then we'll try to use that in context. Waiting for an official investigation and report (while still reporting it
when it comes out) does not tell people the news, and if a plane has crashed then people need to be told. I agree
that we shouldn't (and would like to think we don't) jump to any conclusions about a crash, but if there's
relevant information then we should include it.
This post is a bit longer than I intended so I'll stop now, but what I will say is that if anyone has any questions
they think I can answer I'll gladly do my best to reply. Most of us see our jobs as letting people know what has
happened, and reporting accurately on the events. I know sometimes that doesn't always happen and that
sometimes papers will run stories that are sensationalist - if you read those sorts of papers then you can
probably expect it. My advice would be don't read them. But do remember, we're less likely to make mistakes
if we have people who know what they're talking about who can tell us, and help us get it right.
members who are willing to talk the press is a great idea. And yes I work for a newspaper. Personally speaking,
I think the idea of having experts in their fields to talk to is incredibly useful and would welcome links
between journos and professionals on here.
In an ideal world a paper's transport correspondent would have contacts who could answer all their questions,
and would be available on the end of a phone as and when they needed to talk to them. Unfortunately that doesn't
always happen. Transport corrs usually cover a huge area - trains, planes, boats, cars, unions involved with
these areas, professional bodies, regulatory bodies, the government to name but a few. It's a lot of work and
it will not always be easy to get answers from official press officers who may be trained to withhold information
(when there's a disaster of some sort) rather than release it as and when they get it.
Now, I've only recently found this website, but I've found it very useful. Mostly in terms of understanding terms
and things because I haven't really had much contact with anyone else on it. In trying to answer cough's
question: in my own experience I haven't had the luxury of time to send copy to airlines to get them to go
through it for mistakes. I've been working nights and the two recent crashes I've covered (simply because I'm
working - I'm not the transport corr and have no background in transport) have been a matter of hours before our final deadlines. They've also happened in the evenings and that's also not a good time to get most people at work.
When you do get someone they seem more concerned at limiting liability than telling you what happened.
Professionally speaking I, like most journalists I would think, don't like to get things wrong but it does happen
given the time constraints we work under. The paper I work for has a policy of trying to correct any mistakes
as soon as possible if we're notified of them. I believe the paper is happy to do this, because we know we don't
always get it right. We also think it means people will trust us more if we're seen to be willing to correct our
errors. A case of we got it wrong, we'll hold our hands up and say, sorry we'll try not to do it again.
As for why we try to find out what has happened I think it is because people want to know. If there's been a
crash or a near miss, that is news and people want to know about it. I'm not advocating that we speculate as
to why these things happen, but if by talking to professionals who can give educated opinions on something
then we'll try to use that in context. Waiting for an official investigation and report (while still reporting it
when it comes out) does not tell people the news, and if a plane has crashed then people need to be told. I agree
that we shouldn't (and would like to think we don't) jump to any conclusions about a crash, but if there's
relevant information then we should include it.
This post is a bit longer than I intended so I'll stop now, but what I will say is that if anyone has any questions
they think I can answer I'll gladly do my best to reply. Most of us see our jobs as letting people know what has
happened, and reporting accurately on the events. I know sometimes that doesn't always happen and that
sometimes papers will run stories that are sensationalist - if you read those sorts of papers then you can
probably expect it. My advice would be don't read them. But do remember, we're less likely to make mistakes
if we have people who know what they're talking about who can tell us, and help us get it right.
