Near miss over East London
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simply put, if you think of an upside down wedding cake there'll be some controlled airspace around busier airports that goes down to ground level and then steps up as you go further away to a control area, then terminal control area and then in to airways.
An airline flight in and out of LCY will be conducted totally inside controlled airspace.
This might be of interest.
An airline flight in and out of LCY will be conducted totally inside controlled airspace.
This might be of interest.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see these matters are only a technicality now 
Hope the big boys got the message before it was dulled.
As if to reinforce gone fishing's point number 2, we just had another dance in the same sky just 20 minutes ago. The light single (PA28 maybe) looked like it was on a VFR South to North transit clearance at "not above 2400" ... he got as far as Canary Wharf and then turned back to the safety of the shadows behind my gaff. While he was orbiting back there, an executive jet took off from City on 28 and departed right turn out to the sky where the light aircraft would have been had he not done a 180. Then undaunted, the light aircraft had another go, this time making good a nice straight path just to the east of CW while a heavy manaevred for the LHR approach well above him (maybe still at 7000) but with his landing light on:-)
Don't get me wrong, I like to see a bit of live and let live when there is plenty of slack (there was nothing else in the sky right then) and it is more or less CAVOK this evening.
Hope the big boys got the message before it was dulled.
As if to reinforce gone fishing's point number 2, we just had another dance in the same sky just 20 minutes ago. The light single (PA28 maybe) looked like it was on a VFR South to North transit clearance at "not above 2400" ... he got as far as Canary Wharf and then turned back to the safety of the shadows behind my gaff. While he was orbiting back there, an executive jet took off from City on 28 and departed right turn out to the sky where the light aircraft would have been had he not done a 180. Then undaunted, the light aircraft had another go, this time making good a nice straight path just to the east of CW while a heavy manaevred for the LHR approach well above him (maybe still at 7000) but with his landing light on:-)
Don't get me wrong, I like to see a bit of live and let live when there is plenty of slack (there was nothing else in the sky right then) and it is more or less CAVOK this evening.
As an aside on the 6th of August I was inbound to LCY and as the aircraft turned onto base I observed a light aircraft pass under the Dornier offset approx 250" and below by slightly more, couldn't comment on the slant range but it was quite alarming
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me now Roffa but I may have held my tongue once too many times already. I think that as experienced and as unassailably knowledgable as you are, you are perhaps inadvertently straying into pedantry by continually pointing the finger at me as if we all need to learn something from the finger-pointing. Can I not gently get you to agree that perhaps that might be risking deflecting the main issue in this thread?
Those of us that are focussed on the main issue have been in www.levelbust.com long since.
You have also several times asked us to believe that this piece of airspace is no more risky than any other which relies on 1000 foot separations.
As you know I haven't accepted that view which I think is too general. You got me thinking ok perhaps he means fast executive jet traffic so what about Fairoaks to the south, and Biggin Hill, and Northolt of course, and Stansted traffic at the upper levels ? But none of those is quite like the 'in your face' peak flows from London City is it?
To me Roffa, your latter posts sound much the same as saying "close the thread - there is nothing new to learn".
As you know, I reckon this East London bit of airspace is unique. You seem to be saying it's no big deal. I have easily accepted your statements of fact but I am less comfortable with the subjective stuff.
I mean for goodness sakes, I don't mean to spoil it for the hoards of Biggin Hill and Elstree clubbers who've been crossing it for years, but not only has this bit of sky got all the ingredients discussed, but on some balmy sunny days it has occasional Cherokee drivers teetering across it at "not above 2400". Sometimes I wonder if they are under any control at all judging from the fact that one or two have sometimes been west of Canary Wharf when they do it
And then I check myself - nearly two decades ago I WAS on a clearance from 132.7 so I wasn't completely without hope, but I was too far west to be able to land clear on the few green bits remaining! So I got a fine view of the western face of the single CW tower that existed on that Sunday teatime just before dusk and the controller kindly double-checked my type, then bit his lip while the ramifications of the query sunk in to my wetware - hell it might even have been you !
Getting as far as Canary Wharf on a transit in a PA28 and then having to scuttle back out of the way is not how it was planned by either Thames or the pilot I think. Being stopped a mile or two further south and told to orbit when it is realised that departing IFR traffic is being held on the 28 at LCY is of course more easily acceptable.
Share more of your views with us please if you can. I guess after 20 years you have to balance all sorts of interests when away from the screen and the accommodation of low-level single engine traffic in this zone is is just one you'll have regularly offered a view on, no doubt. but do please continue to enlighten us on the hotspots.
Those of us that are focussed on the main issue have been in www.levelbust.com long since.
You have also several times asked us to believe that this piece of airspace is no more risky than any other which relies on 1000 foot separations.
As you know I haven't accepted that view which I think is too general. You got me thinking ok perhaps he means fast executive jet traffic so what about Fairoaks to the south, and Biggin Hill, and Northolt of course, and Stansted traffic at the upper levels ? But none of those is quite like the 'in your face' peak flows from London City is it?
To me Roffa, your latter posts sound much the same as saying "close the thread - there is nothing new to learn".
As you know, I reckon this East London bit of airspace is unique. You seem to be saying it's no big deal. I have easily accepted your statements of fact but I am less comfortable with the subjective stuff.
I mean for goodness sakes, I don't mean to spoil it for the hoards of Biggin Hill and Elstree clubbers who've been crossing it for years, but not only has this bit of sky got all the ingredients discussed, but on some balmy sunny days it has occasional Cherokee drivers teetering across it at "not above 2400". Sometimes I wonder if they are under any control at all judging from the fact that one or two have sometimes been west of Canary Wharf when they do it
And then I check myself - nearly two decades ago I WAS on a clearance from 132.7 so I wasn't completely without hope, but I was too far west to be able to land clear on the few green bits remaining! So I got a fine view of the western face of the single CW tower that existed on that Sunday teatime just before dusk and the controller kindly double-checked my type, then bit his lip while the ramifications of the query sunk in to my wetware - hell it might even have been you !
Getting as far as Canary Wharf on a transit in a PA28 and then having to scuttle back out of the way is not how it was planned by either Thames or the pilot I think. Being stopped a mile or two further south and told to orbit when it is realised that departing IFR traffic is being held on the 28 at LCY is of course more easily acceptable.
Share more of your views with us please if you can. I guess after 20 years you have to balance all sorts of interests when away from the screen and the accommodation of low-level single engine traffic in this zone is is just one you'll have regularly offered a view on, no doubt. but do please continue to enlighten us on the hotspots.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slip and turn,
It's not finger pointing, it's just replying to stuff that you post.
I'm not sure what you mean by the above? If you're somehow involved with the NATS Level Best campaign maybe you could let me know in what capacity just so that I know what level to pitch any further responses at. I'm well acquainted with the main folk running it from the NATS side and it would give me a better idea of your level of knowledge and understanding, your profile doesn't give much away.
It's not finger pointing, it's just replying to stuff that you post.
Those of us that are focussed on the main issue have been in www.levelbust.com long since.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roffa just think of me as the guy with the big north pointer and the hot dinners. I am nothing whatever to do with the folks in the levelbust project, just an interested bystander 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nice, FR
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it would give me a better idea of your level of knowledge and understanding
For heavens sake, even the network management guys I worked with over 20 years ago worked out that a pre-cursor to a site being isolated was one of the two routers being down and so we knew when it happened, every time. AND you did not have to be working to know it had happened, ANYONE authorised to work on it could connect and say "We had a Router down at 8:30".
How you can let someone build a system for you that does not allow you to know with certainty how often you have lost separation when we know that that is a pre-cursor to a collision is absolutely beyond me and it is WAY WAY off best practise in performance management. Of course it might be the tops in the closed world of ATC but I think you could really do to cast your net a little wider. I too have visited the link you pointed me to for Level Busts and it needs a lot of work if it is pitched at the man in the street, if it is pitched at professionals then things are in a sorry state. (IMHO)
Flame Off - Bye, will not bother you further.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
paull,
We do have a Separation Monitoring Function that tells us automatically when we've lost separation (subject to certain parameters).
We don't have anything that will automatically record a level bust on its
own at this point in time.
The reason for asking level of knowledge is that there's little point in going on about flight rules, separation standards, ATC rules, procedures and how the airspace around London is organised in any great depth if the other party doesn't know exactly, or at least have a reasonable knowledge, of what is being talked about. This thread has already demonstrated that to some extent, limited knowledge has lead to false assumptions. That's in no way meant to cast any aspersions on any contributer, it's just a fact. The amount of time I can spend here is finite, I can and will answer questions to a certain degree but I can't spend enough time to always go in to great detail to cover for the lack of knowledge for those outside the ATC/commercial pilot world.
Sorry.
We do have a Separation Monitoring Function that tells us automatically when we've lost separation (subject to certain parameters).
We don't have anything that will automatically record a level bust on its
own at this point in time.
The reason for asking level of knowledge is that there's little point in going on about flight rules, separation standards, ATC rules, procedures and how the airspace around London is organised in any great depth if the other party doesn't know exactly, or at least have a reasonable knowledge, of what is being talked about. This thread has already demonstrated that to some extent, limited knowledge has lead to false assumptions. That's in no way meant to cast any aspersions on any contributer, it's just a fact. The amount of time I can spend here is finite, I can and will answer questions to a certain degree but I can't spend enough time to always go in to great detail to cover for the lack of knowledge for those outside the ATC/commercial pilot world.
Sorry.
Last edited by Roffa; 17th Aug 2007 at 21:25.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OFCOL Roffa!
When was the last time you made a false assumption about things well within your grasp had you but looked at it, lately? How much sugar is in 100g of your regular bowl of Kelloggs Rice Krispies, for example (assuming you do have time for breakfast!). You are like a dog with a bone, you old war horse you
.... go on, SMile 
... you know we love you really !
Use any jargon you feel comfortable with. We are all here simply in the pursuit of knowledge and you have that in Spades so if we get stuck we'll sort ourselves out and put our hands up or you'll correct us (just the once oughta do it!)
When was the last time you made a false assumption about things well within your grasp had you but looked at it, lately? How much sugar is in 100g of your regular bowl of Kelloggs Rice Krispies, for example (assuming you do have time for breakfast!). You are like a dog with a bone, you old war horse you
.... go on, SMile ... you know we love you really !Use any jargon you feel comfortable with. We are all here simply in the pursuit of knowledge and you have that in Spades so if we get stuck we'll sort ourselves out and put our hands up or you'll correct us (just the once oughta do it!)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Age: 51
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<From the lhr.... website:
AC866 goes down to 3369 feet displayed on base leg before coming back up to 4232 feet shortly before intercepting.
Taken from the succeeding 747: 3925 feet displayed equals 4000 ft QNH, so the lowest of AC866 was around 3450 ft QNH.
While Mode-S altitude resolution is 25 feet (Mode-C 100 feet), where do these altitude data come from?>>
Data is supplied into the noise and track keeping system direct from the NATS SSR.
AC866 goes down to 3369 feet displayed on base leg before coming back up to 4232 feet shortly before intercepting.
Taken from the succeeding 747: 3925 feet displayed equals 4000 ft QNH, so the lowest of AC866 was around 3450 ft QNH.
While Mode-S altitude resolution is 25 feet (Mode-C 100 feet), where do these altitude data come from?>>
Data is supplied into the noise and track keeping system direct from the NATS SSR.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cardiff, UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paull and slip turn, there is a systematic way of checking level busts - they look at the level readout from the Mode C / S transponder . There is a new radar type being used in TC that will show the level set in the AP, aswell as the current level, so that can help - but again, I know of a Captain who will make his FO fly a 742 freehand from FL150 to landing to make him, "gain experience" (the FO loves it by the way - seriously) - but it shows that this is useless. At the end of the day, human factors are always apart of aviation, and I don't know if I wish for them to be gotten rid of - then there wouldn't be any "Roffa"s and "Taffy1"s around to answer your questions, because they will have all been replaced if we go on your sort of realm of let technology take over. You know, they were bringing in a TCAS type III, and in the RA, aswell as trying to regain seperation through vertical adjustments, it will apply horizontal instructions - however it was scrapped - one of the reasons I believe because it was deemed to take too much control away from the pilots (they should be able to apply there own lateral manoeuvres themselves).
Level busts are not the only thing, there are CAS busts (aircraft entering CAS without clearance) and in fact one guy did so, and flew for an hour over Heathrow without talking to anybody halting departures and arrivals until Northolt got the flare guns out
You must understand, and respect that there are humans up front, and on the ground and they do an amazing job (so much so, I hope to join the "family" when I'm older), but they can make mistakes. That may seem crazy to you. Yet, you are safer flying to Alicante than you are to catch a taxi to the airport. It's a matter of just having to accept the statistics. Safety is always a prime concern for the aviation sector, and pilot error has dramatically decreased over the years as the cause for error - however, it still exists. A book I once read, I feel appropriately sums it up: "Accidents are so rare in America and Europe that virtually anything that the authorities and the airlines do to make flying safer will not reduce the accident rate by any appreciable statistical means." You may ask yourself, why is he rambling on about this, but I feel at the end of the day, that is what you are venturing towards - flight safety in general and within the UK. Well, let me remind you that we have some of the safest and most efficient Aviation authority and Air traffic service providers. The LTMA is very busy airspace. Although I do not know the exact percentage, about half of the UK airspace is known as "open FIR" or class G airspace (Class F and G are uncontrolled). We cannot manage to make all of it controlled airspace, not even Canada - where ALOT of there airspace is controlled - they still have uncontrolled airspace and aerodromes. I hope you start to see what is being said.
Regards,
G_F.
. There is a new radar type being used in TC that will show the level set in the AP, aswell as the current level, so that can help - but again, I know of a Captain who will make his FO fly a 742 freehand from FL150 to landing to make him, "gain experience" (the FO loves it by the way - seriously) - but it shows that this is useless. At the end of the day, human factors are always apart of aviation, and I don't know if I wish for them to be gotten rid of - then there wouldn't be any "Roffa"s and "Taffy1"s around to answer your questions, because they will have all been replaced if we go on your sort of realm of let technology take over. You know, they were bringing in a TCAS type III, and in the RA, aswell as trying to regain seperation through vertical adjustments, it will apply horizontal instructions - however it was scrapped - one of the reasons I believe because it was deemed to take too much control away from the pilots (they should be able to apply there own lateral manoeuvres themselves).Level busts are not the only thing, there are CAS busts (aircraft entering CAS without clearance) and in fact one guy did so, and flew for an hour over Heathrow without talking to anybody halting departures and arrivals until Northolt got the flare guns out
You must understand, and respect that there are humans up front, and on the ground and they do an amazing job (so much so, I hope to join the "family" when I'm older), but they can make mistakes. That may seem crazy to you. Yet, you are safer flying to Alicante than you are to catch a taxi to the airport. It's a matter of just having to accept the statistics. Safety is always a prime concern for the aviation sector, and pilot error has dramatically decreased over the years as the cause for error - however, it still exists. A book I once read, I feel appropriately sums it up: "Accidents are so rare in America and Europe that virtually anything that the authorities and the airlines do to make flying safer will not reduce the accident rate by any appreciable statistical means." You may ask yourself, why is he rambling on about this, but I feel at the end of the day, that is what you are venturing towards - flight safety in general and within the UK. Well, let me remind you that we have some of the safest and most efficient Aviation authority and Air traffic service providers. The LTMA is very busy airspace. Although I do not know the exact percentage, about half of the UK airspace is known as "open FIR" or class G airspace (Class F and G are uncontrolled). We cannot manage to make all of it controlled airspace, not even Canada - where ALOT of there airspace is controlled - they still have uncontrolled airspace and aerodromes. I hope you start to see what is being said.Regards,
G_F.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G_F perhaps I led you astray / set a bad posting example with the old PA28 anecdotal stuff. I'm sorry...Can we please return to the main issue in this thread and either leave it at that, or develop it with info about more airspace hotspots without losing the crux of the matter. That was surely: to inform all those commercial pilots and airspace planners that might not already have it foremost in their minds that airspace hotspots do exist in places where it perhaps hasn't been much highlighted before ...
From this thread so far, in Summary for LHR and LCY pilots
1-Vertical separation is the only thing that is enforced between LCY and LHR tracks.
2-There was none in this case.
3-LHR 27 approach traffic be extremely careful not to sink and bust 4000 in vicinity of LCY
4-LCY 28 departure traffic be extremely careful not to climb above 3000 same vicinity.
"forewarned is forearmed"
I suspect that this is all too much of a political hot potato for any others to be highlighted ... but we live in hope ...
From this thread so far, in Summary for LHR and LCY pilots
1-Vertical separation is the only thing that is enforced between LCY and LHR tracks.
2-There was none in this case.
3-LHR 27 approach traffic be extremely careful not to sink and bust 4000 in vicinity of LCY
4-LCY 28 departure traffic be extremely careful not to climb above 3000 same vicinity.
"forewarned is forearmed"
I suspect that this is all too much of a political hot potato for any others to be highlighted ... but we live in hope ...
Last edited by slip and turn; 9th Sep 2010 at 19:24. Reason: I meant LCY28, sorry it took 3 years to put it right!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think I have to come in and give Roffa some support for what he seems to have done in this thread. Before I go into any detail about the thread itself I will offer my credentials as a controller for the last 30 years or so. I have not worked the London area so I cannot give expert opinion on the procedures in the specific area in question (and, frankly, I don't have the charts to hand - or the will - to try an analyse the situation).
The first post appears to give details of a loss of separation followed by a TCAS RA. I don't see anyone who has suggested that an occurrence did not take place. If the events originally reported are correct it will be subject to investigation.
Roffa profile says he does ATC and his posts on this thread and others in the past show him to be both technically expert and very patient in explaining how the ATC system works in terms that can be easily understood by those with only a passing or no knowledge of aviation. If he makes a comment on the way that ATC in the London area is done then it must carry some weight!
On the topic of separation, 1000ft vertical separation (or a metric value which is broadly equivalent) is 'standard separation' and is used the world over between aircraft either under active control (i.e. following specific instructions from a controller) or in pre-defined procedures which are intended to ensure separation between aircraft in the same locality. The pre-defined procedures used in this area - where operations into Heathrow and London City are largely independent of each other - are designed to reduce/minimise the need for co-ordination between the controllers providing the service to traffic using the two airports. This is a technique that not only increases capacity but also reduces the risk of errors occurring during co-ordination.
From the perspective of applying vertical separation, there is absolutely no reason for the airspace under consideration to be treated in a special way. It is true to say that traffic density has increased over the years but the hazards that this may create are mitigated by the development and implementation of both ground-based and airborne systems to provide what are commonly referred to as 'safety nets'. These provide a warning that the normal separation criteria may have been eroded (perhaps as a result of an error) in sufficient time for action to be taken to avoid any further deterioration of the situation and, ultimately, to avoid a collision.
Whilst paull may be '...horrified that you do not appear to have a systematic way of knowing whether someone actually busts a level...' it is not for want of trying - much effort has been expended trying to do this and it is getting closer. Sadly it's not as simple as the router example you give. Routers are are fairly straightforward devices that will do what they're told to, know what they've been told to do and can monitor how well they are performing (or can be monitored) without substantially affecting their performance. The ATC system includes a human within the system and a multitude of potential circumstances and rules with which to resolve the traffic situation. The fundamental problem is that most radar systems are not aware of the cleared level of each aircraft, and thus able to detect deviations. There are clearance adherence monitoring systems under development which are showing promise for the en-route environment but impose too heavy a workload penalty in the terminal environment to be practical at present (although developments are continually taking place and perhaps someone with more recent experience in these systems may be able to offer some comment).
slip and turn's posts appear to be becoming more and more eccentric and I am not inclined to waste my time and try to respond to the few points that have not already been comprehensively addressed by Roffa. It does appear that the proverbial little knowledge may be causing a problem here. However I will apologise if I have used any jargon in my post that causes confusion.
The first post appears to give details of a loss of separation followed by a TCAS RA. I don't see anyone who has suggested that an occurrence did not take place. If the events originally reported are correct it will be subject to investigation.
Roffa profile says he does ATC and his posts on this thread and others in the past show him to be both technically expert and very patient in explaining how the ATC system works in terms that can be easily understood by those with only a passing or no knowledge of aviation. If he makes a comment on the way that ATC in the London area is done then it must carry some weight!
On the topic of separation, 1000ft vertical separation (or a metric value which is broadly equivalent) is 'standard separation' and is used the world over between aircraft either under active control (i.e. following specific instructions from a controller) or in pre-defined procedures which are intended to ensure separation between aircraft in the same locality. The pre-defined procedures used in this area - where operations into Heathrow and London City are largely independent of each other - are designed to reduce/minimise the need for co-ordination between the controllers providing the service to traffic using the two airports. This is a technique that not only increases capacity but also reduces the risk of errors occurring during co-ordination.
From the perspective of applying vertical separation, there is absolutely no reason for the airspace under consideration to be treated in a special way. It is true to say that traffic density has increased over the years but the hazards that this may create are mitigated by the development and implementation of both ground-based and airborne systems to provide what are commonly referred to as 'safety nets'. These provide a warning that the normal separation criteria may have been eroded (perhaps as a result of an error) in sufficient time for action to be taken to avoid any further deterioration of the situation and, ultimately, to avoid a collision.
Whilst paull may be '...horrified that you do not appear to have a systematic way of knowing whether someone actually busts a level...' it is not for want of trying - much effort has been expended trying to do this and it is getting closer. Sadly it's not as simple as the router example you give. Routers are are fairly straightforward devices that will do what they're told to, know what they've been told to do and can monitor how well they are performing (or can be monitored) without substantially affecting their performance. The ATC system includes a human within the system and a multitude of potential circumstances and rules with which to resolve the traffic situation. The fundamental problem is that most radar systems are not aware of the cleared level of each aircraft, and thus able to detect deviations. There are clearance adherence monitoring systems under development which are showing promise for the en-route environment but impose too heavy a workload penalty in the terminal environment to be practical at present (although developments are continually taking place and perhaps someone with more recent experience in these systems may be able to offer some comment).
slip and turn's posts appear to be becoming more and more eccentric and I am not inclined to waste my time and try to respond to the few points that have not already been comprehensively addressed by Roffa. It does appear that the proverbial little knowledge may be causing a problem here. However I will apologise if I have used any jargon in my post that causes confusion.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cardiff, UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to add, seeing as slip and turn doesn't seem to understand - one method of seperation - either vertical seperation or lateral seperation more than adequate means of safely dealing with aircraft. If you had to have both in place, I think that the air traffic management in the LTMA would collapse. There would be extensive delays, aircraft would have to carry more and more fuel because they would be holding for longer in the stacks, ATCOs would become more stressed, so would pilots, and your perhaps looking at more chance of a collision. Lateral and vertical seperation is not an option. It's one or the other. And that's perfectly fine. Now you could get really fussy and never have aircraft go over each other, because even with 4,000ft of seperation, if that pilot decides too, in certain aircraft, he can cover that descent more than quick enough to cause an airprox and possibly a collision. Such seperation is impractical and unnecessary aslong as pilots comply with ATC instructions when inside CAS. If they don't it backs down to TCAS and (unreliable at the speeds most commericial jets travel at) the "see and avoid" principal.
Regards,
G_F.
Regards,
G_F.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitoon nice to have your input. I understand everything you say except a couple of things:
1. Why having written so much you haven't got the will and inclination to have a look at this bit of airspace in a little more detail.
2. Why you think that my mentioning that politics might compromise safety is "eccentric". The TAM/Congonhas thread might be worth a read on that one.
Take a fresh look at the title of this thread, g_f. Then tell me again what is more than adequate about your sepAration / suck eggs lesson?
vsim
1. Why having written so much you haven't got the will and inclination to have a look at this bit of airspace in a little more detail.
2. Why you think that my mentioning that politics might compromise safety is "eccentric". The TAM/Congonhas thread might be worth a read on that one.
Originally Posted by g_f
...seeing as slip and turn doesn't seem to understand - one method of seperation - either vertical seperation or lateral seperation more than adequate means of safely dealing with aircraft.
vsim
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cardiff, UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Separation was lost, but as I said again, any other way and it will have terrible consequences. The way I see it, I think your trying to make a point that is something that is actually more insensible than it is worth. As for "sucking eggs lesson", please provide your experience and I will apologise. As it seems from one of your posts, you seem to make a reference that you went flying "a long time ago" in a PA28 (after commenting seeing somebody else fly one near City). Now, I don't see how that means you really have anymore experience than me in ATC providing seperation for you. Sure, you may have got the old, "Extend your downwind, your number 2 to the Boeing 727 on 5 mile final, orbit right if necessary" stuff, but hardly seperation of this grade. Then again, if it was more than 10 years ago then I have no way of commenting seeing as the rules, procedures etc are way different to know from them.
I'm sorry to make the following comment, but it almost feels like I'm hitting a wall, because you are not taking the important bits out of my comments, and are only picking at anything you find that might give you something to say.... the experts have spoken above, I have siad my little bit (from what very little knowledge I have) and you still seem to be arguing.
I'm sorry to make the following comment, but it almost feels like I'm hitting a wall, because you are not taking the important bits out of my comments, and are only picking at anything you find that might give you something to say.... the experts have spoken above, I have siad my little bit (from what very little knowledge I have) and you still seem to be arguing.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that this is all too much of a political hot potato for any others to be highlighted ... but we live in hope ...
slip and turn, if you have the "credentials" you'll know how and where to raise any concerns, issues or serious solutions you might have such that something will actually be achieved over and above an obscure thread on PPRuNE. I look forward to continuing any further debate there.
Last edited by Roffa; 18th Aug 2007 at 10:45.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by slip and turn
Spitoon nice to have your input. I understand everything you say except a couple of things:
1. Why having written so much you haven't got the will and inclination to have a look at this bit of airspace in a little more detail.
2. Why you think that my mentioning that politics might compromise safety is "eccentric". The TAM/Congonhas thread might be worth a read on that one.
1. Why having written so much you haven't got the will and inclination to have a look at this bit of airspace in a little more detail.
2. Why you think that my mentioning that politics might compromise safety is "eccentric". The TAM/Congonhas thread might be worth a read on that one.
2. I found references to Rice Krispies for breakfast to be eccentric. Safety is always in balance with other things - it has to be if we want the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed. Comparing today's environment outside your window with that of 20 years ago may well lead you to think that traffic density is greater now but the rest of the system has also evolved in that time - both from the safety perspective and politically.
It takes some years to train to be a controller and many more years to understand today's ATM system. A passing aquaintance with some of the rules often causes confusion as appears to be the case with some of the posts on this thread.
Originally Posted by slip and turn
Your powers of analysis haven't even come close to establishing my credentials and because aviation is a small world and I value my anonymity especially when discussing safety issues I shall not be divulging any more than you can (or cannot) read between the lines. One day you might know as much as I have forgotten.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good day Spitoon
You make a good point:
I guess that's partly why line checks are necessary (knowledge of the rules isn't enough to be safe).
On the questions of Rice Krispies on the one hand, and childish insults on the other, the first was I agree a perhaps eccentric attempt at lightening the dialogue and the second was a less than perfect put-down for the child (because he got up again!)
Can I put my overall point another way perhaps? Will you consider an analogy between airspaces and airframes?
We all know each airframe is different. Many of us remember the picture of the 737 with the lid rolled back like a sardine can. Many of us can think back much further. The DH Comet. Stressline hotspots for want of better words, leading to material fatigue, and finally failure.
My point is that every different airspace whilst designed by experts, nevertheless will be discovered to contain hotspots. Airframes get older, and so do airspaces. Whilst refits are sometimes economic, you can analyse the hell out of a problematic airframe but ultimately the best place for it generally is on a scrapheap in the desert. Airspaces can't so easily be scrapped so the way they evolve is of immense interest surely? One might also be forgiven for imagining that from time to time the 'expert' controllers, pilots, airspace designers and regulatory authorities might be firefighting to keep them operating ? We actually know this is so on a macro scale - look at the hoo-ha we have in the London area on the question of increased runway capacity alone. All kinds of non-expert interests are involved and interesting things happen like the set up of that fascinating Webtrak (noise-lobby induced) site which I had no idea existed until I read this thread.
I don't claim to be an expert in anything other than paddling my own canoe, otherwise I'd spend my time in courtrooms getting paid for it, but on the other hand I am loathe to accept that my knowledge is proverbally dangerous just because I sometimes use it to pose awkward questions and conjure up uncomfortable analogies.
You experts now work in an ever more transparent environment - myths get debunked very quickly ....
You make a good point:
A passing aquaintance with some of the rules often causes confusion ...
On the questions of Rice Krispies on the one hand, and childish insults on the other, the first was I agree a perhaps eccentric attempt at lightening the dialogue and the second was a less than perfect put-down for the child (because he got up again!)
Can I put my overall point another way perhaps? Will you consider an analogy between airspaces and airframes?
We all know each airframe is different. Many of us remember the picture of the 737 with the lid rolled back like a sardine can. Many of us can think back much further. The DH Comet. Stressline hotspots for want of better words, leading to material fatigue, and finally failure.
My point is that every different airspace whilst designed by experts, nevertheless will be discovered to contain hotspots. Airframes get older, and so do airspaces. Whilst refits are sometimes economic, you can analyse the hell out of a problematic airframe but ultimately the best place for it generally is on a scrapheap in the desert. Airspaces can't so easily be scrapped so the way they evolve is of immense interest surely? One might also be forgiven for imagining that from time to time the 'expert' controllers, pilots, airspace designers and regulatory authorities might be firefighting to keep them operating ? We actually know this is so on a macro scale - look at the hoo-ha we have in the London area on the question of increased runway capacity alone. All kinds of non-expert interests are involved and interesting things happen like the set up of that fascinating Webtrak (noise-lobby induced) site which I had no idea existed until I read this thread.
I don't claim to be an expert in anything other than paddling my own canoe, otherwise I'd spend my time in courtrooms getting paid for it, but on the other hand I am loathe to accept that my knowledge is proverbally dangerous just because I sometimes use it to pose awkward questions and conjure up uncomfortable analogies.
You experts now work in an ever more transparent environment - myths get debunked very quickly ....