TCAS event over the bight today with two QF A330s

[markis10]

Qantas planes in 'near-miss' over Great Australian Bight - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has confirmed the apparent "near-miss" between two aircraft about lunchtime.
CASA said evasive action was required when the aircraft got too close to each other.
Qantas confirmed two of its aircraft were involved, but denied there was any near-miss.
Airservices Australia, which manages air traffic controllers, said it was aware of the incident but could not make any further comment.

http://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/qantas-responds/qantas-statement-a330-loss-of-separation

 

[RooFlyer]

Two QFs in 'loss of separation' incident.

Bit surprised this hasn't been posted earlier. If I missed, it, mods pls merge.

Two domestic QF planes involved in a 'loss of separation' over great Australian Bight: Qantas planes in 'near-miss' over Great Australian Bight - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).

Let the speculation begin!

 

[codash1099]

Re: Two QFs in 'loss of separation' incident.

What's the precise difference between a "near miss" and a "loss of separation"?

 

[markis10]

Re: Two QFs in 'loss of separation' incident.

What's the precise difference between a "near miss" and a "loss of separation"?

Loss of separation means they were not near each other but still illegally separated. A near miss means they got close.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: Two QFs in 'loss of separation' incident.

Whilst perfectly true, this line from the QF announcement could perhaps have been put better:

There was no impact to passengers.

 

[NM]

Re: Two QFs in 'loss of separation' incident.

What's the precise difference between a "near miss" and a "loss of separation"?

Technically, "near miss" implies the two aircraft nearly missed each other, or by implication that they didn't quite miss, meaning they hit each other. But of course we know that was not the case. So it was not a near miss. if anything, it may be described as a "near collision", but even that does not seem to be an accurate reflection of the events. So "loss of separation" does seem to be a more appropriate term.

 

[markis10]

Re: Two QFs in 'loss of separation' incident.

Technically, "near miss" implies the two aircraft nearly missed each other, or by implication that they didn't quite miss, meaning they hit each other. But of course we know that was not the case. So it was not a near miss. if anything, it may be described as a "near collision", but even that does not seem to be an accurate reflection of the events. So "loss of separation" does seem to be a more appropriate term.

A near miss is simply a miss that was near, you can have a loss of separation where the aircraft are tens or (even hundreds) of kilometers apart and were not near at all. Its been around a long time, on one of the first references being in a life magazine article from 1940.

LIFE - Google Books

 

[blu]

Re: Two QFs in 'loss of separation' incident.

700 feet (200 mts) being reported on TV news for the ADL incident & averted by the pilot/s.

 

[docjames]

Re: Two QFs in 'loss of separation' incident.

I'm not sure if these type of "incidents" are happening more often, or reflect increased reporting?

On a similar pondering: How does the frequency compare to say the US in relation to incidents/1000 flights?

 

[VHOEJ]

So this is the top news story tonight? Usual media hysterics

Air traffic control got it wrong - the controller has been stood done. At least Boeing and Airbus have planes with systems that can largely prevent what we don't want to happen

 

[backseatdriver]

How did this even make the news?

 

[Melburnian1]

When these incidents occur, are air traffic controllers typically stood down with, or without pay?

Does their 'suspension' typically last for just a day or two (until initial media interest dies down), or until ATSB or the investigating body(ies) hand(s) down it or their reports (whether internally to government or later via a website to the public) or is there no 'one size fits all' scenario?

Given that controllers are human and not infallible, is there any tolerance by management of an individual so employed making his or her only (or very rare) mistake (and therefore not being sacked or redeployed to 'desk' duties other than ATC tower or sector work), or is it more a case of 'you must never make any mistake and to do so indicates that we lack confidence in your ability given that mistakes may - despite collision avoidance systems on planes - result in very serious consequences?'

 

[phily]

How did this even make the news?

It was the leading news item on 7 tonite. Why? If they'd collided then probably 600 people would have died, AND Channel 7 was able to get passenger reactions at the airport, to make it even more sensational. It makes a great story. What we all know is that TCAS alerted both crews to the impending problem and instructed them to take evasive action, which of course was very successful.

 

[Sprucegoose]

It's just a case of intended systems working. One less hole in that Swiss cheese!

 

[Rox]

At least Boeing and Airbus have planes with systems that can largely prevent what we don't want to happen

There was a brief mention on the ABC news bulletin that there was a query about one of the planes' collision warning systems .

 

[Programme]

Heard about this on the radio a few times on the way home and it is currently one of the front page stories on The Age online.Qantas planes' mid-air near-miss investigated

All articles did stress a "Qantas near miss" or words to that effect. While undoubtedly both planes were QF A330s, the implication is that the QF pilots 'weren't looking where they were going and nearly crashed', while there was little, if any, discussion about the role of ATC in the media. Put it down to Qantas bashing.

 

[robs12]

If distance was really 700 feet apart, or 300m depending on what you read, then that is pretty damn close....

 

[mannej]

If distance was really 700 feet apart, or 300m depending on what you read, then that is pretty damn close....

Are we talking about vertical separation?
Isn't normal vertical separation minimum normally 1000 feet?

Saying that it does raise some questions.

 

[pauly7]

Heard about this on the radio a few times on the way home and it is currently one of the front page stories on The Age online.Qantas planes' mid-air near-miss investigated

All articles did stress a "Qantas near miss" or words to that effect. While undoubtedly both planes were QF A330s, the implication is that the QF pilots 'weren't looking where they were going and nearly crashed', while there was little, if any, discussion about the role of ATC in the media. Put it down to Qantas bashing.

Yes it seems to be getting quite a lot more attention than when VA puttered down a jet in an emergency landing on fuel fumes alone after almost running out of gas a few months back

Simply put - anything newsworthy with Qantas involved and it is guaranteed to be sensationalized. Virgin - meh, just a mention at best.

 

[samh004]

If distance was really 700 feet apart, or 300m depending on what you read, then that is pretty damn close....

Are we talking about vertical separation?
Isn't normal vertical separation minimum normally 1000 feet?

Saying that it does raise some questions.

By this same token, if they're talking about vertical separation alone, with horizontal separation being much greater, does this mean that while they may have been quite close in height, they were actually many KM's away from each other anyway?