Near Mid-air Incident

[SimonM]

Virgin Blue and Cathay over NT.

Mid-air near miss under investigation - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[samh004]

Yikes! Why didn’t the DJ crew notice they were too close too?

 

[nlagalle]

Yikes! Why didn’t the DJ crew notice they were too close too?

20nm would possibly be outside the TCAS alarm, but don't quote me on that.

i'd be asking why they weren't questioning that they were flying on a non standard altitude for their direction (they should have been at FL360 or FL380)

 

[oz_mark]

Yikes! Why didn’t the DJ crew notice they were too close too?

I'ts not clear from the article what alerted the Cathay crew

The collision was avoided when a Cathay crew member questioned the controller about the safety of the course.

 

[albatross710]

ATSB link - AO-2009-080

An Airbus Industrie A330 was southbound at FL370 and a Boeing Company 737 was northbound on the reciprocal track also at non-standard FL370. When the crew of the A330 questioned the controller, the controller instructed the A330 crew to climb to FL380 and cleared the aircraft to divert right of track. The crew of the 737 then advised the controller they were diverting 10 NM right of track. There was a breakdown of separation standards. The investigation is continuing.

A report has not yet been released for this investigation.

 

[samh004]

ATSB link - AO-2009-080
An Airbus Industrie A330 was southbound at FL370 and a Boeing Company 737 was northbound on the reciprocal track also at non-standard FL370.

What is the standard height for a 737 on that route? Is non-standard just that they were both at FL370 not FL380, or should one be higher and one be lower? Forgive my ignorance.

 

[oz_mark]

What is the standard height for a 737 on that route? Is non-standard just that they were both at FL370 not FL380, or should one be higher and one be lower? Forgive my ignorance.

I believe they are normally at odd flight levels (330,350,370 etc) one way and even (340,360,380) the other, but stand to be corrected on this.

 

[thewinchester]

Haven't had a chance to read it in full as yet, but Ben Sandilands from Crikey's Plane Talking has a detailed commentary on the incident.

 

[pauly7]

All over the news. Virgin have come out swinging saying that there is no way it should be called a near-mid air incident and it is unfair for people to say that....

 

[samh004]

Haven't had a chance to read it in full as yet, but Ben Sandilands from Crikey's Plane Talking has a detailed commentary on the incident.

So from what I read there, Cathay simply raised the question before an alarm went off so they have to launch an investigation, but there was really no issue.

And then like clockwork, it was sensationalised in the news

 

[dajop]

And then like clockwork, it was sensationalised in the news

Yes, and I even heard it described (on one TV news) as a near miss between a Virgin Blue 737 and a Cathay Pacific A380 whilst a picture of a Cathay Pacific 747 freighter was flashed onto the screen. I guess their all jet airplanes and that's what matters.

 

[samh004]

Yes, and I even heard it described (on one TV news) as a near miss between a Virgin Blue 737 and a Cathay Pacific A380 whilst a picture of a Cathay Pacific 747 freighter was flashed onto the screen. I guess their all jet airplanes and that's what matters.

They should have gone all out and implied it was a Virgin Galactic spaceship, it’s only a small stretch

 

[drron]

The early edition of the SMH had near miss of "jumbos".now corrected.

 

[straitman]

i'd be asking why they weren't questioning that they were flying on a non standard altitude for their direction (they should have been at FL360 or FL380)

nlagalle,

The standard altitudes are a guide, not a requirement. Aircraft may vary from standard altitudes regularly for a variety of reasons which include weather through to Air Traffic Control requirements.

I suggest you read the link referred to in post #8 as it explains it all quite well.

Ben Sandilands seems a lot smarter than the 'other' Sandilands we hear about all the time :!:

 

[docjames]

Although typically, NEODD and SWEVEN.....

 

[markis10]

Under non radar separation standards, a near miss can be very far apart, although the fact both were at the same altitude on conflicting paths is something of a concern, 2000 ft separation is required unless both aircraft are RVSM approved, in which case 1000 ft would apply.

Opposite direction traffic at the same altitude is a no no under ATC101!

 

[thewinchester]

Ben Sandilands seems a lot smarter than the 'other' Sandilands we hear about all the time :!:

I second that, particularly as the poster of said link to Ben's article

I find his articles are always very well written, have a solid factual basis and cut through the BS to find the real story. He's a good read and worth having bookmarked or in the RSS reader of your choice if you're interested in the topics on his beat.

 

[markis10]

I second that, particularly as the poster of said link to Ben's article

I find his articles are always very well written, have a solid factual basis and cut through the BS to find the real story. He's a good read and worth having bookmarked or in the RSS reader of your choice if you're interested in the topics on his beat.

As an ex aviation professional I beg to differ (both PIC and ex ATC), the choice of content borders on sensationalism and the lack of knowledge is rather obvious, case in point is the incident mentioned, those aircraft should never have been given the same altitiude when they are on conflicting lateral paths, odds and evens (Quadrantal rule) do not apply above FL290 owing to the requirement to have 2000 ft separation. In fact the rules applicable here are the Semicircular/Hemispheric rules, that is,

Eastbound - Magnetic Track 000 to 179° - odd flight levels (FL 290, 330, 370, etc.)
Westbound - Magnetic Track 180 to 359° - odd flight levels (FL 310, 350, 390, etc.)

As there is no mention of RVSM, its inappropriate to say an even flight level should have been assigned. Aircraft on conflicting tracks assigned the same flight level is a very serious matter, especially when its under a non radar environment, the fact the CX crew picked up on the issue is a big credit to them!

 

[N860CR]

As mentioned, there is nothing stopping a crew requesting a non-standard flight level - its up to the controller to ensure that seperation is maintained and it seems in this case that the controller has made an error.

 

[nlagalle]

nlagalle,

The standard altitudes are a guide, not a requirement. Aircraft may vary from standard altitudes regularly for a variety of reasons which include weather through to Air Traffic Control requirements.

I suggest you read the link referred to in post #8 as it explains it all quite well.

Ben Sandilands seems a lot smarter than the 'other' Sandilands we hear about all the time :!:

I guess I was trying to be simplistic about ICAO altitudes/directions. But you are right, they are a guide. just like VFR should be on the 500 as opposed to the 000

And are we sure Ben Sandilands wrote that article?? oh wait, it didn't involve Qantas!