TCAS event over the bight today with two QF A330s

[amaroo]

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

Pretty sure the ABC news quoted 25 seconds......wasn't focusing as the burritos needed to come out of the oven.

 

[mannej]

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

It's funny that the passengers reaction was very non-fussed, yet the media carried on like it was the end of the world!

 

[Pushka]

They did say the planes were at the same altitude and just 20 seconds apart. Heading towards each other. And that one of the detection systems didn't function.

So really, it's as close as we'd want to get in Australia. If the media reports are correct.

 

[Melburnian1]

One advantage to the media's concentration on such occurrences is that the investigator (ATSB) will hopefully consider informing the community in its report about how often such incidents have occurred in Australia in say the last five years, and more importantly how this record compares to other Western nations' airspace.

If it determines that to include such a comparison would be outside its normal terms of reference for such safety (alleged) breach reports, you can bet that the new Minister will expect such questions from the media.

It may be unfair to write media reports as if it was the 'fault' of the airline for 'having a near miss', but readers or viewers are annoyed by reports that state 'two planes...' when the information (in this case) 'two Qantas planes' is known by the government agencies or other stakeholders.

It's not always true that any incidents involving VA receive minimal publicity. The Mildura 'fog' event received fairly high exposure in the print media.

QF says publicly that it wants to maintain its '65 per cent market share as a line in the sand.' Dominant companies often attract more publicity (good and bad): the business pages often feature Wesfarmers' Bunnings competing against Woolworths' Masters. For the business pages to discuss Mitre10 is rarer.

 

[mono88]

It's funny that the passengers reaction was very non-fussed, yet the media carried on like it was the end of the world!

Yes...they were still around to have a non-fussed reaction.
I don't think the media overreacted in reporting the story as the stories I saw (ch 9 news) seemed reasonable.
The only issue I think is that it should not have been the lead, although it was a "slow" news day.

 

[mannej]

C7 over here carried on and on.

 

[RooFlyer]

It's funny that the passengers reaction was very non-fussed, yet the media carried on like it was the end of the world!

Say they missed each other by 10 seconds or some other 'very close' measure. The Captain still wouldn't have come over the PA and said "Phew, that was a close one!" and the pax still would have disembarked non-fussed, being non the wiser until some-one on the ground told them.

 

[pauly7]

The interesting thing now with a bit more information to hand is that media outlets are now praising Qantas for having great pilots and attacking the air controllers even more...

No news Corp leading the way...

Qantas pilots praised for averting mid-air crash over Adelaide following air-traffic control blunder

http://mobile.news.com.au/national-...-control-blunder/story-fnii5yv4-1226724017862

 

[Melburnian1]

Here is some more information (coupled with speculation):

Two Qantas jets involved in serious mid-air 'near miss' | Plane Talking

The allegation in some quarters that one of the planes' TCAS failed to work is serious, but since the official report will take a year if the previous modus operandi of the ATSB ia any guide, we all have to wait until then.

 

[mannej]

Here is some more information (coupled with speculation):

Two Qantas jets involved in serious mid-air 'near miss' | Plane Talking

The allegation in some quarters that one of the planes' TCAS failed to work is serious, but since the official report will take a year if the previous modus operandi of the ATSB ia any guide, we all have to wait until then.

There is a lot of speculation and not much info that is out there currently.

According to BS, the TCAS allegations have surfaced due to the comments made by one of the pilots involved which are quite ambiguous in nature.

I am sure it'll be confirmed in due time.

 

[N860CR]

Some terrible reporting as per usual so it's hard to get to the truth. The current round of "hero" pilots BS would be pretty embarrassing for the crews and I feel for them at the moment. Sydney's wonderful Daily Telegraph (!) seems to think there's only 1 pilot on each aircraft as there are only 2 "smart" "hero" pilots apparently.

It seems the aircraft at 38,000' "asked permission to rise" (DT words!) and I'm going to say that was to 40,000'. With the opposite direction at 39,000, this created a conflict that the TCAS identified and resolved. The actual distance of separation is fairly irrelevant. It will be interesting to see which flight director mode the climbing crew used as this would have had an impact on the actions of the TCAS system and may explain why only one gave a resolution advisory.

At the end of the day, the controller made a mistake. There are systems in place to protect against that and it worked well in this case.

 

[serfty]

Reports this morning indicate a verticle separation of 200 metres which is less then the mandated minimum on these routes of 300 metres.

The Avherald has the following: "Radar data suggest minimum separation reduced to 700 feet vertical and 5.6nm lateral at 02:13:55Z."

To put that into perspective, that's indicates the smallest altitude differential was ~210metres when the aircraft were over 10km apart.

Incident: Qantas A332 and Qantas A332 near Adelaide on Sep 20th 2013, loss of separation

 

[N860CR]

That sounds about right. As soon as the aircraft commenced climb within 5NM of the other aircraft it would have basically given an immediate advisory.

 

[markis10]

Reports this morning indicate a verticle separation of 200 metres which is less then the mandated minimum on these routes of 300 metres.

The Avherald has the following: "Radar data suggest minimum separation reduced to 700 feet vertical and 5.6nm lateral at 02:13:55Z."

To put that into perspective, that's indicates the smallest altitude differential was ~210metres when the aircraft were over 10km apart.

Incident: Qantas A332 and Qantas A332 near Adelaide on Sep 20th 2013, loss of separation

Vertical separation minima are not used when there is a climb in cruise on reciprocal tracks approved, this should have been done after confirmation of passing + 10 NM, aircraft may be at the same level in cruise provided 15nm of lateral separation exists at all times as well as wake turbulence minima if required. Radar separation standards are 5nm which may have come close to being the area of concern.

 

[Skyring]

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

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

I thought it was a "miss" rather than a "near miss"?

 

[Melburnian1]

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

The confirmation by an experienced pilot that the distance was 213 metres and particularly his comment about 'it's not that easy' is concerning, coming as it does not just from a member of the media:

Qantas 'seconds away from mid-air collision'

Quick back of the envelope calculations suggest that the two aircraft were flying at an average speed of 900 kilometres an hour.

The most useful information would be how often such incidents occur in Australian airspace and how our performance compares with what may be even more densely populated (by aircraft) US, European and Asian airspace.

 

[GCC]

Say they missed each other by 10 seconds or some other 'very close' measure. The Captain still wouldn't have come over the PA and said "Phew, that was a close one!" and the pax still would have disembarked non-fussed, being non the wiser until some-one on the ground told them.

I was on this flight, in a middle seat in row 2 and had absolutely no idea there has been any incident until a colleague who was also on board saw the C7 news coverage. No PA announcement, no crew panic, no strange manoeuvres. The only thing out of the ordinary was that we sat at the gate for 5-10 minutes before we were allowed to diseumbark. The Captain advised this was because we were waiting for ground power so as to be able to shut down engines, but you have to wonder.

When we arrived in Perth a news crew was interviewing some pax in the arrivals area, and even then we didn't know what the story was. I assumed it was something to do with the Dockers v Swans game.

 

[lukenet]

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

If the TCAS did not trigger on both aircraft, maybe it was not as close as the media are making out.

 

[Melburnian1]

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

lukenet, it's now not just the media. Stakeholders such as a QF captain (who is also a union official) have now added their voice to the discussion. Perhaps the TCAS failed on one of the two aircraft: the ATSB report will (in a long time) let us know that one way or the other.

These sorts of incidents must be worrying for airline management and spin doctors because even if what occurred was the domain of ATC and not staff on board the jets, many readers of the print media and website media site viewers would remember the story as 'Qantas...close to colliding.'

QF's use of the term 'no impact' (to passengers) in a press statement was a poor choice of words. Usage of the word 'impact' should be confined to where the author means 'collision', not 'effect' or 'adverse consequences' as QF's media gurus really meant to convey in their communciation.

 

[markis10]

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

The confirmation by an experienced pilot that the distance was 213 metres and particularly his comment about 'it's not that easy' is concerning, coming as it does not just from a member of the media.

I would not be concerned, the planes were never 213 metres apart and may as well been a media comment, for instance:

The two aircraft ultimately missed each other by just 700 feet (213 metres), said Mr Woodward, with QF581 flying directly underneath QF576.

We know that's BS based on the AV Hearld data.