TCAS event over the bight today with two QF A330s

[mannej]

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.

Apart from the conjecture on Ben's article, the whole notion of the TCAS failing is due to the ambiguous language heard from another pilot.

There are members on here who have had experience working in ATC so would be better placed to make comment on how close things actually were

 

[Melburnian1]

Some terrible reporting as per usual so it's hard to get to the truth.

If the 'Daily Telegraph' article had a byline (i.e. name of the reporter), perhaps an AFFer with technical knowledge might calmly ring the journalist concerned on Monday morning and explain the terms to use in future (as long as they would be comprehensible by the general public). If it was written by a news bureau staff member, you can also call it during weekday business hours and often be put straight through to the author.

Editors or sub-editors impose word limits on articles based on how important each story is ranked at news conferences, and how many column centimetres the paper has to fill on each page. It might be difficult for a reporter to include the words 'the plane increased its altitude to...' when substituting that with 'the plane rose to...' saves quite a few characters.

If reporters uses terms in stories that cannot be understood by readers, sub-editors are likely to change the wording.

Another constraint is with the 24 hour news cycle, the print media's online sites are under pressure to get stories out as quickly as possible, especially now that they can be competing against the immediacy of Twitter.

So rather than complaining about errors by the mainstream media, why not try to track down the journalist on the telephone and engage in a little education? Most reporters will be pleased that someone rang them rather than firing off a letter to the editor (which if it was too technical would not get published anyway).

 

[nlagalle]

If the 'Daily Telegraph' article had a byline (i.e. name of the reporter), perhaps an AFFer with technical knowledge might calmly ring the journalist concerned on Monday morning and explain the terms to use in future (as long as they would be comprehensible by the general public). If it was written by a news bureau staff member, you can also call it during weekday business hours and often be put straight through to the author.

Editors or sub-editors impose word limits on articles based on how important each story is ranked at news conferences, and how many column centimetres the paper has to fill on each page. It might be difficult for a reporter to include the words 'the plane increased its altitude to...' when substituting that with 'the plane rose to...' saves quite a few characters.

If reporters uses terms in stories that cannot be understood by readers, sub-editors are likely to change the wording.

Another constraint is with the 24 hour news cycle, the print media's online sites are under pressure to get stories out as quickly as possible, especially now that they can be competing against the immediacy of Twitter.

So rather than complaining about errors by the mainstream media, why not try to track down the journalist on the telephone and engage in a little education? Most reporters will be pleased that someone rang them rather than firing off a letter to the editor (which if it was too technical would not get published anyway).

Melburian1 as someone who works in the print media already, your guesswork on how a story is produced is totally wrong.. Best you not comment on things you don't know how they work.

As to the article, I was sitting across from a journalist yesterday when she was trying to get information, I told her it wasn't actually a big deal coming from someone who holds a pilots license, rather that someone with a creative license makes it a big deal..

 

[whatmeworry]

Another article about the incident.

Two Qantas planes involved in a near-miss over Adelaide on Friday were just 25 seconds from a disastrous mid-air collision, according to the Australian International Pilots Association.
QF581 was flying from Sydney to Perth at 38,000 feet and QF576 from Perth to Sydney was flying at 39,000 feet when the lower-flying craft received permission from an air traffic controller to ascend to 40,000 feet.

Read more: Qantas 'seconds away from mid-air collision'
​

 

[albatross710]

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

This is the link to the ATSB Incident Investigation.

Apologies if it has already been posted.

I tried playing with the payback function here, but couldn't really get any sense from it. I'll post in the case someone else can.

QF581 / QFA581 Live flight info - Flightradar24

 

[Sprucegoose]

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

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


a.

Do we know what the seperation was?

 

[Sprucegoose]

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

This is the link to the ATSB Incident Investigation.

Apologies if it has already been posted.

I tried playing with the payback function here, but couldn't really get any sense from it. I'll post in the case someone else can.

QF581 / QFA581 Live flight info - Flightradar24

Thanks mate, ATSB have this listed as a serious incident. Although they give themselves a year to investigate, presumably to include the apparent failure of a TCAS, to be investigated.

 

[NM]

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

Do we know what the seperation was?

Separation is measured in two ways, vertical separation and lateral separation. Vertical separation has been reported as being reduced to 213m at one point, but at that same time lateral separation was 5.6nm.

So the two aircraft were within 213m of the same altitude, but still 5.6nm apart at that point in time. They were never within 213m of each of each other.

 

[Sprucegoose]

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

Separation is measured in two ways, vertical separation and lateral separation. Vertical separation has been reported as being reduced to 213m at one point, but at that same time lateral separation was 5.6nm.

So the two aircraft were within 213m of the same altitude, but still 5.6nm apart at that point in time. They were never within 213m of each of each other.

Yes well that's more sensible and less dramatic from what you could see in the press. I take it lateral seperation was never challenged?

 

[basso]

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

Separation is measured in two ways, vertical separation and lateral separation. Vertical separation has been reported as being reduced to 213m at one point, but at that same time lateral separation was 5.6nm.

I thought a lateral separation of 5.6nm was ok?

 

[NM]

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

Yes well that's more sensible and less dramatic from what you could see in the press. I take it lateral seperation was never challenged?

Lateral separation can be zero ... as is the case when two aircraft pass over/under each other at different altitudes. Vertical separation can also be zero as two aircraft pass through the same altitude. So both need to be considered at the same time. Its the combination that causes problems

So being closer than 300m vertical separation when 5.6nm apart is a breach of separation and is an "event" that needs to be investigated with the aim of properly understanding why it happened and what can be done to reduce the probability of it happening again. But its not like the pilots could wave to each other as they swerved to avoid sharing paint.

 

[NM]

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

I thought a lateral separation of 5.6nm was ok?

It is, providing vertical separation of at least 300m is maintained at the same time.

 

[straitman]

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

NM,

Thanks for bringing some logic back into the story. If people actually read all of the posts in the thread rather than being selective then the answer is there for all to see. Apart from what one or two scaremongers are saying here it seems that there never was any 'real' danger even if 'normal' tolerances were breached.

There are members on here who have had experience working in ATC so would be better placed to make comment on how close things actually were

Which is why I place a lot more credence upon the comments from markis10 than from a few others who only seem to be out to stir the pot :!:

 

[markis10]

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

I thought a lateral separation of 5.6nm was ok?

It is, providing vertical separation of at least 300m is maintained at the same time.

Radar separation could have planes at same level and in fact 3nm apart (subject to wake turbulence requirements) dependant on the conditions being met:

Where:
(a) aircraft are in communication with and under the control of a terminal control unit or associated control tower; and
(b) the aircraft are:
(i) within 30 NM of a radar sensor, using military high definition (scan rate of 12 RPM or greater) Terminal Approach Radar (TAR) or primary data from a civil high definition TAR (scan rate of
16.4 RPM); or
(ii) within 100 NM of an MSSR sensor providing radar data to EUROCAT 2000 displays; and
(c) aircraft position is derived only from radar information;
the horizontal radar separation minimum is:
(d) 3NM;or
(e) where a higher minimum applies under subsection 10.12.2.2 — that higher minimum.

If subsection 10.12.2.2 does not apply, the horizontal separation minimum based on radar or ADS-B information is:
(a) (b)
5NM;or if a higher minimum applies under subsection 10.12.2.2 — that higher minimum.


I don't believe there has been a breakdown of separation and I think the ATSB will find that to be the case unless the ADSB data we are using is erroneous, however I do find the situation a bit close to the bone. I would imagine TCAS went into TA mode and never got to RA mode if the ADSB data we have is correct, since its stated if did to into RA mode it will be interesting to find out why, I note EBO's TCAS never went into RA.

 

[Boris spatsky]

TCAS RAs are triggered by the RA envelope being penetrated. It is based on expected time to impact and not pure distance, so quite feasibly one aircraft could get an RA and the other may not. I have had an incident overseas where we had an RA in IMC yet the other aircraft on a crossing track only had a TA.

 

[Melburnian1]

While the ATSB has indicated that this report will take 12 months (which implies 'release to the community' in that timeframe), its reports vary widely in the time they take.

One 2011 'loss of separation' incident over Queensland took about 19 months to be publicly released:

Investigation: AO-2011-090 - Loss of separation involving Boeing 737, VH-VZC and Boeing 737, VH-VOT at BLAKA

while another matter involving the safety of a helicopter brand took almost four years. Yet some other aviation incidents have had a report finalised within four months, so there is no hard and fast rule.

At least with the current incident, there are no fragments to collect from the ground, which may take time to locate and have analysed.

 

[mannej]

At least with the current incident, there are no fragments to collect from the ground, which may take time to locate and have analysed.

Wow - isn't that a bit sensationalist?

 

[Boris spatsky]

While the ATSB has indicated that this report will take 12 months (which implies 'release to the community' in that timeframe), its reports vary widely in the time they take.

One 2011 'loss of separation' incident over Queensland took about 19 months to be publicly released:
AO-2011-090 - Loss of separation involving Boeing 737, VH-VZC and Boeing 737, VH-VOT

while another matter involving the safety of a helicopter brand took almost four years. Yet some other aviation incidents have had a report finalised within four months, so there is no hard and fast rule.

So what is your point?

 

[Melburnian1]

I told her it wasn't actually a big deal coming from someone who holds a pilots license, rather that someone with a creative license makes it a big deal..

The well read aviation journalist Ben Sandilands, who has a sense of history about him (he's always reminding us of previous aviation occurrences) does not agree with you:

Adelaide fall-out: Airservices is dangerously incompetent | Plane Talking

And here, with a mention of the ATSB's 12 month timeline for its report being too long, is another article by Mr Sandilands that has more recently popped up:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetal...y-two-a330s-how-to-calibrate-its-seriousness/

He's hardly a scaremongerer. Like or dislike him, he at least endeavours to mount an arguable case on technical matters (albeit that there is what one AFFer said was 'an ambiguous conversation between two pilots' at stake in this most recent incident).

Have the aviation regulators (CASA, ATSB, AirServices Australia) been 'captured' by QF, VA, airport lessees and so on?

This can be a big danger in any industry.

Do we need the Australian Senate to enquire further into these sorts of incidents? Senator Nick Xenophon might well agree, based on his past utterances. With the incident occurring near Adelaide, he might take even more interest!

 

[mono88]

The well read aviation journalist Ben Sandilands, who has a sense of history about him (he's always reminding us of previous aviation occurrences) does not agree with you:



And here, with a mention of the ATSB's 12 month timeline for its report being too long, is another article by Mr Sandilands that has more recently popped up:



He's hardly a scaremongerer. Like or dislike him, he at least endeavours to mount an arguable case on technical matters (albeit that there is what one AFFer said was 'an ambiguous conversation between two pilots' at stake in this most recent incident).

Have the aviation regulators (CASA, ATSB, AirServices Australia) been 'captured' by QF, VA, airport lessees and so on?

This can be a big danger in any industry.

Do we need the Australian Senate to enquire further into these sorts of incidents? Senator Nick Xenophon might well agree, based on his past utterances. With the incident occurring near Adelaide, he might take even more interest!

Interesting articles from Ben Sandilands with some valid points.
While there is an investigation underway with the usual political oversight into this incident, what we don't need is another bout of grandstanding by politicians.
If critical issues are identified in the course of the investigation then they can be addressed at that time without waiting for the investigation to be concluded.