Flight Level Near Midair
11-01-2007 | 09:32 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,899
Likes: 0
From: Leftof longitudinal
Ok, so I'm about 99.99% sure that this was me. If it's true, it happened about two months ago and if it's not me, than that makes this even scarier since this exact scenario happened with me two months ago.
The cargo a/c had an emergency of some sort and was going over us on the arrival as we were headed west. There was weather in the area that we needed to deviate for. The controller kept telling us we couldnt' get higher because of the emergency going over top of us which was fine with us, we couldnt' climb much more anyway. We finally were able to convince center we needed to go right for the weather which they gave us.
About 10 seconds later we got the TA (Traffic Advisory), the preliminary status letting us know a conflict could occur if nothing changes. We noticed he was at the same altitude and I was able to pick him out between two buildups, as soon as we got the visual on him we got the RA (Resolution Advisory) telling us to climb. We started to climb and as we were climbing I informed ATC what we were doing but they blocked us telling the other a/c to get back on altitude. His RA was telling him to descend (heard on the tapes) but that's when I noticed that he was climbing too. We started a left turn to avoid him. It was close, but none of the pax or the fa noticed a thing. Once the other guy realized what was going on he did descend per his RA.
The only thing I would say is that, I had some close calls when I was flight instructing, like a T-6 coming over the top and dropping in front of you, but this was different. We are all professional pilots who NEED to do what we're trained to do. I won't ever say I can't understand why the other guy climbed, with ATC yelling at him, I understand the temptation. But please please chalk this up as a learning experience for everyone. You must follow the RA, MUST.
If the other a/c had followed the RA there would have been no issues, other than a loss of seperation, but by ignoring it, there were 55-60 people's lives put in jeopardy. Like I said, I will never fault the other guy for this, I'm just happy that we acted in a manner that kept us all safe.
The cargo a/c had an emergency of some sort and was going over us on the arrival as we were headed west. There was weather in the area that we needed to deviate for. The controller kept telling us we couldnt' get higher because of the emergency going over top of us which was fine with us, we couldnt' climb much more anyway. We finally were able to convince center we needed to go right for the weather which they gave us.
About 10 seconds later we got the TA (Traffic Advisory), the preliminary status letting us know a conflict could occur if nothing changes. We noticed he was at the same altitude and I was able to pick him out between two buildups, as soon as we got the visual on him we got the RA (Resolution Advisory) telling us to climb. We started to climb and as we were climbing I informed ATC what we were doing but they blocked us telling the other a/c to get back on altitude. His RA was telling him to descend (heard on the tapes) but that's when I noticed that he was climbing too. We started a left turn to avoid him. It was close, but none of the pax or the fa noticed a thing. Once the other guy realized what was going on he did descend per his RA.
The only thing I would say is that, I had some close calls when I was flight instructing, like a T-6 coming over the top and dropping in front of you, but this was different. We are all professional pilots who NEED to do what we're trained to do. I won't ever say I can't understand why the other guy climbed, with ATC yelling at him, I understand the temptation. But please please chalk this up as a learning experience for everyone. You must follow the RA, MUST.
If the other a/c had followed the RA there would have been no issues, other than a loss of seperation, but by ignoring it, there were 55-60 people's lives put in jeopardy. Like I said, I will never fault the other guy for this, I'm just happy that we acted in a manner that kept us all safe.
I'll be blunt since many here are putting themselves and your pax in harms way by putting way to much faith in a system that has some significant limitations. My comments do not refer to this specific situation that happened to you, but could have very easily been reversed to have occurred.
FACT: You state the other a/c was an emergency aircraft. Many aircraft, (can't speak for the RJ/ERJ's,) but mine and others restrict the TCAS to TA ONLY when you have lost an engine, etc and therefore don't get an RA. Why? cannot guarantee climb performance according to TCAS performance curve. RA's assume full engine capability. Lose an engine, what is your AOM procedure? Do you know what other AOM's say? I don't, I just know that I am not going to trust you to be able to follow your RA (assuming you even have one) when you have declared an emergency. I will avoid you like a mountain. I do not know what caused your emergency or the performance of the crew nor your aircraft
Our and other manuals say TCAS-TA Only with loss of engine(s). Any time I approach an aircraft that has declared an emergency, especially in wx, you should ask to steer clear. The SA of that crew is probably distracted at best. Anything can happen to cause altitude excursions in an emergency. (trim runaway/hydraulic failures/electrical problems/smoke/etc. Take FMS and a/p away from some crews is nearly an emergency <g>)
Slam away. I'll still be suspect of an emergency aircraft in a RA/TA situation.
Last edited by SaltyDog; 11-01-2007 at 09:41 PM.
11-01-2007 | 09:36 PM
#32
Airport Hobo
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
FMS navigation is so acurate now, that if you are on an airway and converging with someone on the same airway in opposite directions.... it is directly head on.
We had a C141 one day pass 1000 feet above us about a year ago, and ATC cautioned us he would pass overhead (they arent required to and they dont all the time) and with the angle of the sun we didnt see that guy until it would have been too late. Probably around 800-900 knots closure.
We had a C141 one day pass 1000 feet above us about a year ago, and ATC cautioned us he would pass overhead (they arent required to and they dont all the time) and with the angle of the sun we didnt see that guy until it would have been too late. Probably around 800-900 knots closure.
Edit:
Scratch that, it isn't just RVSM. Actually this is an interesting read:
5-1-8. MERGING TARGET PROCEDURES
a. Except while they are established in a holding pattern, apply merging target procedures to all radar identified:
1. Aircraft at 10,000 feet and above.
2. Turbojet aircraft regardless of altitude.
REFERENCE-
P/CG Term- Turbojet Aircraft.
3. Presidential aircraft regardless of altitude.
b. Issue traffic information to those aircraft listed in subpara a whose targets appear likely to merge unless the aircraft are separated by more than the appropriate vertical separation minima.
EXAMPLE-
"Traffic twelve o'clock, seven miles, eastbound, MD-80, at one seven thousand."
"United Sixteen and American Twenty-five, traffic twelve o'clock, one zero miles, opposite direction, eastbound seven twenty seven at flight level three three zero, westbound MD-Eighty at flight level three one zero."
c. When both aircraft in subpara b are in RVSM airspace, and vertically separated by 1,000 feet, if either pilot reports they are unable to maintain RVSM due to turbulence or mountain wave, vector either aircraft to avoid merging with the target of the other aircraft.
EXAMPLE-
"Delta One Twenty Three, fly heading two niner zero, vector for traffic. Traffic twelve o'clock, one zero miles, opposite direction, MD-80 eastbound at flight level three two zero."
d. If the pilot requests, vector his/her aircraft to avoid merging with the target of previously issued traffic.
NOTE-
Aircraft closure rates are so rapid that when applying merging target procedures, controller issuance of traffic must be commenced in ample time for the pilot to decide if a vector is necessary.
e. If unable to provide vector service, inform the pilot.
NOTE-
The phraseology "Unable RVSM due turbulence (or mountain wave)" is only intended for severe turbulence or other weather encounters with altitude deviations of approximately 200 feet or more.
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff...5/atc0501.html
Last edited by flyandive; 11-01-2007 at 09:40 PM. Reason: Found the source
11-01-2007 | 09:43 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,899
Likes: 0
From: Leftof longitudinal
Sort of. In RVSM airspace if there is 1000' between opposite direction aircraft they are required to give an advisory to the lower aircraft. Doesn't always happen but ASAP it if you are the lower aircraft. Actually, I think this came about because of ASAP reports. Oddly enough in the 7110 it's referred to as "Merging Targets," how inhumane. Total optical illusion when head on, really freaky.
Edit:
Scratch that, it isn't just RVSM. Actually this is an interesting read:
5-1-8. MERGING TARGET PROCEDURES
a. Except while they are established in a holding pattern, apply merging target procedures to all radar identified:
1. Aircraft at 10,000 feet and above.
2. Turbojet aircraft regardless of altitude.
REFERENCE-
P/CG Term- Turbojet Aircraft.
3. Presidential aircraft regardless of altitude.
b. Issue traffic information to those aircraft listed in subpara a whose targets appear likely to merge unless the aircraft are separated by more than the appropriate vertical separation minima.
EXAMPLE-
"Traffic twelve o'clock, seven miles, eastbound, MD-80, at one seven thousand."
"United Sixteen and American Twenty-five, traffic twelve o'clock, one zero miles, opposite direction, eastbound seven twenty seven at flight level three three zero, westbound MD-Eighty at flight level three one zero."
c. When both aircraft in subpara b are in RVSM airspace, and vertically separated by 1,000 feet, if either pilot reports they are unable to maintain RVSM due to turbulence or mountain wave, vector either aircraft to avoid merging with the target of the other aircraft.
EXAMPLE-
"Delta One Twenty Three, fly heading two niner zero, vector for traffic. Traffic twelve o'clock, one zero miles, opposite direction, MD-80 eastbound at flight level three two zero."
d. If the pilot requests, vector his/her aircraft to avoid merging with the target of previously issued traffic.
NOTE-
Aircraft closure rates are so rapid that when applying merging target procedures, controller issuance of traffic must be commenced in ample time for the pilot to decide if a vector is necessary.
e. If unable to provide vector service, inform the pilot.
NOTE-
The phraseology "Unable RVSM due turbulence (or mountain wave)" is only intended for severe turbulence or other weather encounters with altitude deviations of approximately 200 feet or more.
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff...5/atc0501.html
Edit:
Scratch that, it isn't just RVSM. Actually this is an interesting read:
5-1-8. MERGING TARGET PROCEDURES
a. Except while they are established in a holding pattern, apply merging target procedures to all radar identified:
1. Aircraft at 10,000 feet and above.
2. Turbojet aircraft regardless of altitude.
REFERENCE-
P/CG Term- Turbojet Aircraft.
3. Presidential aircraft regardless of altitude.
b. Issue traffic information to those aircraft listed in subpara a whose targets appear likely to merge unless the aircraft are separated by more than the appropriate vertical separation minima.
EXAMPLE-
"Traffic twelve o'clock, seven miles, eastbound, MD-80, at one seven thousand."
"United Sixteen and American Twenty-five, traffic twelve o'clock, one zero miles, opposite direction, eastbound seven twenty seven at flight level three three zero, westbound MD-Eighty at flight level three one zero."
c. When both aircraft in subpara b are in RVSM airspace, and vertically separated by 1,000 feet, if either pilot reports they are unable to maintain RVSM due to turbulence or mountain wave, vector either aircraft to avoid merging with the target of the other aircraft.
EXAMPLE-
"Delta One Twenty Three, fly heading two niner zero, vector for traffic. Traffic twelve o'clock, one zero miles, opposite direction, MD-80 eastbound at flight level three two zero."
d. If the pilot requests, vector his/her aircraft to avoid merging with the target of previously issued traffic.
NOTE-
Aircraft closure rates are so rapid that when applying merging target procedures, controller issuance of traffic must be commenced in ample time for the pilot to decide if a vector is necessary.
e. If unable to provide vector service, inform the pilot.
NOTE-
The phraseology "Unable RVSM due turbulence (or mountain wave)" is only intended for severe turbulence or other weather encounters with altitude deviations of approximately 200 feet or more.
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff...5/atc0501.html
11-01-2007 | 10:09 PM
#34
New Hire
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Cripes amighty. You folks blasting this "one of the big two' cargo crew need some reflection time. Our safety folks haven't said anything, and am sure the ASRS/ASAP reports would have been filed and disseminated like all the rest filed where I work. So I don't think it was us.
I'll be blunt since many here are putting themselves and your pax in harms way by putting way to much faith in a system that has some significant limitations. My comments do not refer to this specific situation that happened to you, but could have very easily been reversed to have occurred.
FACT: You state the other a/c was an emergency aircraft. Many aircraft, (can't speak for the RJ/ERJ's,) but mine and others restrict the TCAS to TA ONLY when you have lost an engine, etc and therefore don't get an RA. Why? cannot guarantee climb performance according to TCAS performance curve. RA's assume full engine capability. Lose an engine, what is your AOM procedure? Do you know what other AOM's say? I don't, I just know that I am not going to trust you to be able to follow your RA (assuming you even have one) when you have declared an emergency. I will avoid you like a mountain. I do not know what caused your emergency or the performance of the crew nor your aircraft
Our and other manuals say TCAS-TA Only with loss of engine(s). Any time I approach an aircraft that has declared an emergency, especially in wx, you should ask to steer clear. The SA of that crew is probably distracted at best. Anything can happen to cause altitude excursions in an emergency. (trim runaway/hydraulic failures/electrical problems/smoke/etc. Take FMS and a/p away from some crews is nearly an emergency <g>)
Slam away. I'll still be suspect of an emergency aircraft in a RA/TA situation.
I'll be blunt since many here are putting themselves and your pax in harms way by putting way to much faith in a system that has some significant limitations. My comments do not refer to this specific situation that happened to you, but could have very easily been reversed to have occurred.
FACT: You state the other a/c was an emergency aircraft. Many aircraft, (can't speak for the RJ/ERJ's,) but mine and others restrict the TCAS to TA ONLY when you have lost an engine, etc and therefore don't get an RA. Why? cannot guarantee climb performance according to TCAS performance curve. RA's assume full engine capability. Lose an engine, what is your AOM procedure? Do you know what other AOM's say? I don't, I just know that I am not going to trust you to be able to follow your RA (assuming you even have one) when you have declared an emergency. I will avoid you like a mountain. I do not know what caused your emergency or the performance of the crew nor your aircraft
Our and other manuals say TCAS-TA Only with loss of engine(s). Any time I approach an aircraft that has declared an emergency, especially in wx, you should ask to steer clear. The SA of that crew is probably distracted at best. Anything can happen to cause altitude excursions in an emergency. (trim runaway/hydraulic failures/electrical problems/smoke/etc. Take FMS and a/p away from some crews is nearly an emergency <g>)
Slam away. I'll still be suspect of an emergency aircraft in a RA/TA situation.
It was a task saturated environment for all parties for sure. The controller made a mistake and we dealt with it. I truly am sorry if my commetns were thought of as an attack, you bring up many valid points and allow this to continue being a learning experience.
Both aircraft were level at their altitudes and the emergency aircraft had no problems being where they were, we never know the reason for an emergency and I'm certainly glad that it all worked out for the best. This was just a compound situation that hopefully can be a learning experience for all involved. If the other a/c was not in a position to go over the top of us we should have steered well clear, the only problem was weather made that a little challenging.
The original reason any of this was a situation at all was due to controller error, the other aircraft was actually assinged and read back the altitude correctly, they had no way of knowing we were already at that altitude.
Like I said in my earlier post, I completely understand the actions of the other crew, I think this is an opportuninty to ask ourselves what would I do, that's all.
11-02-2007 | 03:08 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,899
Likes: 0
From: Leftof longitudinal
Flying Hunter.
I was only piggybacking on your thread. Using your excellent learning tool. You did well my friend. My concern is system limitations that I believed worth a pause to seriously consider.
I was only piggybacking on your thread. Using your excellent learning tool. You did well my friend. My concern is system limitations that I believed worth a pause to seriously consider.
11-02-2007 | 01:15 PM
#36
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
People,
I just heard (from a guy who was there) about a recent very near midair between an 121 pax airliner and a large 121 cargo plane (one of the big two). The story was very disturbing...
Center made an error assigning cargo an altitude, and both aircraft ended up head-to-head at cruise speed in the flight levels.
Center's computer alerter went off at the same time as the RA's...not much time here, about 1000 knots closure, like top gun. Center starts screaming (very agitated since the seperation violation has already occured) that he told cargo a different altitude and to climb immediately....
Pax gets a climb RA, cargo gets a descend RA...good so far, but the controller's insistent screaming somehow convinces cargo to ignore the RA and climb instead
The aircraft came with a couple hundred feet and pax saved the day by executing a hard banked turn (in the 300 flight levels).
It was determined that the controller assigned cargo the wrong altitude, but cargo still should have followed the RA. I find this pretty distrurbing because a professional flight crew at one of the worlds top aviation employers disregarded an RA in extremis.
This is almost the exact same scenario that brought down that Russian airliner (and a DHL heavy) over germany a few years back. Please remember these two events next time you get an RA...I sure will.
I just heard (from a guy who was there) about a recent very near midair between an 121 pax airliner and a large 121 cargo plane (one of the big two). The story was very disturbing...
Center made an error assigning cargo an altitude, and both aircraft ended up head-to-head at cruise speed in the flight levels.
Center's computer alerter went off at the same time as the RA's...not much time here, about 1000 knots closure, like top gun. Center starts screaming (very agitated since the seperation violation has already occured) that he told cargo a different altitude and to climb immediately....
Pax gets a climb RA, cargo gets a descend RA...good so far, but the controller's insistent screaming somehow convinces cargo to ignore the RA and climb instead
The aircraft came with a couple hundred feet and pax saved the day by executing a hard banked turn (in the 300 flight levels).
It was determined that the controller assigned cargo the wrong altitude, but cargo still should have followed the RA. I find this pretty distrurbing because a professional flight crew at one of the worlds top aviation employers disregarded an RA in extremis.
This is almost the exact same scenario that brought down that Russian airliner (and a DHL heavy) over germany a few years back. Please remember these two events next time you get an RA...I sure will.
11-02-2007 | 02:09 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1
From: FO
If they did it, would spend a lot of time in the OFF position, it isn't very useful when flying formation (you would keep getting RA's), unless you have everyone but one plane turn their transponders off.
Don't most of the planes have radar that they can track targets with?
Don't most of the planes have radar that they can track targets with?
11-02-2007 | 07:55 PM
#38
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
I guess that would depend on the plane that you are flying. I can say that the ones I flew lacked both, and I had a near miss I'd guess to be about 1000feet or less laterally. No TCAS. Thank the man above for clear skies that day. Or else BOOM!!!
11-02-2007 | 08:52 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Unless things have changed in the past few weeks, we go to "TA Only" in the KC-135 for Refueling ops. Still get traffic calls on the reciever if he moves around too much!
Also, going into EWR a few years back I had a TCAS target displayed 1000 ft below me. Center tells us about a GA aircraft at our 2 o'clock and assigned 9000. I happen to look out the FO's side window in time to read the guys "Sporty's" hat as he blew by about 200 ft below us. When I told center they queried the guy. His answer was that he was a little off altitude and had an old altimeter setting. Luckily I learned about this limitation the easy way!
Also, going into EWR a few years back I had a TCAS target displayed 1000 ft below me. Center tells us about a GA aircraft at our 2 o'clock and assigned 9000. I happen to look out the FO's side window in time to read the guys "Sporty's" hat as he blew by about 200 ft below us. When I told center they queried the guy. His answer was that he was a little off altitude and had an old altimeter setting. Luckily I learned about this limitation the easy way!
11-04-2007 | 10:21 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,498
Likes: 506
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
