Near Miss between Cathay and Virgin Blue

[Russell D]

From Yahoo7 News:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/australian-news/6626159/mid-air-near-miss-under-investigation/

Mid-air near miss under investigation

ABC December 28, 2009, 12:37 pm

The Australian Transport and Safety Bureau (ATSB) is investigating a near collision between planes from two major airlines in Northern Territory skies on Tuesday.

The two planes were travelling just south of Katherine when the incident occurred.

The Cathay Pacific Airbus was travelling south of Katherine en route from Hong Kong to Melbourne.

At the same time a Virgin Blue Boeing 737 was coming in the opposite direction flying from Melbourne to Darwin.

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

The crew were then instructed to climb higher to stop a crash.

Cathay Pacific say the passenger plane crew acted "appropriately" when avoiding the near collision.

The ATSB has classed the incident as serious and confirms that there was a breakdown of separation standards.

Investigations are continuing. A report is yet to be released.

[Mike W]

It's comforting all the safety proceedures are in place and adhered to to. A slow news day obviously. I wonder how many of these kind of "proceedures" take place daily?

[Owen H]

A slow news day?

The ATSB are investigating a breakdown in seperation that was detected due to crew alertness and questioning. It was not detected by the ATC that gave them the clearance. That isn't a "procedure" working, its a fortunate event that the crew happened to pick up that there was a conflict.

It is more newsworthy than a lot of the crap they publish.

[Mike W]

To you it is Owen

[Nigel C]

To me it is Mike.

[Owen H]

Yes, its personal opinion. I was giving mine, just like you gave yours.

As to how many of these procedures occur daily?

Most days, none. How do we know that? Because the ATSB investigate all breakdowns in seperation. We have maybe a couple a year.

You seem comforted that the safety procedures are adhered to.... what safety procedures? There was a breakdown in seperation. They didn't work. To me, this is far more newsworthy than 10 hour delay to passengers, or airline has technical stop due to toilets full.

[Mike W]

Did they crash?

[NickN]

How far were they from a TCAS warning ???? Would anybody have an idea?

[Daniel F]

No they didn't crash. But that's like saying that cops should only investigate murders and not attempted murders.

[Mike W]

I'm not saying it shouldn't be investigated. I am saying the systems regarding avoidance works and yes

I'm not saying it's not newsworthy to us on this forum. I am saying it's not newsworthy to those who suck up a lot of the crap they publish and yes I am comforted that the safety procedures are adhered to

[Owen H]

I am saying the systems regarding avoidance works

I'd really like to know how you come to that conclusion, given there was a breakdown in seperation.

[Mike W]

Did they crash?

[Daniel F]

So say you're pulling off at a green light but a semi trailer comes speeding through the red light... I guess as long as you managed to brake in time, there is absolutely nothing to be concerned about...

Just because they didn't crash doesn't mean there isn't a safety issue. If it had been a more inexperienced crew on the CX flight, they may not have had the ***** to question ATC and it could have ended in disaster.

[Russell D]

It was not detected by the ATC that gave them the clearance.

I would have thought that a "Traffic alert" warning would have sounded and flashed on the ATC controller's radar screen. Something like "Traffic Alert" or "Conflict, Conflict" which would have warned the controller of a potential impending collision.

Of course, both a/c had TCAS, but TCAS was designed to be the final backup if all else was to fail.

[Adam G]

I would have thought that a "Traffic alert" warning would have sounded and flashed on the ATC controller's radar screen. Something like "Traffic Alert" or "Conflict, Conflict" which would have warned the controller of a potential impending collision.



Depending on how far they were from DRW they may have been in procedural and not radar airspace.

There's also nothing saying that the CX crew responded to a TCAS event (it certainly wasn't an RA as the aircraft diverged right of track). It's possible the CX crew just heard the DJ aircraft report at a certain position & certain height & identified there was going to be a conflict.

[lloyd fox]

Obviously it is a incident if true, and the Aviation transport department believes it warrants a enquiry .I personally believe it is serious but i like the rest of us are not the experts and i am sure it will be looked into seriously by the department.

Cheers Lloyd

[Matt N.]

A good little summary here:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2009/12/28/a-far-miss-in-nt-skies/
Anyone who has read this blog knows the author is not afraid to question.

[Ash W]

I do tend to agree with Mike that this incident is probably no where near as serious as it is reported to be in the media (I gather that is what your saying Mike?). Sure it was a breakdown of separation and should be investigated, however to call it a near miss would seem to be very far from the truth.

The bottom line is one of the many 'back-up' mechanisms, that is the vigilance of the crew picked up on the error well before it became a real issue. To me that is nothing more than a day to day issue.

To use Daniel F's truck through a red light analogy from before, this situation would be like the driver of the car looking (as he should) before entering the intersection, even though he had a green light, only to see the truck 500m down the road.

[Philip Argy]

Rather than have an ill informed debate about whether the incident was serious, here are the objective criteria used by ATSB (see especially Note 1 to Attachment A, and Attachment B):

http://atsb.gov.au/aviation/procedures.aspx

If the news report is correct that they have classified the incident as a 'serious incident', and there's nothing on their website about it at the moment, then it looks like a Level 1 investigation solely because it involved high capacity air transport.

[Mick F]

Mike,
As has been pointed out, there were NO safety systems that prevented this from occurring. If it wasn't resolved, there would have been TCAS alerts. However, the only reason this was prevented early was because the crews picked up on the error.

This is quite a serious incident, no mistake about it. Well worth reporting.

Mick

[Ash W]

Mike,
This is quite a serious incident, no mistake about it. Well worth reporting.

Well worth INVESTIGATING and reporting as a potential break down in seperation, but not worth reporting as a near miss. It was far from a near miss.

[Mark B]

If the news report is correct that they have classified the incident as a 'serious incident', and there's nothing on their website about it at the moment,

Take a look here: http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2009/aair/ao-2009-080.aspx

[Greg McDonald]

Ash, you're not going to get too far with this one mate. By my count, you're trying to win an argument against three experienced pilots, an ATC and a few others that are well and truly in the know!!:D

[Ash W]

What is there to win? I acknowldege that it is a serious enough event to warrant investigation, just would not go as far as the newspaper reports in calling it a near miss. Quite clearly the checks and balances in terms of procedures picked up the issue early enough to avoid any real near miss.

[Brendon I.]

It's all in the wording. We can all be fooled or tricked by the media sometimes. Media report it as "Mid-air near miss under investigation". Much more sensational and dramatic that the ATSBs "..a breakdown of separation standards". I think we all know which one will grab the attention of readers more.

I'm no expert but yes I agree it is of a serious nature, however I believe the headline used is not really appropriate. I can't see that the official ATSB report mentions the separation distance so how do the media know it was a "Mid-air near miss"? The headline is not justified based on the facts in this story.

A Mid-air near miss situation to me would be one where there were TCAS alerts and pilots taking immediate action to avoid a collision, aircraft climbing or diving rapidly and perhaps the pilots needing a change of underwear.

[Owen H]

Quite clearly the checks and balances in terms of procedures picked up the issue early enough to avoid any real near miss.

Again - No, they didn't. The checks and balances in the system failed. THAT is why this is a serious event.

I actually thought the reporting of this was quite good. It was not "terrifying, near death experience", it was factual, and reported that the ATSB were investigating a serious incident. The headline of near mid air was somewhat speculative, but the body of the article was controlled, factual, and not in the least bit sensationalist.

All in all I thought it was the best report on an aviation incident I've seen in a long time.

[Ash W]

Again - No, they didn't. The checks and balances in the system failed. THAT is why this is a serious event.

It was picked up before an accident, so yes the checks and balances worked.

A Mid-air near miss situation to me would be one where there were TCAS alerts and pilots taking immediate action to avoid a collision, aircraft climbing or diving rapidly and perhaps the pilots needing a change of underwear.

I agree with you Brendon, that for me to be even close to a near miss the situation you descibed would have had to happen. Ie late evasive action, either by one of the pilots or the TCAS system. True the report doesn't say the actual seperatation distance involved but to me all the evidence points to it being a sizeable distance to not have to take urgent evasive action.

[Matt_L]

It was picked up before an accident, so yes the checks and balances worked.

Ash,

The incident was prevented from becoming fatal due to the quick thinking/experienced crew on the CPA flight as Owen, Mick etc have alluded to.

Saying the checks and balances did work in this case would mean the atc was fully aware of seperation and positions which seems to have not occurred. What you are saying sounds like the us state dept appointed speaker who stated quite happily that the system had worked fine in the case of the failed terrorist attack on the Delta jet on Xmas day. No it did not work fine, the system failed miserably and was only prevented due to some quick thinking pax and the device failing to fully detonate.

[Philip Argy]

Two high capacity passenger aircraft were apparently at (or assigned) the same altitude on collision headings. That is not supposed to occur. An ATSB investigation has commenced. Let's await its findings.

[Ash W]

Ash,

The incident was prevented from becoming fatal due to the quick thinking/experienced crew on the CPA flight as Owen, Mick etc have alluded to.

Exactly my point, to me crew are an important part of the check and balance system and it is good to see the crew vigilant and question ATC. Clearly the real issue is why did it get so far.

[Brendon I.]

Ash,

The incident was prevented from becoming fatal due to the quick thinking/experienced crew on the CPA flight as Owen, Mick etc have alluded to.
Matt_L,

Would it have been fatal if the CX crew did not pick it up?? What about TCAS? Isn't that another safety feature available to prevent this from happening?

[Owen H]

TCAS is an absolute last ditch emergency backup system that gives *some* protection. It is not the be all and end all, and as accidents have shown, it is not, i repeat not, foolproof. It cannot be relied upon for guaranteed seperation, and that is why it is the last ditch system. Don't get me wrong, it is a brilliant system to have, however it is NOT suitable as a primary seperation system. Any time seperation is necessitated by TCAS, particularly in cruise flight, it is a major incident. How do you even know TCAS will work on that given day?

I don't understand this obsession that they need to be within a few feet for it to be too close. There are seperation standards. They are the distance that it has been determined is as close as is safely possible. Those standards were breached. If the safety standard is breached, it is too close. The ATSB do not name events as a Serious Incident for the sake of it.

Getting back to the original argument - sure, they didn't crash. But they were too close. I am more than happy with the newspapers reporting that there will be an investigation into a serious incident.

To use an analogy. The recent terror attack on the USA. The primary defence, screening, failed. The only thing that potentially stopped a crash was luck, and a passengers action. Does that mean it is not newsworthy? After all, it didn't crash, and no-one was within seconds of dying.

[D Chan]

no need to argue about this anymore as the link given previously regarding what is classified as a serious incident is short and simple

Serious incident. An incident involving circumstances indicating that an accident nearly occurred.

List of examples of serious incidents
The incidents listed are typical examples of incidents that are likely to be serious incidents. The list is not exhaustive and only serves as guidance to the definition of serious incident.

•Near collisions requiring an avoidance manoeuvre to avoid a collision or an unsafe situation or when an avoidance action would have been appropriate.
•Controlled flight into terrain only marginally avoided.
•Aborted take-offs on a closed or engaged runway.
•Take-offs from a closed or engaged runway with marginal separation from obstacle(s).
•Landings or attempted landings on a closed or engaged runway.
•Gross failures to achieve predicted performance during take-off or initial climb.
•Fires and smoke in the passenger compartment, in cargo compartments or engine fires, even though such fires were extinguished by the use of extinguishing agents.
•Events requiring the emergency use of oxygen by the flight crew.
•Aircraft structural failures or engine disintegrations not classified as an accident.
•Multiple malfunctions of one or more aircraft systems seriously affecting the operation of the aircraft.
•Flight crew incapacitation in flight.
•Fuel quantity requiring the declaration of an emergency by the pilot.
•Take-off or landing incidents. Incidents such as undershooting, overrunning or running off the side of runways.
•System failures, weather phenomena, operations outside the approved flight envelope or other occurrences which could have caused difficulties controlling the aircraft.
•Failures of more than one system in a redundancy system mandatory for flight guidance and navigation.

Furthermore breakdown of separation standards do occur every now and then and are reported to the ATSB by Airservices. However for the ATSB to classify this as a serious incident is a good and clear indication that this is indeed more serious than a mere breakdown of separation standards. The media does report minor incidents as serious ones but on some occasions they are genuinely serious.

Note: a serious incident does not equate to a crash. Crash is classified as accident.

[Nicholas Togias]

Matt_L,

Would it have been fatal if the CX crew did not pick it up?? What about TCAS? Isn't that another safety feature available to prevent this from happening?

TCAS would give you a traffic advisory about 45 seconds away from the point of closest approach, then about 25-30 seconds away from the point of closest approach would come the resolution advisory.

Do you really want to be in a situation where you have 30 seconds to maneuver an aircraft to not hit another plane??

It was good that the separation breakdown didn't go unnoticed, better yet why did it occur in the first place (this is what everyone is saying!!!), this is why we are investigating - this is why it is a serious incident

[Craig Lindsay]

I was told by a mate who used to be a qantas engineer if all else fails both planes turn to the right,which would send them in opposite directions.Is this correct.Cause if all else fails theres going to be seeing another aircraft heading towards them and its going to be to late then isnt it to do anything.I dont think it would work with modern aircraft cause they would be going to bloody quick

[Brendon I.]

TCAS would give you a traffic advisory about 45 seconds away from the point of closest approach, then about 25-30 seconds away from the point of closest approach would come the resolution advisory.

Do you really want to be in a situation where you have 30 seconds to maneuver an aircraft to not hit another plane??

It was good that the separation breakdown didn't go unnoticed, better yet why did it occur in the first place (this is what everyone is saying!!!), this is why we are investigating - this is why it is a serious incident

Nicholas,

No I would not want to be in a situation where I had 30 seconds to manoeuvre an aircraft to not hit another aircraft. I did mention in a previous post that I believed it was serious.

My comment was in response to a comment by Matt_L - "The incident was prevented from becoming fatal due to the quick thinking/experienced crew on the CPA flight.."

It's an additional safety measure. If TCAS can help stop an aircraft crashing into another aircraft 30 seconds or 5 seconds before then I think it's a good outcome for both the aircraft and everyone on board.

[Ash W]

Craig what you describe is more or less what TCAS does.

[Philip Argy]

The ATSB investigation AO-2009-080 factsheet records the following background facts:


Location: Dosam (IFR), 157M 93 km
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. My emphasis.

We all agree that state of affairs should not have existed. We all agree it was serious. Can we all agree to await further information from the ATSB?

[Greg McDonald]

Can we also agree to close this thread??? You can only go around in circles so many times....

[Philip Argy]

I'll post ATSB updates here

[Scotty B]

Craig what you describe is more or less what TCAS does.

No it is not. TCAS vertically separates, not laterally.

The statement 'if all else fails both aircraft turn to the right' is a pipe dream. The very basic Rules for Prevention of Collision (Part 162 of Australia's CARs 1988) state simply:
(2) When two aircraft are approaching head-on or approximately so and
there is danger of collision, each shall alter its heading to the right.

This has to be taken in context - the Rules of the Air are taken from their parent the Maritime Regulations, and this rule is certainly not designed for two jet aircraft at the same level on reciprocal headings.

[Ash W]

No it is not. TCAS vertically separates, not laterally.

The words I used were more or less what it does. Bottom line is it send the a/c in two different directions.

[Nigel C]

Can we also agree to close this thread??? You can only go around in circles so many times....

Let's change topic then...

So what's better, Nikon or Canon? Kodak is surely out of the running, as is Olympus and Hanimax.

;)

[Scotty B]

The words I used were more or less what it does. Bottom line is it send the a/c in two different directions.

I guess if we use laymans terms they are, but specifically they are not; hence why TCAS was devised to alter levels, not headings. An aircraft turning creates a very different aspect to an aircraft climbing/descending; ie the two can still slice each other up. An aircraft climbing is still heading in the same direction, but is now on a different plane to one descending. VERY different. They are not going in two different directions.

But I guess if you want to just generalize, approximate and roughly get it right then I guess you are kind of right.... but bottom line: being kind of right isn't specific enough with 2 jets at the same level heading in opposite directions ;)

[Ash W]

I do realise that. The poster I was replying to said something like "someone told him there was a system that made the a/c turn to the right, is this possible?". My response was simply yes that is what TCAS does, refering more to the automatic part, not the specific direction.

Now if only we could quote a bit more the context of what I was saying may not have been missed. But it seems most posts where I quote or mention quoting get deleted these days, even in the thread about quoting!

[Matt_L]

For anyone's whos interested seeing through the smoke mirror of a myriad of posts .. speaking to a friend today from Hong Kong who said that this incident made top headlines in both the HKG newspapers and news bulletins for a few days..and rightly so..

And Brendon- the CPA crew prevented this incident to a large extent- You and indeed nobody knows if TCAS would have saved the day had it not been for this quick thinking crew.. but at a combined speed of 800+mph you don't want to be second guessing!

[Greg McDonald]

Personally I think Cannon is the best but I've heard that Olympus is slowly catching up........

[Grahame Hutchison]

Mayday, Mayday, Mayday

This is Board Member Grahame, Grahame, Grahame

Present position 3,000Km and 11 days from this incident

I have time to wait for the ATSB report

But, my 40 years of Nikon experience cannot save me from this thread

[Bernie P]

Oh Grahame... Always the joker, LOVE IT!!

[Mark B]

TCAS would give you a traffic advisory about 45 seconds away from the point of closest approach, then about 25-30 seconds away from the point of closest approach would come the resolution advisory.


Given they were reported to have been 20 nautical miles apart, I dare say they weren't too far away from finding out if TCAS would work on the day or not.

[NickN]

This post is like the Energizer Bunny, just keeps goin' and goin'!

Switch to Duracell and let it die already.....

..... at least until the ATSB release a report.

[Moderator]

Lets keep this thread on topic please or it will be closed.