A Question of the Speed limit When at and below 10000ft

[ccarter06 3]

The reasons we get TCAS RA's are because there is GA traffic that ATC are not talking to.

 

Out hotspot airports are mainly in Florida. That is the big difference you have GA traffic in the same airspace as airline traffic and that same GA traffic is not required to talk to ATC.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but there is nothing (other than common sense) stopping a bug smasher flying along a victor airway at +/- 500 feet, VFR and not talking to anyone correct?

 

If you want video evidence of the problem, watch ITVV Airtours International A330 Manchester to Orlando Sanford, they get GA traffic to them real close, and the controller confirms he was not speaking to that traffic.

 

That can't happen in Europe as our airways are controlled and only IFR traffic is in them or crosses them

 

Like I said, we don't have an overly-restricted, overly-burdening system.

 

Pilots must in communication with ATC in certain high volume places. Airways the US are controlled airspace, that does not mean a pilot must be in contact with ATC. And there is no immediate need for a pilot on a victor airway out in the middle of Nebraska at 3500 feet to be talking to a controller. In the United States we expect pilots to look OUTSIDE the cockpit with the plane is in VMC. It's called "See and Avoid." If an airliner is on an airway in the US, it should be made aware of that VFR traffic. The airliner should be in radar contact with the controller the entire time, which means the controller should also see any conflicting traffic for the airliner.

 

Florida is a state that does EXTENSIVE flight training throughout the state. There are planes EVERYWHERE, and the controllers know it. Most of the arrivals and departures are routed to avoid the areas of heaviest training.

 

In the United States it's first come first served. Airliners are not supposed to get preferrence over non-airline traffic, IFR traffic is not supposed to get preferrence over VFR traffic. Everyone has the same right to use the airspace, and controllers have the wonderful job of seperating that traffic based on the many rules and proceedures. If that A330 got too close to another aircraft in a radar enviroment (which Sanford FL is), the controller might have dropped the ball.

 

By the way, you have any videos of this flight that won't cost be $33.95 USD to watch?

 

Oh boy how wrong you are!

 

As FedEx what rules they fly under when in Europe - on inter Europe flights.. You got it FAR 121

 

When you fly outside of the US which air operators certificate are you using..l the one issued by the FAA... When I fly to the US we operate on our AOC as issued by the German Authorities... And as such we operate to EU Minima, rest rules etc etc etc

 

We operate under whatever rule is more restrictive. Oddly enough - in all but a very few instances - our FAA rules are more restrictive, so we operate under those rules. If I'm in Canada, and a Canadian or ICAO rule is more restrictive, I follow that rule. Your company's operating certificate is not what we're talking about here.

[DLH_FRA 0]

This is where we will have to disagree, as I don't think it is at all acceptable for an aircraft to be on in or near an airway and not in contact with ATC. You know see and avoid does not work.

 

How many times do you have an aircraft on TCAS... Both guys looking for it, looking, looking looking and either never see it or see it at the last moment.

 

Even when it is company traffic and your talking to him on the radio to exchange some photographs of each other later.. Your talking to him, you have him on TCAS.. It's still bloody hard to spot him.

 

Remember those words "are we clear of that Cessna yet?"

 

 

 

This is getting to be like the spat the FAA got in with BAW, BAW did something against a FAR but within their AOC and within the rules of the CAA.

 

In the end BAW were found to be within the law.

 

(incident engine failure decided to continue to destination, aircraft B747-400)

[ccarter06 3]

This is where we will have to disagree, as I don't think it is at all acceptable for an aircraft to be on in or near an airway and not in contact with ATC. You know see and avoid does not work.

 

How many times do you have an aircraft on TCAS... Both guys looking for it, looking, looking looking and either never see it or see it at the last moment.

 

Even when it is company traffic and your talking to him on the radio to exchange some photographs of each other later.. Your talking to him, you have him on TCAS.. It's still bloody hard to spot him.

 

Remember those words "are we clear of that Cessna yet?"

 

In the US, the first planes we fly don't have TCAS. We are taught to see and avoid first. We teach our students to stop staring at the gauges and look outside. Sounds like another deficiency in your training to me. That's the reason we attempt to keep the windshields free of bug-guts too... a small speck of guts looks like a plane, and bothers us for the entire flight.

 

For pilots who are trained to actually look for other aircraft instead of relying on technology (that can fail... you know electrical problems, and all) to do the work for them, see and avoid does tend to work. It's nice to have all that fancy technology, but there is no better piece of safety equipment in a plane than a well trained pilot.

 

I do not remember the words "are we clear of that Cessna yet?" I've never said that, and I don't know where else you think I would've heard that from.

 

I forgot to add...

 

We do have airways out in the middle of no-where down to 3500 feet. Please explain to me what an airliner would be doing traveling along that airway that low? I'm not saying an airliner couldn't do it, but there really aren't too many good reasons to do it. Making that Cessna stay in contact with a controller is an unnecessary burden.

[DLH_FRA 0]

No they were the last words recorded by an airliner out on the west coast of the US, right before he smashed into a Cessna.

 

The Cessna was not in contact with ATC.

 

If i remember correctly all on board will killed and a few on the ground.

[ccarter06 3]

Are you referring to Pacific Air flight 182 in 1978?

 

That Cessna was in contact with a controller. His last instruction was to "maintain VFR at or below 3500 feet, heading 070." The plane was 90 degrees off course at the time the 727 collided with it. Both aircraft were in contact with controllers.

 

How does that help your arguement that planes shouldn't be flying around not in contact with controllers?

 

I think we all agree we should follow controller instructions (unless there is a major "safet of flight" reason not to).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Flight_182

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Beyond the other issues, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of areas of control. As the school operates in the United States, they are required to apply for, maintain, and uphold the requirements of their Part 141 operating certificate at all times. If you actually read the regulations (which I don't expect you to - why read what you're not subject to anymore), you'd see that the language in no way states that you must provide training per specific FAA requirements. It does state, in general, that you must abide by the agreement between you (as the flight school), and the FAA to provide training appropriate as such. So, basically ATCA entered into an agreement with the FAA that it would train pilots subject to JAA requirements, which the FAA found acceptable, and the flight school was permitted to operate in US airspace. Had that not been true, the flight school would have been forced to close or relocate to another country.

 

Beyond that, as much faith as we can place into TCAS, it's a computer system, and I've worked around enough computers to only give them so much latitude. One of the problems with TCAS is that it cannot predict in all cases. From my understanding of TCAS, and programming in general, TCAS runs off of prevailing trends. TCAS does not know about the altitudes you may stop climbing/descending at, or the other aircraft may stop climbing/descending at. Granted, it's been improved upon over the years, which has lead to better success, but there is absolutely nothing better than a human, which is why we all still have jobs as pilots. To place too much faith in a computer system will be the sure demise of whomever finds its unfortunate fault.

 

The fault of computers is that they can only handle a certain amount of information, and that's how much information we give them as humans. We can develop hugely complex algorithms, but none of them will beat the hugely complex function going on in the brain. We as humans can be better equipped to make better decisions through the support of technology, but not through being subordinate to it. I'm glad we have TCAS, and one of the main reasons we have it is correctly referenced by you here DLH, but it doesn't mean that it's the end-all guide as to the safety of airspace. The same can be said about a company. By what metric can we judge a company? Sheer profit? Sure, but at what cost? Are they running their employees into the ground at minimum wage to make such profits? Are they still a good company then?

 

The safety and effectiveness of airspace isn't something that's effectively evaluated simply by TCAS RA frequency. Sure, that's a good indicator for close calls, but are you considering this information based on the total amount of operations (RAs per operation), or just as a purely numerical stat? Furthermore, there's a lot to say about how much metal controllers can push here in the States. Some may argue that it's too much if we're getting RAs, but that's another discussion. I'd also argue that your assumption that every RA is the result of an errant VFR pilot is very misinformed. Last I checked, TCAS doesn't give you aircraft type and flight rules. If there was a way you could verify that, then I'd surely accept it, but if you look at the way airspace is designed here in the States, you'd see that most of the airports you'd fly into have reasonable protection. Class B airfields, as an example, do not allow VFR traffic into or out of unless they're talking to controllers and are under positive control, which is effectively IFR (from a control perspective).

 

In between those airports, as you've mentioned, sure, there could be issues where a VFR aircraft is not in communication with the controlling agency on an airway. On the whole, though, those conflicts are fewer for several reasons: first and foremost, the larger and faster aircraft normally operate a lot higher, they're under the watch of controllers who are required to maintain separation, and at the very least they're cruising at a minimum of 500' difference in altitude.

 

This whole idea that VFR aircraft are like barrage balloons, waiting to pounce on larger, heavier aircraft is very misinformed, and almost neurotic in nature. Of the 50 598 462 total operations in the US, in the year 2011, only 9 710 720 were VFR GA (TRACON stats only - there's a higher chance of RAs there - stats from: http://aspm.faa.gov/opsnet/sys/Airport.asp). That's 19.2%. While that's a high enough percentage to say a resolution advisory could have come from an errant VFR GA pilot, it's not high enough to say that the number of RAs you have is directly related to errant VFR GA pilots across the board. It could simply be controller error as well. Air traffic control is extremely complex in certain cases, and if you've never seen that side intimately (I'm not talking you've simply visited a facility, I mean you know how it all works) you'd understand it a little better.

 

This whole issue is a lot more complex than saying any time you're in an airplane, you've gotta be talking to a controller. First, that's not scalable, and second, that's distinctly not the issue. Talking to ATC helps, but it doesn't mean you're inherently safer because of it. If controllers are managing more aircraft because we're now requiring more of them, are we really safer?

 

Take your job as a pilot and add on a bunch more workload. As an example, instead of providing the automatics (which have failed us from time to time), we'll now force you to navigate as a two pilot crew without it. You're going to drop the ball and something is going to happen because of it. If you're thinking "well hire more controllers," then you must also think "well who will pay for them." If you're then thinking user fees, then you must also think who must generate those user fees. If you're thinking everyone who uses the system, then you must also think of the effect an increase in costs will affect the overall use of the system. It's a vicious cycle.

 

 

Whenever you have the chance, please do post those RA statistics.

[DLH_FRA 0]

The RA statistics would be available on the IATA website, I'm not able to post our company safety newsletter on here as it is considered confidential. But the reports are shared within the airline community.

 

I can say though.. If we have an RA it requires a written report that's submitted to our National Aviation Authority and is actively followed up by them and our own flight safety department.

 

Everytime there is an RA a report is generated, and within the SMS system it will be updated with the route cause.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

There's nothing on the public-facing IATA site, not surprisingly.

[DLH_FRA 0]

I would get into serious trouble for posting an internal LH document, so that is of course not something I am willing to do.

[ccarter06 3]

Man! We really hijacked this thread, didn't we? :-D

[DLH_FRA 0]

Kinda! But I guess it showed some differences of thinking.

 

Anyway short answer with regard to 250 below 10, ATC can and will waive it outside of the US.. Within the US they will waive it if you need more than 250 to be clean.. In both cases you need to clear it with them.

[ccarter06 3]

Kinda! But I guess it showed some differences of thinking.

 

Anyway short answer with regard to 250 below 10, ATC can and will waive it outside of the US.. Within the US they will waive it if you need more than 250 to be clean.. In both cases you need to clear it with them.

 

The reg in the US is often misinterpreted (not that you are... I'm just expanding). The administrator can waive it, which would be done in the form of a formal waiver. There are MANY who think ATC can waive it "on the fly."

[G550flyer 1,013]

Anyway short answer with regard to 250 below 10, ATC can and will waive it outside of the US.. Within the US they will waive it if you need more than 250 to be clean.. In both cases you need to clear it with them.

Not totally the case, your flight plan has your aircraft type. If your aircraft type requires a speed greater than 250kts clean at higher/max gross weights, they will know by your aircraft type. For example, the DC-10-30 has a clean min maneuver speed of 252 at 440,000 pounds. The ones I flew had a max takeoff weight of 590,000 pounds with a min maneuver of 291. Never was i questioned on the speed when above 250 because of my aircraft type. Also I've flown around the world over 10 times now, and didn't find it difficult at all. At least in the US air force, you are required to be familiar with ICAO procedures. You also have to get into the general planning and foreign clearance guides to ensure you know the filing and flying procedures for each country you transit. As I said, didn't find it difficult just different. In the states, I'm given my clearance before engine start, in other countries I'm given the clearance during taxi. I'll tell you one thing, slot times are a pain in the but, miss one and you may have to wait for a while. I still fly internationally on the the gulfstreams, and all the military flying comes in handy outside the states.

 

Also, some countries in the mid east will query you if you slow to 250 before going below 10. As you approached 10,000,they would say things like " reach 295 heavy no speed restriction". Was weird at first, but they would clarify when you asked. To keep things in perspective, I always slowed to 250 regardless of what they said since i would be light enough any way. Any time i was above 440k overseas, I never requested a speed waiver. This was the trick questions we asked new dc10 students. Either way, they have to call you reach 295 "HEAVY" for a reason. Same rules apply when holding if you cant get that slow. Think of the speeds the concorde would fly.

[DLH_FRA 0]

G550,

 

It is the case it specifically says in the CRAR for the US, maximum speed below 10,000 feet 250 kts maximum speed below class B airspace 200 kts, ATC may approve a higher speed if required for perfomance reasons.

 

Then in our airport briefing, advise ATC when requesting clearence if a higher than standard speed will be required on departure.

 

Your aircraft type does not tell ATC if you will need to go faster than 250 kts, it also does not give you approval to do so.

 

In the MD11 our speed may be less than 250 or it maybe higher than 250 - the minimum clean depends on how heavy/light we are... That information is not part of the flight plan message.

 

You maybe never got asked by ATC about your speed, but I can assure you the correct procedure is to inform them that you need to exceed 250 and have them grant you a clearence to do so

[DLH_FRA 0]

They call you HEAVY be because of your wake turbulence category noton the speed you may or may not need to fly that day.

 

As I say outside of the US ATC have the authority to waive the speed restriction for all traffic, in the US they do not, only for perfomance reasons.

 

To go faster than 250 you need a clearence to do so. It is in black and white in the CRAR, again in the CRAR higher than standard holding speeds MAY be approved by ATC.

 

Key thing is you have to have a clearence, you can just do it on your own back.