Seems like this incident, (in the news recently) happened despite of using TCAS and the intervention of ATC with both pilots;  the two A/C manage to get 100' from each other!

 

How could this have happened? Especially with such modern systems and in this part of the world?

 

 

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/10/22/why-did-ba-and-lh-turn-on-each-other-in-uk-airspace/ 

In the Bodensee tragedy they got 100 ft closer to each other. Read the/Wait for the official accident report ...

How did this happen? Well we are human, plain and simple. The PM read back the correct course correction and the PF did the exact opposite....

 

Will be interesting to read the CVR transcript, and also find out if the resolution advisorys blaring out of the speakers affected what the PF heard from ATC and the PM

Shouldn't RA's have priority over ATC instructions?

Yes they should, but RA's will be to descend or climb, from what I have read ATC asked them to turn left, the PM repeated the instruction correctly but the PF turned right.

 

I have no idea if an RA was actually sounding during the ATC call. Just curious as to what caused the PF to screw up like that and not follow what the PM had read back correctly.

Please guys, dont just repeat the trash the media is telling you.

Let me quote the report:

 

"As to the risk, because B747(1) had B747(2) in sight as it was turning towards it, and both ac reacted to TCAS RAs thereby establishing standard vertical separation by a horizontal distance of 2.8nm, the Board opined that there was no risk of a collision"

 

http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/20130911-2013.09Reports.pdf (starting page 61)

 

The usual media histeria, dont fall for it ^_^

 

btw: the VERTICAL distance was 100ft, the actual distance in between the two was much, much more....

Calm yourself Chris... No one is listening to media hype here, well at least not myself and Oliver.

 

Regardless of separation we have what appears to be a pretty big CRM screw up with both flight crews on two major carriers. This in itself is worth discussing.

Calm yourself Chris... No one is listening to media hype here, well at least not myself and Oliver.

 

Regardless of separation we have a pretty big CRM screw up with both flight crews on two major carriers. This in itself is worth discussing.

Well, if you google a bit you will see how many people are falling for this story. One media source started it and now it's all over including many useless debates about how "dangerous" flying is.

Was it an an incident worth looking into - yes, and they did. But no need to exaggerate it. The system (in this case the TCAS) worked and both crews seemed to have learned from the Bodensee-tragedy and followed the RA.

 

ANd i didn't want to sound rude... sorry for that.

No worries Chris, and thank you for the link. Hanger chat tends to 'normally' be one of the more sane areas of the web thankfully!

btw: the VERTICAL distance was 100ft, the actual distance in between the two was much, much more....

On CNN this morning I noticed that the "Headline" on screen screamed out "100 Feet!"

 

They focused on and seized that distance as though it told the whole story, when in actual fact the closest the two aircraft ever were to one another was, according to the report:

 

100ft V/3.9 nm H (closest vertical separation)

1100ft V/2.8nm H (closest horizontal separation)

Calm yourself Chris... No one is listening to media hype here, well at least not myself and Oliver.

 

(...)

 

 

Thanks, Rob!

 

I actually may have triggered Chris' reaction with my "100 ft closer" remark ...   :unsure:

 Typical media overreaction and the public's tendency to fall for it.

Media Overreaction sells newspapers and earns ratings for big networks, regardless of how inaccurate the report is.   I could get into it about how useless I think a lot of news networks are now but I don't want to get a warning on the new warning/ban system.  XD

 

 

Regardless of separation we have what appears to be a pretty big CRM screw up with both flight crews on two major carriers. This in itself is worth discussing.

 

Folks, I guess one should have emphasized that this was the purpose of the initial post. There was no accident, and yes, the press over-emphasized a partial truth (maybe  to sell more air-time on TV). Yet this was a screw-up and could have ended up on a major accident by two major airlines on an air space with mature civil aviation organization and infrastructure.

Near-miss reporting, analysis and dissemination of results is important to avoid repetition of avoidable situations. In the US, seems like such reporting is voluntary http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/search/database.html .

 

Should near-miss reporting

http://www.nsc.org/Documents/900002534_ADV_OSHA%20NearMissCase_R13.pdf  become mandatory?.

 

Another industry where reporting of near-misses is important is health-care https://www.nearmiss.org/

 

 

100ft V/3.9 nm H (closest vertical separation)
1100ft V/2.8nm H (closest horizontal separation)

 

Seeing this makes me realize it has been over 10 years since the last time I did Pythagoras.....1104.5 feet apart

 

Dusted off the old cobwebs on that one  :lol: