JEM Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Happened at Tullamarine 6 months ago. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-07/near-miss-at-melbourne-airport-prompts-safety-concerns/7147006 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyflyer Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Media beat up. One plane slow to roll so the two other planes went around and were given vectors to a new approach. Only a few thousand dollars of extra fuel chewed up. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEM Posted February 7, 2016 Author Share Posted February 7, 2016 Sounds like a terminal beat up too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 800 ft and 0.9 miles at 500 approach is too close with 500+ pax... At night As a regular flyer im not impressed... Sure it wasnt an iminent disaster, but this is not good enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultralights Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 still within minimum separation requirements.. another story on the same event admitted so... also, one story says it happened 6 months ago, another 2 years ago.. its media bullshite like this that results in things like aircraft holding at Bankstown airport wanting to depart into controlled airspace heading west, for at least 30 mins, with engines running, waiting on a clearance while one aircraft over newcastle at the time lands in Sydney.. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aro Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 2 aircraft crossed paths when ATC did not intend it to happen. ATC didn't specifically separate them by altitude or track. One was at 4 mile final when the other was turning base 3.5 miles from the crossing runway. Then both aircraft go around. The only thing that separated them was big sky theory, and we know from experience that the sky is not so big in the vicinity of an airport. So this does look pretty serious to me. Way closer to an accident than we are supposed to get. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldo Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Providing minimum separation was maintained doesn't appear as though there real issues here, two (2) missed approaches due to conflicting traffic as per operational requirements and they are operating in a radar controlled environment. I would imagine en-route aircraft on reciprocal tracks would pass closer than this. I'm sure Dutch will be able to elaborate more on this supposed near miss. Aldo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aro Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Landing on crossing runways, basically the same distance to run, both go around. ATC were behind the situation and were not separating the aircraft at the critical time. There appears to have been little time for ATC to issue vectors and the aircraft were below minimum vector altitude. The instructions issued by the trainee were unclear and it seems misunderstood. The aircraft may not have got too close but that looks like good luck not good management. http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2015/aair/ao-2015-084/ 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 This scenario is not at all uncommon but unfortunately the combination of an ATC trainee using confusing terminology and a LAHSO sequence which was a bit tight resulted in 2 almost simultaneous go-rounds. It doesn't appear that any aircraft got a TCAS RA, so there was no imminent threat of collision or any requirement to take avoiding action by the pilots of the two 737s. They may have got a TCAS Advisory ("Traffic, Traffic") but this is just a monitoring situation. It looks untidy and it was a bit, but the two aircraft would've been well aware of each other's presence and also well aware of their respective tracks. I'd love to post video of simultaneous visual arrivals on 34 at Sydney for you if you want a real eye opener (being turned onto final while being head on with traffic turning onto final for the other runway, then paralleling them so close that you feel you can reach out and touch them), or SODPROPS (simultaneous opposite direction parallel runway ops, one aircraft departing opposite to you while you're on final)). Unfortunately I'm not allowed to do that! So yeah.....although it was a bit untidy and ATC need to get their LAHSO spacing sorted out a bit better, this is being made out to be a lot dicier than it actually was. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhysmcc Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Landing on crossing runways, basically the same distance to run, both go around.ATC were behind the situation and were not separating the aircraft at the critical time. There appears to have been little time for ATC to issue vectors and the aircraft were below minimum vector altitude. The instructions issued by the trainee were unclear and it seems misunderstood. The aircraft may not have got too close but that looks like good luck not good management. http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2015/aair/ao-2015-084/ There is no mention of requiring vectors for separation with the two aircraft going around, the video shown from what appears to be the 27 arrival has the 34 arrival passing well behind. The vector was issued to avoid the wake turbalance from the b777. No different had the aircraft gone around due unstable approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Normoyle Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 just so you know we can't issue radar vectors to aircraft below the MSA for the Approach being flown at night or in VMC. What was done was to ensure separation and to get the situation safe, no TCAS alerts would have been issued as the only thing any of the three could do is climb anyway. Not the best situation but LAHSO comes with some risks. The Emirates heavy was slow to roll and that is what caused the situation to become unworkable. LAHSO has been suspended at night until a further investigation has been completed, we are all working to ensure the safest practises are used and that we remove ( where possible ) any safety related risk. We use LAHSO frequently at Adelaide and in the most part it is a great tool to increase the number of movements however there will always be risks associated. This is no different to SODPROPS at Sydney and the DROPS at Brisbane just to name too. Extensive safety cases are undertaken and usually include representatives from the airlines etc to ensure we are doing our best to keep it safe while we keep it moving. In my opinion, parallel runways are always the best scenario compared with crossing runways and the like, but the cost to build an airport is very significant. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhysmcc Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 CROPs in Brisbane isn't done at night for that very reason. Its funny how recreational pilots would consider this a greater concern then airline pilots on other forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 I don't mind LAHSO. I don't know anyone who flies big planes and likes SODPROPS. Fundamentally different reasons for them. LAHSO does increase movement rates. SODPROPS is 100% political. Why else would you have opposite direction arriving and departing traffic on a parallel runway system? The problem is that kicking up a stink about it (whether by paperwork, exercising PIC powers, etc) gets nowhere, except a delay, a hold, complete indifference, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 There's plenty of reasons to do a go round without being instructed to do so. and the system MUST cope with it. eg you could have a gear unsafe indication. This does show how things can combine into a deteriorating situation quickly. Only people who do these things can really comment effectively. They will no doubt review the whole thing. (as they should), and improve their rules and procedures. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now