Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
I Came Close To A Jet Today!  
User currently offlineNewagebird From Australia, joined Sep 2005, 64 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3890 times:

Hey,
I fly around in Melbourne, australia on a regular basis in a C172(still training). I was enroute from moorabbin to Benalla which is about 80 miles north of MB. After getting a clearance to tract direct at 6500 feet to Benalla i had established myself on climb and was cruising at 6500 ft. I heard ML radar clear Virgin flight DJ 318 to 7000 feet and track direct to ML. that means they were taking a southwesterly track. The A?c was a B737
I didnt have any chance of noting their position as they had passed a waypoint only their charts had. suddenly they passed just above me at 500 feet higher than me. I couldn't believe how close we were...i could see the registration.
After he passed me ATC simply said clear of traffic..descend 4500 track direct ML.
Is it normal for ATC to clear two aircraft in such close proximity so close to each other? Isn;t there some restriction to wake turbulence and that kind.

Your thoughts appreciated and anyone whos come that close to a jet is welcome to share

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 23
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3789 times:

I sure don't have any knowledge of anything other than here in the States but 500' vertical separation from IFR to VFR traffic in Class B airspace is used daily. Since you refer to the airliner as B737, there would be only a wake turb advisory given, had it been a Heavy or B752 the 1,000' would have been required.


Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineATCGOD From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 661 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3679 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 1):
there would be only a wake turb advisory given

Not totally sure of the ICAO rules on this, but here in the states wake turbulence calls are only required for a "heavy" aircraft. 737 is not a heavy, and all IFR/VFR only requires 500' of seperation.

Quoting Newagebird (Thread starter):
Is it normal for ATC to clear two aircraft in such close proximity so close to each other?

Yes, at least here in the States.


User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5341 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3586 times:

Although it sounds a legal separation, it appears unusual that ATC didn't at least advise you of the traffic. You were in contact with ATC at the time correct? VFR flight following?

ATC had obviously advised the 737 of your position, otherwise they wouldn't have said 'clear of traffic', so the good news is that they knew where you were.

IMO ATC should have advised you of the traffic if you were in contact with them....not a legal requirement, but rather informational. Although 500' is a big distance for those IFR pilots who fly accurate altitudes every day ... it very easy for a low-time student pilot to bust 500' either side of assigned altitude, or to have the altimeter set with the wrong pressure.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineFalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 5961 posts, RR: 27
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3544 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ATCGOD (Reply 2):
737 is not a heavy,

A 737 may not be a heavy, but it sure looks like it next to a C172!



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineATCGOD From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 661 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3520 times:

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 3):
IMO ATC should have advised you of the traffic if you were in contact with them....not a legal requirement, but rather informational.

Actually, it is a legal requirement if you are operating at the minimum seperation. Not to mention the fact that merging target procedures call for mandatory traffic calls and they were obviously close enough to be considered merging targets. But we don't know if he was having flight following services provided...sounds more likely that he was just listening to the frequency. Traffic to one aircraft is traffic to another aircraft and someone messed up if he was getting FF and was never advised of the traffic.

Quoting Falstaff (Reply 4):
A 737 may not be a heavy, but it sure looks like it next to a C172!

Very true...and funny!


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 23
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3419 times:

Quoting ATCGOD (Reply 2):
but here in the states wake turbulence calls are only required for a "heavy" aircraft. 737 is not a heavy, and all IFR/VFR only requires 500' of seperation.

Gonna get into your stuff.... Smile Never said it was "required" just a cautionary advisory that IMO, there could be some nice wake for them, and nice to give so the Hawk pilot can choke the yoke a bit more!!!

Quoting ATCGOD (Reply 5):
merging target procedures call for mandatory traffic calls

Merging targets procedures apply when only1 aircraft is a turbojet or do they both have to be turbojet? Interesting interpretation of that paragraph! For if only 1 of them need to be a is a turbojet then you apply merging targets, if both must be turbojet to be required to apply merging targets then they must change the power plant in Australia of a C172?
 expressionless 



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineATCGOD From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 661 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3355 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 6):
Gonna get into your stuff.... Never said it was "required" just a cautionary advisory that IMO, there could be some nice wake for them, and nice to give so the Hawk pilot can choke the yoke a bit more!!!

LOL, I know, in a perfect world it'd be nice to get a traffic call in this instance. But the controller is only required to give it on a "heavy" aircraft. I was just pointing that out...I just wanted to clarify what you were saying. I remember when I used to fly into the regional airport here I used to get "caution wake turbulence" calls from the controller behind B1900D's...absolutely funny, but you could tell when you were too close to one. I give them when I have time and when I am required, other than that the rules don't say I have to so I try to put some common sense on the pilot.

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 6):
Merging targets procedures apply when only1 aircraft is a turbojet or do they both have to be turbojet?

Merging target procedures are for turbojet aircraft, yes. But, if you're required to give the turbojet aircraft traffic you should also give the other aircraft traffic as well.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 23
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3326 times:

Quoting ATCGOD (Reply 7):
should also give the other aircraft traffic as well.


Agreed......now I am going to go do that very thing!!! ahhhhh NOTAM out for sure!  Smile

Quoting ATCGOD (Reply 7):
I used to get "caution wake turbulence" calls from the controller behind B1900D's...absolutely funny, but you could tell when you were too close to one. I give them when I have time and when I am required, other than that the rules don't say I have to so I try to put some common sense on the pilot.

Such as the phrase, "use caution upward prop-wash"?? I got banged around pretty good a few years ago when I turned into a close parallel runway slightly below and 1 or so behind a BE9F.....WOW, Magic Kingdom has nothing on the T tail 90! Smile



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineATCGOD From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 661 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3236 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 8):
Such as the phrase, "use caution upward prop-wash"?? I got banged around pretty good a few years ago when I turned into a close parallel runway slightly below and 1 or so behind a BE9F.....WOW, Magic Kingdom has nothing on the T tail 90!

 rotfl 


User currently offlineNewagebird From Australia, joined Sep 2005, 64 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3018 times:

Hey yeh
Thats right...i was never advised. All i heard was virgin 318 descend 7000 passing waypoint (whatever). We dont use IFR nav charts so i didnt have a clue which direction he was coming from. Just appeared out of nowhere in my 1oclock high.

Cheers newagebird


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3011 times:

Quoting Newagebird (Reply 10):
i was never advised.


Or maybe you were on the "landline" and missed the traffic call!  Smile



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9375 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2889 times:

When I was training for my private pilot license, I was just purely amazed at how close planes do get to each other. I was on a parallel approach with a 767 at BFI and I was amazed at how close that heavy jet came to me in my little 172. I didn't even have warning either that there was a jet that close until he was right there on my left.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Hazelton SAAB-340 Came Close To Accident 28/06 posted Tue Aug 6 2002 02:31:23 by VirginFlyer
Avro Jet Came Back To Brussels After Take-off posted Thu Aug 22 2002 19:25:04 by Pressclub
FAT 757 Fly Too Close To TG Plane: Hit Turbulence posted Thu Nov 16 2006 06:56:37 by Jimyvr
Air China Close To Signing For 10 B777's posted Mon Oct 30 2006 13:54:13 by UA777300ER
Strange Approaches To DCA Today posted Fri Oct 27 2006 22:40:46 by Contrails
CRJ-900X Close To Launch posted Thu Oct 19 2006 23:08:49 by YULspotter
NWA - How Close To BK Exit? posted Mon Oct 16 2006 22:01:09 by DeltaDAWG
LH Starts A346 To YYZ And B744 To BLR Today posted Mon Oct 9 2006 07:11:48 by DABVF
Interesting Charters To SWF Today posted Fri Sep 15 2006 13:13:12 by AlitaliaMD11
Hot: Embraer And Varig Close To Deal 4 Embraer 190 posted Wed Sep 6 2006 03:52:26 by LipeGIG