Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Near Mid-air Collision In Argentina?  
User currently offlineEZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4964 posts, RR: 25
Posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4092 times:

In the middle of the civil aviation crisis that is currently affecting Argentina's skies (with radars not working since a couple of months ago after lightining struck the Baires terminal!), there have been report today of a near collision at FL33-35 between UA flight 847 and Andes flight 851. Reports are saying that both aircrafts were instructed to descend to FL33 and got as close as 4miles from eachother, with TCAS alert going off. Sorry if the details are crap, but this is what the press is saying (yup, the press, who to illustrate a UA plane they show an A319, which I'm guessing is not the plane flying in from the US!  Wink )

http://www.infobae.com/contenidos/31...ited-Airlines-casi-choca-el-aire-l

However, the Ministry of Defence has denied this, claiming that according to the Arg. Airforce the incident never happened.

http://www.clarin.com/diario/2007/05/07/um/m-01414225.htm

So, it's unclear of what happened exactly, but something did happen. In March, there was another mid-air close call between teo aircraft, one being of Bolivian company Aerosur (can't remember the other one involved).

To add a bit more drama to all this, IFALPA released last week a safety bulletin recomending pilots to "exercise extreme vigilance and awareness of the present ATC situation in order to maintain safe operations".

http://www.ifalpa.org/sab/08SAB01%20...n%20Baires%20TMA%20(Argentina).pdf

things not looking too good over here  Sad


Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineEHHO From Bulgaria, joined Dec 2005, 815 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3949 times:

Quoting EZEIZA (Thread starter):
to illustrate a UA plane they show an A319, which I'm guessing is not the plane flying in from the US!

Russian outlet NEWSRU.com mentions a B772. Full article here, only in Russian. The article also says that the other plane was an Air Andes MD-82. According to the report, Argentinian interior minister Hanibal Fernandez was on board the UA flight.



"Get your facts first. Then you may distort them as much as you please" -- Mark Twain
User currently offlineSkyman From Germany, joined May 2006, 494 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3894 times:

Quoting EZEIZA (Thread starter):
close as 4miles from eachother

That is not a near-mid air. I don´t know what the seperation minimas in Argentina are, but in Germany the minimas are 5 NM or even 2,5 - 3 NM on approach.
With the FL´s do you mean 33 or 330?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3813 times:

Quoting Skyman (Reply 2):
That is not a near-mid air. I don´t know what the seperation minimas in Argentina are, but in Germany the minimas are 5 NM or even 2,5 - 3 NM on approach.
With the FL´s do you mean 33 or 330?

Hmmmm. Yes, it is a near mid-air. At high altitudes, like FL 330, aircraft seperation MUST be 5nm vertically, and 2000' horizontally. The headings of the two aircraft also play into the situation here. If the headings are converging, that is a problem, since both aircraft, most likely, were flying at 300 knots (approximately 7 miles per minute, depending on winds, so these airplanes could have been 20-35 seconds from collision).

If the headings were diverging, then you are correct, as the aircraft are actually flying away from each other.

As in Germany, the 5nm minimum seperation at high altitude is the same world wide, simply because of the speeds airplanes fly at.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6832 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3800 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
At high altitudes, like FL 330, aircraft seperation MUST be 5nm vertically, and 2000' horizontally.

Don't you have that reversed?



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineEZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4964 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3712 times:

Quoting Skyman (Reply 2):
With the FL´s do you mean 33 or 330?

sorry, I meant FL330  blush 

In a local news channel, there was a pilot being interviewed and he was claiming that he spoke to the Andes pilot after the incident and he said that there was no real incident. He mentioned the TCAS warning, but that they were at no time in real collision danger, and that they never got so close as mentioned in the reports.

IMO this was blown out of proportion for political reasons (It's election year in Argentina!!)
However, a few days after the radar stopped working, there was a real close call involving a Bolivian Aerosur aircraft and another plane (can't remember which one). In that occasion, the Bolivian pilot told ATC that he was so close that "he could see the other pilots' uniform".

saludos  Smile



Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3690 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
FL 330, aircraft seperation MUST be 5nm vertically, and 2000' horizontally.

Completely reversed!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
since both aircraft, most likely, were flying at 300 knots

Pretty fast for an MD82 at FL330 isn't it? Burning lots of gas doing around .82ish that is for sure.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineSkyman From Germany, joined May 2006, 494 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3580 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
KC135TopBoom

In RVSM airspace vertical separation is 1000ft until FL 410, but I think Argentina doesn´t have that (not sure). No matter in what constellation 4NM is not a near mid air for. TCAS starts working at 4 NM and the pilots might only have gotten a TA and they get that every month. But maybe it is just me and I´m used to too much high traffic in central Europe. 1,5 NM and 200ft or something like that now that is a near mid air.


User currently offlineUSADreamliner From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3443 times:

I don't think this is the first time something like this happen in Argentina.

Maybe the Argentinean Air Force have something to do with all the recent bad publicity? Since they are not in charge anymore...


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22726 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3322 times:

Quoting EZEIZA (Thread starter):
things not looking too good over here

The one potentially serious consequence of repeated radar problems is that the FAA could put Argentina in Cat II. I'm not sure how likely that is, as a lot of this has been political lately (see Venezuela), and Argentina is a special non-NATO ally, and the new US-Argentina bilateral indicates that these good relations extend to travel. But a trip to Cat II is probably the last thing AR needs right now...



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineEZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4964 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3198 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 9):
The one potentially serious consequence of repeated radar problems is that the FAA could put Argentina in Cat II.

I hope that the new US-Argentina agreement over flight increase will make the FAA give Argentina some time before they consider degrading Argentina again. It would be a shame to see the country in CAT II again! However, this is a very good point, and the authorities and those responsable of Civilian aviation here should see this as a threat, meaning get your act together now!

saludos  Smile



Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
User currently offlineArcrftLvr From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3192 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
2000' horizontally

Isn't it 1,000' vertical sep.


User currently offlineXAAPB From Mexico, joined Jan 2005, 435 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3158 times:

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 5):
In a local news channel, there was a pilot being interviewed and he was claiming that he spoke to the Andes pilot after the incident and he said that there was no real incident. He mentioned the TCAS warning, but that they were at no time in real collision danger, and that they never got so close as mentioned in the reports.

Well let's remember sometimes the media reports are exaggerated!!
Cheers
Jorge



Jorge Meneses
User currently offlinePU752 From Uruguay, joined Mar 2005, 584 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3097 times:

Quoting ArcrftLvr (Reply 11):
Isn't it 1,000' vertical sep.

Correct.

Also this is a typical argentine overreaction, since 4NM isnt that near of a mid-ar collision as the argentine media stated.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22726 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3055 times:

I wonder if the government would let 4M/LA fly CC- registered birds to the U.S. if Argentina went back to Cat II... stirthepot 


I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineEZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4964 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2980 times:

Quoting PU752 (Reply 13):
Also this is a typical argentine overreaction

I don't think its an overreaction for no reason. it's election year, and the Defence minister has been on the spotlight of all critics because of her lack of knowledge of aviation (she said several times that the radars were working properly) so a non-incident like this turned out to be, still could have an impact on the average citizen that has to vote in a few months.

saluods  Smile



Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
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...
Near Mid-Air Collision 30,000' Over Iowa posted Fri Jan 19 2007 05:28:53 by Airfinair
Video Of Near Mid-air Collision posted Mon Dec 25 2006 04:32:45 by Crazyro
Near Mid-Air Collision @ FLL posted Tue Mar 14 2006 19:55:47 by MiCorazonAzul
NW And SWA Near Mid-air Collision At BNA posted Tue Mar 7 2006 19:35:32 by LUVRSW
Mid Air Collision In Syd? posted Sun May 5 2002 18:33:18 by Hoons90
Mid-Air Collision In Florida posted Fri Dec 3 1999 19:59:48 by Dazed767
Man Killed In Mid-air Collision posted Mon Dec 19 2005 00:59:54 by EZYAirbus
Imaginary Mid-air Collision Exercise In UK posted Sun Apr 25 2004 23:23:00 by Backfire
Mid-air Collision Between 2 Small A/c In Germany posted Fri Sep 27 2002 15:30:27 by GKirk
Gulf Air Pilot Averts Mid-air Collision Over Iraq posted Mon Oct 2 2006 21:54:04 by GF-A330