Mortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3228 posts, RR: 2 Posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 9128 times:
A SAS plane on it's way to Oslo and a Finnair plane on it's way to Helsinki was 300 meters and 11000 feet from eachoter over Östersund , Sweden on 2mnd of july.
A SAS 737 with a capacity of 130 passengers and a 757 with a capacity of around 280 held the same course and hight. They were heading for collisin considering the speed and the fact that they were only 300 meters from eachother.
The situtation is currently being investigated, and much is unclear around the events.
11000 feet must be a typing error: should not be a problem for a collision...
you never know, media can be massively stupid about stuff. One "near collision" report here was exclaming shock that two planes were withing 2 miles of each other (zomg 10,000ft lateral separation) and one got as low as 500ft.
I'm waiting for some stupid reporter to go off on a plane colliding with the ground as it avoids hitting another plane a mile away. IE making a normal landing with another plane somewhere on the property.
migair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1279 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 8537 times:
if 300 m is lateral difference is too close, if it´s vertical is everyday operation in RVSM....
Anyway the TCAS never allow both planes to be so close, so I can´t understand what happened there....
sometimes if pilots in both airlines have visual contact with the other traffic we could be a little bit closer than recommended but always with visual contact...
peterjohns From Germany, joined Jan 2009, 151 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 8064 times:
Perhaps I can clarify some of the terminology.
We usually work with 5NM lateral distance to any two IFR flights, exception within Approach airspace and on final.
1000 feet vertical distance required at all times, exception non RVSM (reduced vertical seperation minima) above FL290.
300m lateral distance is near to nothing considering aircraft speeds. How do you measure 300m? You can´t. One can estimate a distance looking out of the window...- what is done in a standard investigation procedure, is one looks at the radar-plots (all data saved digitally for 3 months) and measures the closest proximaty of the radar-targets.
TCAS operates on a look-ahead basis and gives vertical guidance only when triggered (usually 60sec before conflict- meaning less than 1000feet vertical seperation, in present trajectory)
ATC is not anymore allowed to use visual seperation between acft above FL100, as it could trigger a TCAS resolution, and Crews HAVE to follow the TCAS resolution advisory.
This can be a bit of a pain to us, as sometimes in clear blue skies the acft are clear of each other- both crews see each other and have no objections to climb or descend- but are not allowed to due to electronics!! It is a direct outcome of the ueberlingen incident.
The mentioned 11.000feet might be Alt. 11000meters?- FL350?
Carl-Erik Nilsson, from the Swedish Civil Aviation Administration (the safety department), is interviewed in the article.
As stated above, the SAS (Boeing 737) plane were heading to Oslo from Narvik. The Finnair plane (Boeing 757) were heading to Helsinki from Toronto.
They met on the same altitude in airspace, roughly 11 000 meters. They were not enough separated and met on less than 300 meters.
If I understand things correctly (please anyone with actual knowledge correct me if I'm wrong), they met on the same flight level. If a flight level is 1000 ft (e.g. FL 350 is 35 000 ft?), that would make the vertical distance roughly 300 meters (as stated in the article).
How close they actually were, is under investigation.
The article goes on to say that the planes were warned and one of the planes were ordered to descend, but for some reason, did not respond to that. The other plane were then ordered to ascend and started doing that. For some reason, they still met at the same altitude (too late?).
The whole incident is under investigation by the Swedish authorities.
flynorth From Sweden, joined Mar 2008, 126 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7012 times:
Quoting cloudyapple (Reply 8): Imagine they are at the same level, heading directly towards each other at a cruising speed of 480kt (960kt closing), 300m is about 0.6 sec.
They weren't heading directly towards each other, they crossed. According to the article one was southbound and the other westbound. Scary enough though.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5218 times:
Quoting Mortyman (Thread starter):
A SAS 737 with a capacity of 130 passengers and a 757 with a capacity of around 280 held the same course and hight. They were heading for collisin considering the speed and the fact that they were only 300 meters from eachother.
If they were on the same course, how could they collide?? I know, I know...
Fly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4737 times:
A lot of stuff is getting lost on translation.
Quoting flynorth (Reply 7):
They met on the same altitude in airspace, roughly 11 000 meters. They were not enough separated and met on less than 300 meters.
I'm assuming you mean the horizontal separation was 300m.
Quoting flynorth (Reply 7):
If I understand things correctly (please anyone with actual knowledge correct me if I'm wrong), they met on the same flight level. If a flight level is 1000 ft (e.g. FL 350 is 35 000 ft?), that would make the vertical distance roughly 300 meters (as stated in the article).
That can't be possible unless one was climbing/descending, or someone was on an incorrect FL (VERY unlikely).
1000ft/300m VERTICAL separation is within RVSM limits. Horizontal separation, depending on location, is usually 5nm when enroute, which I'm assuming was the distance that was violated.
flynorth From Sweden, joined Mar 2008, 126 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2872 times:
Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 11): I'm assuming you mean the horizontal separation was 300m.
No, vertical separation. One plane was heading south and the other plane were heading west.
Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 11): That can't be possible unless one was climbing/descending, or someone was on an incorrect FL (VERY unlikely).
1000ft/300m VERTICAL separation is within RVSM limits. Horizontal separation, depending on location, is usually 5nm when enroute, which I'm assuming was the distance that was violated.
I'm not exactly sure, but the article states that they met on the same altitude and that they were not enough separated (as stated by the ATC working for the Swedish Civil Aviation Administration). I guess that this is what they will be investigation.
The discussion about the flight levels were interpretation of the article. The article only talks about being on the same altitude.
migair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1279 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2736 times:
300 m at FL350 is impossible, it´s so close that you can say hello to the other pilots, with TCAS active it´s impossible to be so close.... and specially at the same FL
20 seconds before that both TCAS become active giving pilots RA´s to avoid the other plane, one climb the other descend, and 50 seconds before that Traffic Alert (TA) is activated and pilots checking the TCAS screen start avoiding the other traffic turning right or left.......
So for me, with the experience I have..... I think is impossible to be so close...... 300 metres from another plane at FL350 and .80 mach......
Sponsor Message: 
From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3228 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 1633 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3132 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1279 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2009, 151 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Mar 2008, 126 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2425 posts, 
I know, I know...
Printer friendly format 
