Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Recent Near Collision Arising Frm Tcas Advisories?  
User currently offlineJETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 29
Posted (12 years 5 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2271 times:

I seem to remeber recently 2 transport category planes (DC10 and 747 I think)in Europen airspace had a neaer collision due to pilots following TCAS advisories.

The incident took place during the day and a collison was prevented by see and avoid.

Can anyone provide further info on that incident?

It sounds earlilly famailiar to yesterdays trajedy over germany.

Is TCAS giving incorrect RA's?

JET

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTAA_Airbus From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 726 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2245 times:

I dunno JETPILOT.

If they didnt collide, wouldnt it say that TCAS did its job?
They pump out RAs about 20 seconds before anything will happen, so in that 20 seconds, should you follow them, its still going to be a near miss. But as long as you didnt hit, Id say TCAS did its job.

But I havent read about this incident, and thus cant say to much about it.


User currently offlineJETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (12 years 5 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2241 times:

As I stated the only factor keeping these planes from colliding was the DC10 catching a glimpse of the 747 within 50 feet below it.

The RA issued told the DC10 to descend into the 747.

So did the TCAS do it's job?

I don't think so.....

JET


User currently offlineTAA_Airbus From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 726 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (12 years 5 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2235 times:

Like I said mate, I kow nothing of the incident and thus cant say anymore. But from what youve said, you are right, and thus should be looked into.

User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (12 years 5 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2210 times:

These two planes nearly collided over Japan, not Europe

SailorOrion


User currently offlineJETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 29
Reply 5, posted (12 years 5 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2202 times:

Could you contribute a little more insight into the incident?

JET


User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12565 posts, RR: 35
Reply 6, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2076 times:

I believe the 747-400D was flying from Haneda to Osaka and the DC10 (also JAL) was on a flight from Pusan to Narita; they came within a hair's breadth of each other - I've heard 30' mentioned, which for two very large airliners travelling at a very high closing speed is incredibly close.

Apparently, the pilot of the 744 was blamed.


User currently offlineAM From Mexico, joined Oct 1999, 590 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2073 times:

Talking about TCAS, can it perform some kind of emergency maneuver to try to avoid conflicting traffic all by itself? Maybe an autopilot override? Or is emergency traffic avoidance always performed by the crew following TCAS's advisories either by autopilot or manual inputs?


"... for there you have been and there you will long to return."
User currently offlineAlmbluzman From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 182 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2005 times:

does anyone think that reduced vertical separation might have had a big impact on these incidents? also, what effect might these incident's have on the proposed reduction of vertical separation minimums in the u.s.?

almbluzman


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21496 posts, RR: 53
Reply 9, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2004 times:

AM: Talking about TCAS, can it perform some kind of emergency maneuver to try to avoid conflicting traffic all by itself?

Not as far as I know. The actual course change must still be done by the pilots.


Almbluzman: does anyone think that reduced vertical separation might have had a big impact on these incidents? also, what effect might these incident's have on the proposed reduction of vertical separation minimums in the u.s.?

I´m not an expert, but by looking at the principle I would think that reduced vertical separation would actually decrease the probability of a conflict since the same number of planes would be distributed among a greater number of flight levels.

On the other hand, a deviation from the assigned flight level would be more critical. And that would include the risk involved with evasive action in case a conflict should still occur.

But with increased positioning precision and adapted ATC procedures I would still expect the overall risk to go down rather than up.


User currently offlineB747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1980 times:

Just a word here...
I believe, from having a look at official near miss (and collision) reports, that there is more problems with LATERAL rather than VERTICAL separation... except in a few climb/or descent scenarios...
In the new RVSM airspace above FL290, vertical separation is reduced to 1,000 feet... In the original altimeter designs, I doubt that there was much more error above FL290... if compared between FL270/280, or FL290/300...
Maybe it was the case in the higher FL370 or 390 levels... no much change...
I fly in RVSM and non-RVSM airspace... I never notice more level separation or discrepancies in the non-RVSM airspace... separation always seems to be 900 to 1100 feet vertically from "potential" traffic on our TCAS equipment...
I would worry more about LATERAL separation, personally...
(s) Skipper


User currently offlineSaintsman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1968 times:

With regard to the TCAS putting an input to the autopilot. Autopilots don't like sudden large inputs because it causes them to trip out. An alert from the TCAS would by nature call for a large manoever in order to avoid a collision, so the last thing you would want in that situation is for your autopilot to disconnect and leave you with 'nothing'.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Recent Near Collision Arising Frm Tcas Advisories?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Any Recent 787 Pictures..? posted Thu Oct 19 2006 20:39:03 by Beaucaire
Helo Pads Near City Centers posted Thu Oct 12 2006 22:35:16 by Lehpron
How Effective Is Tcas? posted Tue Oct 3 2006 21:13:39 by MarkBoston
GA Airports Near D.C? posted Sun Sep 17 2006 19:20:22 by FlyMIA
Transponders And Tcas Low Level Question posted Tue Aug 22 2006 23:08:26 by Julianuk
Tag Near Brake Indicator Pin posted Sun Aug 6 2006 10:44:34 by HAWK21M
What's This Thing Near The Nosewheel? posted Thu Jul 20 2006 12:42:54 by Varig767
Ground Cables Near Bay posted Tue Jun 27 2006 19:07:52 by HAWK21M
SAS 737 And Light Aircraft, Tcas Incident, Norway posted Mon Jun 5 2006 21:54:00 by MerlinIIIB
Tcas False Alerts Or No Action Needed Alerts? posted Sat May 27 2006 18:48:13 by JulianUK

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format