User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

Mid Air Collision Avoided.

Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:09 am

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/08/29...iners.near.collision.ap/index.html

Why is there no radar coverage over the area, is it just down to cost?
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11757
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Mid Air Collision Avoided.

Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:28 am



Quoting Readytotaxi (Thread starter):
Why is there no radar coverage over the area, is it just down to cost?

From the article:

"There was no FAA radar coverage in the area where the planes nearly collided -- as is the case over most open ocean."

I'd assume it's down to radar range. And yes, perhaps cost associated with that. They were 180 miles from San Juan, PR.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
113312
Posts: 580
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:09 am

RE: Mid Air Collision Avoided.

Sun Aug 31, 2008 1:13 pm

Although RADAR coverage, by ATC, is limited by the horizon and the location of the radar sites, many GPS equipped planes today broadcast their positions via ADS and ATC can know where they are without the traditional voice position reports.

These two flights should not have been cleared at the same altitude on intersecting courses. An error was made by someone. BUT, it sounds like a save thanks to TCAS.
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: Mid Air Collision Avoided.

Sun Aug 31, 2008 1:52 pm



Quoting 113312 (Reply 2):
many GPS equipped planes today broadcast their positions via ADS and ATC can know where they are without the traditional voice position reports.

True but there's only a handfull of controlling agencies that are CPDLC/ADS capable around the world. Noteablely N.A. (Gander/Shanwick, PAC(Anchorage/Tokyo/ Oakland, and a few others that I won't list.
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

RE: Mid Air Collision Avoided.

Sun Aug 31, 2008 3:00 pm

Thank you people for the feed back, is there any interest from the airline industry to plug this loop hole or is it a case of everyone would like it but no one wants to pay for it.
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
 
User avatar
airportugal310
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:49 pm

RE: Mid Air Collision Avoided.

Sun Aug 31, 2008 3:36 pm



Quoting Readytotaxi (Reply 4):
Thank you people for the feed back, is there any interest from the airline industry to plug this loop hole or is it a case of everyone would like it but no one wants to pay for it.

Im sure everyone would love radar coverage, but I think TCAS works well as a stop-gap
I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: Mid Air Collision Avoided.

Sun Aug 31, 2008 3:57 pm



Quoting AirPortugal310 (Reply 5):
Im sure everyone would love radar coverage, but I think TCAS works well as a stop-gap

TCAS is an invaluable tool even in radar coverage. Just consider the recent Fedex jets that had similar flight no.s taking off on parallel runways getting opposite dept. freqs. The wrong plane was given a hdg that turned it toward the other jet. TCAS saved the day.
 
jgarrido
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:40 pm

RE: Mid Air Collision Avoided.

Sun Aug 31, 2008 6:47 pm

The article doesn't specifically state that no radar coverage ever exsit in the area were the event happened. I don't know the setup in San Jaun, but our long range radar here can see well past 180 mi out over the water. However sometimes it will be out of service and we must work off our short range only which is only good for picking up beacon targets up to about 150mi out. Sometimes it can be tense working without the long range because you have to worry about conflicts where normally you don't. For two a/c to get that close in a non-radar environment more then one person dropped the ball I'd imagine.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17053
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Mid Air Collision Avoided.

Sun Aug 31, 2008 11:05 pm



Quoting Readytotaxi (Reply 4):
Thank you people for the feed back, is there any interest from the airline industry to plug this loop hole or is it a case of everyone would like it but no one wants to pay for it.

It's not really a loophole unless you get people trying to exploit it.  Wink Right now it's just a hole.



I doubt they will plug it anyway. The costs of oceanic radar coverage are not justified given the very low level of risk. If they had that kind of money, they should probably use it to fix some more pressing problem instead. Runway overruns or something.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Alias1024
Posts: 2223
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: Mid Air Collision Avoided.

Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:16 am

I guess I don't see why this even made the news. TCAS was installed for a reason, and worked perfectly.

This on the other hand is damn scary. Apparently there is some construction going on at FAT, and some have theorized that the lights of the Piper blended in with the construction lights.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10344088
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
jgarrido
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:40 pm

RE: Mid Air Collision Avoided.

Tue Sep 02, 2008 2:28 am

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 9):
I guess I don't see why this even made the news. TCAS was installed for a reason, and worked perfectly.

Well one minute, co-altitude in oceanic non-radar is really really close. In fact the technical term is "really effing close". Thank God both planes had their transponders on.

[Edited 2008-09-01 19:29:03]
 
Alias1024
Posts: 2223
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: Mid Air Collision Avoided.

Tue Sep 02, 2008 2:40 am

Quoting Jgarrido (Reply 10):
Well one minute, co-altitude in oceanic non-radar is really really close. In fact the technical term is "really effing close". Thank God both planes had their transponders on.

I agree that someone screwed up, but I still don't think it is newsworthy. TCAS was installed to prevent collisions when someone makes a mistake, and the system worked. We have redundancy built in for a reason. I don't see how this is news. Neither of the two resolution advisories I've responded to this year made the news. Why is this one different?

[Edited 2008-09-01 19:45:19]

[Edited 2008-09-01 19:45:37]
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17053
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Mid Air Collision Avoided.

Tue Sep 02, 2008 4:14 am



Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 11):
I agree that someone screwed up, but I still don't think it is newsworthy. TCAS was installed to prevent collisions when someone makes a mistake, and the system worked. We have redundancy built in for a reason. I don't see how this is news. Neither of the two resolution advisories I've responded to this year made the news. Why is this one different?

Probably a slow news day. I love it when they splash the big headline and on further reading you turn up phrases like "in January of last year..."; "IF there had been a crash, it WOULD have been catastrophic" Uh-huh. Ok...
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
oly720man
Posts: 5740
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am

RE: Mid Air Collision Avoided.

Tue Sep 02, 2008 8:56 am

I take it that this is the DL flight with the kink in the track to the north of PR.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/D...5/history/20080826/1916Z/KJFK/TTPP

And this is the TSO flight - there's only one.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/TSO554
wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
 
jgarrido
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:40 pm

RE: Mid Air Collision Avoided.

Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:35 pm



Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 11):

The fact that the NTSB is investigating is probably why it got picked up. To put the San Juan incident in perspective: The amount of separation that was required compared to how much they had would be similar to two aircraft in the domestic enroute environment getting within one mile of each other while at the same altitude in positive control airspace.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: QF64 and 13 guests