Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Expert: Close Calls in the Sky – ‘A Catastrophe Waiting to Happen’
A KHOU 11 I-Team investigation uncovers the rising number of close calls between airplanes as FAA statistics show the number of flights worked by air traffic controllers fell by more than 1.5 million (www.khou.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Separation standard is determined by where you are operating, in a terminal environment like Houston and all stand alone approaches its usually 3 miles, with the exception of heavy and super wake category aircraft and then you need 5 - 6 miles. depending on phase of flight. When you transition to talking to a center the separation standard increases to 5 miles.
That is correct ....hence I referred to "phase of flight" in my commentary. It depends on whether you are in radar or non radar environment or whether on approach or departure or in cruise and vertically dependant on altitude or RVSM etc etc etc
I experienced a CLOSE call last week, RV6 passed within a 100 feet over the cockpit just after leaving the DC SFRA. Potomac does a great job calling traffic within the SFRA however the minute you leave the area and start squawking 1200 you are on your own. I was flying C172 being a high wing I cannot see above, RV6 being a low wing cannot see below, pass us perpendicular to our path of flight just over the windshield. I was using foreflight with ADSB in for traffic alerts but by the time it flashed in LARGE letters TRAFFIC it was to late. I know Potomac approach could see this on radar (if they were not busy watching other traffic), running mode C in this area they have altitude information, for them it had to look like a midair collision. Not a peep out of Potomac. Instructors always preached head out of the cockpit and head on a swivel, this has renewed this concept for me, glad to be around to fly again. I am 100% certain the RV6 was none the wiser of just how close he was to leaving to bonds of Earth?
2.99 miles is a loss of separation 3 miles is the standard dramatization at its best.
a story similar to this has been aired locally before,and also a national news story on the same issue...I live in the flight pattern for iah ao I see aircraft of all sizes flying at different altitude on approach to the airport..they use the same approach pattern daily depending upon the winds,and also it appears , the same altitude..i also worked at iah for many years, and observed aircraft taking off and landing,as well as having taken a few flights out of that airport myself..the air traffic controllers have their radar screens on which to base take off and landing instructions to pilots..the rest of us have only our perception visually of what is occurring..if more than a few pilots report "close calls" when they are landing or taking off,then this is just not a "slow news day " story..i might add i also live close to a small regional airport that does flight training,and I have observed small aircraft (and some small jets) coming within close proximity of one another..iah is a large international airport which has peak or "bank" times for flight schedules, and it is also a hub for united airlines,so it is a busy airport..
I happen to be an instrument rated pilot and understand the traffic control systems intimately. I believe the article you wrote is both alarmist and misleading. First of all, you infer that a “loss of separation” is the same as a near miss. Such an inference is astonishingly misleading. In separating traffic, there must be separation standards and those standards must be adhered to. If, in a particular phase of flight, the separation standard is 5 miles, 4.9 miles represents “loss of separation”. 5 miles is safe and 4.9 miles is safe but it is still loss of separation. The line in the sand is the standard, not a near miss! That cannot be over emphasized.
Near misses often rely on self-reporting by pilots which may be quite misleading. I have had flown head on into an airliner when he was 1,000 feet higher than I was. At altitude, that 1,000 feet looks awfully close but it is not. It is the standard! Perhaps some nervous pilots might report that as an “incident” because they thought it looked closer and deserved to be reported?
The other issue that is not even mentioned is TCAS. Even if a controller accidentally ordered two pilots to fly on a collision course, the controller does not have the last word. Both pilots would receive TCAS warnings to turn in opposite directions away from each other and/or climb and descend away from each other. Those TCAS instructions trump all instructions from controllers. Even in the worst case, there is still a human failure/error mitigation system and it is called TCAS. Even a near miss is unlikely to result in a collision. A single controller error will not result in a collision. There have to be a multitude of errors for a collision to occur. First there has to be an egregious error by a controller putting two planes on a direct collision course and then both pilots have to ignore their TCAS instructions. It has happened to me. Flying into a “smaller” airport in Florida, terminal radar was inoperative with VFR traffic in abundance. TCAS warned me that I was on a collision course with VFR traffic and what action to take. Not only does TCAS tell you what to do, it also shows you exactly where that potential conflict is (laterally and vertically) and exactly what he is doing (laterally and vertically) and exactly what you should be doing (laterally and vertically)!
Sooner or later there will be a collision. No system involving humans will ever be perfect. To make it perfect would render it un-useable, either from a prohibitively expensive point of view or from an operational point of view. We have bicycles and they collide. We have cars and they collide. We have trains and they collide. We have planes and they collide. If your paper was to report on every car crash in the US every day, you would have no readers left within a few days. Some 40,000 people are killed in car crashes very year. If you now reported on near misses in the automobile world, you would not find enough paper to do the job! You do report on every airplane crash. Why? Because it is sensational and that is what sells!
Perhaps you would do well to now write another article applauding airline safety. You should write the article in an all-inclusive manner. There is back up upon back up and the system is incredibly safe!
Barry Dueck
Commercial Pilot