I've never been a military pilot, so I'm not personally comfortable with the same level of distance some of you guys might be.
IA heavy jet simply doesn't have the same maneuvering capability that smaller aircraft do, particularly in the flight levels. 2,000' lateral separation, unintentionally, could have serious consequences to an aircraft that can't maneuver out of the way quickly.
Because generally transport aircraft are not traveling several hundred knots in a lateral direction. The closure rate is far greater, as evidenced by the image above. Again... no time to do the actual math right now, but those guys don't have a whole lot of time to react given their positions, closure rate, distance from each other, and speed. If they were 2,000' apart vertically, at the same heading, and converging towards the same altitude, they would have longer to react. 2,000' at the same altitude, on a head-on convergence at their speeds? That can't be more than 10 seconds.So, why is it that you guys are cool with 1000' of vertical separation, but crapping your diapers if it's 1000' of lateral sep? We operate in a 3 dimensional environment, and airplanes don't know which way is 'up' -- separation is separation.
It's no more of a 'close call' in one dimension than in any other.
The story reports that controller mistakes in 2011 were 80% greater than in 2007: "Total controller errors reported by the FAA last year were about 80% higher than in 2007
....so of course 'reported' ATC errors have increased since 2007, because controllers now have an avenue to report problems that they would have covered up before.
Just did a bit of quick math. One aircraft, flying at approximately 250kts toward a fixed object 2,000 feet away would strike that object in about 5 seconds. 5 seconds. This is two aircraft, converging on a fixed point (speeds unknown right now, right? 250kts a fair guess for these two?). I'm sure someone faster than I can figure out the geometry of them being separated by 2,000', and triangulate what each of their distances from the fixed point are based on the angles in the above image. Suffice to say... not a whole lotta time to react.
Were these two guys at the same altitude, changing altitude, off by a few hundred?
The jets, both at 22,000 feet, barreled directly toward each other for at least a minute without pilots seeing the other aircraft or realizing the extent of the danger.
Check twelve, dudes. Boeing and McD engineers spent a lot of time designing those big clear panels in front and beside you so that you could look through them. There's no priority higher in your duties as a pilot than avoiding hitting the ground, anything attached to it, or anything flying through the air.
(And just so you know, Hacker15e, I'm not arguing any points your making... I'm honestly trying to learn and understand why you think that two transport-sized aircraft on a converging path 2,000' apart is no biggee).
Because the two flight (elements) were on different frequencies and/or under control of different controllers.The article said they were headed at each other for at least a minute and nobody said or did anything about it.
Your perspective is one from which you've been trained for close quarters maneuvering. Mine, and a lot of others here, is not. This discussion is ongoing on another board, and not ONE of the contributing members is saying "quit being a baby and up your personal minimums..."Again, from my perspective, this just isn't that significant. IMHO, people's "personal minimums" here are just too comfortably large and they get excited over something that isn't really a big deal.
Lets not forget the C-17s were in TA only and weren't taking part in the resolution advisory calculations. From what I've read, the AA plane actually had a reversal of commands; first a "descend now", then an "increase descent", and finally a "climb now". There was actually ZERO vertical separation when it was all said and done. Why that happened, no one really knows yet.In this case, TCAS appears to have at least assisted, although there's no way to know if they would have hit each other if neither of them had acted.
It was night. I sure as hell can't tell whether or not someone is at my altitude or on a converging course at night. And how do we know they weren't in a cloud layer?More importantly many hours and minutes prior to that did they have to see the other aircraft and do something about it?
Again, only one plane would have been playing the TCAS game, and the two flights were on separate frequencies.There were any number of avionics systems that were there to help, PLUS the controllers.
Check twelve, dudes. Boeing and McD engineers spent a lot of time designing those big clear panels in front and beside you so that you could look through them. There's no priority higher in your duties as a pilot than avoiding hitting the ground, anything attached to it, or anything flying through the air.
So, why is it that you guys are cool with 1000' of vertical separation, but crapping your diapers if it's 1000' of lateral sep? We operate in a 3 dimensional environment, and airplanes don't know which way is 'up' -- separation is separation.
It's no more of a 'close call' in one dimension than in any other.
Well... I'm glad there is some validation that I'm not crazy. As far as I'm concerned, 2,000' lateral separation on a converging flight path at the same altitude is a really BFD for just about every type of aircraft out there. Like I posted above... at 250kts, 2,000 feet is only 5 seconds away. Assuming both of these heavies were going 250, there was precious little time to get out of each others' way.
Assuming both of these heavies were going 250, there was precious little time to get out of each others' way.