Another close call

[dustoff17]

One word for @Cherokee_Cruiser:

Commies!

 

[Rosstafari]

Spoken very fast, in this case to Southwest, "Turn left immediately, due south."

The only reason I know that is because the captions are present and I read them.

If my eyes were closed, I heard "turn left immediately, do so!"

I don't remember ever seeing a VASAviation video without at least one caption error. The guy gets it wrong all the time. Departure said "if you need to turn left immediately, do so".

Stop saying turn south now!

This is twice now I've seen an immediate TURN SOUTH NOW instruction that is not understood, or not complied with, both Eva and now Southwest.

Would be interested in hearing an ATC take on this @NovemberEcho

Would you concur? Isn't it better to just say the actual heading? You tell us a number, and it's far more likely a pilot will dial it in with the heading bug.

Just once. Even if Phoenix said "due south", which they didn't, and Southwest misunderstood, which they didn't, they still turned south. Traffic was in sight, they turned in the ATC recommended direction... which part do you feel was misunderstood or not complied with?

In any case. To answer the indirect question, there's a few reasons we would use a cardinal direction instead of a heading. Without speaking to the controller, I can only offer my best guesses. Two come to mind here:

1. SWA was already in an avoidance maneuver and ATC didn't want to issue a turn that may have made the situation worse, hence "if you need to... do so". Similar to keeping your mouth shut during an RA.
2. The controller (or the computer) may not have positively identified both radar tracks, so both legally and practically, issuing a heading would've been wrong and could've made things worse. The ADS-B source that VASAviation pulls from in making their videos is not the same as what is shown on a radar display, nor is it held to the same standards of identification.

The controller made the right call. He quickly identified the conflict, called the traffic to SWA, indicated that turning to the south was approved and clear of additional traffic, and got them sorted out. I'd buy him a beer.

There are other times that only a cardinal direction may be issued. One of the concepts is that in a time critical situation, it's more quickly issued and understood than a numerical heading. I'd consider this a good example of the right time to do so. Radar and ADS-B resolution and update rates aren't good enough for headings to be as practical at that range anyway. And with converging traffic less than a mile away, I'd hope you're hand flying and not dialing a heading into your AP.

 

[MikeD]

I don't remember ever seeing a VASAviation video without at least one caption error. The guy gets it wrong all the time. Departure said "if you need to turn left immediately, do so".


Just once. Even if Phoenix said "due south", which they didn't, and Southwest misunderstood, which they didn't, they still turned south. Traffic was in sight, they turned in the ATC recommended direction... which part do you feel was misunderstood or not complied with?

In any case. To answer the indirect question, there's a few reasons we would use a cardinal direction instead of a heading. Without speaking to the controller, I can only offer my best guesses. Two come to mind here:

1. SWA was already in an avoidance maneuver and ATC didn't want to issue a turn that may have made the situation worse, hence "if you need to... do so". Similar to keeping your mouth shut during an RA.
2. The controller (or the computer) may not have positively identified both radar tracks, so both legally and practically, issuing a heading would've been wrong and could've made things worse. The ADS-B source that VASAviation pulls from in making their videos is not the same as what is shown on a radar display, nor is it held to the same standards of identification.

The controller made the right call. He quickly identified the conflict, called the traffic to SWA, indicated that turning to the south was approved and clear of additional traffic, and got them sorted out. I'd buy him a beer.

There are other times that only a cardinal direction may be issued. One of the concepts is that in a time critical situation, it's more quickly issued and understood than a numerical heading. I'd consider this a good example of the right time to do so. Radar and ADS-B resolution and update rates aren't good enough for headings to be as practical at that range anyway. And with converging traffic less than a mile away, I'd hope you're hand flying and not dialing a heading into your AP.

Might it have helped alleviate the multiple traffic calls and vector calls, had SWA just replied with “in sight, visual separation”; since SWA had the traffic in sight the whole time anyway?

 

[Wardogg]

Might it have helped alleviate the multiple traffic calls and vector calls, had SWA just replied with “in sight, visual separation”; since SWA had the traffic in sight the whole time anyway?

Plus if it really gets bad isnt the TCAS going to take over?

 

[inigo88]

Idk the distances between the runway but if it’s greater than 2500’ then simultaneous is fine so long as they meet certain course divergence minima. Probably more rules involved than that but I’m not going to look them up right now lol. Maybe @greg1016 can shed some light there. But I don’t know how their ops work; every place I’ve worked runways have been under 2500’ so we use one for departures and one for arrivals. I’ve never worked parallels using both for same type op

I looked them up because I’m a huge nerd, but I’m not a controller so call me out if I’m full of crap.

7110.65 5-8-3, (c)(2):

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap5_section_8.html

Between simultaneous departures from parallel runways/helicopter takeoff courses, authorize simultaneous takeoffs if the centerlines/takeoff courses are separated by at least 700 feet and less than 2,500 feet, courses diverge by 15 degrees or more, and departures are released in accordance with the release distance stagger stated in TBL 5-8-1 below.

This one’s applicable to the @Cherokee_Cruiser example at SFO on 1L and 1R (good save man, that could have been bad!).

The table says departures need 1000 ft separation since the runways at SFO are only 750 ft apart, but I’m pretttty sure I’ve seen SFO launch them side by side. We would need @ChasenSFO to confirm.

I agree PHX complexes are probably > 2500 ft apart, so that would get:

5-8-3, (c)(3):

Between simultaneous departures from parallel runways/helicopter takeoff courses, authorize simultaneous takeoffs if the centerlines/takeoff courses are separated by at least 2,500 feet and courses diverge by 10 degrees or more immediately after departure. (See FIG 5-8-5, and FIG 5-8-6.)

NOTE-
RNAV SIDs specific to this paragraph are those SIDs constructed with a specific lateral path that begins at the DER.

That 10 degrees when both aircraft are on an RNAV SID seems generous…

Edit: The quotes nested, my bad.