NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Cirrus

Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

Cptnchia said:
To participate in aviation, the following movies are required viewing:

Topgun
Airplane I and II
The High and The Mighty
12 O'Clock High
The Flying Tigers
(Basically any John Wayne flying WWII movie)
Click to expand...

Airport (the original)
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

queeno said:
well you part right, there is a rule in the 7110 (cant remember where) that says when providing visual seperation you must be able to communicate with both aircraft either directly or through another controller if the second aircraft is not on your freq , to advise the 2nd aircraft of the aircraft maintaining visual seperation from it. so you cant from an ATC point of view have an IFR aircraft maintain visual sept from a NORDO IFR aircraft.
Click to expand...

a. TERMINAL. Visual separation may be applied between aircraft under the control of the same facility within the terminal area up to but not including FL 180, provided:

1. Communication is maintained with at least one of the aircraft involved or the capability to communicate immediately as prescribed in para 3-9-3, Departure Control Instructions, subpara a2 is available,


I'm guessing a NORDO wouldn't be considered "under the control," and this is where they are hanging their hat. Interpretation, I know - but you know how they can get...

The clock with a NORDO starts ticking at five minutes. The article mentions no action taken by the supervisor until the acft was NORDO for an HOUR - at which point s/he used another aircraft to try to get a visual. I realize the media only tells part of the story, but if that was the only action taken/done - there are bigger problems here than a separation error.

That aside, dragging the crew of SWA into it is just scummy and low.

And for some great quotes:

"By placing this passenger aircraft in close proximity to another plane, the air traffic controller compromised the safety of everyone involved. This incident was totally inappropriate," FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt said. "We are reviewing the air traffic procedures used here and making sure everyone understands the protocols for contacting unresponsive aircraft."

I can't wait to see the new visual separation "interpretation" to follow up our "no sleeping at work; HANDOFF!!!!" briefing last week.

The two incidents indicate "the FAA needs to do a major self-assessment of how they're managing the air traffic control work force," said John Goglia, a former NTSB board member. The incidents "do call into question the training that's given to supervisors and their thought processes," Goglia said.

I think I'm going to print this out and put in on the bulletin board...
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

For the record ATC is not realistic in pushing tin....


However, the ATC personalities are scary accurate, in fact some real life controllers would probably have been more entertaining.
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

canadian_atc said:
For the record ATC is not realistic in pushing tin....
Click to expand...
Yep I figured as much. Even as a first semester CTI student it annoyed the heck out of me that Billy Bob Thornton's character kept pronouncing speeds in group form. I'm sure there were many other mistakes too.
canadian_atc said:
However, the ATC personalities are scary accurate, in fact some real life controllers would probably have been more entertaining.
Click to expand...
I think this is a good thing.
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

It just figures the faa is going after everybody.
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

Sec. 91.111

Operating near other aircraft.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.
(b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the formation.
(c) No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for hire, in formation flight.
Click to expand...

Am I the only one who thinks this sounds like they're hiring the passengers?
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

TripSix said:
a. TERMINAL. Visual separation may be applied between aircraft under the control of the same facility within the terminal area up to but not including FL 180, provided:

1. Communication is maintained with at least one of the aircraft involved or the capability to communicate immediately as prescribed in para 3-9-3, Departure Control Instructions, subpara a2 is available,


I'm guessing a NORDO wouldn't be considered "under the control," and this is where they are hanging their hat. Interpretation, I know - but you know how they can get...

The clock with a NORDO starts ticking at five minutes. The article mentions no action taken by the supervisor until the acft was NORDO for an HOUR - at which point s/he used another aircraft to try to get a visual. I realize the media only tells part of the story, but if that was the only action taken/done - there are bigger problems here than a separation error.

That aside, dragging the crew of SWA into it is just scummy and low.

And for some great quotes:

"By placing this passenger aircraft in close proximity to another plane, the air traffic controller compromised the safety of everyone involved. This incident was totally inappropriate," FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt said. "We are reviewing the air traffic procedures used here and making sure everyone understands the protocols for contacting unresponsive aircraft."

I can't wait to see the new visual separation "interpretation" to follow up our "no sleeping at work; HANDOFF!!!!" briefing last week.

The two incidents indicate "the FAA needs to do a major self-assessment of how they're managing the air traffic control work force," said John Goglia, a former NTSB board member. The incidents "do call into question the training that's given to supervisors and their thought processes," Goglia said.

I think I'm going to print this out and put in on the bulletin board...
Click to expand...

yep thats the one ,tankssss
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

titansox said:
Yep I figured as much. Even as a first semester CTI student it annoyed the heck out of me that Billy Bob Thornton's character kept pronouncing speeds in group form. I'm sure there were many other mistakes too.

I think this is a good thing.
Click to expand...


if you really want to make a good impression on your instructors, wait till you get in the radar lab when it gets busy and tell your trainer "HAY MAN HOLD MY BEER AND WATCH THIS CLIMB!!!"
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

titansox said:
Formation flight= 100 feet vertically and 1 mile laterally of the lead plane.
Click to expand...

Standard formation, yes. There's also non-standard formation also.

On the other replies, there sure is a good amount of pre-judgement going on based on few facts.

ATC I don't find any fault with. ATC can request a crew to anything; whether or not a crew complies is another thing.

The pilots......well, it depends how close they got to the Cirrus and what the dynamics of the situation were. Close enough to see two people inside could mean anything. I don't have that info yet. I fully agree that unbriefed formation flying under normal circumstances is can be very dangerous. However, for all we know, ATC may have been thinking they had another Payne Stewart situation going on. Vectoring another aircraft to check on one isn't dangerous in and of itself IF the intercepting crew knows what its doing. It doesn't sound like it was sustained formation flight, and if the SWA crew were ex or current military, then they'd know what they were doing. Remember, this appears to have been a "one time check" pass-by, if Im reading it correctly; rather than the 737 forming up on the Cirrus and tagging along in route or close. Again, I'd need more info to make a judgement.

Have accidents happened doing this? Yes they have. The most famous being the accident that killed Senator John Heinz in April 1991, when the Piper PA-60 Heinz was a pax in had a nosegear extension problem. A departing Bell 412 saw the passing PA-60 and reported the gear appeared to be extended. PA-60 pilot did a low pass by the tower and they saw same. Bell 412 pilot offered to join up for a closer look and the PA-60 pilot accepted. During the join-up on the low side, the 412 collided with the PA-60, resulting in all fatal. In this case, none of the aircrew involved had any formation training, and the joinup for an extended detailed check of an aircraft is something you'd definitely want that for.

As far as the below; again, Id have to know the dynamics of what occurred before I can pass judgement on what is "formation flight" and what isn't in this case, in regards to (c). (b) wouldn't apply if indeed a Payne Stewart situation was going on. And (a) is pretty subjective, as formation flight in and of itself isn't a collision hazard. Can it become one quickly in close form? Sure. But the dynamics are what we need to know before sending the SWA crew to the slaughterhouse.


Sec. 91.111

Operating near other aircraft.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.
(b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the formation.
(c) No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for hire, in formation flight.
Click to expand...
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

USMCmech said:
Close enough to spot the Cirrus is one thing, close enough to see into the cockpit is another.

Unbriefed formation flying is a disaster waiting to happen. There have been MANY tatal crashes because of it.


I too, fail to see how the controller is responsible for this.
Click to expand...
don't even get me started on formation flight, especially in Texas!
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

Something that should be discussed when talking about this situation

IF NORDO= emergency

then

this falls under Chapter 10 7110.65

10-1-f-1 states

Do not allow aircraft to join up in formation during emergency conditions, unless:

(a) The pilots involved are familiar with and capable of formation flight.

(b) They can communicate with one another, and have visual contact with each other.
Click to expand...

however

paragraph 2 immediately follows that with:

If there is a need for aircraft that are not designated as search and rescue aircraft to get closer to one another than radar separation standards allow, the maneuver shall be accomplished, visually, by the aircraft involved.
Click to expand...


So depending on the exact communications and methods used it was either explicitly allowed or not allowed.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/ATC.pdf
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

canadian_atc said:
However, the ATC personalities are scary accurate, in fact some real life controllers would probably have been more entertaining.
Click to expand...

So do you guys hang out in the break room quoting "Pushing Tin" the way us pilots go bleary-eyed and quote Top Gun? :)

You know, those of us that have actually seen Top Gun! :)
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

Doug Taylor said:
So do you guys hang out in the break room quoting "Pushing Tin" the way us pilots go bleary-eyed and quote Top Gun? :)

You know, those of us that have actually seen Top Gun! :)
Click to expand...

Pushing tin is largely considered stupid in our world. However, I have been guilty of saying "I've got them lined up like Rockettes!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top