NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Cirrus

Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

SteveC said:
I'm still not coming up with a really good reason to use an airliner with passengers on board to check on a single engine NORDO.
Click to expand...
I'm going to have to agree here. Intentionally putting two aircraft closer together increases risk of a bigger incident. The passengers on that airliner weren't able to accept or not accept that risk. Maybe the pilots were fully capable of intercepting, but under any circumstances it still increases the risk of a collision. Assuming what actually occured was legal, I think it is a business decision whether or not a company wants their aircraft involved in any activities outside of the transportation of passengers and cargo. In that case, how the company wants that situation handled should be spelled out in the flight operations manual. It could go right next to the no surfing porn on your laptop while flying over Minneapolis guidance.
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

exneophyte said:
I'm going to have to agree here. Intentionally putting two aircraft closer together increases risk of a bigger incident. The passengers on that airliner weren't able to accept or not accept that risk. Maybe the pilots were fully capable of intercepting, but under any circumstances it still increases the risk of a collision. Assuming what actually occured was legal, I think it is a business decision whether or not a company wants their aircraft involved in any activities outside of the transportation of passengers and cargo. In that case, how the company wants that situation handled should be spelled out in the flight operations manual. It could go right next to the no surfing porn on your laptop while flying over Minneapolis guidance.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't be something that should specifically need to be spelled out, as the book doesn't cover everything. It appears (unless there's more info) that the SWA pilots made a judgement call to help out another potenial aircraft in distress, in a certain fashion.

Until we can define what the definition of "closer together" was in this particular case, we shouldn't make the noose for the SWA pilots.
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

MikeD said:
Shouldn't be something that should specifically need to be spelled out, as the book doesn't cover everything. It appears (unless there's more info) that the SWA pilots made a judgement call to help out another potenial aircraft in distress, in a certain fashion.

Until we can define what the definition of "closer together" was in this particular case, we shouldn't make the noose for the SWA pilots.
Click to expand...

Was this likely a bad decision? I think that it's reasonable to state that it was likely a bad decision.

Does it warrant having the Southwest pilots lose their jobs? No, not at all. A 30 day vacation without pay and a good lecture about how they're not in the military (anymore)? Of course.

But their jobs? That's probably a bit much.
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

jtrain609 said:
Was this likely a bad decision? I think that it's reasonable to state that it was likely a bad decision.

Does it warrant having the Southwest pilots lose their jobs? No, not at all. A 30 day vacation without pay and a good lecture about how they're not in the military (anymore)? Of course.

But their jobs? That's probably a bit much.
Click to expand...

Bad decision depends on the facts of the actual pass. I don't know if they formed up on the Cirrus and flew formation, or if they made a passby at XX thousand feet lateral and looked across/down. I just don't know any of that yet to judge it.

Using an airliner? Id personally think its a little lower down the list of planes to be asked, but I don't know what kind of traffic was in the area or the urgency of the situation at hand.
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=43a2096f&opt=0

A Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-700, flight WN-821 from Phoenix,AZ to Orlando International,FL (USA), was on approach to Orlando at 12,000 feet, when the air traffic controller asked the crew to have a look at a Cirrus SR-22 private aircraft enroute to Orlando Kissimmee Airport tracking about 10nm ahead at 11,000 feet, that could not be reached on radio for over an hour. The crew agreed to help and was vectored towards the Cirrus, reported the aircraft in sight and seeing two persons in the cockpit, then turned away from the Cirrus and performed a safe landing into Orlando International about 17 minutes later.

About 30 seconds after the Boeing turned onto a diverging course the Cirrus crew reported on Jacksonville's frequency and was handed to their correct frequency. The aircraft landed safely in Kissimmee about 20 minutes later.

The FAA reported, that preliminary information shows a loss of separation between the two aircraft. The air traffic controller, who is also a supervisor, was suspended. "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," said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt. "We are reviewing the air traffic procedures used here and making sure everyone understands the protocols for contacting unresponsive aircraft."

The NTSB have opened an investigation.

FAA radar data show, that the Boeing descended down to 10,800 feet and back up to 11,000 feet while checking the Cirrus, that maintained 11,000 feet all time. The radar tracks suggest the minimum separation between the aircraft was less than 1.2nm lateral with 0 feet vertical.
Click to expand...
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

The FAA reported, that preliminary information shows a loss of separation between the two aircraft. The air traffic controller, who is also a supervisor, was suspended. "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," said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt. "We are reviewing the air traffic procedures used here and making sure everyone understands the protocols for contacting unresponsive aircraft."

The NTSB have opened an investigation.

FAA radar data show, that the Boeing descended down to 10,800 feet and back up to 11,000 feet while checking the Cirrus, that maintained 11,000 feet all time. The radar tracks suggest the minimum separation between the aircraft was less than 1.2nm lateral with 0 feet vertical.
Click to expand...

People are getting all up in arms over this?!?!

First, the pilots accepted the request from ATC, so I don't fault ATC for anything. Second, the pilots appear to have safely performed a pass by the Cirrus from whats described here. Are we REALLY getting all up in arms over "less than 1.2 nm lateral"? Really?

Wow.

If thats the FAA's retarded reasoning about "placing the aircraft in close proximity to another and compromising safety", then EVERY damn aircraft landing simulteneously on parallel runways are in imminent danger of collision. :banghead:

FAA/Babbit = candyass.

SWA crew should be commended for assisting.......or are people here still calling for their heads on a platter?
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

That would make for a sweet 'daily pic' of a 37 off the side a mile out.
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

MikeD said:
People are getting all up in arms over this?!?!

First, the pilots accepted the request from ATC, so I don't fault ATC for anything. Second, the pilots appear to have safely performed a pass by the Cirrus from whats described here. Are we REALLY getting all up in arms over "less than 1.2 nm lateral"? Really?

Wow.

If thats the FAA's retarded reasoning about "placing the aircraft in close proximity to another and compromising safety", then EVERY damn aircraft landing simulteneously on parallel runways are in imminent danger of collision. :banghead:

FAA/Babbit = candyass.

SWA crew should be commended for assisting.......or are people here still calling for their heads on a platter?
Click to expand...

It seems much to do about nothing.

In hindsight probably not the greatest idea with a load of paying pax on board

The FAA's argument will probably be that when landing both aircraft are in radio contact.

Don't approach control's have radar that refreshes at a higher rate than an artcc radar?
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

BlueMoon said:
It seems much to do about nothing.

In hindsight probably not the greatest idea with a load of paying pax on board

The FAA's argument will probably be that when landing both aircraft are in radio contact.

Don't approach control's have radar that refreshes at a higher rate than an artcc radar?
Click to expand...

My argument is being completely sarcastic, but is in response to Baddit's idiotic statements when taken in context of the apparent situation.

I agree that it seems much ado about nothing. The way it was being initially made to sound was that the SWA crew was flying wing off of the Cirrus. It appears to be no different than one aircraft passing another, just with an exigent circumstance in this case.

Babbit's contention that the incident was "totally inappropriate", seems off base and off the cuff.
 
MikeD said:
People are getting all up in arms over this?!?!

First, the pilots accepted the request from ATC, so I don't fault ATC for anything. Second, the pilots appear to have safely performed a pass by the Cirrus from whats described here. Are we REALLY getting all up in arms over "less than 1.2 nm lateral"? Really?

Wow.

If thats the FAA's retarded reasoning about "placing the aircraft in close proximity to another and compromising safety", then EVERY damn aircraft landing simulteneously on parallel runways are in imminent danger of collision. :banghead:

FAA/Babbit = candyass.

SWA crew should be commended for assisting.......or are people here still calling for their heads on a platter?
Click to expand...

I agree, 100%. I wasn't phrasing it well, but you hit the nail on the head.

We (ATC) put planes closer together than this daily, and that's okay. Flight crews accept visual and put themselves closer to other planes than this daily, and that's okay.

Still, for whatever reason, the politics are hinging on stretching the application of a rule. The question is...why?

I find it hard to believe that the DEN's suggested course of action, after an HOUR, would be to ask an airliner to go "check things out." And I think that's the actual problem here. That's not the fault of the flight crew. Period. That responsibility rests solely on the shoulders of the management of the ATC facility involved (making sure they did what they are supposed to do) and the DEN (making sure they did what they are supposed to do).

The ball was dropped here somewhere. Time will tell where. But in the meantime, blaming the crew and hanging this on a separation error is typical FFA. And that's sad...
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

I agree, I would argue that if the SWA pilots accepted visual separation the ARTCC vs TRACON radar sensitivity/refresh rate/separation minima no longer applied. Passing them by 1.2 miles laterally is neither formation flight nor careless and reckless (although I'm sure they will try to make that argument).
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

inigo88 said:
I agree, I would argue that if the SWA pilots accepted visual separation the ARTCC vs TRACON radar sensitivity/refresh rate/separation minima no longer applied. Passing them by 1.2 miles laterally is neither formation flight nor careless and reckless (although I'm sure they will try to make that argument).
Click to expand...

radar update rate has nothing to due with this either the pilot has the traffic in sight or not. how fast the radar updates dose not matter. Artcc or Tracon once the pilot excepts visual seperation there is no seperation standard for the controller.
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

TripSix said:
...
We (ATC) put planes closer together than this daily, and that's okay. Flight crews accept visual and put themselves closer to other planes than this daily, and that's okay.
...
Click to expand...

While I was training on my first scope I had a SWA @ 12000 and an AWE at 10000. The SWA needed to go all the way down to 5000, they were on converging courses but their routes merged about 5-7 miles ahead for both. The normal procedure most use is to shortcut the guy at 10 or just have him fly present heading depending on traffic. Well being my first scope I didn't know this. I descended the SWA to 11000 and called traffic to both. Both aircraft reported each other in sight. As I sat there trying to figure out what I was going to do my instructor started paying attention and yelled at me "They have each other in sight USE VISUAL SEP!" (he was thinking I had given AWE fly present heading like anyone else would have). So I used visual separation, perfect phraseology for both aircraft and both aircraft agreed and read back verbatim. I descended SWA.

A minute later both were at 10000 MAYBE 1/4 mile apart and parallel(SWA was descending through). My instructor says "you didn't give AWE present heading?!!?!?!?!"
"Nope you told me to use visual"
So the instructor keys up and says
"AWEXXXX do you still have SWA in sight?"
I will always remember the reply



"I think I can see the whites of his eyes"
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

1.2 miles? Really? Even if both planes turn in to each other (which obviously won't happen), the 737 at 300 knots and the powered parachute at 175, it'll take 9 seconds for them to reach each other. If that isn't enough time to get out of the way, we've got some other issues to worry about anyway.
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

queeno said:
radar update rate has nothing to due with this either the pilot has the traffic in sight or not. how fast the radar updates dose not matter. Artcc or Tracon once the pilot excepts visual seperation there is no seperation standard for the controller.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was posting from my phone and forgot to use the quote tag. I agree with you. I was responding to:

BlueMoon said:
Don't approach controls have radar that refreshes at a faster rate than ATC radar?
Click to expand...

...And saying yes they do, but with visual separation this would be irrelevant.
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

BeRich said:
1.2 miles? Really? Even if both planes turn in to each other (which obviously won't happen), the 737 at 300 knots and the powered parachute at 175, it'll take 9 seconds for them to reach each other. If that isn't enough time to get out of the way, we've got some other issues to worry about anyway.
Click to expand...

Vfr with a visual on the other aircraft, that's a good amount of space. Having flown around 1000 hours doing formation flying, we weren't doing so well if we were that FAR from the lead aircraft.
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

scooter2525 said:
Vfr with a visual on the other aircraft, that's a good amount of space. Having flown around 1000 hours doing formation flying, we weren't doing so well if we were that FAR from the lead aircraft.
Click to expand...

You are if you're doing non-standard formation. Not all formation flying is "on the wing".
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

MikeD said:
You are if you're doing non-standard formation. Not all formation flying is "on the wing".
Click to expand...

True, and they didnt have a plan agreed on and what's to say that the cirrus doesn't go haywire. But, as said the SWA cap has plenty of time to "break left"
 
Re: NTSB investigating ATC request Southwest to intercept Ci

SWA Capt ' Are there any Ornithologists on board?'
or should we keep our Bushnells next to our Glock in the flightbag?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top