If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Ben Jackson" wrote in message news:EQf0b.149627$Oz4.41062@rwcrnsc54... In article , Chip Jones wrote: In the most professionally bored voice I can muster, I key up and say "Baron 123, traffic alert, traffic two o'clock, two miles converging from the right indicating 7000, suggest you turn right heading 180 immediately." Why did it get that far? First of all, I had about fifteen airplanes on frequency. Mentally I was gearing up for the wad of Atlanta departures that were getting ready to launch (indeed were beginning to check on freq) and how the weather was going to impact the departure push. I also had other IFR irons in the fire. For example, I had two IFR's inbound to JZP and I was blocking for an approach at 47A (which conflicts with JZP). I was mentally trying to get a plan working for sequence into JZP while I was making that final position-relief traffic scan. To me, the VFR target represented a very low priority traffic call at six miles and 400 feet, especially since I don't have separation responsibility between IFR and VFR traffic in thsi airspace. I *do* have an air safety obligation that trumps all of my separation responsibilities, but at six miles, and even at four miles, I did not recognize that this situation was going to deteriorate from a routine traffic situation into an alert situation with co-altitude traffic. If I'm the Baron I'm thinking, "I can't see the traffic, I won't see the traffic in IMC, why is this guy waiting for me to spot this plane?" I suppose he could have requested a vector at the first or second call. I was waitng for him to spot the traffic because that's what happens between VFR and IFR traffic in this airspace. See and avoid. If you *believed* that he was really in the soup, why not just pretend the VFR target was a lost-comms IFR guy and gotten the Baron out of the way? I didn't believe that the VFR was in the soup until he got co-altitude with the IFR guy who had reported twice that he was IMC at 7000. I see an unknown VFR target, I assume the pilot is complying with FAR's. In this case, I can't prove that he wasn't. Plus if two aircraft are 2 miles apart and you turn one 90 degrees, by the time the turn is completed they will have both covered a mile. My mental image of this is that you're turning a situation where the two course lines would converge to a sharp point into a situation where they would converge in a nice rounded corner. I disagree with you here. I do not use the phraseology "immediately" unless I am worried about an imminent collision. In 13 years of ATC, I have used "immediately" probably less than twenty times. In order for the baron to slip behind the VFR, he did not need to turn 90 degrees, he only needed to turn 45 to 50 degrees right. I assumed that combining "immediately" with a suggested 80 degree right turn, there was the highest probability of a successful outcome for the Baron. In the event, the left turn of 20 or 30 degrees that the Baron pilot executed in the event was insufficient to keep his target from merging with the intruder. Chip, ZTL ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Chip Jones wrote: I disagree with you here. I do not use the phraseology "immediately" unless I am worried about an imminent collision. In 13 years of ATC, I have used "immediately" probably less than twenty times. In order for the baron to slip behind the VFR, he did not need to turn 90 degrees, he only needed to turn 45 to 50 degrees right. I assumed that combining "immediately" with a suggested 80 degree right turn, there was the highest probability of a successful outcome for the Baron. In the event, the left turn of 20 or 30 degrees that the Baron pilot executed in the event was insufficient to keep his target from merging with the intruder. Chip, ZTL I guess had he been above 10,000 you could have used the merging target provisions of the 7110.65? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... I guess had he been above 10,000 you could have used the merging target provisions of the 7110.65? How so? Merging target procedures apply to radar identified aircraft. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... I guess had he been above 10,000 you could have used the merging target provisions of the 7110.65? I guess I am not totally following you here, Joe. Besides the "radar identified" requirement for the traffic, the merging target provisions still put the onus on the pilot to request vectors for avoidance. I think I still would have ended up in an alert situation with this pair. Had I known that these aircraft were going to get so apparently close in the end without a visual, I would have vectored the Baron early in the interests of air safety (regardless of what the 7110 dictates) to avoid the alert. Hindsight and all that. :-) To further muddy the water, merging target procedures dictate that I issue traffic information to aircraft whose targets will merge (as in this event) *unless* the aircraft are separated by more than the appropriate vertical minima. In the class of airspace that this event occurred in (Class E), there are no formal vertical separation minima between IFR and VFR aircraft. Obviously there are several ways to interpret how this procedure does or does not apply had this scenario occurred above 10,000. Chip, ZTL ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Chip Jones wrote: Had I known that these aircraft were going to get so apparently close in the end without a visual, I would have vectored the Baron early in the interests of air safety (regardless of what the 7110 dictates) to avoid the alert. That is far and away the better procedure. I have had a few situations like that and I will never let it get to a safety alert status. The IFR guy will get vectored. It also saves time. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Do controllers have a corollary of the PIC command authority, i.e. do
what's right to save lives even if it means breaking 7110? Such as when you issued vectors to your beer-offering pilot in distress on top? Mitch Gossman "Chip Jones" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... I guess had he been above 10,000 you could have used the merging target provisions of the 7110.65? I guess I am not totally following you here, Joe. Besides the "radar identified" requirement for the traffic, the merging target provisions still put the onus on the pilot to request vectors for avoidance. I think I still would have ended up in an alert situation with this pair. Had I known that these aircraft were going to get so apparently close in the end without a visual, I would have vectored the Baron early in the interests of air safety (regardless of what the 7110 dictates) to avoid the alert. Hindsight and all that. :-) To further muddy the water, merging target procedures dictate that I issue traffic information to aircraft whose targets will merge (as in this event) *unless* the aircraft are separated by more than the appropriate vertical minima. In the class of airspace that this event occurred in (Class E), there are no formal vertical separation minima between IFR and VFR aircraft. Obviously there are several ways to interpret how this procedure does or does not apply had this scenario occurred above 10,000. Chip, ZTL ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Snowbird wrote: If you *believed* that he was really in the soup, why not just pretend the VFR target was a lost-comms IFR guy and gotten the Baron out of the way? Just to point out here, Chip isn't working the "VFR" target, he I know, but it worries me that just because the VFR-in-IMC guy is breaking the rules, the controller is left in a position where due to regulations and habit/mindset he is unable to resolve[*] a traffic situation that would otherwise be routine. In software this is one of those "can't happen" cases. You "can't" have a guy in IMC that's not on an IFR flightplan converging with an IFR plane. So the regs don't allow for it and anyone evaluating the situation tries to make it fit into one of the other categories instead. [*] obviously no metal was bent here, but the Baron used his emergency authority to deviate from his clearance trying to get out of the way. -- Ben Jackson http://www.ben.com/ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message ... Given this traffic scenario, would any of you guys have followed my suggestion to turn to a 180 heading, or was I wasting my breath? Chip, ZTL It reminds me of the scene in the Hunt for Red October where Jack Ryan has to choose between steering the sub into the torpedo or away from the torpedo. As such, I think the pilot feared a head on; a 70 degree turn is about a mile in a cruising Baron. The Baron also guessed that he could descend away from the climbing aircraft as reported - guessing (correctly fortunately) that the interloper would not descend back out of the weather. (a 400 ft altitude change following a 6 second turn should be considered deliberate, imho.) Based solely upon the vectors you listed, I also think the course he chose (~20 left) put the aircraft closer to the destination instead of further away, which may have also been a factor in his decision-making process. Maybe a left 360 would have done the trick more comfortably for everyone? I was recently "spun" in VMC about 3 miles from a VOR at 7000 in an SR22 with no traffic reported -although I presumed that was the problem- which is what made me think of it. It's puts the plane right back where it started, just two minutes later. While we hope never to be faced with an unverified target in IMC, please make the suggestion that best resolves the conflict from your viewpoint. -- Bob PP-ASEL-IA, A/IGI |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message ... The other day, I had an air traffic situation I wanted to bounce off of the group. Those of you who don't know me, I'm a Center controller down here in Atlanta. Here's the deal. I was working a Center departure sector mixing Atlanta terminal departures of every ilk and kin with enroute overflight traffic north of metro Atlanta. The sector weather was typical summer MVFR down here- lots of convection, hazy, hot, humid etc with building thunderstorms here and there impacting the sector. I had received my briefing from the previous controller and had just assumed responsibility for the airspace. Part of my technique is to do one more quick traffic scan *after* I take over (while the previous controller is still at hand) to ensure we didn't fumble a situation while we changed the guard. I am working a Baron IFR at 7000 flying from Chattanooga TN to Charleston SC, on course heading of about 110 or so. Doing my scan, I see he has an IFR off the nose about 15 miles at 6000 and another IFR guy crossing from the NE at 8000 and 20 miles, so he is separated. I notice additional traffic for this guy, a VFR indicating 6600 about six miles south, heading about 055 or so, converging with him. I ask the previous controller if she had issued traffic, she said she hadn't. I made the traffic call.. "Baron 123, VFR traffic one to two o'clock, six miles, northeast bound converging, altitude indicates six thousand six hundred." The response I get is "Baron 123 is IMC, no contact." I make a few unrelated routine calls to other traffic, keeping an eye on this VFR target. His Mode C indicates that he is in a climb, and the conflict alert activates (both data blocks begin to flash). I make another call at four miles. "Baron 123, your traffic now two o'clock, four miles, northeast bound, altitude indicating six thousand niner hundred VFR, converging right to left." The Baron responds "123 is IMC, no contact." The situation now has my undivided attention. At three miles converging (next update), the traffic is indicating 7000. The next update, the traffic is still at 7000. This guy is flying VFR where one of my IFR's is IMC. I swing into alert mode. The target slashes are a mile long each and the radar display is delayed a bit from actual position so these guys are getting close and closing fast. The Baron needs to yank it right most ricky tic and get behind this guy. In the most professionally bored voice I can muster, I key up and say "Baron 123, traffic alert, traffic two o'clock, two miles converging from the right indicating 7000, suggest you turn right heading 180 immediately." The Baron pilot says "We're turning left to 090, no contact." I then watch as the Baron swings into a left turn, prolonging the collision vector another minute. His left turn away from the traffic puts him wing high with closing traffic off the right side. The Baron also descends four hundred feet during the maneuver as the targets merge. To me, this looks remarkably like a TCAS maneuver because of the altitude change. I key up and say "N123, are you TCAD equipped, do you have traffic avoidance avionics?" He gives me a curt "Negative, we do not have the traffic." The targets have merged thanks to the left turn, and I cannot distinguish the one from the other. Anything I say now about the traffic would be a dangerous guess because I have lost the flick between these two aircraft. Instead of responding to the Baron, I issue a vector to the IFR traffic at 6000 to get him away from Baron 123 (who is now well below assigned IFR altitude). At the next position update, I have tail to tail between the baron and the VFR. I tell the Baron, "Traffic no factor, maintain 7000." He responds "We never saw him..." [The unknown SOB in the VFR remains at 7000 for the next fifty miles- his profile never changed and I have every reason to believe that he never saw the IFR, IMC Baron]. My question for the group is about the Baron pilot's decision to disregard my suggestion to yank it towards the traffic and instead to turn away from him. From a controller's perspective, the quickest way to achieve "Oh Sh*t" lateral separation with crossing traffic is to aim one airplane right at the other. The idea is that as both aircraft are moving through space, the maneuvering aircraft is steering for a point where the traffic *used* to be but no longer is. Once the nose of the turning aircraft swings through his traffic's vector, every additional second buys additional separation. When we do this with IFR traffic, we call this a "Wimpy Crossover" or a "Bubba Turn". If an aircraft turns away from conflicting crossing traffic, every additional second of turn sees the targets get closer until either they merge or else they *finally* get to the point of course divergence. The closer the targets are when an away turn is initiated, the less effective an "away" turn is. Given this traffic scenario, would any of you guys have followed my suggestion to turn to a 180 heading, or was I wasting my breath? I'd have probably requested a vector for traffic avoidance before the traffic alert became necessary. It's possible that the VFR target was indicating bad Mode C, he may have been at a proper VFR cruising altitude and no factor for the IFR traffic at 7,000. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Bush Pilots Fly-In. South Africa. | Bush Air | Home Built | 0 | May 25th 04 06:18 AM |
Any Pitts S-1 pilots in this group? | Kai Glaesner | Aerobatics | 4 | April 12th 04 12:10 AM |
Photographer seeking 2 pilots / warbirds for photo shoot | Wings Of Fury | Aerobatics | 0 | February 26th 04 05:59 PM |
Pilot's Brains Develop Differently | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 3 | August 22nd 03 04:48 AM |