Airbus A 319 & Skydiving plane close call over Michigan

[ozrocker]

Scary drop of 1600 feet for these people who had no clue that Pilot had
to take drastic measures to avoid collision.
TCAS saved them  1.6 miles apart Horizontal, only 400 feet Vertical separation. Yeah close.
http://www.nbcnews.com/travel/horrifying-passenger-jet-dives-1-600-feet-avoid-nearby-skydiving-6C10512258


                                                                                                                                   Oz

[Fud]

I used to jump out of Tecumseh!!!! I wonder what's gonna happen to the jump pilot?

[cpxxx]

Nothing will happen to the jump pilot unless he climbed above or descended below his cleared altitude. Looks more like a controller mistake to me.

Apart from anything else that story is totally sensational. 'Horrifying dive' and 'screaming passengers'. What a cliché.

That's what TCAS is for. It did it's job, no need for the exaggeration.

[Golfer]

Probably nothing.

He was in radar service and if he had visual contact with the airliner there would be no loss of separation. Without visual contact they weren't even without the absolute minimum separation (1.5 miles lateral and 500' vertical required, so they were still pretty close to having good separation)  Even with visual contact, you follow the TCAS so the airliner crew did right.  The skydive airplane didn't do wrong.  All's well IMO.

Personally I question the "horrifying dive" as journalistic flair.  When prompted by TCAS the pilot input required is a smooth change in pitch to either increase or decrease your rate of climb or descent or remain level.  In this case, if the TCAS commanded the pilots to increase vertical speed, this is to be done manually and smoothly without much cause for jockeying the stick.  There have been cases where this was done, lets call it abruptly or overenthusiastic, resulting in injuries however a normal pitch rate to the commanded vertical speed is all that's needed.

Slow news day.

[Ripsnort]

Couple of things with as much flying as I do commercially...

A) I wear noise-cancelation head phones, either plugged into an iPod or just on alone, to drown out any crying children or panicked passengers. They are especially useful when flying in and around thunderstorms and a sudden drop in altitude is normal yet people get spooked easily.

B) I try to position myself by switching seats if possible, next to a chick with the biggest rack...the idea here is IF a plane ever begins to rapidly drop, decompress, I'm going out of this life as a groper.

[guncrasher]

Probably nothing.

He was in radar service and if he had visual contact with the airliner there would be no loss of separation. Without visual contact they weren't even without the absolute minimum separation (1.5 miles lateral and 500' vertical required, so they were still pretty close to having good separation)  Even with visual contact, you follow the TCAS so the airliner crew did right.  The skydive airplane didn't do wrong.  All's well IMO.

Personally I question the "horrifying dive" as journalistic flair.  When prompted by TCAS the pilot input required is a smooth change in pitch to either increase or decrease your rate of climb or descent or remain level.  In this case, if the TCAS commanded the pilots to increase vertical speed, this is to be done manually and smoothly without much cause for jockeying the stick.  There have been cases where this was done, lets call it abruptly or overenthusiastic, resulting in injuries however a normal pitch rate to the commanded vertical speed is all that's needed.

Slow news day.

" overhead luggage bins opened, drinks spilled and flight attendants hit their heads during the dive."  that's from the news report, I dont think it was journalistic flair.


semp

[cpxxx]

" overhead luggage bins opened, drinks spilled and flight attendants hit their heads during the dive."  that's from the news report, I dont think it was journalistic flair.semp

It could easily be journalistic flair. I've met someone who was on a flight
 that made it to the papers complete with screams, plunges, terror and the rest. He told me, he heard one scream.

On the other hand as a skydive pilot. I hear screaming on nearly every flight. 

[Golfer]

" overhead luggage bins opened, drinks spilled and flight attendants hit their heads during the dive."  that's from the news report, I dont think it was journalistic flair.


semp

That's nice. They also reported no injuries. When you yank and bank people tend to get hurt.

They interviewed a 10 year old who said she felt they were going to die.

They don't have much credibility with me.

Slow news day.

[eagl]

If one or the other aircraft had just changed their flight path right as the TCAS was about to sound an alert, its possible to very quickly change the collision avoidance maneuver from an easy heading or altitude change to an aggressive climb or dive.  This why military fighters have not been allowed to do practice intercepts on airlines since shortly AFTER the introduction of TCAS.  Even with the fighter pilot ensuring that his intercept will terminate over a mile from the airliner and with thousands of feet of vertical separation, the TCAS will freak out at the high closure rates and command maximum performance avoidance maneuvers which can cause severe injuries among the passengers and crew.

I recall getting a thorough briefing on what TCAS is and does, shortly after some F-16s on a training mission intercepted an airliner that wandered into/over/through the warning areas off the east coast.  Although they never got within a few miles and a few thousand feet, the airliner predicted a collision at very long ranges due to the aggressive intercept geometry, resulting in an extreme pitch up followed by a pitch down.  That floated the passengers, crew, and service carts, resulting in numerous fairly severe injuries.  Although the F-16 pilots did "nothing wrong" by basic FAA rules, the value of TCAS far outweighs the value of running practice intercepts on airlines wandering through or over military training areas.  So intercepting civil aircraft for training is now absolutely forbidden and even real life intercepts need to take TCAS responses into consideration when working the intercept geometry.

[Golfer]

If one or the other aircraft had just changed their flight path right as the TCAS was about to sound an alert, its possible to very quickly change the collision avoidance maneuver from an easy heading or altitude change to an aggressive climb or dive.  This why military fighters have not been allowed to do practice intercepts on airlines since shortly AFTER the introduction of TCAS.  Even with the fighter pilot ensuring that his intercept will terminate over a mile from the airliner and with thousands of feet of vertical separation, the TCAS will freak out at the high closure rates and command maximum performance avoidance maneuvers which can cause severe injuries among the passengers and crew.

I recall getting a thorough briefing on what TCAS is and does, shortly after some F-16s on a training mission intercepted an airliner that wandered into/over/through the warning areas off the east coast.  Although they never got within a few miles and a few thousand feet, the airliner predicted a collision at very long ranges due to the aggressive intercept geometry, resulting in an extreme pitch up followed by a pitch down.  That floated the passengers, crew, and service carts, resulting in numerous fairly severe injuries.  Although the F-16 pilots did "nothing wrong" by basic FAA rules, the value of TCAS far outweighs the value of running practice intercepts on airlines wandering through or over military training areas.  So intercepting civil aircraft for training is now absolutely forbidden and even real life intercepts need to take TCAS responses into consideration when working the intercept geometry.

I'm surprised that a no BS intercept would have the fighters broadcasting anything the civilian interceptee could pick up.

[guncrasher]

That's nice. They also reported no injuries. When you yank and bank people tend to get hurt.

They interviewed a 10 year old who said she felt they were going to die.

They don't have much credibility with me.

Slow news day.

"Janet Dunnabeck of Whitney, Texas, who was returning with her 10- and 19-year-old daughters from a visit with Michigan relatives, told the AP the dive was “horrifying.”

“Every person on that plane was screaming. We thought we were going down,” she said."

perhaps the 10 year old was her daughter? since they do give first and last names.

semp

[Golfer]

So that a child is someone's daughter makes the journalist credible. Got it.

It must have been terrifying because and children say so.

[guncrasher]

So that a child is someone's daughter makes the journalist credible. Got it.

It must have been terrifying because and children say so.

maybe because they also posted the interview with the mother.  did you read the article?  because if you didnt I also posted a quote.


semp

[ozrocker]

Idk maybe it's just me. If I were in a Passenger plane,
and we dropped 1600 feet with no warning
I don't think it's exaggerated at all and that it would be/was terrifying,
to everyone, especially kids.
I don't know many of the parameters, but a rather large plane within 400 feet of another
a/c is extremely close. Consider the closure rate of those 2. As I stated many parameters such as
speeds, directions, etc. are not given.
In a very short time those 2 a/c would have covered 400 feet.
Kudos to the Pilot of the Airbus


                                                                                                                                            Oz

[colmbo]

The article says the crew announced after the incident there had been a "flight control problem".  Perhaps that problem was the pilot pushed too hard.  

The article also notes the jump plane was VFR and must "see and avoid".  What it fails to point out is that operations IFR have the same see and avoid requirement.