Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ozrocker on July 02, 2013, 08:35:18 AM
-
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 :aok 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
:cheers: Oz
-
I used to jump out of Tecumseh!!!! I wonder what's gonna happen to the jump pilot?
-
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. :bhead
That's what TCAS is for. It did it's job, no need for the exaggeration.
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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
-
" 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. :rofl
-
" 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
So that a child is someone's daughter makes the journalist credible. Got it.
It must have been terrifying because and children say so.
-
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
-
Idk maybe it's just me. If I were in a Passenger plane,
and we dropped 1600 feet with no warning :uhoh
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 :aok
:cheers: Oz
-
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. :D
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.
-
In a very short time those 2 a/c would have covered 400 feet.
:cheers: Oz
400 feet of vertical separation. They were 1.6 nautical miles horizontal at the closest.
-
years ago I was in a plane from new york to charlotte, nc. my co worker used to get annoyed when I would tell him what the different noises on the airplane were, you know flaps, gear that was about all I could identify. we were on a small jet with about 3 or 4 rows, I dont remember exactly. think it was a 737 or 747. all I remember the is the 7.
it was a cool normal flight when were on final approach I turned to my friend and I pointed out that the landing gear hadnt deployed yet. we kept going lower and lower I was about to panic as I kept telling my friend the landing gear wasnt down. we were really close to the ground when the airplane engines went to more power and we started climbing. I told my friend again, no noise from the landing gear going up or down.
after a few minutes of climbing the pilot announced that there was another airplane on the runway and we had aborted landing. I always called that bs as I pointed out to my friend that when we came around for another landing we could hear and fell he landing gear gong down. it make a lot of noise in that airplane.
that was one of the few times I had actually been scared to fly. the other was when an airplane crashed in Charlotte the night before I flew from Charlotte to los angeles. the road we took to the airport passed right by the house that was destroyed by the airplane.
semp
semp
-
CLT has a large amount of controller training and they're not the best at moving airplanes. I've done more go-arounds there than any other large hub airport. 3 in one month alone. Nothing unusual there.
In a 737 and other airliners you may well not hear the landing gear come down especially if you're toward the back. You weren't about to belly in. I've noticed the same thing on SWA airplanes (all 737 fleet) and never thought to panic.
Your story is a great example of just how a first person account can be over sensationalized and turned into something it wasn't. I'm not saying you don't believe it, I'm just saying it didn't happen how you think.
-
CLT has a large amount of controller training and they're not the best at moving airplanes. I've done more go-arounds there than any other large hub airport. 3 in one month alone. Nothing unusual there.
In a 737 and other airliners you may well not hear the landing gear come down especially if you're toward the back. You weren't about to belly in. I've noticed the same thing on SWA airplanes (all 737 fleet) and never thought to panic.
Your story is a great example of just how a first person account can be over sensationalized and turned into something it wasn't. I'm not saying you don't believe it, I'm just saying it didn't happen how you think.
no I was on the wings. and every time I would always listen to the landing gear come down. you can hear it and feel it as it makes a lot of noise.
semp
-
You don't have to hear the landing gear or any associated wind noise as it comes down. Configuration and airspeed play a big part in this as it can be masked by light buffet, turbulence, ambient noise and other factors. 737s also don't have main landing gear doors which make a LOT of noise during gear extension with other airplanes. The nose gear doors make a racket too but the noise associated reduces as airspeed is reduced as well.
There's no rule that says you have to hear the gear come down. You didn't. I've not heard it myself.
-
You don't have to hear the landing gear or any associated wind noise as it comes down. Configuration and airspeed play a big part in this as it can be masked by light buffet, turbulence, ambient noise and other factors. 737s also don't have main landing gear doors which make a LOT of noise during gear extension with other airplanes. The nose gear doors make a racket too but the noise associated reduces as airspeed is reduced as well.
There's no rule that says you have to hear the gear come down. You didn't. I've not heard it myself.
flown enough in airplanes to know that you can hear it and feel the landing gear come down. I have yet to flown in an airplane where I dont feel it and hear it. that was the only time. and it wasnt just landing but I dont think the airplane went around with the landing gear down.
semp
-
flown enough in airplanes to know that you can hear it and feel the landing gear come down. I have yet to flown in an airplane where I dont feel it and hear it. that was the only time. and it wasnt just landing but I dont think the airplane went around with the landing gear down.
semp
You're the expert. :salute
-
You're the expert. :salute
I was there, you weren't.
semp
-
hence the name "scarebus" watch out for fallling stabs!
-
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. :)
One landing into Wellington I had was particularly rough, had this hot young sweetie next too me. She looked like an actress (theatrical not tv), grabbed my hand on the way in. She thanked me for being so cool on such a rough landing ... didn't tell her I was rapidly devising ways to take advantage of the situation :devil
-
Guncrasher and Golfer, there may be a simpler explanation. Forgetting to put the gear down is unlikely particularly in a multi crew airline environment. A more likely explanation is that the pilots were aware that the aircraft ahead may not clear the runway in time and expected a go around. ATC may well have warned them. So they left the gear up. They would only have to retract it all again anyway. So they continued to the missed approach point and performed the go around. One less thing to do during that process.
An early go around might mess up the sequencing at the airport. Far better to fly the published approach.
Just a thought. We can never know unless we spoke to the aircrew.
-
Guncrasher and Golfer, there may be a simpler explanation. Forgetting to put the gear down is unlikely particularly in a multi crew airline environment. A more likely explanation is that the pilots were aware that the aircraft ahead may not clear the runway in time and expected a go around. ATC may well have warned them. So they left the gear up. They would only have to retract it all again anyway. So they continued to the missed approach point and performed the go around. One less thing to do during that process.
An early go around might mess up the sequencing at the airport. Far better to fly the published approach.
Just a thought. We can never know unless we spoke to the aircrew.
that could be possible. we were pretty close to the ground, close enough to see the runway when looking down the window. that is how close to the ground we were. if I remember correctly the engines revved up about 2 seconds after we passed the beginning (or end, whatever) of the runway. I guess we'll never know for sure. we did try to read if there were any near misses reported but found none.
semp
semp