Controller/Southwest Crew suspended . . .

[FSS002]

You make an excellent point Arctic. I just watch several aircraft land at my loacal airport, A B190 and PA31. Wasn't able to see the crew til aprx 1/3nm with binoculars (10x50).

[Idle Thrust]

Noting OceansEdge's logo I am reminded of the old saying - "We haven't lost a dispatcher in an accident yet"
it's easy to judge from behind a desk.

[Beefitarian]

Kind of Reminds me of the time I mooned a truck from a 205. Coming back from Whitehorse to Haines Junction we spotted a friends truck, their parents where wondering where they where and had informed the other pilot that "they should have been home hours ago" We decided we better check up on them and thought the most appropriate way would be to fly by with my ass pressed against the window. Separation was about 50 feet laterally as we snuck up from behind and passed them, as I glanced over my shoulder I was reminded why they went to YXY. Her friend I had not met yet from Switzerland had just flown in and was glaring back with a look of surprise and awe at my pasty white ass and not to mention a plane. I was happy to report they where ok and had just spent a bit of time checking out YXY before the drive out to YHT.

Hold on a second. No one mentioned mooning.

If that boeing crew was mooning the Cirrus that's different. Of course I'm in favour of that.

[Doc]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but cruise on a B737-700 is what about Mach 0.74? 0.76? ... 1.2nm doesn't seem far at all at that speed

Also the quote reads 'less than 1.2nm", unless someone physically goes into the radar equipment and tweaks on it, 1nm is about the resolution they're gonna have on the en-route radar screen (200nm radius typically), terminal radar, obviously would have better resolution - but that isn't specified in the article posted.

I'm still thinking this was kinda scary close.

BTW - did any of the passengers look out their window and see a Cirrus off the wing tips and crap emselves? That's a bit of a customer service nightmare.

You're not a pilot, are you? I'd be interested in which "regulations" you think these pilots broke? There is nothing wrong, or unsafe with what they did. I would have gone and had a "look see" under the circumstances. Just because an aircraft and crew divert from SOP's does NOT necessarily make it "unsafe" or "illegal". I'm sure the crew briefed the passengers. Take me back to an instance where an Air New Zealand crew located a small aircraft over the Pacific and were able to save his bacon. I'm happy everyone has an opinion, but lets try and have an informed one.

[Doc]

I'm just pointing out that the rules are there for a reason. It's kinda funny (and not in the haha way) that Doc was just bemoaning the other day that the current generation hasn't seemed to learn anything from the past generations losses - most of these rules and regulations that people like joe seem to think are only for the stupid people exist because someone lost their life.

Following some of the logic here - it's a smart rule and a dumb pilot if he breaks regulations and metal gets bent; but it's a dumb rule and a smart pilot if no harm comes of it. No wonder Doc distresses.

I suppose you feel that what they did was, on some level, unsafe? And somehow, you feel there were "rules" broken? Couldn't agree less. Both aircraft were monitored on radar, by ATC. The Boeing would have been operated under VFR, with the crew maintaining safe separation visually. It boggles my somewhat limited mind, how you would not see this as a safe (however unusual) situation.

[Nark]

In Ms Bakers defense, I can see where she's is coming from.

The idea of "rules" are generally created from the blood of others, some are not.

Doc, I gotta nit pick your reply. The Southworst crew is still IFR, yet in VMC.


What the controller did was admirable. Would it be a "deal" for him if he left the cirrus cruise along? He used available resources to solve a problem.

Big Brother is one thing, but this Nanny state is getting ridiculous.

If I wasn't so addicted to AvCanada, I'd go off the grid and become a mountain man; only flying in the absolute wilderness of Alaska.

[Doc]

In Ms Bakers defense, I can see where she's is coming from.

The idea of "rules" are generally created from the blood of others, some are not.

Doc, I gotta nit pick your reply. The Southworst crew is still IFR, yet in VMC.

Ah, but an aircraft flying IFR in VMC, can agree to maintain "visual separation" with traffic. It can be a request from ATC, or the pilot. It can be turned down by either party. It's just not used much. Ms. Baker strikes me as a "rule is a rule" kind of person. Real life leaves some room for flexibility. There was absolutely nothing unsafe, or illegal here. It was a case of two parties trying to help out a third. And getting dumped on for using good airmanship, by the "non-thinkers" on the ground.

[OceansEdge]

Doc, you'd mostly be right...

I am kinda 'a rule is a rule' kinda gal, but I'm not so inflexible as to not understand that there may be times and places and circumstances that warrant or even demand breaking them... I just happen to also think that it is right that one should be prepared to answer for and explain oneself when it does happen. Which was the point I was trying to make with the tacky TNG example (what can I say it was the first one to spring to mind?). The alternative is everyone out there deciding for him/herself what rules, SOP's, regulations, apply to him or her and which ones are 'stupid' and that frankly would be anarchy in the skies... and I don't believe that is a good thing

As for any of the rest of it, nitty gritty details are in short supply and it's under investigation - I'll wait to hear what the NTSB has to say

I do apologize however, for using your opinion in a completely unrelated thread to bolster my own argument, I should have made the point myself.

[JL]

Here's an example of a well intentioned professional pilot air to air rendez vous that went terribly wrong. http://www3.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brie ... 6772&key=1

[Beefitarian]

Here's an example of a well intentioned professional pilot air to air rendez vous that went terribly wrong. http://www3.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brie ... 6772&key=1

Sure but in this case the Captain kept an eagle eye on the Cirrus in case it turned toward them at which time the first officer would pull his pants back up while they dove hard to avoid a mid air and prevent causing wake turbulance to flip the Cirrus like popcorn.

[Doc]

Doc, you'd mostly be right...
The alternative is everyone out there deciding for him/herself what rules, SOP's, regulations, apply to him or her and which ones are 'stupid' and that frankly would be anarchy in the skies... and I don't believe that is a good thing

SOP's can be circumvented if briefed. I don't ever recall referring to ANY regulations as "stupid"?? Still waiting to hear which "regulation" you feel was broken in this case. I can't think of any. I can't think of any pilot, who if asked to check out another aircraft, provided it could be done safely, would refuse the request. And, I don't want to know them.

[bizjets101]

Shows the SouthWest slowed to at least 249 kts.

5:00PM 28.83 -81.85 147° Southeast 327 605 11,000 -600 descending Orlando TRACON
05:01PM 28.77 -81.80 168° South 255 472 10,900 -120 descending Orlando TRACON
05:02PM 28.70 -81.78 170° South 249 462 10,800 descending Orlando TRACON
05:03PM 28.62 -81.77 139° Southeast 282 523 11,000 climbing Orlando TRACON

I'll assume the crew briefed the passengers. I fully (100 percent) support the actions of the crew and the controller - who in his professional opinion felt this was necessary.

Fortunately it was just a 'inattentive Cirrus pilot' - but it could have been anything from a incapacitated flight crew to an emergency flight situation.

I'm more concerned how this may affect the next time a flight crew is called upon???

[OceansEdge]

In a random 10 mins search of the CARs and AIM - my interruption - and I'd be very glad for you to point out to me where I'm erring here.
Yes, it's a U.S. based incident and I'm quoting Canadian regs, but that's a large part on which my opinion is based.
(and sorry the 'stupid' regulations was from my earlier comments to joe and his comment that "Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools")

RAC 2.5.1 Use of Controlled Airspace by VFR Flights
Due to the speeds of modern aircraft, the difficulty in visually observing other aircraft at high altitudes and the density of air traffic at certain locations and altitudes, the “see and be seen” principle of VFR separation cannot always provide positive separation. Accordingly, in certain airspace and at certain altitudes VFR flight is either prohibited or subject to specific restrictions prior to entry and during flight.

This would suggest to me, and perhaps it's a question of interruption, that VFR flight was most likely prohibited

602.21 No person shall operate an aircraft in such proximity to another aircraft as to create a risk of collision.

We'll have to wait and see what the NTSB has to say.

Part VIII Standards 821
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... #821_2_3_0
Outlines the required separation standard that ATC should have applied - a quick glance there and I don't see any "accept when"

RAC 8.5.2.2 Visual Separation from Other Aircraft

ATC may authorize the pilot of an IFR aircraft to conduct a visual climb or descent while maintaining visual separation with the appropriate traffic only if a pilot requests it. Controllers will not initiate or suggest a visual climb/descent in this application. During this altitude change in VMC, pilots must provide their own separation, including wake turbulence separation, from all other aircraft. This application may be exercised in both radar and non-radar environments.

IFR separation is required for all altitude changes in Class A and B airspace. Accordingly, visual climbs or descents will not be approved for aircraft operating in these classes of airspace.

RAC 6.4.1 General

The following information is intended to acquaint pilots with some of the basic non-radar separation standards applied by ATC and so facilitate flight planning and understanding of ATC techniques.

6.4.2 Vertical Separation - General

The standard vertical separation minima is as follows:

FL290 and below – 1 000 feet;
above FL290 – 2 000 feet.

Soooooooooooo ... what I take from this is; that if it was 'wrong', then the ATC supervisor was in greater error than the pilot, being ultimately responsible for the provision of separation, however, the crew should be well aware of the separation requirements and thus bear the responsibility as well.

Was it or was it not justified, is I suppose a matter of opinion and not law, and subject in part to information we don't have. It is under investigation and I believe it should be. Anyone pilot, controller, dispatcher alike who bends or interrupts the rules should be subject to being asked "Why" and having to account for themselves.

If I'm getting the gist of this completely ass about, please enlighten me.

[Shadowfax]

1 minute google search:

FAA 7-2-1. VISUAL SEPARATION
Aircraft may be separated by visual means, as provided in this paragraph, when other approved separation is assured before and after the application of visual separation. To ensure that other separation will exist, consider aircraft performance, wake turbulence, closure rate, routes of flight, and known weather conditions. Reported weather conditions
must allow the aircraft to remain within sight until other separation exists.

There's probably a ton of caveats to this that I didn't take the time to look up. FAA rules are COMPLETELY different than Canada. Don't see any "rules" broken in this event - Southwest Crew should get an award.

[mcrit]

Regulations can't cover every possible situation. At some point it comes down to judgement. Everyone is entitled to form and express an opinion about a pilot's judgement, but only the opinions of his peers are worth listening to.

[CD]

So far, it would appear that the FAA is only 'concerned' about the actions of the controller:

“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.”

Press Release – FAA Statement on March 27 Incident in Florida

[Shadowfax]

Probably still stinging from the bad PR the Reagan Tower deal caused. The FAA seems to be pretty hard (and random) on it's employees.

[Inverted2]

Here's a photo of the event.

[square]

Outlines the required separation standard that ATC should have applied - a quick glance there and I don't see any "accept when"

IFR separation is required for all altitude changes in Class A and B airspace.

Except when you're not in class A or B airspace? Like C, or G? E? I don't have the chart with me, but I'd bet a hundred to one that 11,000' is NOT class A or B airspace in that part of the world. B is typically 12,500 to 17,999 with class A at 18,000 and above in the SDA. And quoting a part about how ATC is authorized to clear an aircraft to climb visually is neither comdemning nor relevant. May have to snag OceansEdge for having a stuck foot in the mouth! The southwest guys were performing an extremely easy manoeuvre, with what sounds like lots of seperation, good visibility and no closing speed, to attempt to assist ATC and assure the safety of other air traffic.

We've seen many airplanes crash because of incapacitated crew members. I remember there was a report that came out a month or two ago about a 172 that crashed a perfectly good airplane, in decent weather, in the middle of the night, with three pilots on board. And they didn't even have an autopilot! Cheers to the flight crew and controller for being able to think outside the box to prevent ACTUAL hazards to air safety, and having the balls to make the call and put their judgment up for judgment!

Well done!

[OceansEdge]

May have to snag OceansEdge for having a stuck foot in the mouth!

Not at all,
I've never been one afraid to venture an opinion, nor unprepared to defend on what that opinion is based, or unhappy to be shown where my error is - hell I've learned a lot that way.

So - thank you
And yes, my viewpoint has changed some throughout this discussion

OTOH, I stand by my opinion, that the situation was certainly worthy of the second look of an investigation, or at least a few questions asked (and apparently I'm not alone in that opinion) If any one makes decisions and takes action outside of SOP they should be prepared to defend 'Why?"

And that applies to anyone in this business.

[Nark]

For those who are interested, 11,000MSL is Class E airspace in the US.
Class B is located around a number of airports (JFK, LAX, SAN, DEN the busy ones...) from the surface to 10,000' MSL, tailored to the airspace needs. Denver is the only airport where it extends to 12,500' because of the terrain.

From 10 up to 1-8-0 is Class E.

These folks where (were) in Class E, controlled airspace over Florida.

[KK7]

I'm open to being corrected, but nowhere does it say that the pilots did anything illegal. The FAA suspended the controller for breaking ATC's separation rules with what they consider is improper justification. Fine. But the pilots were suspended by their company, not the FAA. I'm sure the company would have preferred being advised that the pilots were going to do something outside of their flight plan. Maybe they did, and if they got the company's blessing, then they shouldn't have been suspended.

[Snagmaster E]

I remember a story in Flying mag "I learned about flying..." I believe...

Guy lost all all electrical at night IMC. Another flight was either asked or volunteered to help by flying close with all the lights on and then getting the other a/c to follow to the ground (or at least until he was VMC).

Worthy of a suspension?

[bizjets101]

And this airliner-as-interceptor idea has happened before. In a little known event, a Gulfstream G-II went dark over an undercast south of Washington, D.C. in November, 1992, having suffered total electrical failure. Lacking any other ideas, approach controllers decided to vector a USAir 737 to lead the G-II to safety.

They forgot to mention it happened to be John Travolta flying his Gulfstream GIISP N492JT

[Hawkerflyer]

All you folks at the NTSB/FAA can go home for I have video footage of the whole incident. Case closed.