West Coast Page: 1 of 1

West Coast
January 30, 2025, 20:08:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817608

Quote:

Originally Posted by PerPurumTonantes

Yes ATC could have done better, and heli pilots could have done better. But they were in high pressure time critical nighttime environment with seconds to make decisions.
The people who design the charts and procedures have days and weeks to think things through, in a nice safe office, on the ground, going 0kts with good lighting.
Unless I'm missing something, it would seem that route 4 design is the main culprit here .

There\x92s a reason an in-depth investigation will be conducted by folks whose job is to get to the probable cause.

Subjects ATC Probable Cause Route 4

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

4 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

West Coast
February 03, 2025, 16:26:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820681

Quote:

Not 100% sure about the US FAA situation where everything seems to be possible , at least in DC, but in ICAO land Tower controllers cannot give headings,

I used to many moons ago as a controller when working local in both class B and C airspace.

Subjects ATC FAA ICAO

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

West Coast
February 07, 2025, 18:22:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11823829

Quote:

Originally Posted by Someone Somewhere

Radar can absolutely fly two planes directly into each other. You have to put a number on how far apart they should be. If you call it "controller's judgement" then all you've done is change who's responsible, given that aircraft are never going to stick exactly to their assigned altitude and heading, and neither radar nor ADS-B gives exactly accurate positions, speeds, or headings.

This page, section "Separation minima based on ATS surveillance systems" quotes ICAO as saying that even in terminal space with good radar, separation should not go below 1,000ft vertically or 3Nm (2.5Nm if established on the same final approach in sequence within 10Nm of the runway). We're already blithely discussing half those standards as being impossible to meet.

Trying to understand the point you\x92re pushing. Are you of the belief that in terminal airspace (Class B in this case) that some minimum lateral or vertical separation standard must be applied? Apologies if I\x92m off base.

Subjects ADSB (All) ICAO Radar Separation (ALL) Vertical Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

West Coast
February 07, 2025, 19:13:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11823870

Quote:

Originally Posted by Someone Somewhere

I'm honestly not certain, but if you're not visually separated , that seems to be the conclusion reached upthread and from the link I posted.

The guiding document in the US is the controller handbook, FAA order 7110.65AA. There, it is clear that visual separation is an approved form of separation in Class B airspace. Not defending the application of it specific to this crash, just pointing it out so the discussion revolves around existing FAA separation standards and not what folks in the thread wish it to be, believe it to be or what it is in their country.

Subjects ATC FAA Separation (ALL) Visual Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

West Coast
February 07, 2025, 22:59:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824002

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stagformation

To be specific, para 7.9.4b of the handbook, here:
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...5-24_READY.pdf

As mentioned upthread, if not visually separated then either 500ft or 1.5mi applies.

Correct if this is all wrong, but in the accident sequence if the helo had responded \x91not visual yet, looking\x92 or words to that effect, then presumably a controller could allow the two to get a bit closer and then advise the conflicting traffic info to the helo again, say at 2.5mi. If helo visual, great \x97maintain visual separation, responsibly passes to helo.

This is what happened, although the very busy controller failed to re-state the position of the CRJ to direct the eyes of the helo crew onto the CRJ in order that they could actually see and avoid it.

However if not visual at say 2.5mi, well it\x92s a bit late, but the controller does still retain responsibility for separation and must apply the 500ft/1.5mi standard. Presumably instant vectors away while simultaneously climb to min vectoring altitude. Or the CRJ has to go around. Can of worms in busy airspace\x97 helos and /or jets being dispersed all over the sky.

Much better to do a rules based system and mutually exclude intersecting IFR app/deps and Helo Visual Routes.

I will not speculate specific to the accident. One more point to add about visual sep then you guys can go back to arguing about the accident. Visual separation isn\x92t just applied aircraft to aircraft. The local controller can observe both aircraft, (even if they don\x92t see each other) and apply visual separation. Such as two aircraft that are diverging but radar separation isn\x92t established.

Subjects ATC CRJ IFR Radar See and Avoid Separation (ALL) Visual Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

West Coast
February 08, 2025, 16:17:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824431

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveJ75

I keep re-reading this and it doesn't get any less amazing! To hell with the radar, I'll just look out of the window!

I would love to see it tried - obviously it would have to be over the desert in aircraft with no pax aboard! How would it work - do you just yell " Bloggs, left a bit " over the RT if all looks a bit close?

I will not speak to this accident but I will tell you as a controller I applied visual sep countless times over the years, all successfully.

Subjects ATC Radar

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

6 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

West Coast
February 08, 2025, 16:20:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824433

Quote:

Originally Posted by SINGAPURCANAC

Could someone explain, how Twr ATCO in that particular enviroment, achieve required separation?
He is not radar qualified- so no headings or radar measurment distances applicable.
Where is prescribed what point is 1,5 Nm away from visual app for rwy 33? ( Note : Atco must achive required separation before that point)
or
At what point should be givem climb instruction for He to be 500' above arriving a/c before compromising 1,5Nm. If rate of climb is 1000 ft/min Helicopet need to climb for 40-50 seconds with the speed 180km/h it is 2 Nm or so - it means that instruction to climb should be given no latter than 4Nm from crossing point.
What is possibikity to spot particular aircraft for visual separation at distances more than 4Nm from crosssing points, duting the night and in bussy traffic enviroment?

Yes , I know it is Burund....

How are you so sure the local controller isn\x92t as you put it \x93radar qualified\x94? I worked towers and issue vectors as needed.

Subjects ATC ATCO Radar Separation (ALL) Visual Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

West Coast
February 08, 2025, 17:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824460

Quote:

Originally Posted by island_airphoto

This seems to be an EU-centric idea, one could get the impression there is no such thing as VFR over there, or if there is it is restricted to some farm field far away from anything.

A lot of posters are applying air traffic processes from their home country, not all of which are bad. It seems to me however if you\x92re going to try to understand the lead up to the accident, and then assign blame, at least understand the process that was being used.

Subjects VFR

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

4 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

West Coast
February 08, 2025, 19:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824543

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveJ75

Well, in GA yes... and obviously the airfield movements you're describing. Not quite sure that's going to hack it in a commercial air transport environment...

Not familiar with the term dead side, but all the others I gave as a controller to commercial air transport aircraft and now receive same as an airline pilot.

Subjects ATC

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

3 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

West Coast
February 09, 2025, 01:47:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824686

Quote:

Originally Posted by Awol57

I would assume the US wouldn't be hugely dissimilar to to the USA in this regards, but a tower controller can
"Correlate an observed radar position symbol with manoeuvres currently
executed by a departing aircraft which acknowledged instructions to that
effect, provided that identification is established within 3 NM of the radar
sensor."

So identified on departure, and the usual transfer of Identification occurs for inbound. So no problems using a radar provided we meet the other requirements (MVA and the like). However the whole point of a tower controller is that we can use less than the radar standard and visually separate aircraft in visual conditions.

It\x92s been quite awhile since I was on that side of the microphone, but yes our operations are similar.

Subjects ATC Radar

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

West Coast
February 09, 2025, 01:50:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11824687

Quote:

Originally Posted by SINGAPURCANAC

there is no word IDENTIFIED b efore any other instruction.

It is esential basic for radar/ surveilance. How the hell you could give vectors for non identified aircraft?

And the above post of island_photo gives exact link with explanation that is officially valid in USA.
No full radar service if it is not " radar contact"( or identified)

It is so logic and simple to remember and to apply.

Recall that your post said the controller wasn’t radar qualified, not that the helo was/wasn’t identified. Whether it was or wasn’t, I won’t speak to as I don’t know. What I do know is Local controllers (assuming trained and with appropriate equipment and mapping) can and often do provide vectors, I often did working local. Unsure why you’d make such a claim otherwise.

BTW, in the US, it’s not “identified” but rather radar contact.

Last edited by West Coast; 9th February 2025 at 02:49 . Reason: Spelling

Subjects ATC Radar

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

West Coast January 30, 2025, 20:08:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817608	Quote: Originally Posted by PerPurumTonantes Yes ATC could have done better, and heli pilots could have done better. But they were in high pressure time critical nighttime environment with seconds to make decisions. The people who design the charts and procedures have days and weeks to think things through, in a nice safe office, on the ground, going 0kts with good lighting. Unless I'm missing something, it would seem that route 4 design is the main culprit here . There\x92s a reason an in-depth investigation will be conducted by folks whose job is to get to the probable cause. Subjects ATC Probable Cause Route 4 Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 4 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
West Coast February 03, 2025, 16:26:00 GMT permalink Post: 11820681	Quote: Not 100% sure about the US FAA situation where everything seems to be possible , at least in DC, but in ICAO land Tower controllers cannot give headings, I used to many moons ago as a controller when working local in both class B and C airspace. Subjects ATC FAA ICAO Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 1 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
West Coast February 07, 2025, 18:22:00 GMT permalink Post: 11823829	Quote: Originally Posted by Someone Somewhere Radar can absolutely fly two planes directly into each other. You have to put a number on how far apart they should be. If you call it "controller's judgement" then all you've done is change who's responsible, given that aircraft are never going to stick exactly to their assigned altitude and heading, and neither radar nor ADS-B gives exactly accurate positions, speeds, or headings. This page, section "Separation minima based on ATS surveillance systems" quotes ICAO as saying that even in terminal space with good radar, separation should not go below 1,000ft vertically or 3Nm (2.5Nm if established on the same final approach in sequence within 10Nm of the runway). We're already blithely discussing half those standards as being impossible to meet. Trying to understand the point you\x92re pushing. Are you of the belief that in terminal airspace (Class B in this case) that some minimum lateral or vertical separation standard must be applied? Apologies if I\x92m off base. Subjects ADSB (All) ICAO Radar Separation (ALL) Vertical Separation Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes'). Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
West Coast February 07, 2025, 19:13:00 GMT permalink Post: 11823870	Quote: Originally Posted by Someone Somewhere I'm honestly not certain, but if you're not visually separated , that seems to be the conclusion reached upthread and from the link I posted. The guiding document in the US is the controller handbook, FAA order 7110.65AA. There, it is clear that visual separation is an approved form of separation in Class B airspace. Not defending the application of it specific to this crash, just pointing it out so the discussion revolves around existing FAA separation standards and not what folks in the thread wish it to be, believe it to be or what it is in their country. Subjects ATC FAA Separation (ALL) Visual Separation Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 1 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
West Coast February 07, 2025, 22:59:00 GMT permalink Post: 11824002	Quote: Originally Posted by Stagformation To be specific, para 7.9.4b of the handbook, here: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...5-24_READY.pdf As mentioned upthread, if not visually separated then either 500ft or 1.5mi applies. Correct if this is all wrong, but in the accident sequence if the helo had responded \x91not visual yet, looking\x92 or words to that effect, then presumably a controller could allow the two to get a bit closer and then advise the conflicting traffic info to the helo again, say at 2.5mi. If helo visual, great \x97maintain visual separation, responsibly passes to helo. This is what happened, although the very busy controller failed to re-state the position of the CRJ to direct the eyes of the helo crew onto the CRJ in order that they could actually see and avoid it. However if not visual at say 2.5mi, well it\x92s a bit late, but the controller does still retain responsibility for separation and must apply the 500ft/1.5mi standard. Presumably instant vectors away while simultaneously climb to min vectoring altitude. Or the CRJ has to go around. Can of worms in busy airspace\x97 helos and /or jets being dispersed all over the sky. Much better to do a rules based system and mutually exclude intersecting IFR app/deps and Helo Visual Routes. I will not speculate specific to the accident. One more point to add about visual sep then you guys can go back to arguing about the accident. Visual separation isn\x92t just applied aircraft to aircraft. The local controller can observe both aircraft, (even if they don\x92t see each other) and apply visual separation. Such as two aircraft that are diverging but radar separation isn\x92t established. Subjects ATC CRJ IFR Radar See and Avoid Separation (ALL) Visual Separation Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes'). Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
West Coast February 08, 2025, 16:17:00 GMT permalink Post: 11824431	Quote: Originally Posted by DaveJ75 I keep re-reading this and it doesn't get any less amazing! To hell with the radar, I'll just look out of the window! I would love to see it tried - obviously it would have to be over the desert in aircraft with no pax aboard! How would it work - do you just yell " Bloggs, left a bit " over the RT if all looks a bit close? I will not speak to this accident but I will tell you as a controller I applied visual sep countless times over the years, all successfully. Subjects ATC Radar Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 6 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
West Coast February 08, 2025, 16:20:00 GMT permalink Post: 11824433	Quote: Originally Posted by SINGAPURCANAC Could someone explain, how Twr ATCO in that particular enviroment, achieve required separation? He is not radar qualified- so no headings or radar measurment distances applicable. Where is prescribed what point is 1,5 Nm away from visual app for rwy 33? ( Note : Atco must achive required separation before that point) or At what point should be givem climb instruction for He to be 500' above arriving a/c before compromising 1,5Nm. If rate of climb is 1000 ft/min Helicopet need to climb for 40-50 seconds with the speed 180km/h it is 2 Nm or so - it means that instruction to climb should be given no latter than 4Nm from crossing point. What is possibikity to spot particular aircraft for visual separation at distances more than 4Nm from crosssing points, duting the night and in bussy traffic enviroment? Yes , I know it is Burund.... How are you so sure the local controller isn\x92t as you put it \x93radar qualified\x94? I worked towers and issue vectors as needed. Subjects ATC ATCO Radar Separation (ALL) Visual Separation Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 1 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
West Coast February 08, 2025, 17:11:00 GMT permalink Post: 11824460	Quote: Originally Posted by island_airphoto This seems to be an EU-centric idea, one could get the impression there is no such thing as VFR over there, or if there is it is restricted to some farm field far away from anything. A lot of posters are applying air traffic processes from their home country, not all of which are bad. It seems to me however if you\x92re going to try to understand the lead up to the accident, and then assign blame, at least understand the process that was being used. Subjects VFR Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 4 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
West Coast February 08, 2025, 19:57:00 GMT permalink Post: 11824543	Quote: Originally Posted by DaveJ75 Well, in GA yes... and obviously the airfield movements you're describing. Not quite sure that's going to hack it in a commercial air transport environment... Not familiar with the term dead side, but all the others I gave as a controller to commercial air transport aircraft and now receive same as an airline pilot. Subjects ATC Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 3 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
West Coast February 09, 2025, 01:47:00 GMT permalink Post: 11824686	Quote: Originally Posted by Awol57 I would assume the US wouldn't be hugely dissimilar to to the USA in this regards, but a tower controller can "Correlate an observed radar position symbol with manoeuvres currently executed by a departing aircraft which acknowledged instructions to that effect, provided that identification is established within 3 NM of the radar sensor." So identified on departure, and the usual transfer of Identification occurs for inbound. So no problems using a radar provided we meet the other requirements (MVA and the like). However the whole point of a tower controller is that we can use less than the radar standard and visually separate aircraft in visual conditions. It\x92s been quite awhile since I was on that side of the microphone, but yes our operations are similar. Subjects ATC Radar Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes'). Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
West Coast February 09, 2025, 01:50:00 GMT permalink Post: 11824687	Quote: Originally Posted by SINGAPURCANAC there is no word IDENTIFIED b efore any other instruction. It is esential basic for radar/ surveilance. How the hell you could give vectors for non identified aircraft? And the above post of island_photo gives exact link with explanation that is officially valid in USA. No full radar service if it is not " radar contact"( or identified) It is so logic and simple to remember and to apply. Recall that your post said the controller wasn’t radar qualified, not that the helo was/wasn’t identified. Whether it was or wasn’t, I won’t speak to as I don’t know. What I do know is Local controllers (assuming trained and with appropriate equipment and mapping) can and often do provide vectors, I often did working local. Unsure why you’d make such a claim otherwise. BTW, in the US, it’s not “identified” but rather radar contact. Last edited by West Coast; 9th February 2025 at 02:49 . Reason: Spelling Subjects ATC Radar Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes'). Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Posts by user "West Coast" [Posts: 11 Total up-votes: 20 Page: 1 of 1]¶