Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal
Ikman Ikreza

Two airliners in near miss over Hong Kong

Recommended Posts

Hong Kong officials investigating after Cathay, Dragonair jets in near-miss incident

 

HONG KONG — Aviation authorities in Hong Kong say they are investigating an incident in which two jets carrying more than 600 people had to take evasive action after straying into each other’s path as they were trying to land.

 

Cathay Pacific Airways said Tuesday that in the Sept. 18 incident, one of its Boeing 777s and a Dragonair Airbus A330 were at the same altitude southwest of Hong Kong’s airport when they came too close, triggering cockpit alarms.

 

Cathay said in a statement that the pilots responded immediately, with the Dragonair jet climbing and the Cathay plane descending.

 

The airline said the planes were one nautical mile (1,850 meters) apart at the closest and there was “no risk of collision.”

 

Source : http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/hong-kong-officials-investigating-after-cathay-dragonair-jets-in-near-miss-incident/2011/09/27/gIQA1ae10K_story.html

Edited by Ikman Ikreza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Former civil aviation chief Albert Lam Kwong-yu estimated the flights were about six seconds from crashing, judging from the distance between them and the normal speed of aircraft. "The chance of a crash is absolutely high," he said. "The passengers really came back from hell."

 

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=11&art_id=115564&sid=33863700&con_type=1&d_str=20110927&fc=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Hong Kong's former civil aviation chief, the two planes came within six seconds of impact, based on their distance and normal aircraft speed.

 

Don't you just love people from the Public Relations department - even as an industry expert (HKG's former civil aviation chief) estimated that both planes were six-seconds away from a mid-air collision, the PR person said "there was no risk of collision" along with the usual never-to-be-believed statement that "at no time was the safety of the flights compromised".

 

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1155793/1/.html

 

Thank goodness for modern technology and the wonders of TCAS ... how is it decided which aircraft will ascend and which will dive to avoid collision? Perhaps someone who is more familiar with this can explain.

 

KC Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember watching air crash investigation - TCAS has a SOP and will advise the pilots on each aircraft what to do.

 

In the 2002 Überlingen Mid-Air Collision involving Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937 and DHL Flight 611 - they did not obey the TCAS instructions as the ATC also gave them conflicting advice - that was why they crashed.

 

In this case, both pilots probably followed the TCAS instructions and they were saved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the standard distance that will trigger "close proximity" alarm in the cockpit?

I thought the tower's screen would have alarmed the operator about possible collision course of two or more air crafts? Or perhaps in this case, both were in the same flying directions, therefore there's no triggering etc..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to media enquiries concerning a loss of separation incident between two aircraft that occurred on September 18, a spokesman for the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) today (September 27) gave the following response:

 

At 1.13pm on September 18, with inclement weather lying 30 to 50 nautical miles from Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) from the southwest to the southeast blocking the approach paths to HKIA and causing extensive delays to arriving aircraft, a loss of separation incident involving a Dragonair A330 and a Cathay Pacific Airways B777 took place 37 nautical miles southwest of the airport while they were holding for their arrival sequence.

 

The A330 was holding at 22,000 feet together with five other aircraft at lower levels when the B777 was inbound from the north to the same area for holding. The crew of the B777 reported having only 10 minutes' holding fuel, and a same company aircraft then offered to swap its landing slot. While attempting to rearrange the holding sequence, the controller detected the conflict of the A330 and B777 aircraft at the same level and immediately instructed both aircraft to make a left turn when they were about 8.5 nautical miles (about 16 kilometres) apart. The B777 responded in accordance with the air traffic control (ATC) instruction. As the A330 was already in a right turn, it did not respond as per ATC instructions. Crews of both the A330 and the B777 were in visual contact with each other and were aware of the relative position of the other aircraft as well as able to maintain safety of their aircraft during the turn. To further provide vertical separation, the controller then instructed the B777 to climb to a higher level while the aircraft were about 4 nautical miles (about 7.5km) apart. There was no response from the B777 crew and preliminary investigation indicated that the crew of the B777 did not get the climb instruction.

 

About 17 seconds later, the A330 reported "TCAS climb" and the B777 reported "TCAS descent". (The term "TCAS" refers to the Traffic Collision Avoidance System.) They passed at 1 nautical mile (2km) in diverging turns with increasing vertical separation. The standard separation applicable is 5 nautical miles (horizontal separation) or 1,000 feet (vertical separation). As the avoiding actions by both aircraft were executed in a controlled manner and both pilots had the other aircraft in sight well in advance, there was no risk of collision.

 

On a normal day, there are typically eight controller working positions for the Approach Control Sectors in the Air Traffic Control Centre. In anticipation of the traffic complexity due to bad weather, one additional working position was opened up (for a total of nine) on September 18, and 13 controllers were on duty to man the nine positions in managing the air traffic. The staffing provision was considered sufficient to meet the traffic level.

 

The controller involved has worked with ATC over 14 years and has more than five years of experience in the Approach Rating. The controller had three work shifts in the preceding seven days and had just returned from a day off. After a one-hour break, the controller had worked for about 10 minutes before the occurrence. Therefore, fatigue was not likely to be contributory to the occurrence. After a rest and debriefing on the occurrence, the controller involved has resumed operational duties. Preliminary investigation indicated that the controller had taken appropriate corrective actions to ensure safe operations well before the separation was reduced to below the standard and in accordance with the laid down procedures. All actions by the controller were conducted in a calm and timely manner throughout the occurrence.

 

The CAD is conducting an investigation with the airline operators concerned. Although there was no risk of collision during the occurrence, the CAD will conduct a comprehensive investigation into all aspects, including ATC procedures, manning arrangements during bad weather, flight crew operations, TCAS operation procedures, etc.

 

Ends/Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Issued at HKT 15:23

 

HK Civil Aviation Department Statement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The report is as dramatic as it sounded.

 

So there is a TCAS in place but some how the B777 missed the climb call thus the near-ness experience.

 

In a holding pattern such as this, 5 nautical miles is enough to avoid airplanes from getting into the jet wash/wake of a plane upfront? I been on BA at Heathrow in holding pattern. Its kinda surreal to see various aircrafts flying adjacent to you. Up, down, there's an aircraft around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet the pilots would have sweated for a moment after avoiding the collisions and everyone on board was like in limbo for that seconds.

 

Listening to ATC or TCAS? Probably ATC should get to know if both aircraft TCAS are giving correct instruction, one up and one down and then give the affirmation. Or simply direct the pilots to follow the TCAS.

 

I must say... both CX and KA were putting themselves in a more serious and much much higher chance of collision compared to the DHL and Bashkirian. 6 seconds...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet the pilots would have sweated for a moment after avoiding the collisions and everyone on board was like in limbo for that seconds.

 

Listening to ATC or TCAS? Probably ATC should get to know if both aircraft TCAS are giving correct instruction, one up and one down and then give the affirmation. Or simply direct the pilots to follow the TCAS.

 

I must say... both CX and KA were putting themselves in a more serious and much much higher chance of collision compared to the DHL and Bashkirian. 6 seconds...

 

Pilots are suppose to follow TCAS resolution advisory if there is one versus ATC instruction. Once cleared of conflict then pilots must inform ATC of the resolution advisory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pilots are suppose to follow TCAS resolution advisory if there is one versus ATC instruction. Once cleared of conflict then pilots must inform ATC of the resolution advisory.

 

I think that was the final conclusion after the 2002 incident? Remembering one of the pilots or officers was interviewed and stated that most pilots made fatal mistake for not following ATC's instruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNN has also given the report ==>

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/27/world/asia/hong-kong-near-collision/index.html?hpt=ias_c2

 

Stating that HKG has had 4 past near collision incidents as followings over 11 years: Now I seriously doubt about the HKG's ATC.

 

-- In September 2010, a Cathay Pacific plane taking off for London after midnight had to deviate from the runway center line at high speed because the tail of another plane was too close to its path.

 

-- In July 2006, a Dragonair Airbus and a Northwest Airlines Boeing -- both heading for Tokyo -- were reported to be just 100 meters apart vertically while 80 nautical miles east of the Hong Kong airport.

 

-- In September 2004, a China Southern Airlines plane leaving Hong Kong and an incoming Malaysia Airlines cargo plane came within 304 meters of each other 55 nautical miles south of the airport.

 

-- In June 2001, a Dragonair Airbus to Shanghai and a Cathay Pacific flight arriving from Seoul were reported 210 meters apart 110 nautical miles east of Hong Kong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The job of the traffic controller is not at all an easy one, but then, not all air-related jobs are easy, rite.

It is a highly stressed job, especially where heavy traffic is all 24/7 365 days.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to ATC or TCAS? Probably ATC should get to know if both aircraft TCAS are giving correct instruction, one up and one down and then give the affirmation. Or simply direct the pilots to follow the TCAS.

 

 

No time to think, just follow the TCAS instruction until "clear of conflict".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that was the final conclusion after the 2002 incident? Remembering one of the pilots or officers was interviewed and stated that most pilots made fatal mistake for not following ATC's instruction.

 

Most pilots make fatal mistake for not following ATC's instruction in the absence of a TCAS RA. Between ATC instruction and TCAS RA, RA takes priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hong Kong CAD opens investigation into Cathay separation loss incident

 

Hong Kong’s Civil Aviation Department (CAD) on Tuesday said it is conducting an investigation into Sunday’s loss of separation incident between a Cathay Pacific (CX) Boeing 777-300ER and subsidiary Dragonair (KA) Airbus A330-300.

 

According to CAD, the two aircraft came within 1 n.m. (2 km.) of each other in diverging turns while on approach to Hong Kong International.

 

The international standard for separation between aircraft is 5 n.m. (9.26 km.) horizontally or 1,000 ft. (304) m. vertically. CAD described the weather that day as “inclement.”

 

The traffic collision avoidance systems (TCAS) on both aircraft activated and the crew took evasive action. According to the CAD report, the KA pilot put his aircraft, carrying 284 passengers and 12 crew, into a climb while the CX aircraft, with 299 passengers and 18 crew, descended.

 

“As the avoiding actions by both aircraft were executed in a controlled manner and both pilots had the other aircraft in sight well in advance, there was no risk of collision,” CAD said.

 

CAD will conduct a comprehensive investigation into all aspects, including ATC procedures, manning arrangements during bad weather, flight crew operations and TCAS operation procedures.

 

http://atwonline.com/operations-maintenance/news/hong-kong-cad-opens-investigation-cathay-separation-loss-incident-0928

Edited by alberttky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The job of the traffic controller is not at all an easy one, but then, not all air-related jobs are easy, rite.

It is a highly stressed job, especially where heavy traffic is all 24/7 365 days.......

 

That cannot be an excuse for a traffic controller if mistake was made and causing hundreds of life! It should be brought up before the incident. I believe proper shifts and adequate of traffic controllers were assigned to ensure every coordination was duly made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Malaysia, the annual road casualties amount to about 30 Boeing 744's crashing. Yet we don't think it is a serious enough problem.

 

The fact that this is a near miss says it all - its only a near miss and not a crash. I had a near on the road yesterday too - a moronic driver turning into my road failed to stop and look out for traffic. Had to take collision avoidance action!

 

Air travel is very safe - you are more likely to be killed on the way to and from the airports than on a plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Malaysia, the annual road casualties amount to about 30 Boeing 744's crashing. Yet we don't think it is a serious enough problem.

 

The fact that this is a near miss says it all - its only a near miss and not a crash. I had a near on the road yesterday too - a moronic driver turning into my road failed to stop and look out for traffic. Had to take collision avoidance action!

 

Air travel is very safe - you are more likely to be killed on the way to and from the airports than on a plane.

 

Agreed!. Safest is by air travel, then rail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Malaysia, the annual road casualties amount to about 30 Boeing 744's crashing. Yet we don't think it is a serious enough problem.

 

The fact that this is a near miss says it all - its only a near miss and not a crash. I had a near on the road yesterday too - a moronic driver turning into my road failed to stop and look out for traffic. Had to take collision avoidance action!

 

Air travel is very safe - you are more likely to be killed on the way to and from the airports than on a plane.

 

its time that the msian road safety authority considering the use of TCAS on all road vehicles in Bolehland...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its time that the msian road safety authority considering the use of TCAS on all road vehicles in Bolehland...

 

Even more dangerous! :D

 

TCAS turn left and hit the other car. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...