Standing that much alert would get real old, real fast. That's pain that gets spread around.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Controller, airline crew suspended over incident in Florida skies
- Thread starter HeloBubba
- Start date
Standing that much alert would get real old, real fast. That's pain that gets spread around.
That's a good question. I'd be interested in a definite answer. I was going to say, if you're IFR, regardless of VMC or not, the separations are required. See and avoid is required when VMC, sure, but that doesn't allow them to narrow the minimum separation. Maybe I'm not understanding your question, but I think that's what you were asking.
It's covered by Guard guys,... and they get paid a ton of money to do it. They are not complaining.
In an emergency, IFR aircraft are allowed to have reduced separation when they are visual with each other. Just learned this from one of the ATC dudes in the same topic discussion over on jetcareers.
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
Why "in an emergency"? TACAIR flies form IFR all the time (as I'm sure you know, obviously) and there's no issue. If both aircraft have visual and comms, what's the issue?
When I first read article this I thought it was bullshit. After all, the controller and the crew were just trying to help an aircraft that might be in distress.
After I thought about it, though, I get the point. It's one thing to have a single seat aircraft "sneak up" and do unbriefed comm-out form off a NORDO aircraft, but what if the "NORDO aircraft" suddenly turns? We shouldn't be risking passengers for this (albeit an extremely small risk).
When I first read article this I thought it was bullshit. After all, the controller and the crew were just trying to help an aircraft that might be in distress.
After I thought about it, though, I get the point. It's one thing to have a single seat aircraft "sneak up" and do unbriefed comm-out form off a NORDO aircraft, but what if the "NORDO aircraft" suddenly turns? We shouldn't be risking passengers for this (albeit an extremely small risk).
This is unbelievable! Does anybody here REALLY think that a guy with a fully-loaded commercial 737 would actually try to sneak up and fly form on a NORDO Cirrus? This is almost like a bunch of "media experts" telling us what happened. Let's let the investigation tell us what happened. I'm betting they had PLENTY of vertical separation, looked down, and said "Yep. Two people in there" and continued on their way.
Isn't the only FAR restricting formation the requirement that both aircraft agree to it - in other words, civil aircraft aren't running intercepts and joining up on each other unannounced? My guess would be like you said, the issue was that A) one of the aircraft did appear to be comm-out and B) a 737 is not exactly the ideal platform for airborne inspection of a light civil.
And regarding the differences between the aircraft, anyone with 737 experience want to shed some light on what you'd have to do to slow up enough to join on a Cirrus? I guess the SR22 is pretty quick for a single-engine piston, but would the jet have needed to just drop flaps or what?
Nothing to believe or not. Facts are facts and the FAA has the radar image tapes. I don't think they would have gone this far without conclusive evidence. The pilots and controller can argue about the propriety of what they did, but not that it didn't happened. And I don't know what you call "plenty of vertical separation" but if you are close enough to see two people in a little Cirrus you are WAY too close for a transport category aircraft with pax on board, let alone the no briefing part, which is required for form flight per FARs.
Once TACAIR starts falling under CFR Part 121 and carrying pax for revenue, then that will be a valid observation.
Again, gotta realize that we're talking about commercial air transport operations, which fall under a much different set of rules than we are used to abiding by in the military.
When there are civilians on board who paid for you to take them from point A to B (on a published schedule), you're not just flying with the Part 91 rules.
I'm asking, do you REALLY think they tried to fly form on a Cirrus? Everybody seems to be locked on to this "formation" issue. Situation: Post 9/11, post Payne Stewart, NORDO aircraft is flying toward a high population, tourist area. Controller makes a request to a commercial aircraft to take a look and make an assessment. How often does this happen? Almost NEVER? If I'm flying and I'm asked to do this, I'm guessing the controller is somewhat CONCERNED. Depending on the type of Cirrus it was, the lighting conditions, etc., I think a 73 could fly 500'-1000' above (keeping it "legal" here for you legalistic types), NOT trying to match airspeed, and with the proper lateral separation, ascertain if humans were in the cockpit and in control. When I was in the Navy, we didn't call this formation..........unless we were talking about the Air Force. Maybe things have changed.
They were co-altitude with 1.2NM of lateral separation according to the latest reports.
Not even in "standard formation".
Personally, I don't understand the big deal.
Not even in "standard formation".
Personally, I don't understand the big deal.
What information was the flyby supposed to determine, really? There's a NORDO a/c. Now the controller knows it's NORDO with two people on board. I guess it helps eliminate the "guy had a heart attack" scenario, but it really doesn't give much useful information.
Was this an incredibly serious incident? No. Was it good headwork to tap a large passenger jet to do this, with little payoff? Much as I hate ORM, the payoff v. risk here doesn't pan out.
Was this an incredibly serious incident? No. Was it good headwork to tap a large passenger jet to do this, with little payoff? Much as I hate ORM, the payoff v. risk here doesn't pan out.
Maybe some folks are wrapped around the "formation" axle. I am talking about SEPARATION. The FAA has tapes that indicate legal and safe separation was compromised. I respectfully say you are mistaken if you think you can look out of a B737 at even 500 feet, passing at some speed that is safe for the 737, and see what is going on in a Cirrus. Just try passing within 500 feet of a car from any angle but head on and tell me how many people are in the car. Even head on, it is a real challenge. Now move that out to 1000 feet, the likely, though I am not sure, legal separation, and tell me how many are in the car.
The real answer to your question is, I'd like to believe none of my fellow professional airline pilots would do what these guys are accused of doing. But both errors in judgment and deficient displays of stick and rudder skill occur every day. The latter happens far more frequently than the former. It appears that is what we have here. I applaud their intentions.
Well then, forget the exercise I proposed above. Pass within 1.2 miles of a car and tell me how many are on board. If these guys reported seeing two people in the plane they were closer than 1.2 miles or they were lying. And while 1.2 miles doesn't seem like a big deal, and wouldn't to me, if it is less than required separation than you have a problem. That is what this is all about. The controller has rules to follow. They take their jobs just as seriously as we do ours. How do the suits at FAA answer a bunch of passengers when they ask about the small plane they came so close to. "Oh that isn't normal, it is against our rules, but what's the big deal?"