ATC of Near-Miss over BOS

[Marco Leon]

Saw this over at LiveATC.net forums. Thought it may be of interest.

I thought the controller was very professional and avoided an over the air
arguement nicely.

http://www.liveatc.net/forum/files/kbos_8-24-05_near_miss_156.mp3

Marco Leon

[Jose]

> Saw this over at LiveATC.net forums. Thought it may be of interest.
>
> I thought the controller was very professional and avoided an over the air
> arguement nicely.
>
> http://www.liveatc.net/forum/files/kbos_8-24-05_near_miss_156.mp3

Got a time on this? We could watch it on
http://www4.passur.com/bos.html
if we did.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Michael 182]

How does something like this get resolved? What is the accuracy of ATC's
transponder data?

Michael

[N93332]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>> Saw this over at LiveATC.net forums. Thought it may be of interest.
>>
>> I thought the controller was very professional and avoided an over the
>> air
>> arguement nicely.
>>
>> http://www.liveatc.net/forum/files/kbos_8-24-05_near_miss_156.mp3
>
> Got a time on this? We could watch it on
> http://www4.passur.com/bos.html
> if we did.

Looking at www.aa.com shows flight 818 arriving at 00:34 on 8/24. Start
watching about 00:18 and you'll see the MD80 and the Lear.

[George Patterson]

Michael 182 wrote:
> How does something like this get resolved? What is the accuracy of ATC's
> transponder data?

Within 50' either way. If you're at 1049', it'll show 1000'. Move up one foot
and it'll show 1100'.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[john smith]

The replay seems to show the Lear did not level at 5,000.

[Guy Elden Jr]

Marco Leon (at) wrote:
> Saw this over at LiveATC.net forums. Thought it may be of interest.
>
> I thought the controller was very professional and avoided an over the air
> arguement nicely.

Wow... I listened to the transmission and watched the replay on
passur.com, and have a question: if both planes respond to the
controller that they have the other in sight, and the controller tells
them to maintain visual separation (which it sounds like was done in
this case), does that eliminate the standard IFR separation rules? It
looks like the AA pilot was right in that the LJ came within 300 feet,
but since they were both "seeing and avoiding", is that technically an
FAR violation? i.e., was the controller still obligated to provide
separation?

--
Guy Elden Jr.

[George Patterson]

john smith wrote:
> The replay seems to show the Lear did not level at 5,000.

You're right. Looks like he climbed right through the MD-80 altitude.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Bob Moore]

john smith wrote

> The replay seems to show the Lear did not level at 5,000.

Nor was he required to since he had been cleared to maintain
visual separation.....and separation is separation. :)
One man's "near miss" is another's "missed him by a mile".

Bob Moore

[Peter R.]

Bob Moore > wrote:

> Nor was he required to since he had been cleared to maintain
> visual separation.....and separation is separation. :)
> One man's "near miss" is another's "missed him by a mile".

A few months ago I overheard something similar on Syracuse, NY's ATC feed.
A regional Dash-8 was being vectored north around the airport for an
approach while a student and instructor were flying some practice maneuvers
just north of the airport. Normally the instructional flight would have
been many miles further north, but there were low clouds in this designated
practice area.

The instructional flight was given a restriction to maintain at or below
2,000 feet and the Dash-8 was told to maintain 2,500 feet. ATC called the
C172 traffic for the Dash-8 and the pilot of the Dash-8 replied he had
traffic in sight.

A moment later, the Dash-8 pilot called ATC to report that he was
responding to a TCAS alert. He then made an unprofessional comment
directly to the C172 stating that there was no way they were at their
required altitude. ATC responded that through this entire event the C172
was at the altitude to which they were originally restricted.

Given the unprofessional comment made by the Dash-8 pilot, it seemed to me
that after calling traffic in sight, both pilots went heads down in
preparation for landing and the TCAS alert shocked them back outside.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Bob Moore wrote:
> john smith wrote
>
>> The replay seems to show the Lear did not level at 5,000.
>
> Nor was he required to since he had been cleared to maintain
> visual separation.....and separation is separation. :)
> One man's "near miss" is another's "missed him by a mile".



The fellow who wanted to file the near miss sure sounded petulant, didn't he?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Andrew Gideon]

Peter R. wrote:

> Given the unprofessional comment made by the Dash-8 pilot, it seemed to me
> that after calling traffic in sight, both pilots went heads down in
> preparation for landing and the TCAS alert shocked them back outside.

Someone with whom I fly occasionally likes to tell ATC of traffic in sight
whenever it's in sight. I'll refrain if, for some reason, I'll be unable
to maintain visual separation (ie. I'm about to lose site of the other
aircraft over the wing).

I don't want to be responsible for visual separation from something I cannot
see.

Technically, of course, I know that this really only applies when we're both
IFR. But I follow this habit all the time anyway.

Problem? Good idea?

- Andrew

[Marco Leon]

Darn good question. I'll take a stab with no claims of being an expert:
I believe that once either target calls the other in sight, they are
technically under VFR separation. According to
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0707.html#7-7-3, the minimum
separation is 500 feet vertically. But once one or both call each other in
sight, even the 500 ft. minimum may be out the window and it's a matter of
swapping paint or not. http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0702.html#7-2-1
explains the phraseology but this may be as far as it goes from a legal
standpoint.

The answer may be found in other regs (i.e. Part 121)

Marco Leon

"Guy Elden Jr" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Marco Leon (at) wrote:
> > Saw this over at LiveATC.net forums. Thought it may be of interest.
> >
> > I thought the controller was very professional and avoided an over the
air
> > arguement nicely.
>
> Wow... I listened to the transmission and watched the replay on
> passur.com, and have a question: if both planes respond to the
> controller that they have the other in sight, and the controller tells
> them to maintain visual separation (which it sounds like was done in
> this case), does that eliminate the standard IFR separation rules? It
> looks like the AA pilot was right in that the LJ came within 300 feet,
> but since they were both "seeing and avoiding", is that technically an
> FAR violation? i.e., was the controller still obligated to provide
> separation?
>
> --
> Guy Elden Jr.
>

[Marco Leon]

If I remember correctly, the Learjet agreed to stay at 5000 ft even though
they called the other target in sight. If they passed through 5000 ft
anyway, it would have been their "bad" for presenting wrong expectations
then subsequently lying about it in an attempt to C-Y-A. The AAL pilots
would then have every right to be ****ed off.

Marco Leon
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
om...
> Bob Moore wrote:
> > john smith wrote
> >
> >> The replay seems to show the Lear did not level at 5,000.
> >
> > Nor was he required to since he had been cleared to maintain
> > visual separation.....and separation is separation. :)
> > One man's "near miss" is another's "missed him by a mile".
>
>
>
> The fellow who wanted to file the near miss sure sounded petulant, didn't
he?
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"john smith" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> The replay seems to show the Lear did not level at 5,000.
>

Was he above 5,000 before visual separation was in use and he was cleared
higher?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:_%IPe.41$fP.32@trndny08...
>
> You're right. Looks like he climbed right through the MD-80 altitude.
>

Which is fine if he did so only after visual separation was in use and he
was cleared higher.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
>
> Technically, of course, I know that this really only applies when we're
> both
> IFR. But I follow this habit all the time anyway.
>

Visual separation can be used for VFR traffic where VFR traffic is provided
separation, such as Class B or Class C airspace or TRSAs.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Guy Elden Jr" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Wow... I listened to the transmission and watched the replay on
> passur.com, and have a question: if both planes respond to the
> controller that they have the other in sight, and the controller tells
> them to maintain visual separation (which it sounds like was done in
> this case), does that eliminate the standard IFR separation rules?
>

Yes.


>
> It looks like the AA pilot was right in that the LJ came within 300 feet,
> but since they were both "seeing and avoiding", is that technically an
> FAR violation?
>

No.


>
> i.e., was the controller still obligated to provide separation?
>

No.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> A few months ago I overheard something similar on Syracuse, NY's ATC feed.
> A regional Dash-8 was being vectored north around the airport for an
> approach while a student and instructor were flying some practice
> maneuvers
> just north of the airport. Normally the instructional flight would have
> been many miles further north, but there were low clouds in this
> designated
> practice area.
>
> The instructional flight was given a restriction to maintain at or below
> 2,000 feet and the Dash-8 was told to maintain 2,500 feet. ATC called the
> C172 traffic for the Dash-8 and the pilot of the Dash-8 replied he had
> traffic in sight.
>
> A moment later, the Dash-8 pilot called ATC to report that he was
> responding to a TCAS alert. He then made an unprofessional comment
> directly to the C172 stating that there was no way they were at their
> required altitude. ATC responded that through this entire event the C172
> was at the altitude to which they were originally restricted.
>
> Given the unprofessional comment made by the Dash-8 pilot, it seemed to me
> that after calling traffic in sight, both pilots went heads down in
> preparation for landing and the TCAS alert shocked them back outside.
>

Was the Dash-8 instructed to maintain visual separation after reporting the
C172?

[Newps]

Guy Elden Jr wrote:
if both planes respond to the
> controller that they have the other in sight, and the controller tells
> them to maintain visual separation (which it sounds like was done in
> this case), does that eliminate the standard IFR separation rules?

Yes.


It
> looks like the AA pilot was right in that the LJ came within 300 feet,
> but since they were both "seeing and avoiding", is that technically an
> FAR violation?

No. Although you can still have a near miss if one of the pilots felt
the other got too close.


i.e., was the controller still obligated to provide
> separation?

None whatsoever.

[Peter R.]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> Was the Dash-8 instructed to maintain visual separation after reporting the
> C172?

Yes, if I remember correctly, they were given that instruction.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Peter R.]

Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> Technically, of course, I know that this really only applies when we're both
> IFR. But I follow this habit all the time anyway.
>
> Problem? Good idea?

Personally, I use this sometimes. However, lately I will also call IFR
traffic before ATC does (assuming VMC) if I strongly suspect that the other
IFR aircraft (normally jet traffic) is the reason for my delaying vectors.
This results in a more timely "maintain visual separation, cleared direct
to..."

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[john smith]

> "john smith" > wrote in message
>>The replay seems to show the Lear did not level at 5,000.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> Was he above 5,000 before visual separation was in use and he was cleared
> higher?

The AA was probably watching his TCAS. That's the only way he would have
known what the separation was at 00:18 in the dark!
After the AA made this known on frequency, the Lear driver made the wise
crack about missing by 1000.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, if I remember correctly, they were given that instruction.
>

What altitude was the Dash-8 assigned after it was instructed to maintain
visual separation with the C172?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"john smith" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> The AA was probably watching his TCAS. That's the only way he would have
> known what the separation was at 00:18 in the dark!
>

No doubt, but was he above 5,000 before visual separation was in use and he
was cleared higher?


>
> After the AA made this known on frequency, the Lear driver made the wise
> crack about missing by 1000.
>

How is that cracking wise?

[Andrew Gideon]

> It
>> looks like the AA pilot was right in that the LJ came within 300 feet,
>> but since they were both "seeing and avoiding", is that technically an
>> FAR violation?
>
> No. Although you can still have a near miss if one of the pilots felt
> the other got too close.

If I recall the recording correctly. didn't both aircraft have the other in
view? If so, then the MD80 was just as much at fault in the case of a near
miss?

>
> i.e., was the controller still obligated to provide
>> separation?
>
> None whatsoever.

That's why I'll only call traffic to ATC if I'm reasonably sure I'll *keep*
site of the traffic.

- Andrew

[Guy Elden Jr]

>That's why I'll only call traffic to ATC if I'm reasonably
>sure I'll *keep* site of the traffic.

Same here... as soon as I catch sight of the traffic, and call it out
to ATC, it just becomes part of my regular scan between instruments and
outside. I also try to remember to continue to scan for other
unexpected traffic, but definitely keep checking back at least every
few seconds so I don't lose sight of the plane.

I'm relieved that the consensus seems to be that calling out traffic
eliminates the IFR separation, because that's the way I've thought it
works for a while now (I think my instructor explicitly told me so a
couple of years ago tho). Case in point as to why this is a good thing:
I was flying for a night checkout at a flying club I recently joined,
and while transiting near a Class D airport (Westchester County, NY),
ATC called out traffic 9 o'clock descending from 4000 to 3000. I was at
2500, VFR flight following. Since I was in the way, ATC couldn't clear
the guy down for approach into Westchester, but I knew that as soon as
I called the traffic out that he'd be able to clear him down. I
couldn't get a word in edgewise, and by the time I could, he was
already passing overhead, so my call was "... traffic in sight no
factor", which was immediately followed by ATC call to the other plane
to descend pilot's discretion.

I think this is an important thing for pilots to understand, since some
may operate under the assumption that separation services will still be
provided even if they call out "traffic in sight". (Which they might be
- unless ATC says "maintain visual separation").

--
Guy

[Andrew Gideon]

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

> If I remember correctly, the Learjet agreed to stay at 5000 ft even though
> they called the other target in sight.

The lear was cleared to climb (while maintaining visual separation), and the
MD80 was told that the lear had visual and would be climbing through the
MD80's altitude. The MD80 was not told to maintain visual separation, but
it had reported the lear in sight.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> site

Yikes. Sight.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
>
> If I recall the recording correctly. didn't both aircraft have the other
> in
> view? If so, then the MD80 was just as much at fault in the case of a
> near
> miss?
>

They both reported seeing the other, but only the LJ was instructed to
maintain visual separation. The MD80 pilot apparently felt the LJ came too
close.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Guy Elden Jr" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> I'm relieved that the consensus seems to be that calling out traffic
> eliminates the IFR separation, because that's the way I've thought it
> works for a while now (I think my instructor explicitly told me so a
> couple of years ago tho).
>

Reporting the traffic in sight does not eliminate standard IFR separation.
The assignment of visual separation eliminates the need for standard IFR
separation, the pilot must report the traffic in sight before visual
separation can be assigned.


>
> Case in point as to why this is a good thing:
> I was flying for a night checkout at a flying club I recently joined,
> and while transiting near a Class D airport (Westchester County, NY),
> ATC called out traffic 9 o'clock descending from 4000 to 3000. I was at
> 2500, VFR flight following. Since I was in the way, ATC couldn't clear
> the guy down for approach into Westchester, but I knew that as soon as
> I called the traffic out that he'd be able to clear him down. I
> couldn't get a word in edgewise, and by the time I could, he was
> already passing overhead, so my call was "... traffic in sight no
> factor", which was immediately followed by ATC call to the other plane
> to descend pilot's discretion.
>

It appears to me if you're at 2500 MSL in the vicinity of HPN you're in
Class E airspace and no separation would be provided by ATC.

[Warren Jones]

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
> Saw this over at LiveATC.net forums. Thought it may be of interest.
>
> I thought the controller was very professional and avoided an over the air
> arguement nicely.
>
> http://www.liveatc.net/forum/files/kbos_8-24-05_near_miss_156.mp3
>
> Marco Leon
>
>

Not a near miss. A clear-cut legal use of visual separation.

Chip, ZTL

[Andrew Gideon]

Warren Jones wrote:

> Not a near miss.Â*Â*AÂ*clear-cutÂ*legalÂ*useÂ*ofÂ*visualÂ*separation.

How could "near miss" be defined in this case, with one (or both, out of
curiosity) aircraft instructed to maintain visual separation?

- Andrew

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
>
> How could "near miss" be defined in this case, with one (or both, out of
> curiosity) aircraft instructed to maintain visual separation?
>

"Near miss" is not defined, the proper term is Near Midair Collision. A
Near Midair Collision (NMAC) is "an incident involving one or more aircraft
in which a hazard or a perceived potential hazard to safety is involved."

[George Patterson]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> A
> Near Midair Collision (NMAC) is "an incident involving one or more aircraft
> in which a hazard or a perceived potential hazard to safety is involved."

In that case, we have a NMAC here because the MD-80 pilot perceived a potential
hazard to safety.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:79uQe.2271$LK.187@trndny09...
>
> In that case, we have a NMAC here because the MD-80 pilot perceived a
> potential hazard to safety.
>

Yup. Standard IFR separation can exist and if a pilot perceives a potential
hazard to safety we have an NMAC.

[Warren Jones]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:79uQe.2271$LK.187@trndny09...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> A Near Midair Collision (NMAC) is "an incident involving one or more
>> aircraft in which a hazard or a perceived potential hazard to safety is
>> involved."
>
> In that case, we have a NMAC here because the MD-80 pilot perceived a
> potential hazard to safety.
>
> George Patterson

Actually, what we have is a a report of a NMAC. During the subsequent
investigation, the MD80 pilot's perception of the potential hazard to
safety, based apparently on his TCAS interpretation of the event, will
probably not correlate with the voice and radar tapes, nor with the witness
reports from ATC and the Learjet crew. The AAL was heading 150 at 6000.
The Learjet was launching out of BOS on a 070 heading climbing to 5000.
Visual contact was aquired between the Lear and the MD80. The controller
used correct phraseology to provide for visual separation. The MD80 driver
starts an on-air ****ing contest with the Lear driver. "That's bogus. You
were 300 feet below us." How does he know the Lear was 300 feet below him?
TCAS. And why does it matter? The Learjet was the maneuvering aircraft,
and climbing visually through the MD80. The vertical distance between
aircraft is irrelevent to flight safety in this event. A risk of collision
did not actually exist.

In my view, this situation will not be elevated into an NMAC incident
because it does not meet the definition of anything other than a "No
Hazzard" event. The MD80 did not have to maneuver to avoid the Learjet.
Even if he had maneuvered, he couldn't have hit the Learjet with a
sidewinder. The Learjet was maneuvering on a visual separation climb
clearance under positive ATC control. The weather was VFR. The Bankair was
turned behind the AAL before the visual sep clearance was issued. Doesn't
sound hazardous except maybe to the TCAS on the MD80. A risk of collision
did not actually exist.

More than likely, this event at BOS will not be classified as an NMAC
incident, but rather as a non-hazardous event.

Chip, ZTL

[Peter R.]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Yes, if I remember correctly, they were given that instruction.
>>
>
> What altitude was the Dash-8 assigned after it was instructed to maintain
> visual separation with the C172?

Don't remember now. Will your point be forthcoming or do you have some
more questions?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Don't remember now. Will your point be forthcoming or do you have some
> more questions?
>

I was trying to fill in the holes in your story.

[Peter R.]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Don't remember now. Will your point be forthcoming or do you have some
>> more questions?
>>
>
> I was trying to fill in the holes in your story.

So you had no point?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> So you had no point?
>

I asked questions. The point of asking questions is to obtain more
information.