Florida ATC issue

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:11 am

http://avherald.com/h?article=43a2096f&opt=0

I would love to hear any thoughts. We had a discussion about this yesterday.

Randy Haskin · **Posted:** Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:27 am

The uproar over this is ridiculous. 1.2 NM of lat sep? That's not even 'standard formation'. I'm failing to see the danger in that, even if the GA aircraft made a sudden move toward the 737.

For whatever reason, we've gotten to the point in aviation where many folks believe that the ONLY way aircraft can safely operate is in a big protective bubble with the help of electronics from controllers and on-board systems like TCAS.

While I agree that it was a pretty poor decision to have a pax-carrying aircraft go take a look at a potential emergency aircraft, the idea of suspensions and perhaps punishments is totally asinine.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:00 am

I think it is the point that they were tring to get a 737 in close enough to an SR22 to see if they could see the pilots. Wake issues would also become something to think about.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:19 am

That's silliness. I've had FAR less separation from airliners while on a photo station near an airport a number of times. We had legitimate business to take care of, and the airliners had to keep going and coming from the airport. One pass in a busy class B area I saw a 757 pass just below us that looked like he was 5 inches long at arms length. It wasn't unsafe because we both knew what we were doing, and could see each other.
If anything, I can see how IF the Cirrus was a real threat for some reason, and that had been why they went unresponsive, then one could say that the other aircraft was not aware of the airliner, and thus still a hazard, or a hazard because of potential malicious intent. Either way, the 737 could EASILY throttle up and leave the Cirrus in the dust, so it's still not an issue.
Wake issues aren't really an issue either, unless one aircraft is above and ahead of the other. Sounds like the 737 was in a more lateral position, which would be necessary for the pilots to get a good look.
The real issue is the Customs and Border Patrol Citation down here that will turn off his transponder and close to within 2-300' or less without talking to you. That happened to my photo ship with another pilot on board while they were minding their own business and talking to ATC... They said they could see the guys faces when they realized they were behind them!

Ryan

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:48 am

Once again it says less than 1.2 NM of separation. It does not say just how far apart they were. Just less than 1.2nm of lat separation. and at about the same alt. How long does it take a 737 to go less than 1.2 nm? To put two aircraft that close together without having radio communications with both of them is a bone head move. Just my opinion.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:55 am

Also had that 737 crossed infront of the SR22 I have a hard time believing that there would not be wake issues. Once again aviation crashed are a chain of events. We are supposed to break that chain if we identify it, not add links to it.

Randy Haskin · **Posted:** Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:09 am

mustangdriver wrote:

To put two aircraft that close together without having radio communications with both of them is a bone head move. Just my opinion.

Well, again, I have to mention this thought process that airplanes close together = disaster.

You would not believe the number of ATC controllers (and pilots) who think that aircraft cannot operate safely without this bubble around them. Radios do not keep airplanes from colliding -- pilots with eyeballs and access to controls do. The SWA pilots called the Cirrus in sight and were able to maintain deconfliction.

Again, I think there's something to be said for a P121 revenue-generating, pax-carrying aircraft be the one to go take a look at the Cirrus -- that was probably a poor idea -- but the "problem" here is not inherent to the fact that the airplanes were close together and one controller wasn't talking to them both. As a military pilot, I've joined up on aircraft that the controllers and I weren't talking to as part of NOBLE EAGLE after 9/11. That ability to do so safely wasn't some magic that military pilots are endowed with...

Pilots have eyes, brains, and even hands and feet that can maneuver their aircraft. They have the capability to recognize when they are going to be a conflict with (the ground, and airplane, weather, etc) and maneuver their aircraft to avoid that conflict. Wake issues? Under what circumstances would a 737 pilot with visual contact on the Cirrus fly directly IN FRONT of him? He would lose visual contact LONG before that happened (unless SWA has put bubble canopies on their 737s and I've missed it). That's just not an issue.

This just isn't that big of a deal.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:45 am

Randy Haskin wrote:

[Pilots have eyes, brains, and even hands and feet that can maneuver their aircraft. They have the capability to recognize when they are going to be a conflict with (the ground, and airplane, weather, etc) and maneuver their aircraft to avoid that conflict. Wake issues? Under what circumstances would a 737 pilot with visual contact on the Cirrus fly directly IN FRONT of him? He would lose visual contact LONG before that happened (unless SWA has put bubble canopies on their 737s and I've missed it). That's just not an issue.

Randy you are killing me my friend. Glad to know CFIT will no longer be an issue.

My logic would have been to get the other aircraft away from the one that I had no contact with, not place a commercial airliner next to it.

cwmc · **Joined:** Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:43 am **Posts:** 322

There are so many things wrong with an airline captain accepting a controllers idea to intercept an airplane that I cannot speak them all.
What a cowboy.
Chris...

Warbird Information Exchange

Florida ATC issue

Who is online