"Kamikaze-two-one, go around."

[Skybird]

In late october there was a controversy emerging that I have totally missed and learned about just today. A NASA report on air traffic security saw such catastrophic data that the goivernment told Nasa to withhold the release to the public.

http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2007/Air-Safety-NASA22oct07.htm

I do not know if the full story has been relased now, (Google did not help me to think so, and the geman newspaper I refer to say that Nasa released the data just threed days agho and that AP was able to decypher it just now), but Die Welt today has published numbers from that report, also quoting the deputy director of NASA.

From 2001 to 2004, over 25000 professional and 4000 private pilots had been questioned on air travels in american air space. the study costed 11.3 million dollars.

1266 "near misses" have been reported in that time, that means aircraft coming closer than 500 ft to each other - at speeds that eventually are in excess of 600 knots (if in frontal collision mode).

1312 cases have been reported when airliners were suddenly pulled up and pushed down most brutally, obviously in attempots to avoid frontal collisions in mid-air.

166 landings without asking for permission.

513 "hard landings".

4267 occaisons when birds struck the plane.

A not precisely named number of occaisons when airliner pilots slept while being on duty in cockpit.

NASA and government seemed to have agreed that these numbers never should see the light of the oublic, but AP has taken legal action by which NASA was forced to release the results on 31st of Decembre. not without adding NO conclusions, NO summary, NO structure, NO order to a document that has more than 16 thousand pages - evil to him who evil thinks. :smug: There is mounting anger and criticism for this form of obviously intentional disarranged publication, amongst others coming from the university of Stanford. It is reasonable to suspect that it was done this way in the hope that the important data would get missed in the mist. All in all the findings exceed the results of examinations by the FAA often by several factors.

the excuse why the report was locked is simple, and is admitted freely: not to hit commercial interest of airline companies by makeing the public aware.

Enjoy collecting your air miles, gentlemen.

[SUBMAN1]

Doesn't sound too bad in my book. How many take offs and landings in the US in a given year for commercial alone? 8 Million+?

That's 00.0001582% chance that you might become involved in a near miss given that these were all these near misses from the commercial sector, which they aren't!!! This is even less if you include the private pilot data. Sounds like a damn safe way to travel to me! I might as well sell my cars and commute by airplane. I am practically guaranteed to life a full life in safety that way.

-S

[Skybird]

See it that way:

Roughly 2600 near misses and almost mid-air collisions and counting four years of 365 days means a statistical mean value of 1.78 "almost happened desasters" - per day. ;)

[AVGWarhawk]

If I'm not mistaken, a near miss is considered two aircraft thatt are 1 mile from each other. At any rate, statistically, I have a better chance of slipping in my shower cracking my head open then aircraft crash. Those figures look like a regular day at La Guardia.;)

[SUBMAN1]

See it that way:

Roughly 2600 near misses and almost mid-air collisions means a statistical mean value of 1.78 "almost happened desasters" - per day. ;)Mostly from Private Pilots in VFR conditions - because they are too busy watching the scenery. In the thousands of hours i have in the cockpit (I grew up in an airplane practically), I was taught to always scan the sky constantly.

If you want to put it that way - an airplane crashes on average once per day, killing at least one person a day. Now if you want to look at that on a statistical scale, that is phenominaly low considering how many aircraft are actually in the sky at a given moment in time.

Compare that to travelling by car and you can't go 1 second practically without a fatal incident!

-S

PS. Level with me. I see you have a fear in your writing in both past and present of aircraft. Countless times you post about aircraft and dangers. If I were Freud..... I'd have to guess you have a fear of flying, but it doesn't stop there. I'd venture to conclude that you even have a fear of them of simply flying over your head. I'd even go so far as to think you may not only have this fear, but you are also are extremely facinated by flight.... :hmm:

[Skybird]

If I'm not mistaken, a near miss is considered two aircraft thatt are 1 mile from each other. At any rate, statistically, I have a better chance of slipping in my shower cracking my head open then aircraft crash. Those figures look like a regular day at La Guardia.;)
No, 5oo ft/150 m. Also take into account the approach speeds of both aircraft. In worst case it is two 747s or 767 at angels 300+, flying let's say 330 kn each. that makes 660 knots approach speed if approaching frontally, head on. That is more than 1100 km/h.

At that speed you move 150 m in around half a second.

[SUBMAN1]

If I'm not mistaken, a near miss is considered two aircraft thatt are 1 mile from each other. At any rate, statistically, I have a better chance of slipping in my shower cracking my head open then aircraft crash. Those figures look like a regular day at La Guardia.;) No, 5oo ft/150 m. Also take into account the approach speeds of both aircraft. In worst case it is to 747 flying let's say 330 kn each. that makes 660 knots approach speed if approaching frotnally, head on. That is more than 1100 km/h.

At that speed you move 150 m in around half a second.In the US, I do believe it to be 1 mile. Been to ATC out here. The aircraft start to flash at 5 miles.

In the area it is likely to happen - less than 10K feet, there is a 250 knot speed limit for this purpose alone.

-S

[Skybird]

See it that way:

Roughly 2600 near misses and almost mid-air collisions means a statistical mean value of 1.78 "almost happened desasters" - per day. ;)Mostly from Private Pilots in VFR conditions - because they are too busy watching the scenery.

Your data, please? The NASA study asked 25+ thousand professional pilots, only 4000 private ones. They also said they wanted to explicitly protect the commercial interests not of the pirvate poilots - but the airline companies.

BTW, if an Airbus at 8000ft collides with a Cessna Skylane hitting it from the side at 90 degrees -the outcome nevertheless is a catastrophe.

It has also to be pointed out that in recent years the number of accidents or almost-accidents during taxing and rolling at the airport has constantly and very significantly increased, Googling for the above report I found texts saying "drastically increased". That is with regard to major Hubs and commercial traffic centres where you have no or low private traffic only.

[Skybird]

In the US, I do believe it to be 1 mile.
Okay, increases your reaction time to one second. Psychologically 1 second always gets lost because that is the time the brain needs to become alarmed.

In the area it is likely to happen - less than 10K feet, there is a 250 knot speed limit for this purpose alone.
they said nothing on areas where it is likely to happen, so all arguing here is highly hypothetical.

Let'S see when the full report gets published, or at least more details get known.



I forgot the links, btw:
http://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article1514603/Luftsicherheit_ueber_den_USA_ist_beunruhigend.html
http://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article1297277/Viele_Beinahe-Katastrophen_werden_nicht_veroeffentlicht.html


And to make one thing clear, this thread I do not mean to bash anyone, or to generally discredit NASA, air traffic, or the FAA. Just to show that obviously very many close accident situation are never being told to the oublic, and that the situation obviously is worse than was previously assumed by the FAA.

Okay, I have nothing more to report on this story.

[Chock]

There are plenty of air miss/air prox incidents that go unreported, I've had a few myself and not reported them. By the way, 'near miss' is usually what the media calls it, air prox is usually what it gets called by most aviation authorities, typical of the media really, since a near miss, would actually be a hit, as in in 'well it nearly missed it' LOL

One time my aircraft got rolled through about 120 degrees to almost inverted by wake turbulence from a couple of RAF Harriers at about 1500 feet ASL (about 500 feet AGL at the time) that flew through the airspace I was cleared to be in without even spotting me, they were doing about 500 knots and passed either side of me. And I've heard plenty of them on the radio too, they happen all the time, especially in the Peak District in the UK.

:D Chock

[AVGWarhawk]

It has also to be pointed out that in recent years the number of accidents or almost-accidents during taxing and rolling at the airport has constantly and very significantly increased, Googling for the above report I found texts saying "drastically increased". That is with regard to major Hubs and commercial traffic centres where you have no or low private traffic only.

Ground control has always been a issue. I believe that ground radar is ineffective in tracking aircraft. It is all done by radio. Control Tower tells you what runway. Pilot acknowledges and makes his way to the that runway. Everyone hopes the pilot knows the way. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes when crossing a runway to get to another aircraft miss a radio message that there is a inbound coming on that runway the grounded craft wishes to cross. Problems ensue! Yes, it can as ugly as a rush hour traffic snarl.

[Chock]

This will explain all about moving aircraft on an airfield :rotfl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3f0YbQDxp0

:D Chock

[NEON DEON]

In the US, I do believe it to be 1 mile.
Okay, increases your reaction time to one second. Psychologically 1 second always gets lost because that is the time the brain needs to become alarmed.

Okay where on earth did you get one second from?

That would be a closing speed of 3,600 miles and hour. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

one second * 60(seconds in a minute) * 60 minutes in an hour

3,600 MPH or one mile a second.

That would be 1,800 mph for each aircraft.

Take off speed typical load 747 is 207 MPH.

Take off speed typical load 747 landing is 165 MPH.

Closing speed of 2 747 is 372 mph.


R*T=D

unless they changed the distance formula on me that is

9.67 seconds

take off the 1 second for the mind to wake up(I think that is high btw)

That gives you 8.67 seconds to react.

Assuming of course the two planes are comming in head on.

[SUBMAN1]

The point being, in IFR conditions as all commercial traffic is, a near miss is very very unlikely. I don't know of a private pilot that has not had a near miss. If you understand flight rules, you can easily see why this is too. I've had 100's of hours in IFR and can't say I've had a near miss while under it. During VFR, that is a different story.

So Skybird, without any further data, I'd have to conclude that the majority of those near misses reported by private pilots. No other way to explain it.

-S

[Etienne]

I get a feeling that most of you are not familliar with the concept of Near-Miss reporting.

A near miss is when you go "Wow, if this and that and that had only gone wrong at that time, we could have had a mess on our hand." When you walk down the stair, slip a little bit and catch yourself on the railling, that's a near-miss. To be particular, it's a personnal injury (Slip and fall) near miss.

Incident, Non conformity and near miss reporting alway gives skewed statistic, depending on who's reporting it. I work in the maritime industry, so of course, the situation is a bit different at times, but I figure it's simillar. The number of near misses in a work unit is directly related to how much paperwork the supervisor feels like doing.

And what the supervisor wants. Say you want the lights on the main deck improved. you fill in a req, the office says Too Expensive.

Strangely, in the next month, there will be a slew of incidents and near miss on that deck, all due to "Improper or poor lighting" - Simply because someone wants to draw attention to a particular problem.

In a air traffic control situation, IFR flights are statistically more likely to be involved in near-misses, since they are more closely watched by controllers.

Near-misses are no good for statistical analysis. They're a qualitative tool.

As for the rest, I don't know the industry's specifics well enough to say. But I'm pretty sure no one can do bupkiss about bird strike.

[Skybird]

Collision course, two planes, head on.

Both may be ariliners with IAS 300kn. Approaching each other hea don, both speeds are added. Depending on altitude, IAS (indicated air speed), translates into a GS (ground speed) that is even higher. Without calculating it, let's say yo have a IAS of 300 kn, and a GS of 400 kn. Makes 800 kn, winds being igored.

1 kn is 1 nautical (not statute) mile, translates into 1.8 km.
800 kn is 1440 km per hour then. That is 24 km per minute. That is 0.4 km/400 m per second. That means you sprint 100 meters in one quarter of a second.

If in doubt or if I think wrong about speed ranges for IAS and GS, take the above speeds and divide them by 2. So calculate them with GS being 200 kn. that makes an approach speed for both planes (not landing!) of 400 kn GS. that makes for 720 km/h. that is 12 km per minute. tjhat is 200 m per second. That means sprinting 100 m in half a second.

If you take just one quarter of the speeds I initially mentioned, you still do the 100m in 1 second.

Fast enough to make any collision a lethal one. even when considerign that these are the worst case speed calculation, it gives oyu an image that no matter what the collision angle is, you nevertheless speak about decison and reaction times in the range of several seconds. Thats why you do not wish to pass an airliner at a distance of just 1000m.

Some years ago we had a high altidue crash over the Bodensee, separating the south of Germany and Switzerland. A huge airliner with children from Russia and a large frieghter collided due to failures with ground control. They rammed into each other at 90°-120° angle, so it even was no frontal collision. When the pilots realised that GC was misleading them, next they made visual contact with the other plane - and althoiugh the tried to make emergncy manouver, they slammed into each other - the reaction time left after visual was established was too short. the case made international headlines, alos becasue one of the fathers of the killed children later murdered the ground controller. GC had several devioces turned off for maintencance, and the controller was alone on duty, in violation of rules, because there always had to be at least two persons at the console in question. but his colleague was in the bathroom, or on break. So it was both an individual and an institutional failure.

"Die Welt" referred to the orignal terms as being given by AP and NASA. The paper did not use "near miss" in it's own amateu undersdtanding, but put it in quotes, saying that this is the category name given by the orignal. Ask NASA then what they understand as a near miss. It also quoted the other labels as the original categories as AP found them in the NASA report.


the conclusion is that in a statistical mean, you have 1.8 critical emergency situation of potentially lethal outcome in north American air space per day. Since they questioned six times as many professional pilots than private pilots, every believing of these emergencies caused by private pilots for the most, sounds far fetched with the current information known. the outcome corresponds with the fact that the number of accidents or near accidents during taxiing at large airports and major Hubs with traditonally low rate of private traffic also is increasing, drastically.

the problem is that enormous density of air traffic today. At Frankfurt they tried a new scheme that would have allowed shorter distances between machines on approach, and different touchdown points on runway, by that they wnated to achcieve a higher frequences of landings at the cost of steeper descents, to avoid the turbulences cuased by machines in front of you. they system cuzrrently is suspedned, for safety concerns. The air space was so crowded that communication too often failed, and too many planes started to do the unexpected with this kind of approach.

The air space is too full - that is the simple conclusion.

[antikristuseke]

See it that way:

Roughly 2600 near misses and almost mid-air collisions and counting four years of 365 days means a statistical mean value of 1.78 "almost happened desasters" - per day. ;)

Thats still way too low for anyone to be concerned about it.

[Chock]

For those of you who have never piloted an aircraft (and I don't mean in a computer flight sim) you might find that several of the piloting forums there are online will give you a better understanding of this matter. The Civil Aviation Authority, Federal Aviation Administration and Federation Aeronautique Internationale and JAR governing bodies, all have (or at one time had) 'no questions asked' reporting forums, where pilots could report stuff, but not in an official capacity, and these are often far more telling if you want to know the stuff behind the statistics. The idea behind this was that it would improve safety and awareness. A search online via their official sites should kick these forums up.

By way of example, most of the flying I do these days is in unpowered gliders, but near the Manchester (EGCC) control zone, so one has to be aware of commercial traffic, rights of way (not to be trusted, incidentally), plus military training flights which take place in the Peak District quite a lot (it's where the Dambusters practiced their raids). I can assure you that I have rarely made a glider flight where there has not been another aircraft in close proximity (often it is reminiscent of a WW1 dogfight with aircraft wheeling around all over the place, one of the reasons why glider pilots wear a parachute), as generally all the gliders are going for the same thermal, and this is even more hectic when being aerotowed by powered aircraft, where there are often both left and right circuits in operation at the same airfield and aircraft landing alongside one another on the same strip, so situational awareness is important for (VFR) glider and towing pilots, and when there is cloud about, it gets even trickier. If I had a quid for every 'near miss' I'd experienced, I'd be pretty rich by now. But I have never reported any of these officially. so it's my guess that there are vastly more VFR 'near misses' than IFR commercial ones, and although it's a guess, it's an educated one.

:D Chock

[Skybird]

See it that way:

Roughly 2600 near misses and almost mid-air collisions and counting four years of 365 days means a statistical mean value of 1.78 "almost happened desasters" - per day. ;)

Thats still way too low for anyone to be concerned about it.
One week with two news per day of airliners falling from the sky will let you think different. Or one airliner and one private plane. Or even just one airliner per week, and the rest freaky base jumpers. :88) I think the reason behind an alarm is that you wish to avoid the situation triggering it, due to it's potential for a harmful outcome.

I wonder what such a report would have to say about russia! :lol: