Mid-Air Collision Avoidance Video

[GeorgePerry]

Air Safety Institute just posted this video.

Mid-air collisions fall into that “low probability, high consequence” category, but it's still scary to think about, esp if you've had a close call.  In this video, ASI discusses areas where the risk of a mid-air is greatest as well as strategies for minimizing the chance of having one.

 

 

[bonal]

Thanks George, I can get these on AOPA but it sure is convenient to have them right on MS since I spend more time here.

[peevee]

 

 

Good video

Edited January 21, 2016 by peevee

[mike_elliott]

As always, great video. George, you might be able to shed some light as to why ATC is sometimes insistent on routing everyone thru sector gates when on IFR flights. I can only think of maintaining high use numbers for the controllers personal purpose, based on the big sky theory. Consider just how big of an area would be occupied if every registered US plane had a 1 NM protective circle around it, would it be larger than Arizona? Now consider that ATC funnels everyone to a particular gate that usually involves a couple of different sectors and becomes a high density point. Maybe I am missing something, yet I feel there is a better way now that I can spot this easily with my ADS-B in. This became really obvious to me on a routing from FA40 to KLEE, which took me on a non tour of Orlando's airspace. Separation wasn't an issue.

[peevee]

56 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

As always, great video. George, you might be able to shed some light as to why ATC is sometimes insistent on routing everyone thru sector gates when on IFR flights. I can only think of maintaining high use numbers for the controllers personal purpose, based on the big sky theory. Consider just how big of an area would be occupied if every registered US plane had a 1 NM protective circle around it, would it be larger than Arizona? Now consider that ATC funnels everyone to a particular gate that usually involves a couple of different sectors and becomes a high density point. Maybe I am missing something, yet I feel there is a better way now that I can spot this easily with my ADS-B in. This became really obvious to me on a routing from FA40 to KLEE, which took me on a non tour of Orlando's airspace. Separation wasn't an issue.

What?

[bonal]

All the instruction about collision avoidance stresses that ATC will only help VFR guys like me with flight following on a work load permitting basis and that traffic separation is not a requirement on VFR.  I just want to say as someone that requests FF a lot I have never been turned down even when Oakland center Norcal and Socal approach have been super busy they still take my request and have been great about traffic advisories including avoidance vectors and altitude changes. All the western state controllers are great to fly with.

[mike_elliott]

20 minutes ago, peevee said:

What?

pull up your charts and figure why a flight from FA40 to KLEE was routed like this

KNEED V152 JENSN 

Seeing that there was not any conflicting traffic, scheduled or otherwise to interfere with a direct route, and getting on course was not an option until I was able to check in with the 3rd controller sector, I am also asking "What?"

If it only happened once, that's one thing, but this is right from their playbook. While it is not terribly out of the way, it lacks sense to send everyone to KNEED to meet up in the soup.

 

 

[peevee]

1 hour ago, mike_elliott said:

pull up your charts and figure why a flight from FA40 to KLEE was routed like this

KNEED V152 JENSN 

Seeing that there was not any conflicting traffic, scheduled or otherwise to interfere with a direct route, and getting on course was not an option until I was able to check in with the 3rd controller sector, I am also asking "What?"

If it only happened once, that's one thing, but this is right from their playbook. While it is not terribly out of the way, it lacks sense to send everyone to KNEED to meet up in the soup.

 

 

I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with the SIDs and STARs in and out of orlando, which is like, right there.

[mike_elliott]

no sid for hidden lake, no need to go to Orlando to get "involved" with their separation issues. No star for Klee at 3k. Only a sector gate desire by ATC.

No conflicting traffic preventing direct, only ATC needing one to talk to 2 Tampa controllers and 3 from Orlando to get there

[Bennett]

All the instruction about collision avoidance stresses that ATC will only help VFR guys like me with flight following on a work load permitting basis and that traffic separation is not a requirement on VFR.  I just want to say as someone that requests FF a lot I have never been turned down even when Oakland center Norcal and Socal approach have been super busy they still take my request and have been great about traffic advisories including avoidance vectors and altitude changes. All the western state controllers are great to fly with.

I don't use flight following very often, but Bonal is right about how well the folks at NotCal work with VFR flight following aircraft. In all my years of being west coast based I can only recall one time when Nor Cal dropped all flight following aircraft, and that was to deal with an emergency. To be fair, not all close by aircraft are called out. This is apparent now that I have ADS-B, in and out. TIS-B Traffic is showing me many more aircraft thanz I knew were out there, and several times when I did use Flight Following, no call outs were made to me when I could clearly see potentially dangerous convergence situations developing. I adjusted my flight paths to eliminate the potential problem. I don't like being in close proximity with other aircraft unless we are in formation flight.

[DXB]

Another nice piece from Aopa.  I've been turned down for flight following a few times near the NYC bravo and once by Philly Tracon. They might simply ignore you if too busy. As the video notes it's these crazy busy times when it can be nicest to have.

[peevee]

38 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

no sid for hidden lake, no need to go to Orlando to get "involved" with their separation issues. No star for Klee at 3k. Only a sector gate desire by ATC.

No conflicting traffic preventing direct, only ATC needing one to talk to 2 Tampa controllers and 3 from Orlando to get there

Where did I say anything about sids or stars to KLEE? It likely has to do with traffic in and out of ORL or it's a collection point for LEE. I don't see what the big mystery is here...

[mike_elliott]

A collection point, my point exactly, and no apparent need for it to be a place to "collect" traffic and cause congestion. This is a common observation in this part of Fl. by a whole lot of pilots, not just me. You mentioned the Dp and stars as a possible reason...I don't believe they come into play at all.

I kind of blew this off when it was first bought to my attention by David Taisch (Fl Mooney lunch group head) when he said he believes it was because of a LOA between Tampa and Orlando to insert traffic in both sectors with maximum sector exposure. Since then, I have noticed what he is speaking of. I simply asked for a reason why if George might know when it it appears so unnecessary. Do you have any authorative insight from ATC as to why, peevee, or like the rest if us, just guessing as to why this is done

?

[peevee]

8 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

 Do you have any authorative insight from ATC as to why, peevee

Yes, as a matter of fact I do. More than you can imagine or I'll talk about on a public forum.

I still fail to understand the big mystery. If it's simply a collection point what is so mystifying about that? Do you approach an intersection in your car from 30 different angles? No, typically it's 4. It's the same concept. It's difficult for neighboring sectors to blend multiple streams joining into a third sector, hence a collection point.

 

If you're that worried about it call the watch desk at center and ask, it's really, really not some huge conspiracy to make you burn .1 more engine time. OR here's a novel idea, ask for direct.

.

Edited January 22, 2016 by peevee

[mike_elliott]

Just now, peevee said:

Yes, as a matter of fact I do. More than you can imagine or I'll talk about on a public forum.

Oh my, that would be good to hear publicly as it could lead to some truth here, not that we believe there is a conspiracy as you suggest, just a quest as to why. I wish it were not so sensitive for you, but respect your right to not divulge your authority. Your expertise remains unsubstantiated as it currently sits, unfortunately

 

13 minutes ago, peevee said:

I still fail to understand the big mystery. If it's simply a collection point what is so mystifying about that? Do you approach an intersection in your car from 30 different angles? No, typically it's 4. It's the same concept. It's difficult for neighboring sectors to blend multiple streams joining into a third sector, hence a collection point.

.

The big mystery is why. It is an unnecessary collection point referred to as "gates" by ATC (betcha you know this)

4 minutes ago, peevee said:

If you're that worried about it call the watch desk at center and ask, it's really, really not some huge conspiracy to make you burn .1 more engine time. OR here's a novel idea, ask for direct.

I am not worried about it at all, just want to know why, as do a host of other IFR pilots in Central Fl. as far as your novel idea of asking for direct, that doesn't work here. You ask for direct when able and get "expect direct in 10 miles" which just so happens is 2 frequency changes and one center later when ATC finally capitulates because your at their gate. As far as burning the avgas, no biggie to me, being routed to where a lot of traffic is  and being called out by ATC is (also as seen by my ads-b out compliant and in equipment) was silly.

So with authority, can you say why other than you don't see what the big mystery is? In seeking answers from Tampa and Orlando one is told it is because of a LOA between them, per David Taisch. Do you know if that is true or do you wish to not say if you do know for reasons you would rather not have these reasons public?

 

[peevee]

27 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

 In seeking answers from Tampa and Orlando one is told it is because of a LOA between them, per David Taisch. Do you know if that is true or do you wish to not say if you do know for reasons you would rather not have these reasons public?

 

so you already know it's in the interfacility LOA and you still don't get it?

[mike_elliott]

I just now found out the why is because of a LOA. The LOA is issued for the convenience of the controllers, written by non pilots  and not to necessarily enhance safety or efficiency of flight. To understand this, one must be clued into the politics of the ATC environment. Busy points look good for ATC and the union. The benefit to ATC is they can look at a specific spot on their screens when getting a hand off. In a sense, it makes highways in the sky for them. In this particular case, Tampa passes to Orlando who passes to Jax all at agreed points and altitudes. (explains the slam dunk into KLEE also) There can be exceptions, but it requires a controller to pick up the phone and negotiate on the pilots behalf.

SO....

why don't we make these gates an intersection that can be filed to and make everyone's life more convenient, or do away with the gates and use the nexgen system as it is being designed to be used?

 

[peevee]

1 minute ago, mike_elliott said:

I just now found out the why is because of a LOA. The LOA is issued for the convenience of the controllers, written by non pilots  and not to necessarily enhance safety or efficiency of flight. To understand this, one must be clued into the politics of the ATC environment. Busy points look good for ATC and the union. The benefit to ATC is they can look at a specific spot on their screens when getting a hand off. In a sense, it makes highways in the sky for them. In this particular case, Tampa passes to Orlando who passes to Jax all at agreed points and altitudes. (explains the slam dunk into KLEE also) There can be exceptions, but it requires a controller to pick up the phone and negotiate on the pilots behalf.

SO....

why don't we make these gates an intersection that can be filed to and make everyone's life more convenient, or do away with the gates and use the nexgen system as it is being designed to be used?

 

You really should consider a facility visit, perhaps it'll enlighten you, because as of now you have absolutely no clue. I don't have time to explain to you all the ways you're incorrect.

Edited January 22, 2016 by peevee

[mike_elliott]

my previous 4 visits were not enlightening I guess, nor does my many visits with my IFR students to the contract tower at KBKV and KORL, sorry to waste your self proclaimed expertise and time. I apologize for being so insensitive.

[peevee]

...

Edited January 22, 2016 by peevee

[Marauder]

...

I have encountered the unique routing situation here in the northeast a number of times. And like Mike, I have asked and gotten the LOA explanation as well other explanations about the usage of "preferred route". Not sure what the latter meant since no one could tell where they are or if they are published.

At my airport, an uncontrolled field, the received clearance always has me headed to a VORTAC that is 10 miles to the northeast of the airport - regardless of the direction of my flight or the runway I takeoff from. What usually happens when my destination is in the opposite direction is I make the initial turn towards the VORTAC and end up with vectors to a point in the direction of my intended route. Sometimes flying almost in a complete circle.

I think what Mike is asking is the same many of us are wondering about and that is if there is a preferred route for airports served by GA, where can we find out how to obtain it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[peevee]

8 minutes ago, Marauder said:

I have encountered the unique routing situation here in the northeast a number of times. And like Mike, I have asked and gotten the LOA explanation as well other explanations about the usage of "preferred route". Not sure what the latter meant since no one could tell where they are or if they are published.

At my airport, an uncontrolled field, the received clearance always has me headed to a VORTAC that is 10 miles to the northeast of the airport - regardless of the direction of my flight or the runway I takeoff from. What usually happens when my destination is in the opposite direction is I make the initial turn towards the VORTAC and end up with vectors to a point in the direction of my intended route. Sometimes flying almost in a complete circle.

I think what Mike is asking is the same many of us are wondering about and that is if there is a preferred route for airports served by GA, where can we find out how to obtain it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes and no....

most of what you'll find are remainders of the HAR routes.

http://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Air-Traffic-Services-,-a-,-Technology/Air-Traffic-Services-Preferred-Terminal-Routes

https://www.fly.faa.gov/rmt/nfdc_preferred_routes_database.jsp

 

then you get into coded departure routes, which can be found on the OIS page, but you don't have full access to it outside of facilities.

http://www.fly.faa.gov/ois/

 

then you run into situations where it's as simple as the tracon not wanting to work traffic coming in the departure gate nose to nose with departures.

 

but we all know the real answer is it's the dirty union boosting traffic counts so they can all look better and know where to expect handoffs!!!! because handoffs always come from the same place!!! and other ridiculousness.

Edited January 22, 2016 by peevee

[Marauder]

9 hours ago, peevee said:

9 hours ago, Marauder said:

8 minutes ago, Marauder said: I have encountered the unique routing situation here in the northeast a number of times. And like Mike, I have asked and gotten the LOA explanation as well other explanations about the usage of "preferred route". Not sure what the latter meant since no one could tell where they are or if they are published.

At my airport, an uncontrolled field, the received clearance always has me headed to a VORTAC that is 10 miles to the northeast of the airport - regardless of the direction of my flight or the runway I takeoff from. What usually happens when my destination is in the opposite direction is I make the initial turn towards the VORTAC and end up with vectors to a point in the direction of my intended route. Sometimes flying almost in a complete circle.

I think what Mike is asking is the same many of us are wondering about and that is if there is a preferred route for airports served by GA, where can we find out how to obtain it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Yes and no....

most of what you'll find are remainders of the HAR routes.

http://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Air-Traffic-Services-,-a-,-Technology/Air-Traffic-Services-Preferred-Terminal-Routes

https://www.fly.faa.gov/rmt/nfdc_preferred_routes_database.jsp

 

then you get into coded departure routes, which can be found on the OIS page, but you don't have full access to it outside of facilities.

http://www.fly.faa.gov/ois/

 

then you run into situations where it's as simple as the tracon not wanting to work traffic coming in the departure gate nose to nose with departures.

 

but we all know the real answer is it's the dirty union boosting traffic counts so they can all look better and know where to expect handoffs!!!! because handoffs always come from the same place!!! and other ridiculousness.

 

Thanks for the explanation and the resources, I will work through them over the next few days and see if I can determine if they will help.

Your comment about tracons working together or not is something I have encountered. I fly to upstate NY a bit during the summer months. Because of the route shenanigans, if the weather is good, I'll just go VFR and bypass the system completely.

If the weather requires to file, I have tried different routing (fltpln, Garmin's historical, ATC proposed and direct). It is inconsistent what I get when I receive the clearance. One of the routes I have received took me east about 20 miles before turning me north. It was an "ATC proposed" route I received back from Garmin Pilot. When I contacted Philly approach, the controller issued the clearance and then when I was in the air, the controller working the sector asked me if I was on an IFR training flight and when I told him no, he cleared me direct to Williamsport.

Another time, I filed to the local VORTAC but took a victor airway from that VORTAC that would have taken me west sooner and to the airways I usually get placed on. The controller giving me the clearance over the phone told me he had to negotiate this route with the Harrisburg controller. It was a 10 minute delay, but I got it as filed.

And then there are the times I filed a route that was accepted and issued multiple times in the past, but for some reason, not this time. Something completely different.

I'm sure there is some rationale reason for all this, I just haven't figured it out. I wonder if has something to do with timing of my flights and the increased or decreased traffic out of Philly.

My most interesting one recently was the fly-in to Jersey. It was as about straight as you could get. The preferred VORTAC, then an airway coming out of it a VORTAC that served as the IAF. Should have a "as filed". Instead I get an intersection on the airway and then the airway and then the "as filed" part. What I flew was completely different. I got a RV due north for about 10 minutes, then another RV due east in the direction of the airway. That one was a Sunday morning.

I'm sure there is a reason, just never got a good answer why.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[carusoam]

The AOPA safety videos are nicely produced.  George, tell the folks at the home office they are doing a nice job.

 

Adding to the thread creep...

This looks a lot like a dying system.  It is moving away from heavy human interaction, with it's known limitations, to a computerized automated system. Distributing, logically with error checking, traffic away from gates and VORs unless needed.

Go direct.  Computer traffic modeling.  Keep in contact with ATC.  ADSB out and in.  Shorter distances.  Digital equipment.  Lower cost. Save time. Save man hours.

It is going to be uncomfortable for some people.  There are going to be jobs lost by the people that hand planes through gates.  Sort of like mechanically sorting flight info that was printed on small strips of paper.

Change happens even at the FAA.

Is that what you were saying Peevee?

At least they aren't sending ATC overseas to the lowest bidder.  Or are they?

Just thinking out loud,

-a-

 

[Marauder]

4 hours ago, carusoam said:

The AOPA safety videos are nicely produced.  George, tell the folks at the home office they are doing a nice job.

 

Adding to the thread creep...

This looks a lot like a dying system.  It is moving away from heavy human interaction, with it's known limitations, to a computerized automated system. Distributing, logically with error checking, traffic away from gates and VORs unless needed.

Go direct.  Computer traffic modeling.  Keep in contact with ATC.  ADSB out and in.  Shorter distances.  Digital equipment.  Lower cost. Save time. Save man hours.

It is going to be uncomfortable for some people.  There are going to be jobs lost by the people that hand planes through gates.  Sort of like mechanically sorting flight info that was printed on small strips of paper.

Change happens even at the FAA.

Is that what you were saying Peevee?

At least they aren't sending ATC overseas to the lowest bidder.  Or are they?

Just thinking out loud,

-a-

 

I forgot who posted the hacker video on ADS-B but it was an enlightening one on the vulnerabilities of the new NexGen system. I'm not so warm and fuzzy about it anymore.