EgyptAir A300 Cargo ignores ATC instructions and causes near collision with Air France A320 above Ghent

[galaxy]

91 metres vertical and 1370 metres horizontal makes about 1373 metres diagonal.

But for thinking time ,it's only about 5 seconds to react !

[PttU]

91 metres vertical and 1370 metres horizontal makes about 1373 metres diagonal.

But for thinking time ,it's only about 5 seconds to react !

I'm not minimising the incident. It's just not as close as 90 metres, as luchtzak pointed out before:

300 feet that is 91 meters, that is close in aviation terms!

I made an error in the separation between both aircraft, not 91 meters but 1372 meters.

Sadly this 91 meters has been picked up on De Redactie VRT ...

http://m.deredactie.be/#!/snippet/58795 ... 7110d02578

Maybe they could have mentioned a link back to luchtzak.be or to the original source avherald.com ...

Also http://m.hln.be/hln/m/nl/957/Binnenland ... onItemId=1

[sn26567]

Flightradar24 published some information from its own data and from the French BEA:

https://blog.flightradar24.com/blog/fli ... ay-f-gkxn/

[lumumba]

1300m looks a lot to me...
Maybe I'm completely wrong but even today when we where descending to Luanda we crossed a Emirates 777 for me at less than that!

[luchtzak]

On a French forum I posted the article, the first respons I got was: we don't mention as it happens every day.

I hope not!

[convair]

Flightradar24 published some information from its own data and from the French BEA:

https://blog.flightradar24.com/blog/fli ... ay-f-gkxn/

On that map, it looks like they flew over the same point with about 15 seconds interval! Normal??

[Poiu]

On that map, it looks like they flew over the same point with about 15 seconds interval! Normal??

Absolutely normal, that was the reason for the controller to insist on 1000ft altitude separation.

[Homo Aeroportus]

1300m looks a lot to me...
Maybe I'm completely wrong but even today when we where descending to Luanda we crossed a Emirates 777 for me at less than !

Agreed Lumumba that it must have appeared very close but the 1000-ft (305m) vertical separation was maintained.

SN and EK were indeed heading straight onto each other following the std airway but it seems that ATC instructed SN to maintain altitude at FL260 just after passing IDLIN.
Simultaneously EK ceased climbing and maintained FL250 so they crossed safely. Lateral was about 500 metres.

Courtesy FR24.

I compiled the altitudes based on FR24 data. See below.

When clear, both continued their flight profile.

H.A.

[Poiu]

EgyptAir probably didn't ignore ATC instructions, but misshandled a TCAS RA manoeuvre
The alert went off due to a high rate of climb, TCAS instructed a level flight, crew disconnected automatics but climbed iso flying level.
(By the way it is called a near miss, not a near collision)

[lumumba]

1300m looks a lot to me...
Maybe I'm completely wrong but even today when we where descending to Luanda we crossed a Emirates 777 for me at less than !

Agreed Lumumba that it must have appeared very close but the 1000-ft (305m) vertical separation was maintained.

SN and EK were indeed heading straight onto each other following the std airway but it seems that ATC instructed SN to maintain altitude at FL260 just after passing IDLIN.
Simultaneously EK ceased climbing and maintained FL250 so they crossed safely. Lateral was about 500 metres.

Courtesy FR24.
Screenshot 2017-01-15 21.17.43.png
Screenshot 2017-01-15 21.17.58.png


I compiled the altitudes based on FR24 data. See below.
SN vs EK near FNLU.jpg

When clear, both continued their flight profile.

H.A.

Waow Nice thx I Wil use flightradar24 this way also after my flights.....

[Stij]

(By the way it is called a near miss, not a near collision)

True, but if they nearly missed, didn't they hit each other?

Stij

[JAF737]

On a French forum I posted the article, the first respons I got was: we don't mention as it happens every day.

I hope not!

TCAS RA's happen much more often than you might think. Unfortunately.

[Passenger]

(By the way it is called a near miss, not a near collision)

It is not. It is called a near collision. A near miss only means that nothing has happened, without referring to whatever distance, parameter, time, speed, ...

A near collision in aviation means "did not respect at least one legally required separation distance, thus causing the risk of a collision" (*)

http://avherald.com/h?search_term=near+ ... search.y=0

(*) this is not the official IATA or ICAO definition

[Poiu]

(By the way it is called a near miss, not a near collision)

It is not. It is called a near collision. A near miss only means that nothing has happened, without referring to whatever distance, parameter, time, speed, ...

A near collision in aviation means "did not respect at least one legally required separation distance, thus causing the risk of a collision" (*)

http://avherald.com/h?search_term=near+ ... search.y=0

(*) this is not the official IATA or ICAO definition

Shall we stick to the ICAO/EASA definitions and leave the drama to HLN/The Sun and other passengers?

This was an Airprox or near miss, it becomes a near collision (NMAC) when separation is below 100ft vertically or 500ft horizontally.

[Passenger]

I prefer to copy/paste what The Aviation Herald reports:

"Incident: Egypt Cargo A306 near Brussels on Jan 1st 2017, climb above cleared level results in near collision."

http://avherald.com/h?article=4a36eb54&opt=0

[Passenger]

Shall we stick to the ICAO/EASA definitions and leave the drama to HLN/The Sun and other passengers?

This was an Airprox or near miss, it becomes a near collision (NMAC) when separation is below 100ft vertically or 500ft horizontally.

Repeat: no. the TCAS was activated, so it was a Near collision (unless Belgocontrol quotes the wrong ICAO definitions):

https://www.belgocontrol.be/opersite/ea ... en-GB.html

ICAO Doc 4444 : AIRPROX - Risk of collision (Eurocontrol ESARR2 category A) = The risk classification of aircraft proximity in which serious risk of collision has existed. Critical near collision between aircraft or between aircraft and obstacle(s). Separations lower than half the separation minima (e.g. 2 NM).

ICAO Annex 13 / attachment C:

•Near collision requiring an avoidance manoeuvre to avoid a collision or an unsafe situation or when an avoidance action would have been appropriate;
•Controlled flight into terrain only marginally avoided;
•Aborted take-off on a closed or engaged runway / take-off from a closed or engaged runway with marginal separation from obstacles / landings or attempted landings on a closed or engaged runway / take-off or landing incidents, such as under-shootings, overrunning or running off the runway.

[sn26567]

Could we leave this discussion there? Whatever the expression used, this was a serious incident.

[JAF737]

Could we leave this discussion there? Whatever the expression used, this was a serious incident.

Right words are important. Definitely in aviation.

And with all my respect, you are not qualified to judge any incident as serious or not. Your knowledge in aviation stops at the trip reports and at the "10 abreast is not comfortable". Nothing wrong with that, but stop with your judgments and let others talk about what they think of the situation.

[jan_olieslagers]

That could have been worded more politely, but I have to agree otherwise.
How serious the incident has been will be judged by those that are to judge.

And I do agree about the importance of using correct terminology, however I am not aware of the official guidance in this case - the quote by @Passenger does not really help, it excels in vagueness. "Airprox" is the term used there, without any exact definition. But "near miss" is the usual term on the (mostly G/A) aviators' forums I most frequent - "aviators'" as opposed to "aviation"

That said, everything we know (or "have heard") by now does indicate serious human error, one or several. I wonder if, apart from the ubiquitous inquiry with its non-committing recommendations, there could be any legal prosecution? Has it happened before? In Belgium? To what results?

[Passenger]

Could we leave this discussion there? Whatever the expression used, this was a serious incident.

Right words are important. Definitely in aviation. And with all my respect, you are not qualified to judge any incident as serious or not.

I'm about a zillion times less qualified then sn26567, but my basic knowledge of English (my level is 1.1) is enough to understand what this means: "...Belgium's AAIU rated the occurrence a serious incident..." (quote from the report on AvHerald).