ATC vectors SWA Flight to intercept NORDO Cirrus

Fearless Tower

Fearless Tower

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
16,535
Location
Norfolk, VA
Display Name
Display name:
Fearless Tower
Just got this in my inbox:

************************************************************
NTSB ADVISORY
************************************************************

National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594

March 29, 2011

************************************************************

NTSB INVESTIGATING AN INCIDENT INVOLVING AN ATC REQUEST FOR A COMMERCIAL
AIRCRAFT TO FLY NEAR A NON-RESPONSIVE AIRPLANE

************************************************************

The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating an incident
involving a Southwest Airlines airplane that was requested to veer off course
by Air Traffic Control to view into the cockpit of a general aviation
airplane that had been out of radio communication.

On Sunday, March 27, 2011, Southwest Airlines flight 821 was requested by
Central Florida Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) to check on a Cirrus
SR22 that had been out of radio contact for an hour. The TRACON vectored the
Southwest Airlines commercial flight until visual contact was obtained with
the Cirrus.

The NTSB has designated Dan Bartlett as the Investigator-in-Charge.
Click to expand...

I hear ATC routinely asking airlines to attempt to contact GA aircraft on the freq, but never heard of them vectoring a commercial airliner off route to investigate a GA plane.

Anyone else hear of this?
 
THat sounds nuts. CLose enough to look into the cockpit?? Maybe an F16 or a Blackhawk, but an airliner?
 
Seems reasonable to me... If the pilot of the airliner felt it was out of bounds he would have declared 'unable'... Two professionals doing their jobs to try and aid another pilot...
In a rational world the FAA manager who ordered the controller suspended would be summarily fired by today for committing conspicuous stupidity in public...

denny-o
 
Wouldn't the 737 fall out of the sky before he got close enough to look in the cockpit? Fly-by? lol
 
Dr. O said:
In a rational world the FAA manager who ordered the controller suspended would be summarily fired by today for committing conspicuous stupidity in public...

denny-o
Click to expand...

In a rational world, why would we be discussing an event in which everyone had good intentions and tried to help others, and nobody got hurt or even frightened?

Jon
 
EstorilM said:
Wouldn't the 737 fall out of the sky before he got close enough to look in the cockpit? Fly-by? lol
Click to expand...

Absolutely not! He was completely and totally under control of the controller; had he not been under control of the controller, he would have been completely and totally out of control, like the two spam cans which "crash landed" at DCA the other night when no controller was controlling them from the ground while they were hurtling themselves in an out of control way straight to the ground.

It's all about the control. Of course, the controller, we now realize, was totally out of control, and was not being controlled by the controller's controller. Thus even the next level or two controllers, all the way up to the top of the FAA, which obviously was not controlling its controllers properly, should face disciplinary action, so as to improve morale.:dunno:

All the above to prove that professionals cannot exercise a little initiative to help a fellow pilot out.

I just love journalism (referring to the WaPo article about the DCA kerfuffle). I should become an aviation journalist.:thumbsup:

Of course, suspending such a long chain of controllers would mean fewer controllers controlling the planes flinging themselves uncontrollably through the ether, and--well, just look at all the potential deaths!! What about the Children!?!:cryin:

:confused::rolleyes2:
 
Last edited:
I think I see what's got Randy Babbitt all fired up.
Sec. 91.111

Operating near other aircraft.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.
(b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the formation.
(c) No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for hire, in formation flight.
Click to expand...
...especially item (c). Just how close do you have to get to tell there are two people in the cockpit of the other plane, and is that close enough to be considered a "formation flight"? I suspect SWA won't be happy with the pilots, either. Best to leave this stuff to the pros in the F-16's and Blackhawks, and definitely not with 200 paying passengers aboard.
 
Regrettably, I agree; poor judgement to use a B737 as an interceptor. Nevermind the fact they were already 11 miles in trail and closing...(tongue in cheek)
 
What was the resolution to the situation with the Cirrus?

Instead of fly-bys, maybe Cirrus should partner up with OnStar - they could flash the lights and turn the engine on and off. That would probably wake a sleeping pilot.
 
Trapper John said:
What was the resolution to the situation with the Cirrus?

Instead of fly-bys, maybe Cirrus should partner up with OnStar - they could flash the lights and turn the engine on and off. That would probably wake a sleeping pilot.
Click to expand...

Late Breaking news... NEW TV show.......... Bait plane... Where the ground controllers shut off the motor of offending planes.:goofy::goofy::hairraise:
 
N801BH said:
Late Breaking news... NEW TV show.......... Bait plane... Where the ground controllers shut off the motor of offending planes.:goofy::goofy::hairraise:
Click to expand...


Heh, might have come in handy for catching the barefoot bandit kid sooner.
 
Somehow I thought this was fairly common, though not with pt 121 planes. That said, when tower vectors you to basically T-bone a NORDO on purpose it feels like a slight breach of trust.

I've had this happen once while under the hood years ago. Tower essentially vectored us to a ~90* intercept of someone in his d-space. Wanted us to read an N-number but my CFII couldn't safely get close enough. My CFII was probably just tired of me asking "Are you sure this is a good idea?" while I wrapped my head around the concept.
 
jshawley said:
Absolutely not! He was completely and totally under control of the controller; had he not been under control of the controller, he would have been completely and totally out of control, like the two spam cans which "crash landed" at DCA the other night when no controller was controlling them from the ground while they were hurtling themselves in an out of control way straight to the ground.

It's all about the control. Of course, the controller, we now realize, was totally out of control, and was not being controlled by the controller's controller. Thus even the next level or two controllers, all the way up to the top of the FAA, which obviously was not controlling its controllers properly, should face disciplinary action, so as to improve morale.:dunno:

All the above to prove that professionals cannot exercise a little initiative to help a fellow pilot out.

I just love journalism (referring to the WaPo article about the DCA kerfuffle). I should become an aviation journalist.:thumbsup:

Of course, suspending such a long chain of controllers would mean fewer controllers controlling the planes flinging themselves uncontrollably through the ether, and--well, just look at all the potential deaths!! What about the Children!?!:cryin:

:confused::rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

Wow haha, I was just cracking a joke about the speed differential.
 
Ridiculous. If the pilots weren't comfortable doing it they could say unable. If the pilots were afraid to say unable then they're the ones who need to be talked to.
 
Steve Foley said:
Is SWA bound by part 91?
Click to expand...
Yes actually unless there is a requirement in part 121 that allows formation flight with pax.

Being part 121 or 135 doesn't release you from the requirements of 91 unless specifically addressed under 121 or 135.

But the apparent issue here wasn't formation flight. According to the latest from AVweb, the intercept caused a loss of separation - that is what is being investigated.

FWIW the SWA crew was apparently put on suspension as well pending the investigation.
 
Separation is the controllers #1, 2 and 3 responsibility. A "deal", loss of separation minimums as specified in the controllers handbook, is considered very serious. If a controller created a "deal" by intentional instructions, then I think a suspension and retraining is a certainty.
If you as a pilot cause a "deal", you'll likely hear bad things from the Feds too.
 
Trapper John said:
Sometimes good intentions end in a bad accident, like the John Heinz crash.
Click to expand...
+1. I thought of that one too.

I can't recall ever hearing ATC ask an airplane to intercept another one, much less an airliner full of passengers intercepting a Cirrus. How close would they need to get to see in the cockpit?
 
Lance F said:
Separation is the controllers #1, 2 and 3 responsibility. A "deal", loss of separation minimums as specified in the controllers handbook, is considered very serious. If a controller created a "deal" by intentional instructions, then I think a suspension and retraining is a certainty.
If you as a pilot cause a "deal", you'll likely hear bad things from the Feds too.
Click to expand...

So, inquiring minds and all....
What are the separation mininums ? Say there are two planes landing at an airport with parallel runways. They are both on final and separated by a few hundrend yards but not on a converging course, Both planes can look at each other and see each others flight crew.... Is that too close ????:dunno:

Ben.
 
Everskyward said:
How close would they need to get to see in the cockpit?
Click to expand...

And even if you get close enough to see in, what can you do?

With the Payne Stewart Learjet crash, three separate pairs of F-16s intercepted. The last pair watched it crash.
 
Everskyward said:
+1. I thought of that one too.

I can't recall ever hearing ATC ask an airplane to intercept another one, much less an airliner full of passengers intercepting a Cirrus. How close would they need to get to see in the cockpit?
Click to expand...

Too fruckin close if I paid $200 as a passenger to be transported safely to my destination, rather than being an unpaid SAR observer.
 
N801BH said:
So, inquiring minds and all....
What are the separation mininums ? Say there are two planes landing at an airport with parallel runways. They are both on final and separated by a few hundrend yards but not on a converging course, Both planes can look at each other and see each others flight crew.... Is that too close ????:dunno:

Ben.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure there are a lot of different minimum separations both vertical and lateral that a controller must know. Parallel runways have different separation minimums depending on whether or not visual conditions prevail. More separation is required behind a 757 because of its more severe wake turbulence. It's a tough subject.
 
What bugs me about all this is, the pilot maintained visual separation at all times, and yet now, they've been suspended. Ridiculous that anyone at all is in trouble here.
 
jesse said:
Ridiculous. If the pilots weren't comfortable doing it they could say unable. If the pilots were afraid to say unable then they're the ones who need to be talked to.
Click to expand...

Agreed. However if I were flying a 737 (or any Part 121, and probably Part 135 plane), I'd say unable. In anything I fly, yes, I'd help.
 
N801BH said:
So, inquiring minds and all....
What are the separation mininums ? Say there are two planes landing at an airport with parallel runways. They are both on final and separated by a few hundrend yards but not on a converging course, Both planes can look at each other and see each others flight crew.... Is that too close ????:dunno:
Click to expand...
As mentioned above, the separation criteria vary based on a myriad of factors explained in detail in Chapters 3-6 of FAA Order 7110.65 ("ATC Handbook"), including whether they're IFR or VFR, and your example doesn't say which.
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top