NEAR MID-AIR COLLISION | Planes Dangerously Close after Takeoff at LAX
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 апр 2024
- Your support is really important and appreciated to keep these videos coming! =)
-- / vasaviation
-- paypal.me/VASAviation
Become a VIP member of VASAviation! -- / @vasaviation
Flying Eyes 10% OFF: flyingeyesoptics.com/?ref=Vas...
Join VASAviation's Discord -- / discord
Twitter/Facebook/Instagram -- @VASAviation
Audio source: www.liveatc.net/
Please, give a big LIKE to support and for more videos like this!! :)
ACA782 clearly said "climbing to 5000'", no further climb was instructed. That left turn to cross AAL345 departure path was serious (both to level at 5000').
Wow
Is this the third time youve posted this or am I tripping?
At 1:50 you can hear the departure controller telling AA that AirCanada is cleared to 12000. So it's what he believes to be the case.
@@Issthi I have not posted this incident before
It's only a matter of time before it happens.......capitalism hitting ATC?
"Yeah, we have the traffic in sight. The pilot is wearing a white shirt with dark blue shoulder boards. I think the copilot uses Old Spice cologne."
Ugh. Embarrassing. Good thing the controller got visual separation since the pilots were already making direct eye contact....
And could see the color of each others eyes when they did. WOW!
It’s about time ATC receives a phone number to call
Pilots can file a complaint.
Apparently the phone call is done to clear stuff up and determine if the tower needs to file a complaint. Most of the time they don't.
@@gavinkemp7920 perhaps you have more experience of getting a number to call than I do. From my knowledge and discussions I’ve had, when you get that phone number your PRIA is never the same.
Tower, possible controller deviation, I need you to phone this number when you get off your shift 😎
You guys are way too trigger happy with "phone calls" and shit
The phraseology is "possible pilot deviation". It does not mean the pilot was at fault, only that information from the pilot is needed to get a more complete picture. There are several times where the fault was with ATC after the event was reviewed, and the pilot is usually informed of this when they call, or at least, that the pilot did not appear to do anything incorrectly. Sometimes, equipment is at at fault, whether on board or ground based, and getting that information can be vital to providing the safest NAS we can.
US controller here, although NOT a Socal controller familiar with their specific departures/procedures so take what I say with a grain of salt. I think there is a factor in why this happened that is very subtle and missed by many. It sounds to me as if the departure controller that initially responds to ACA782 and calls them radar contact is a different controller to the subsequent transmissions from Socal Departure. The voice sounds different.
This makes me believe that the normal procedure for these departures is to maintain 5,000 and then the controller on initial contact will assigned a higher altitude traffic permitting. When ACA782 checked on, if it truly was during a controller swap, the controller who was being relieved just acknowledged them instead of climbing them and left that to the relieving controller to do/decide on. The relieving controller, for whatever reason thinking the controller they relieved gave ACA782 12,000 on initial contact, turned the ACA thinking they would be climbing well above AAL345 as they turned losing lateral separation. But being that they weren't climbed yet prior to the turn, you had two aircraft merging with the same assigned altitude.
Just a theory from my perspective as a controller who knows how easy mistakes can be made during controller swaps if all parties aren't on the same page.
for me it also sounds like those are two different persons on departure
What an effed up way to start a shift, too!
Does the program ATC uses not have a field where you can assign the Altitude you cleared the aircraft to to the icon of the aircraft so that you can see what you gave them?
That makes it possibly an everyday scenario which is three times as scary. Kudos to you and your fellow professionals though.
This could be the case, but it never should be. As a pilot I have been taught to never assume anything. When in doubt, always confirm. There are no stupid questions in aviation.
ATC induced event. I'm a bit surprised, but everyone has a bad day every now and then. Good thing the RA was triggered and the pilots were on the ball.
@@cibularas3485 delete your account
@cibularas3485 Take your meds, and go for a walk.
What is an RA?
@@JS202 TCAS Resolution Advisory. Directs the pilots on the action to take to avoid a mid air collision.
@@JS202from what i understand it’s a “device” in the cockpit and when it notices that the plane is in danger of hitting another plane it “triggers” and tell the pilot in plane 1 to increase/decrease speed,altitude, or change flight heading and same for plane 2. It doesn’t take over like autopilot but warns the pilot. For example it might have told air Canada to increase speed and increase altitude immediately while in the American plane it might have told them to decrease speed and decrease altitude immediately. From my understanding that’s how it works. Hope that helps, if you’re interested in learning more just look up on google (RA) resolution advisory and TCAS II systems, very interesting technology in my opinion.
1:08 - ACA782 is told to climb and maintain 5000
1:20 - AAL345 tells departure they're passing 1500 to 5000
1:34 - ACA782 is instructed to turn left heading 110
1:43 - Departure warns AAL345 about the traffic and proceed saying the traffic is at 5000 climbing to 12000 (we didn't have any previous call telling ACA782 to climb to 12000)
2:00 - AAL345 is instructed to turn right heading 250 IMMEDIATELY
2:07 - ACA782 is instructed to climb and maintain 12000 (for the first time)
ACA may have had published flight plan to climb to 12,000.
@@UberDude previous clearance is to 5000 1:06
Yea sounds like ATC thought they climbed the air Canada, but never did. Possibly training going on? Seemed like the voice changed. The turn was fine with over 1000ft vertical and would have been no event if he had climbed the air Canada.
@@LiamsCarsandblocks yeah my guess is controller overlap - one going on break and a new one taking position
Possible controller deviation. Advise when you are ready to copy a phone number 😂🤦🏻♂️
Isn't this when one pilot opens his window and asks the other pilot "Pardon me, would you have any Grey Poupon???
At this time, their pants are probably full of Grey Poopoo!
There is Poupon everything!
Air Canada would open their window and say, "Sorry!" ;)
@@AEMoreira81 😆
i watched a couple times trying to see which plane messed up before checking the comments, but couldnt find any deviations... the atc turning / not climbing air canada explains it! glad no one got hurt.
Neither plane messed up, the ATC did. Air Canada was instructed to climb and maintain 5000', but ATC told American that Air Canada was climbing from 5000' to 12000' despite this climb never being requested or instructed. ATC also referred to the Air Canada aircraft simply as "traffic at your 1 o'clock" when talking to American, so it wouldn't be obvious to Air Canada that ATC was referring to them.
Disagree with both of you. While ATC *did* f* up American was instructed to turn right IMMEDIATELY to 250º. They didn’t. Yeah, it was a bandaid on a major bleed but they failed. Reference the 2:00 mark.
@@OngoingFreedomthey were told to turn to 250° when the ATCO realised that shit is about to hit the fan.
The duck up happened much earlier.
Maybe the CLD entered the wrong cleared altitude into the aircraft strip so the ATCO assumed another cleared altitude (despite the ACA clearly stated 5000 ft).
Also you cannot expect the aircraft to follow immediately what you’ve said. There’s a alwaysa delay involved, especially when your instruction is uncommon.
I don’t see an unusual delay in their turn.
Another thing to consider is: the radar image is always showing a little bit of delay anyways. You cannot establish an aircraft’s actual heading during a turn, by just looking at its speed vector.
@@gustavgans8278also, if pilots get an RA (Resolution Alert) they are to ignore ATC and follow the aircraft RA guidance.
We don't know what guidance the aircraft gave the pilots.
Professionally handled by the pilots, what a diaster that could have been
its the wild wild west up there, I get that ATCs are under enormous pressure to fit 100 planes in a 1 minute departure window but this stuff is just ridiculous...
@@insomnia20422 It's certainly becoming a concerning and frequent problem to put it lightly.
I'm just hoping the root cause of these near tragedies can be squashed before our luck runs out
@@josh3771 it will not happen in time
@@butteriest1634 Because...your life is a black hole of misery and you never got over the fact that Y2K wasn't the end of the world as we know it?
@@josh3771what’s the root cause?
WOAH! Unfortunately, we had almost the exact same thing happen to us coming out of another major airport recently. It's a disturbing trend. We didn't even get a warning on ours, the TCAS went straight into a resolution advisory. ATC was surprised that we got a conflict; our TCAS system is the one that caught it. Scary.
You can share the information to the email if you'd like us to work on a video
@@VASAviation Let me check with our DO and SMS lead. If they're cool with it, I will send you the info.
@@TrueSight_333it’s public info. If someone prevents you from talking about it then that’s even more of a reason to get it out there.
@@jhsevs I'm a corporate pilot. There are matters of privacy involved with the owners. I have to follow chain of command on this; that's how it goes.
@@TrueSight_333 Homie's flying the Epstein Express 😂
Me: "I don't get it, they both seem to be flying their SIDs pretty-"
1:33 "ACA782 turn left 110."
"Oh fuck."
This was so stressful to watch. Kudos to the pilots for keeping their cool.
We have parallel departures here at IAH, and they always turn the left side, left and the right side, right. Turning them both the same way is a recipe for disaster!
As long as the turns are different radii with different initial altitude isn't really any issue with both turning generally the same way.
@@alan_davis in theory not, but in practice it clearly can become problematic whereas other procedures seem way safer
This one wasn't parallel departure. They departed via the same runway.
In LAX like many other places, the noise is the problem. And not just any noise, but noise over rich people in Malibu. There is a SID turning right over Malibu from 24R, but there is a climb gradient requirement, which is too much for some heavies. On top of that there is only 1000ft separation to planes following the Ironman arrival overhead, which is causing TAs and RAs if you climb too fast. So they like to use departures turning left and climbing over the sea, not over rich people in Malibu.
Another reason might be the terrain, but I like to blame Malibu:)
@@kata7218 I used work at a busy military airbase that had upto 4 Squadrons another large training Sqn often flying around the clock, including circuits, touch and go’s. It certainly was a noisy neighbourhood… Except when the very expensive private school thats less than a mile away wrote to the airbase to say they had a music test that week! Amazingly they’d be a flying embargo / NOTAM arranged. As soon as the private school finished their violin playing, we’d launch the fleet again to the detriment of everyone else’s sleep.
No ATC controller wants to hear about a RA that should have been avoided with better planning
We had a crossing/arrival problem like that years ago. Arr asked to stay higher for a few miles because we had a slow mover. C130 and the arr was a 747. Agreed on. Controller switch on the arr sector and this guy clears the decent on the 747. On crossing there was 200 feet vertical separation.
Great edit, thank you
Thank you for watching
Some might say this day wasn’t very lax
Lax atc at LAX ATC.
I don't know. I'm pretty sure some bowels were very reLAXed today.
For the life of me I'll never understand why we have complex SID's if ATC just vectors us on the departure. Seems to me that SID's are designed to mitigate incursions. Any TRACON controllers care to share their insight?
All departures I have flown across Europe are SIDs non vectored. They actually rarely deviate you from SID
@@VASAviation Do you know why American controllers give vectors if a SID is available?
@@devinwright7828 Presumably because the SIDs are badly designed and aren't doing what they need them to do.
@@devinwright7828 You are given SIDs incase you lose radio communication with ATC, you have something to fallback on
Radar vectors (should) get you going where you want to go faster (or avoid other traffic they are vectoring)
I'm not going to speak about specifics, just generalities. SOCAL is a very complex and dense airspace with rapidly changing topography. The most common reason vectors are used is to gain an operational advantage in traffic flow. Turning an aircraft early can help increase a miles in trail requirement to the Center with the following aircraft. Sometimes airspace and airport proximity necessitate turns SIDs cannot account for as published. VICTOR routes often cross departure paths and turning an aircraft sooner or later can help facilitate an unrestricted climb versus an interim altitude assignment that in turn, may make an MVA further along the path more difficult to reach. These are some of the most common reasons.
"...I got a great Polaroid of it..." - AAL345 2nd Officer
At what range?
About two meters.
Well actually it's about 1 1/2 I think.
What were you doing at that range??
Communicating
@@davidpearson3304 Yes, I know the finger Goose 🤣🤣
Diplomatic Relations
@@terrybarnett273 oh, i'm sorry, i hate it when it does that
Aw man. That key change in the AC pilot’s voice, tho. That’s the sound of someone regulating her nervous system through sheer force of will.
It's interesting ATC gave American a turn towards Air Canada. That only increased the closure rate between aircraft. That's less time for everyone to act.
At that point Air Canada was ahead of the American in the turn. By ordering a right turn the ATC put the American on a path to cross behind the Air Canada jet as opposed to turning both in the same direction
Listening to this I was wondering what the heck ATC was doing vectoring those two to cross at their respective altitudes. This incident needs a thorough review.
Didn't we do this same thing about 2 weeks ago - same place?
These departures out of LAX seem to be conflicting
@@VASAviationhopefully someone important is all over this
I thought i was having a Deja Vu indeed. Was this a repost from a video posted on Feb 17? (which is now unavailable?)
They should be alternating departures from after departure direction while keeping planes departing , forward planning on the ground would have sorted this issue if they had a straight out or northbound departure between the near miss aircraft’s
@@The_Devil_Riser EXACTLY!!! you cant let the plane that takes the long turn get immediately followed by a plane that goes the same direction but takes the short turn; that is always asking for disaster...
Sounds like a nearly huge cockup by ATC there
What exactly is a nearly huge cockup?
@@billymacktexasdetective5827 a near mid air collision(?)
@@billymacktexasdetective5827 nearly a midair collision between two loaded planes
@@billymacktexasdetective5827 A sexual performance complication of excessive penis enlargement surgery
@@billymacktexasdetective5827 ATC forgot to tell ACA that they are cleared for FL120..You can hear him say to AAL that there is traffic that is climbing through 5000 for 12000 but he never cleared ACA for 12000 before that..
Oh my, that was nerve wracking
Once again, pushing the boundaries of safely operating the airport and airspace around it. I have been watching this channel for a while and I am shocked at how many potential disasters are avoided by the grace of God, aircrew being aware of their surroundings or a ATC keeping track of their assigned aircraft.
Thats why there are more than one safety instance. If ATC fails, there is still TCAS and the pilots. If TCAS fails, there is still ATC and the pilots. If one pilot fails, there is still the other pilot who can potentially do something. Accident only happens, if all of these fail together. Last big mid air collision of commercial planes was Überlingen, Germany in 2002. There everything failed (apart from the DHL pilot who had no chance to notice the bashkarian pilot failing). ATC failed, the bashkarian pilot failed (because back then priorities have been differently defined in russia prioritizing ATC over TCAS) and TCAS also failed, because there was a bug which prevented a resolution advisory reversion for one plane if the other fails to commit to the original resolution advisory, which was supposed to prevent the exact situation from becoming fatal. So you see, this was a real tragic crash, but it is very unlike to happen, as A LOT of things have to go wrong.
@@Haniel93 Worth mentioning, that that part of the airspace (Überlingen), albeit German territory, is controlled by Skyguide (Switzerland). In addition to the stated facts, the STCA (Short Term Conflict Alert) was not operational in the control center due to maintainance.
When something goes wrong with the automation, people tend to give it a hard time (me included LOL).Lets admire for a second how many of these scary events (which are getting more and more common) TCAS resolves safing hundreds of lives.
Great video! What a Charley Foxtrot by ATC
Looks like ATC forgot to tell Air Canada that they are cleared for FL120, it was only in his head :D
Appears correct. SoCal should've (a) given a direct instruction ("AC 782, climb to xxxxx', resume RNAV"), or (b) phrased the instruction referencing the procedure: ("AC 782, resume climb via SID, proceed direct /fix name/").
isnt this like the third near miss on this departure route in a few months?
These departures out of LAX seem to be conflicting
When did this incident take place?
Something like this happened to me one time when this old lady had her blinker stuck to turn left but she was in the right lane going 10 under the entire time but of course once you go to pass and cross to make the right heading she suddenly yanked left but I was expecting it cuz I rode a motorcycle on the street for a year.
Sounds like Sun City drivers. You don't live in Arizona, do you?
I have chills watching the ATC track.
I’m gonna armchair it and say that that someone might want to change the SID to a different initial altitude
The US system is overwhelmed and it’s only a matter of time before a crash. It’s only the professionalism of ATC and pilots that are preventing the recent near misses. Someone’s luck will soon run out.
Dang that was close. 😮
Thank God for TCAS!
TCAS is old tech but it still works just fine.
Has saved many lives
on a number of these videos and of others in the US, I notice a severe lack of co-ordination between neighbouring sectors. As an example, an aircraft declares an emergency, and almost all the time on every frequency change the new controller asks for POB and fuel figures. Doesn't the first ATC pass all this info down the line ?
Maybe LAX shouldn't clear flights on the ORCKA and the DOTSS back to back? Better yet, clear all of the flights on the same SID and get them on course after the turn.
Just my thought. Couldn't the ORCKA share some initial waypoint with DOTTS so that all fly the same path until the deviate to their final SID fixes?
@@VASAviation I sometimes think that these werent set up with the modern traffic in mind. Idk. A lot of this seems ridiculous. Like there should definitely be a rule that certain patterns cant be flown right one after another to avoid events like these.
@@VASAviation Actually, there's the OSHNN departure which DOES share those waypoints, but I believe it interferes with departures from KSNA nearby. They use it at night to avoid overflying LA.
If you clear all flights on the same SID you'd have major congestion and delays. The reason behind different SIDs such as ORCKA and DOTTS is they diverge by 15 degrees at DOCKR, so you can launch planes back to back and there is no issue. This happens all day every day. The fuck up here is they never climbed ACA so they leveled at 5,000. Had they been issued a climb, they would have left 5,000 before merging with AAL and there would be no conflict. That's what happens 99.99% of the time.
A friend of mine flew into LAX the day after this on an American plane.... Real glad I didn't see this video before that!!
I sometimes think this channel could save some lives. Thanks for getting this out there!
Can someone explain me why this procedure is designed so that aircraft doing almost 270 degree turn is guided on the outside while aircraft turning 180 degrees is on the inside? It seems logical to have the aircraft flying north on the inside so that they don't collide with those flying east.
nothing about this makes any sense
they could also just have switched departure order and it would have been 100% fine
I can't see the sense of it
The ORCKA departure is designed so you can fly the aircraft out as far as you need to before turning. They hold 236 degrees, between the north complex departures (usually 251 degrees and turning north) and the south/east departures (220 degrees and turning south) until ATC turns them to fly over the airport and to the NE. The same departure can be flown off the north side, but maintains 251 heading until turned.
From what I can tell, when you actually direct the aircraft to climb the one doing the 270 turn does so over the other one so there is no conflict.
My guess is it has to do with the mountains north of LAX, along the ORCKA routing. You can see fixes KEGGS and COOPP with minimum altitudes well above 10k. Takes a while to climb up that high if you're heavy. So, the ORCKA has you fly out farther over the water before making that turn so you can gain altitude. The DOTTS doesn't have terrain that high to get over, so they can turn earlier without issue.
I like how atc tells them to maintain visual separation at the last second. Never too late to CYA
3:03 Air Canada: “Just to advise, we had a RA (on the TCAS) there”.
ATC: Shhh 🤫 quickly change the subject.
ACA782 had previously been cleared for Climbvia the SID " except maintain 5000 " ...
It's terrifying how close these aircraft came to each other despite the RA and the fact that they could see each other. I can't imagine how this might have gone if they had both been in cloud at the time. AA345 looks like they either dialled up 145 rather than 245 when instructed and then caught their mistake, or the plane happened to be turning to line up for the next waypoint which made the situation worse. I am also curious if AA got a descend instruction, or if TCAS only instructed them to level off since they did not descend.
Is this the same incident from a month or so ago, or a new one? This looks near-identical to an ATC issue at LAX I previously watched.
That was on another channel.
Initial radar contact call for ACA sounds like a different controller than the one that turned them. Could’ve been an issue with the position brief during a controller swap
Thought the same when I first heard the audio
3:07 yeah you don't seem very aware, also was late to repeat the heading for Air Canada. What, was it an exciting part of the TV show you're watching?
Do modern transponders not transmit the altitude / FL selected on the autopilot?
Seems like a very early turn from the controller to the ACA after departure. Im not sure how they were going to make that 10K foot crossing restriction at KLPPR even if the AAL aircraft wasnt involved. The BCS3 doesnt climb well
WOW. that was close--- a lot of people almost died. ATC is human, and makes mistakes, but damn. (now I want to hear cockpit audio)
The ATC did say "Turn right heading 250 immediately" And American continued on a left turn
Negative
@@VASAviation What is happening at 2:02 then? Sure looks like that's what was said.
AAL345 did turn left to 250, they were flying the SID, the turn doesn't happen immediately even though the audio sounds like he responded immediately. Also in the cockpit they may have also had an RA that they had to respond to, I know ACA had one, it's likely AAL345 had one too because the TCAS systems are supposed to communicate with each other. The reason for that is so that two aircraft responding to the same RA don't both climb. One should climb and one should descend. But they did turn to the right, just not shown as happening immediately.
@@Daishi0861airliners aren't fighter jets. It takes time for a pilot to hear an instruction, input the control, and then the jet takes a long time to roll over and actually start changing its velocity.
It's just like with cruise liners or city buses - Large vehicles take a while to stop and don't turn on a dime.
Air Canada please maintain visual separation from that traffic (that is behind you).
Might have been more handy to restrict AAL to 170kts.
Why did he tell Air Canada to maintain visual separation? They were ahead of the American Airlines flight. It’s always on the guy trailing to maintain visual separation because the guy up front cannot see behind him.
When did this happen??
When was this? I was on AC782 last week.
2 months ago
Surprised there was a near-miss involving Air Canada *and* it was *not* Air Canada's fault. Good job Canada!
These absurdly busy airports need better procedures
What's the bubble for that area? I'm assuming one one nautical mile vertical?
TRACON J Rings are usually a 3NM radius and Center is usually a 5NM radius, but I do not know if the rings in the display were added by ATC or a Review Team or VAS and if they chose a different radius for a different purpose.
Lateral
Fair. Just trying to sus out if they were really that close or if indicated distance for the RA was lat/long only
Time to change the A220's identifier, too... so ATC doesn't have to waste 9 seconds fixating there, deciphering what the hell kind of airplane a "BCS3" is.
As a former SCT controller, What's going on on Departures? Should have climbed ACA to 12000 on contact. Climb AAL to 15000, fly heading 250, vectors for climb. Pretty easy! Maybe there was something else going on.
What I don't get is that the pilots for both aircraft clearly said they had each other in sight so how did this still almost happen? Neither crew seemed to check with ATC to make sure they weren't going to collide?
I remember seeing more or less the same pattern, quite recently. This is clearly a controller problem, not pilots not doing what they were asked to do.
I was waiting for ACA to start her left turn early but no this is 100% on the controller.
I don’t understand why you wouldn’t just step climb the AAL
Wow, that was really bad.
Is it normal in the US for atc to request maintain visual separation on an rnav departure? No matter what the situation might be I can't understand that on any IFR departure
do US controllers have mode-s indications? if Controller saw on his screen ACA not inputed 12000 (what he expected), he would issued proper lvl inctruction.
I guess they also weren't listening close enough, or taking in what was being said. The ACA checked in correctly and said they were climbing to 5000
We don't have that as far as I'm aware. Atleast where I am at a center. We recently received a datacom compliance check where when they initially change sectors it confirms their assigned altitude but it's only for datacomm (CPDLC) equipped aircraft. Beyond that we have to rely on their initial check in altitudes.
@@TheBlitzvideo that is sad(😢 in Ukraine we had Mode-S/AdS-B radars since 2011. Helped in too many situations (system warned when level ATC inputs in ATC system, differs from LVL pilot inputs into FMS)
what the actual F?? you have literally the ENTIRE SKY at your disposal and yet put 2 planes in this kind of situation???
The only and safest solution is to have SID's with the same waypoints for the first turns and then waypoint "ABCDE" that leads safely to the filed route.
what is RA? I'm assuming something to do with the TCAS systems. Resolution/Avoidance? Radial Alert?
TCAS Resolution Advisory. In other words, the plane gave her a "Climb; Climb" (I'm guessing that's the resolution from the altitudes reported in the video)
@ryanhodin5014 Thank you kindly!
What does RA mean??
RA = [TCAS] Resolution Advisory. The TCAS detects the threat, calculates and displays an evasive maneuver, which is mandatory to follow. No more "maintain visual seperation" at this point ...
In addition, when TCAS issues a Resolution Advisory... training is to follow TCAS until the conflict is resolved. You ignore whatever the fuck the controller is telling you to do. 71 people had to die to make that clear to everyone....
This is confusing. My initial thoughts were why was the Airbus not climbing in the turn they were cleared to 12000 or did I miss something. Anyway that put the two in conflict otherwise they would have vertical separation by the time they crossed paths.
Short answer is that they weren't cleared to 12000.
When they were given their initial routing from clearance before takeoff, they were told to maintain 5000. ATC didn't give them another altitude until the situation was already in progress.
Oof. What kind of RA would the AC flight have received? Climb climb?
This seems like a pretty obvious problem brewing for the controller that sent them out.
It depends on what the two aircraft TCAS computers decide.
Level probably, or descend if they’re high enough
The transponders on the two aircraft crosstalk to agree on a resolution. This is why TCAS RA's supersede ATC instructions. There have been collisions because crews have listened to bad ATC instructions instead of their TCAS
Speaking for the passengers: "Whew!"
Those in the A seats got quite the view
I feel like this just happened last month, an almost identical scenario.
Same situation different channel
I think the question that needs to be asked is , why did CD cap ACA782 at 5k.
They do that to everyone
@@VASAviation oh so the SID doesn’t climb to 120? It sounds like DEP was expecting ACA to climb to 120 but didn’t know ( for whatever reason ) CD said climb via except maintain 050.
This gives RVSM a whole new meaning! Yikes.
What does “RA” stand for?
“Tower possible ATC deviation, advice when ready to copy?”
AAL345 knew where the traffic was and said they saw the traffic and then later were instructed to turn right to 250, but didn't do anything.
This seems like more than just an ATC issue.
AAL345 did perfect and followed TCAS instructions over ATC
Just another example we are still human. ATC had something bad going on... Good communication from the pilots side, stay alerted.
The other thi g was she said, the pilot goi g through 1500 climbin g to 5000 on all videos ive watched atc have come on radio as the plane starts to climb and says climb to blah i didnt hear that hsppen on her recording but she was going up to 5000 so had she not confirmed authorisation to climb , think i hward it on the other plane but ATC had given them virtually identical headings
Why the US doesn't adopt more elaborate SIDs and STARs, like most of the world, specially terminals and airports with loads of traffic? Is it something related to the huge GA traffic the US has? Or just unwillingness?
"Wonder how close can I get these planes to each other"
Didn’t an almost identical incident happen there just a few weeks ago?
Every time I hear radio like this, I wonder why we don't use a Datalink type system, and / or many-to-many digital communications systems? I see we've been talking about this type of system since the 80s... ie 40 years.. And I think, maybe technology, and redundancy has improved at least a little since then...
Because Datalink is slow and not that reliable. It's used for ACC, not APP, and even then it's mostly for convenience.
@ As I said.. a Datalink *type system*... Cause you know, 40+ years have passed, and we now have "slightly better" technology. Ie we can do better than we could 40 years ago. In particular we are significantly further ahead in ad-hoc multi-node digital system protocols and speed of chips. Those two things alone could be used in a far more robust system than AM/FM ever could (ignoring other advances in low latency mutli-path routing)... And even then I'd suggest 1 augment the other, not dropping anything.
What is an RA?
Resolution Advisory. Plane computer tells us what to do to avoid traffic (climb/descend).
"This is Air Canada 782, we have a number we'd like departure to call, let me know when you're ready..."
wait how is this possible? Isn't there technology at ATC to like not turn a plane into other's path like that?! Crazyyyy. Was the speed 250 knots an attempt at making american pass AC before they crossed? And the end goal for AC was north?! WHY NOT A RIGHT TURN
Right turn is towards the north complex departures, and Malibu where they REALLY don't like jets overhead.
didn't this happen like 2 months ago?
I don't know anything about ATC, but this controller had a real bad day.
He is aware, thank you.
3:05 maybe a "yeah, sorry about that" would've been a better response
its rough when the pilots do what they are suppose to and this happens
No better situation than this to confirm that TRACON need ERAM (or at least many of the features of ERAM on STARS).
What's the difference?
@@VASAviation The short (absolutely stupid and unacceptable) answer? Different Contractors at different times
I skipped watching this recommended video thinking I saw this already. It’s a new incident. What the hell is happening at SoCal?
Damn, ATC wanted that to go away quickly, eh?