In this area, the Class B airspace allows operations below 500 feet, south of the shoreline, without clearance from air traffic control. It's an important corridor for light aircraft to access Long Island from New Jersey without having to go over water. This pilot chose to speak with the Kennedy Tower, though it's not required. I'm a bit surprised the TCAS is generating resolution advisories at such a low altitude. In any case, this is not a loss of separation, nor did the light airplane pilot violate anything. Nor was this caused by the Boeing & McDonnell Douglas merger.
@@AutonomousNavigator TCAS also considers rate of closure as well as absolute distance: if aircraft in that VFR corridor climb even slightly, even within allowed altitudes, even if they were just caught in a slight updraft, it can still trigger an RA to the aircraft on final. Not the first time pretty much this exact scenario at Kennedy has been posted to this channel, even. IIRC TCAS goes to TA only below 1000' in most aircraft, which is why it can still trigger RA as they pass over the shoreline.
@@AutonomousNavigator - the aircraft climbed from 250ft to 320ft, according to the video. at as doesn’t know where the climb will stop, so sees it as a conflict, hence the RA.
While yes the tower did advise that the Qatar flight was visually seen by the traffic different companies have different rules regarding how their crews must respond to a TCAS advisory. I would assume Qatars is “follow the TCAS RA, regardless if traffic is maintain visual separation”
I'm not aware of any circumstance where any company would have a policy to avoid an RA. They even supercede ATC instructions. Warnings, sure, various rules. RA? You obey.
Since the Uberlingen disaster this is no longer a company issue but standardized by ICAO. And the standard was adopted by basically all countries (FAA/EASA/...). TCAS takes precedence over ATC instructions. The correct ICAO phraseology was used by the pilots here: ICAO requires pilots to follow TCAS RAs, and controllers need to be notified immediately ("TCAS RA"). Further conflicting ATC instructions have to be rejected by pilots with the ICAO phrase "Unable, TCAS RA."
They obey tcas yes...but it's a reportable incident for the 777 and atc which further warrants scrutiny...not sure what the lil guy has to do here tho...also ull be surprised how many people screw up a go around and make all kindsa mistakes esp after a long flight..the idea is they ll check if safety was compromised anywhere and if so , prevent it in the future.
@@gulthepilot I’m very familiar with go-arounds (missed approaches) and all instrument procedures are definitely a perishable skill. However going missed on an IFR flight is a non event if you’re training for them constantly. My company trains and trains and trains our pilots.
It’s ok to have a light aircraft in a lane below heavy arrives, but for that aircraft to climb directly under the flight path of an arriving aircraft is just irresponsible.
@@andrewlorenzo6611 - visual separation means nothing when TCAS starts to give avoidance guidance. The aircraft could be several miles apart yet visual, but TCAS will do the maths and give an RA.
Why are there planes allowed to fly right there on the approach path of JFK?
The tower approved a small plane circling on short final for your primary runway at one of the busiest airports? Uh, no.
In this area, the Class B airspace allows operations below 500 feet, south of the shoreline, without clearance from air traffic control. It's an important corridor for light aircraft to access Long Island from New Jersey without having to go over water. This pilot chose to speak with the Kennedy Tower, though it's not required.
I'm a bit surprised the TCAS is generating resolution advisories at such a low altitude. In any case, this is not a loss of separation, nor did the light airplane pilot violate anything. Nor was this caused by the Boeing & McDonnell Douglas merger.
@@AutonomousNavigator TCAS also considers rate of closure as well as absolute distance: if aircraft in that VFR corridor climb even slightly, even within allowed altitudes, even if they were just caught in a slight updraft, it can still trigger an RA to the aircraft on final. Not the first time pretty much this exact scenario at Kennedy has been posted to this channel, even.
IIRC TCAS goes to TA only below 1000' in most aircraft, which is why it can still trigger RA as they pass over the shoreline.
@@AutonomousNavigator - the aircraft climbed from 250ft to 320ft, according to the video. at as doesn’t know where the climb will stop, so sees it as a conflict, hence the RA.
While yes the tower did advise that the Qatar flight was visually seen by the traffic different companies have different rules regarding how their crews must respond to a TCAS advisory. I would assume Qatars is “follow the TCAS RA, regardless if traffic is maintain visual separation”
I'm not aware of any circumstance where any company would have a policy to avoid an RA. They even supercede ATC instructions.
Warnings, sure, various rules. RA? You obey.
Since the Uberlingen disaster this is no longer a company issue but standardized by ICAO. And the standard was adopted by basically all countries (FAA/EASA/...). TCAS takes precedence over ATC instructions. The correct ICAO phraseology was used by the pilots here: ICAO requires pilots to follow TCAS RAs, and controllers need to be notified immediately ("TCAS RA"). Further conflicting ATC instructions have to be rejected by pilots with the ICAO phrase "Unable, TCAS RA."
Also, if they got a TCAS RA, it means the Cessna wasn't maintaining enough visual separation, otherwise the TCAS would have chilled during the event
iF the video timing ir rigth, a bit of a delay by ATC to warn big bird of lil bird.....
Nice coverage ❤
There's no RA below 1,200 feet. So don't know what this was about.
TCAS RA is inhibited below 900ft on approach, 1100ft on departure.
@@gump1119 is that an update? Because my system manual says 1200 feet.
@@TB-um1xz Maybe it’s a version 7/7.1 thing or a Part 121 thing. My airbus volume 2 says 900 feet descending, 1100 feet ascending.
@@gump1119 hmm. Looking at it again Boeing says approximately 1,000 feet.
@@TB-um1xz Yeah I’ve also seen references to 1000 +/- 100ft online. Looks like the people in this video were probably right at the threshold.
after looooonnnng flight, tried
US ATC is simply out of this world
Im not sure why this was made into a video. It’s really a non event. The airlines obey the TCAS and this stuff does happen from time to time.
must be a slow week, which is good xD
Luckily it was a non-event as most of the go-arounds, inoperative flaps etc which happen time to time
They obey tcas yes...but it's a reportable incident for the 777 and atc which further warrants scrutiny...not sure what the lil guy has to do here tho...also ull be surprised how many people screw up a go around and make all kindsa mistakes esp after a long flight..the idea is they ll check if safety was compromised anywhere and if so , prevent it in the future.
@@gulthepilot I’m very familiar with go-arounds (missed approaches) and all instrument procedures are definitely a perishable skill. However going missed on an IFR flight is a non event if you’re training for them constantly. My company trains and trains and trains our pilots.
It’s ok to have a light aircraft in a lane below heavy arrives, but for that aircraft to climb directly under the flight path of an arriving aircraft is just irresponsible.
But that aircraft was maintaining visual separation with the aircraft so I don't see the issue.
@@andrewlorenzo6611 - pilots have to abide by TCAS RA instructions.
@@EdOeuna what I said literally had ZERO to do with you just responded with
@@andrewlorenzo6611 - visual separation means nothing when TCAS starts to give avoidance guidance. The aircraft could be several miles apart yet visual, but TCAS will do the maths and give an RA.