FL420
Blues vs. Birds-Tailhook
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Posts
- 626
The GOL Boeing 737 midair collision with the ExcelAire Embraer Legacy 600 in Brazil illustrates how mixing the new with the outdated can result in decreased safety for all of us. Specifically, the highly accurate navigation systems onboard both aircraft ensured that if there was a breakdown in communications or human error that resulted in the opposite direction traffic flying at the same altitude, the result would be disastrous. It doesn't have to be that way.
It's time for ICAO and all member states to institute the use of Strategic Lateral Offset(SLO) procedures in all airspace above FL180, not just in oceanic and remote continental areas as is the present practice. By the way, if the remote Amazon jungle doesn't qualify as a remote continental area appropriate for the use of SLO procedures, I don't know what is.
ICAO was led to the use of SLO's in the first place by a grass-roots pilot movement initiated by a couple of Singapore International Airways captains a few years ago. Many governmental regulatory agencies were lukewarm to the idea at best but they eventually came around to recognize the safety benefits of SLO procedures.
The Long Range Navigation Systems(LRNS) and Automatic Flight Control Systems(AFCS) on most airliners and business jets flying today are capable of generating and flying SLO's which increase the lateral separation of opposite direction traffic on airways reducing the chance of midair collision. A further benefit of SLO's is the ability of higher same direction traffic to offset downwind of lower traffic being overtaken to reduce the chance of a wake turbulence encounter for the overtaken traffic from the higher aircraft.
Jet airways in the USA are eight(8) miles wide. I believe that is fairly standard throughout the world. Why on earth are we requiring aircraft capable of navigation accuracy measured in meters to adhere to the exact center of an airway with four (4) nm of unused airway on each side? Some of that unused airway is necessary to protect the airspace required by an aircraft using "turn anticipation" at a "fly by" waypoint at a turn in the airway. Otherwise, all that airspace is wasted, except for those few aircraft(probably very few) that are using ground-based navaids(VOR's) for navigation in the high altitude structure.
I propose that pilots start bringing pressure to bear on our governmental regulatory agencies to research and eventually implement policies for the use of SLO's in all airspace above FL180 by suitably equipped aircraft. Most all turbojet RVSM capable aircraft with FMS are already suitably equipped. I doubt it would be too difficult for manufacturers like Honeywell and Garmin to incorporate the capability to perform SLO procedures into their low-end GPS receivers such as the GNS430/530 series.
If every pilot on a high-altitude airway were to fly a one(1) nm offset right of the centerline of the published airway they would normally have two(2) nm of lateral separation from opposite direction traffic. That lateral displacement offers some protection from a midair collision caused by human error(e.g.-misunderstood altitude clearance or failure to level off at the proper altitude.) It also offers protection from a midair collision caused by equipment malfunctions(e.g.-radar outages, communications blockage or failure, transponder failure, Mode C failure or TCAS failure.) An additional benefit of the increased lateral separation is a reduction in wake turbulence encounters from opposite-direction traffic 1000 feet above in RVSM.
If an aircraft flying a 1 nm right offset is overtaking another aircraft 2000 feet lower going the same direction who is also flying a 1 nm right offset, the higher aircraft can alter his offset to the downwind side by 1 nm(i.e.-fly either on the airway centerline with zero offset or fly a two(2) nm right offset) to reduce the chance of the lower aircraft encountering wake turbulence from the overtaking aircraft.
Airspace planners would have to take a look at waypoints where airways make a sharp turn to ensure that an aircraft on a 2 nm right offset using turn anticipation will remain in protected airspace. Accommodations would have to be made in one form or another to deal with those situations, if found.
I have used SLO's in RVSM airspace in the Gulf of Mexico and I liked the safety and peace of mind they offer regardless of whether or not I was in radar contact or communications with Houston Center or Merida Center. I have also flown there with pilot's who don't use them. I remember one day overtaking an A320 from 2000 feet below and behind. We were in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico and had almost 100% wing overlap. I was somewhat amazed at how close he appeared. I felt I could almost count the rivets. I got a cold, clammy feeling when I realized an opposite direction aircraft could quite legally pass halfway between us heading the opposite direction, again with 100% wing overlap.
So, my fellow pilots, does anyone see any merit in my proposal? I certainly hope so. We have lost too many of our brethren and too many innocent passengers in midair collisions. Technology, along with some forward thinking, offer us an opportunity to use technology to reduce the threat of midair collisions due to human error or electronic equipment malfunctions.
If it's worth happening, it's not going to happen unless we make it happen. We are the ones with the greatest exposure. If you like it, talk it up. Pass it around. That's the way the SIA guys got the SLO ball rolling in the first place. If you don't know anything about SLO's, Google "Strategic Lateral Offsets." There is a lot of information about its implementation in the North Atlantic Track System(NATS) and the Gulf of Mexico. We just need to expand its use.
If you don't like it; not macho enough for you for instance, well I guess I'll hear from you too.
It's time for ICAO and all member states to institute the use of Strategic Lateral Offset(SLO) procedures in all airspace above FL180, not just in oceanic and remote continental areas as is the present practice. By the way, if the remote Amazon jungle doesn't qualify as a remote continental area appropriate for the use of SLO procedures, I don't know what is.
ICAO was led to the use of SLO's in the first place by a grass-roots pilot movement initiated by a couple of Singapore International Airways captains a few years ago. Many governmental regulatory agencies were lukewarm to the idea at best but they eventually came around to recognize the safety benefits of SLO procedures.
The Long Range Navigation Systems(LRNS) and Automatic Flight Control Systems(AFCS) on most airliners and business jets flying today are capable of generating and flying SLO's which increase the lateral separation of opposite direction traffic on airways reducing the chance of midair collision. A further benefit of SLO's is the ability of higher same direction traffic to offset downwind of lower traffic being overtaken to reduce the chance of a wake turbulence encounter for the overtaken traffic from the higher aircraft.
Jet airways in the USA are eight(8) miles wide. I believe that is fairly standard throughout the world. Why on earth are we requiring aircraft capable of navigation accuracy measured in meters to adhere to the exact center of an airway with four (4) nm of unused airway on each side? Some of that unused airway is necessary to protect the airspace required by an aircraft using "turn anticipation" at a "fly by" waypoint at a turn in the airway. Otherwise, all that airspace is wasted, except for those few aircraft(probably very few) that are using ground-based navaids(VOR's) for navigation in the high altitude structure.
I propose that pilots start bringing pressure to bear on our governmental regulatory agencies to research and eventually implement policies for the use of SLO's in all airspace above FL180 by suitably equipped aircraft. Most all turbojet RVSM capable aircraft with FMS are already suitably equipped. I doubt it would be too difficult for manufacturers like Honeywell and Garmin to incorporate the capability to perform SLO procedures into their low-end GPS receivers such as the GNS430/530 series.
If every pilot on a high-altitude airway were to fly a one(1) nm offset right of the centerline of the published airway they would normally have two(2) nm of lateral separation from opposite direction traffic. That lateral displacement offers some protection from a midair collision caused by human error(e.g.-misunderstood altitude clearance or failure to level off at the proper altitude.) It also offers protection from a midair collision caused by equipment malfunctions(e.g.-radar outages, communications blockage or failure, transponder failure, Mode C failure or TCAS failure.) An additional benefit of the increased lateral separation is a reduction in wake turbulence encounters from opposite-direction traffic 1000 feet above in RVSM.
If an aircraft flying a 1 nm right offset is overtaking another aircraft 2000 feet lower going the same direction who is also flying a 1 nm right offset, the higher aircraft can alter his offset to the downwind side by 1 nm(i.e.-fly either on the airway centerline with zero offset or fly a two(2) nm right offset) to reduce the chance of the lower aircraft encountering wake turbulence from the overtaking aircraft.
Airspace planners would have to take a look at waypoints where airways make a sharp turn to ensure that an aircraft on a 2 nm right offset using turn anticipation will remain in protected airspace. Accommodations would have to be made in one form or another to deal with those situations, if found.
I have used SLO's in RVSM airspace in the Gulf of Mexico and I liked the safety and peace of mind they offer regardless of whether or not I was in radar contact or communications with Houston Center or Merida Center. I have also flown there with pilot's who don't use them. I remember one day overtaking an A320 from 2000 feet below and behind. We were in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico and had almost 100% wing overlap. I was somewhat amazed at how close he appeared. I felt I could almost count the rivets. I got a cold, clammy feeling when I realized an opposite direction aircraft could quite legally pass halfway between us heading the opposite direction, again with 100% wing overlap.
So, my fellow pilots, does anyone see any merit in my proposal? I certainly hope so. We have lost too many of our brethren and too many innocent passengers in midair collisions. Technology, along with some forward thinking, offer us an opportunity to use technology to reduce the threat of midair collisions due to human error or electronic equipment malfunctions.
If it's worth happening, it's not going to happen unless we make it happen. We are the ones with the greatest exposure. If you like it, talk it up. Pass it around. That's the way the SIA guys got the SLO ball rolling in the first place. If you don't know anything about SLO's, Google "Strategic Lateral Offsets." There is a lot of information about its implementation in the North Atlantic Track System(NATS) and the Gulf of Mexico. We just need to expand its use.
If you don't like it; not macho enough for you for instance, well I guess I'll hear from you too.
