Jazz in YSB

[schnitzel2k3]

http://www.nugget.ca/2018/01/23/near-mi ... rol-report

At what point are the flight crew not responsible for keeping separation on visual maneuvers despite ATCs lackadaisy approach to handling traffic in YSB.

You think if the TCAS was lighting up a target inbound you'd have some sense to correct.

S.

[JohnnyHotRocks]

Biggest mistake the pilots made was reacting contrary to the RA. That will get you killed!

[atphat]

Biggest mistake the pilots made was reacting contrary to the RA. That will get you killed!

Seriously. Follow the RA. Always. That’s easy stuff.

[Maynard]

So much wrong wth the article. YYZ controller, not Yyb. Happened outside of Sudbury, not North Bay. And if your on a VFR departure, it’s not ATC who’s in charge of you keeping your eyes peeled.....

[Maynard]

So much wrong wth the article. YYZ controller, not Yyb. Happened outside of Sudbury, not North Bay. And if your on a VFR departure, it’s not ATC who’s in charge of you keeping your eyes peeled.....

[Donald]

If you are descending into an uncontrolled airport, and you are told there is VFR traffic at your 12 o clock, opposite direction, level at 4000.....why would you descend below 5000 or even 4500 without visual confirmation or radar confirmation of passing that traffic?

If you are departing VFR, and there is an inbound on the reciprocal, why would you not attempt to contact them ASAP? Make a plan to expedite your lateral or vertical departure of their arrival path?

IMO, I hope the North Bay controller didn't get too much flack for coordinating IFR arrivals with VFR departures. This is exactly the sort of scenario we use on a daily basis, and it's much appreciated.

[schnitzel2k3]

If you are descending into an uncontrolled airport, and you are told there is VFR traffic at your 12 o clock, opposite direction, level at 4000.....why would you descend below 5000 or even 4500 without visual confirmation or radar confirmation of passing that traffic?

....

This. I don't see how any controller or radio operator was at fault in this incident. The two crews had ample time to plan, and correct this in visual conditions.

I think some investigating needs to be performed on the CRM and decision making process that led to this.

Hey we all make mistakes but this was highly preventable. Sudbury isn't high density uncontrolled airspace - god forbid these guys fly in the oil patch.

[flyinhigh]

Guys I’m sure the TSB has done its due diligence in its report.

Yes it’s YYZ and not North Bay control, does it really matter.

Long story short is it sounds like there was zero communication between FFS and ATC which lead to a potentially catastrophic event.

On the pilots part, if they were not advised of each other, we’ll thats not there fault. Not following an RA is on them however.

[Donald]

Long story short is it sounds like there was zero communication between FFS and ATC which lead to a potentially catastrophic event.

On the pilots part, if they were not advised of each other, we’ll thats not there fault. Not following an RA is on them however.

It sounds like you've posted a comment, without reading the report.

If you did actually read it, you'd see that the pilots were given the required information about each flight. If the Morningstar flight had of been involved, then it would be a different story.

The controller and FSS specialist did exactly what any pilot operating into or out of an uncontrolled airport would want. For the arrival, they were given a legal approach, despite an outbound aircraft, to avoid getting a hold. For the departure, they were given a VFR release, despite an inbound, to avoid getting a ground delay.

The conditions and time between the two flights were more than ample for separation to be accomplished by the pilots themselves.

Pure speculation on my part, but I'm guessing that if the CVR's had of been preserved, unnecessary conversation below 10,000 feet would have been included as a cause.

As previously mentioned, this scenario occurs daily in the oil sands, and crews are vigilant about self-separation to avoid this outcome.

[schnitzel2k3]

Morningstar would've had the sleep mask on and coupled on the ILS 40 miles out.

Just kidding.

But seriously....those guys.

S.

[flyinhigh]

Long story short is it sounds like there was zero communication between FFS and ATC which lead to a potentially catastrophic event.

On the pilots part, if they were not advised of each other, we’ll thats not there fault. Not following an RA is on them however.

It sounds like you've posted a comment, without reading the report.

If you did actually read it, you'd see that the pilots were given the required information about each flight. If the Morningstar flight had of been involved, then it would be a different story.

The controller and FSS specialist did exactly what any pilot operating into or out of an uncontrolled airport would want. For the arrival, they were given a legal approach, despite an outbound aircraft, to avoid getting a hold. For the departure, they were given a VFR release, despite an inbound, to avoid getting a ground delay.

The conditions and time between the two flights were more than ample for separation to be accomplished by the pilots themselves.

Pure speculation on my part, but I'm guessing that if the CVR's had of been preserved, unnecessary conversation below 10,000 feet would have been included as a cause.

As previously mentioned, this scenario occurs daily in the oil sands, and crews are vigilant about self-separation to avoid this outcome.

Oh I did read the report. Based on news article that is listed, and the quoting of the TSB, there is more to this story. To me, not enough info was passed along which is why this happened. Maybe ATC should have said hold XYZ aircraft, or not take off.

I think you miss read what I wrote, I am putting benefit of the doubt on both parties with the exception of the RA.

[av8ts]

Guys I’m sure the TSB has done its due diligence in its report.

Yes it’s YYZ and not North Bay control, does it really matter.

Long story short is it sounds like there was zero communication between FFS and ATC which lead to a potentially catastrophic event.

On the pilots part, if they were not advised of each other, we’ll thats not there fault. Not following an RA is on them however.

I also read the report. Sounds to me like this was totally on the pilots. They were advised about each other by ATC yet did next to nothing to avoid a conflict til RA’s. And then one pilot ignored that

[Donald]

Oh I did read the report. Based on news article that is listed, and the quoting of the TSB, there is more to this story. To me, not enough info was passed along which is why this happened. Maybe ATC should have said hold XYZ aircraft, or not take off.

I'm genuinely curious of your operational experience flying IFR into uncontrolled airports, busy or otherwise.

At the time of Jazz getting VFR departure approval, Porter was 26 miles and approximately 7.5 minutes away, Morningstar was 21 miles away. When Jazz lifted off, Porter was 17 miles away. Both crews had been given the position of each other.

Is it unsafe to depart when there is an aircraft 17 miles away?

The only thing that stands out for me about the north bay controller, is that it appears the Porter flight was cleared for a visual when they hadn't requested it. It's a little ambiguous in the report, but it appears they only asked for further clearance.

Still doesn't change things though. If there's an aircraft level at your 12 o'clock, don't descend into them! If you are departing into reciprocal traffic, turn!

[schnitzel2k3]

I have seen lots of controllers prompt a visual using 'Have you got the field?' - usually followed by 'Yes' and 'Cleared for a visual approach into...'.

Most of the time they ask what you are planning so as not to surprise you.

IMO this incident looks to be 99% of the crew - perhaps 1% of the controller if they prompted an unrequested visual. Even so the inbound pilots should've widened out and made way for the outbound Dash - they had priority and determined the active runway.

Highly preventable.

S.