Who do I report this to?

dalta5billion

Non-knowledgeable civilian here.

This morning I was on EI 330 departing at 07:10 from Dublin to Berlin-Schönefeld.

About halfway through the flight (I am annoyed at myself for not recording the exact time) an SAS airlines plane passed us by in the opposite direction no more than I'd guess 200m away, and about 50m above us. I could see the delay in the cloud trail forming at the back of the SAS plane, that's how up close I was.

Then, as we were in descent for landing at Berlin-Schönefeld, suddenly the pilot pointed the plane up and blasted the engines like they do when they take off. He then came on the intercom to say that the ATC had put "slower planes on the same approach path" and therefore we had to "abandon ours".

You can see this last bit on the flight radar tracking yoke. http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ei330/#3898dfd

These two incidents were pretty scary for me, is there anything I can do?

Oscar Bravo

you don't report it to anyone because its all standard procedures.

olive20

No. You were in the hands of professionals. The seperation required was met. Its 1000feet.

What happened in Berlin was a go around, happens alot. Nothing wrong or illegal.
The only thing you can and should do would be to chillax

dalta5billion

olive20 wrote: »

No. You were in the hands of professionals. The seperation required was met. Its 1000feet.

What happened in Berlin was a go around, happens alot. Nothing wrong or illegal.
The only thing you can and should do would be to chillax

Thanks for setting the mind at ease

Just wondering, do go-arounds happen a lot because of planes on the runway?

Growler!!!

If you wish to report it contact the Irish Aviation Authority.

Rest assured both ATC and the flight deck crew will have reported any issues if a near miss occurred.

dalta5billion

The graph's pretty interesting, was at 1,000ft when they decided to go around. 'Twas an experience anyways!

Dublinflyer

We have had two go arounds in the past few hours with the thunder storms here. Nothing to be worried about in any way, all very standard stuff albeit very unsettling for passengers who don't know what is happening.

dm09

Hi Op, I think this is the 'incident' you might be referring to? Approximately 35km north of Amsterdam at approximately 09:40 (local time)
In the screen capture I've filtered to just show EIN & SAS aircraft, both aircraft are seperated by 1000ft in altitude.




As for the Go Around, those are very routine and most likely, the result of another aircraft slow to clear the runway.

Approx time index on FR24
http://www.flightradar24.com/2014-06-10/07:41/12x/EIN33E/3898dfd

dm09

Here is a more zoomed in shot of the same time index, aircraft appear to be separated by approx 650m and 1000ft in height

basill

Most of the modern world including Europe operates the higher levels flight levels to RVSM standards in order to increase the amount of traffic that can occupy the sectors. That means the vertical separation will be 1000ft when in the cruise. We also fly the semicircular rule which means flying East to Berlin you would fly an odd level (FL310, 330, 350, 370 etc) and evens heading West. Tactically ATC may decide to have you at a non standard level but the norm is as described.

It doesn't matter how close horizontally to another aircraft of your own wake category you are so long as you have the required 1000ft vertical separation. We regularly fly directly over the top of each other and enjoy the views. ATC will give some amount of lateral separation to smaller aircraft so that they are not upset from the wake of a larger aircraft eg: a A320 crossing the wake of an A380.

dalta5billion

dm09 wrote: »

Hi Op, I think this is the 'incident' you might be referring to? Approximately 35km north of Amsterdam at approximately 09:40 (local time)
In the screen capture I've filtered to just show EIN & SAS aircraft, both aircraft are seperated by 1000ft in altitude.




As for the Go Around, those are very routine and most likely, the result of another aircraft slow to clear the runway.

Approx time index on FR24
http://www.flightradar24.com/2014-06-10/07:41/12x/EIN33E/3898dfd

I'm away from a laptop at the moment, but the time seems to match. Maybe I'm an incredibly bad judge of distances, it felt a lot more equal in height with us, less than 300m above. I would probably trust the data from the transponder more than my judgment though.

circular flexing

dalta5billion wrote: »

I'm away from a laptop at the moment, but the time seems to match. Maybe I'm an incredibly bad judge of distances, it felt a lot more equal in height with us, less than 300m above. I would probably trust the data from the transponder more than my judgment though.

In my experience, planes always appear closer than what they actually are when in the sky.

CNTRLR

you were under the control of Eurocontrol Maastricht, Delta sectors at the time, i have no doubt in my mind that it must have been unnerving at the time but rest assured that the professionals that deal with this see this type of crossing thousands of times per day and its pure routine nothing else.

But well done for spotting the scandi, as the closing speed is pretty high...

Zyox

dalta5billion wrote: »

Just wondering, do go-arounds happen a lot because of planes on the runway?

I should bloody hope so.

dalta5billion

CNTRLR wrote: »

you were under the control of Eurocontrol Maastricht, Delta sectors at the time, i have no doubt in my mind that it must have been unnerving at the time but rest assured that the professionals that deal with this see this type of crossing thousands of times per day and its pure routine nothing else.

But well done for spotting the scandi, as the closing speed is pretty high...

It happened in seconds, and as on the map, it would have appeared to be moving towards me, so that probably influenced how close it seemed in my brain.

Sorry for all the hubbub over nothing, good to know all of these things are normal!

dalta5billion

Zyox wrote: »

I should bloody hope so.

Sorry, badly phrased. I was wondering if it was the most common cause of go arounds (apparently it is).

Tenger

dalta5billion wrote: »

.....Maybe I'm an incredibly bad judge of distances, it felt a lot more equal in height with us, less than 300m above. I would probably trust the data from the transponder more than my judgment though.

Easy to do, very hard to judge distances air to air

Dublinflyer

There are several reasons for go arounds. All approaches are flown in a way that you are assuming you will be going around at decision height. It's only when both pilots are happy they call landing and touch down. Some of the reasons are, something on the runway like another plane or an ops vehicle , very low visibility, unstable approach for a number of reasons like wind. Or if one of the pilots are not happy they go around.

A Dub in Glasgo

More importantly, why didn't you get a photo of the SAS plane? That is why I sit with a camera ready but nothing interesting happens and you get this!!

househero

WOW I didnt realize at all how close planes are allowed to fly! Amazing its as safe as it is. And the ability to find the flight paths on a map is awesome, every day is a school day

gctest50

be grand thats not close at all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPETgicrXKw

dalta5billion

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

More importantly, why didn't you get a photo of the SAS plane? That is why I sit with a camera ready but nothing interesting happens and you get this!!

It was like 5 seconds at most I don't think anyone else saw it, I did that 'did you see that' look but to no avail. Amazing to see it zip across alright.

Strumms

Don't rely too much on flightradar either for exact up to date info.... I had a look at my friends flight to LCY this morning and at one point they were taxiing down the M50... Funnily enough that flight also ended up in a go around... All normal and daily occurrences.

dalta5billion

Strumms wrote: »

Don't rely too much on flightradar either for exact up to date info.... I had a look at my friends flight to LCY this morning and at one point they were taxiing down the M50... Funnily enough that flight also ended up in a go around... All normal and daily occurrences.

Funny, usually it is accurate, just it animates the bits in between the real points to look all smooth and sexy. Which leads to incorrect things like you just mentioned.

L1011

Strumms wrote: »

Don't rely too much on flightradar either for exact up to date info.... I had a look at my friends flight to LCY this morning and at one point they were taxiing down the M50... Funnily enough that flight also ended up in a go around... All normal and daily occurrences.

The Avro's ADS-B output seems to always have them quite a bit further south than they actually are. Not seen an explanation why.

andy_g

MYOB wrote: »

The Avro's ADS-B output seems to always have them quite a bit further south than they actually are. Not seen an explanation why.

Some say its the position of the antenna.

Peregrine

I've always wondered why the RJ85s were landing on the M50 according to ADS-B data.

FWVT

Every landing should be assumed a go-around, and only if nothing happens to interfere with it should the go-around be aborted and landing continued to touchdown.

homerjay2005

had a similiar experience last week on a Ryanair flight to Dublin from Palma - another plane flew just to our right and slightly below us.

the speed it was doing, was incredible and you only get to realise it when you see it up close and in full flight. amazing experience, 1000 feet is not that much of a distance at all!

folbotcar

It's been suggested before but a sticky on go arounds might be a good idea. Many people think they were in some kind of danger during a go around when in fact go arounds are if not normal then a standard operating practice and if anything prove how safe airline flying is.

Far from there being a risk of collision, quite often go arounds happen in order to avoid a loss of separation. In this particular case, a slow aircraft ahead would be overtaken if the approach continued. So they went around. Irritating but safe. On the other hand go arounds happen when another aircraft is slow to clear the runway. Again this doesn't mean the approaching aircraft was in danger of hitting it. In fact in all likelihood the errant plane would probably be just clear of the runway by the time the other touched down but main issue would be the loss of separation.

In aviation, safety procedures can seem exaggerated at times. But that's thanks to hard lessons learned in the past.

L1011

folbotcar wrote: »

It's been suggested before but a sticky on go arounds might be a good idea.

Nobody reads stickies generally though - even if it had a "READ THIS IF YOU THINK SOMETHING WENT WRONG ON YOUR FLIGHT" title, covering go-arounds, perceived low separation, turbulence, grumpy cabin crew, screaming children and the little UHT milk cartons spilling; people wouldn't read it...

Growler!!!

MYOB wrote: »

little UHT milk cartons

Jiggers apparently!!!

L1011

Growler!!! wrote: »

Jiggers apparently!!!

To me, a jigger is usually something a lot more fun (Scotch, served excessively by someone from the US )

folbotcar

No they won't read it but it would be handy to be able to refer them to it. Instead of having to explain it all again.

lord lucan

MYOB wrote: »

Nobody reads stickies generally though - even if it had a "READ THIS IF YOU THINK SOMETHING WENT WRONG ON YOUR FLIGHT" title, covering go-arounds, perceived low separation, turbulence, grumpy cabin crew, screaming children and the little UHT milk cartons spilling; people wouldn't read it...

In a nutshell,yes,this is the main reason. Someone,like today,might see something and post using the touch site and wouldn't even think of looking at stickies. In fairness,it's something i would be quite guilty of with other forums. I think we've more than enough stickies here for now.

2 stroke

dalta5billion wrote: »

I'm away from a laptop at the moment, but the time seems to match. Maybe I'm an incredibly bad judge of distances, it felt a lot more equal in height with us, less than 300m above. I would probably trust the data from the transponder more than my judgment though.

olive20 wrote: »

No. You were in the hands of professionals. The seperation required was met. Its 1000feet.

What happened in Berlin was a go around, happens alot. Nothing wrong or illegal.
The only thing you can and should do would be to chillax

1000 feet - 300 meters. The difference is less than 5 meters. At a closing speed of 976 miles per hour, that was quite a guesstimate.

2 stroke

Scaling this down, 2 planes travelling @ 500 mph with 1000 feet separation is comparable to 2 small trucks travelling @ 50 mph with 100 feet separation. On the average irish road, truck mirrors only barely miss each other by inches.

dalta5billion

2 stroke wrote: »

1000 feet - 300 meters. The difference is less than 5 meters. At a closing speed of 976 miles per hour, that was quite a guesstimate.

I had originally guessed 200m horizontal and 50m vertical.

So I was off by a good bit (~450 and ~250m respectively) actually. As I said the speed + slight angle probably influenced the guess