#1
|
|||
|
|||
Near-miss between JQ and Learjet
Quote:
__________________
PPL and flying member at Schofields Flying Club |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ssshh...the general public don't know that!!!
The media are at it again.
__________________
PPL and flying member at Schofields Flying Club |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
There were simultaneous take-offs on 34L and 34R yesterday. The aircraft on 34L banked left at 600FT and the aircraft on 34R banked right heavily at 600FT. It was a near miss
Surprised we haven't seen something stupid like that in the paper. After all they were far closer than 15NM. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I knew it when I saw the headline on smh.com
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
There could be a bit more to this than we are allowing, based on the following additional detail from The Australian:
Quote:
__________________
Philip |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I think you've misread your own quote Philip.
What your quote said... Quote:
And what you said... Quote:
Does that change your perspective at all? |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Not sure about that, Nigel - the previous sentence says the Learjet "baulked at climbing up into uncontrolled airspace despite being cleared to do so". On my reading of the story FL240 was controlled airspace but above it was uncontrolled, so the Melbourne bound Learjet remained at FL240 which was the same FL assigned to Sydney bound JQ720. What's not clear to me is whether the Learjet was directed to climb or only cleared to climb at pilot's discretion - in other words, was the Learjet where it was supposed to be or not, why was he apparently on the 'wrong' freqency, and what was in his flight plan?
__________________
Philip |
|
|