Near Mid-Air at JFK

Teller1900

Teller1900

En-Route
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,644
Location
Denver, CO
Display Name
Display name:
I am a dad!
http://www.natca.org/mediacenter/press-release-detail.aspx?id=521

This seems to be a bad one. Pat Forrey, President of NATCA, was on FOX News...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwNXNIF8z_A



The NTSB is involved now as well calling it a near mid air.

NTSB ADVISORY said:
************************************************** **********

National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594

July 8, 2008

************************************************** **********
NTSB INVESTIGATING NEAR MIDAIR COLLISION IN NEW YORK


************************************************** **********

The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating a near midair collision in New York City in which two
airliners came in close proximity to one another.

On July 5, 2008, 8:36 pm eastern daylight time, Cayman
Airways flight 792, a Boeing 737-300, and a Linea Aerea
Nacional de Chile flight 533, Boeing 767-300, almost
collided at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), according to initial reports.

The Cayman Airways flight, on approach to runway 22L, was executing a missed approach and conflicted with the Linea Aeroea Navional de Chile flight that was departing runway 13R. Tower controllers intervened to attempt to resolve the conflict, assigning both aircraft diverging headings. The closest proximity of the two aircraft has not yet been determined. At the time of the incident, the weather was VFR with 6 miles visibility and haze.

There were no reported injuries or damage to the aircraft.
A preliminary report of the incident will be available on
the Board's web later this week.
Click to expand...

And no, it wasn't a "near-miss" because they didn't collide!
 
Last edited:
Of course both NATCA, the Associated Press, and FOX news all took our clip without any credit or permission from us (LiveATC.net). Sigh.
 
Last edited:
KennyFlys said:
They couldn't have gotten the tape from the FAA under FOIA?
Click to expand...

They don't release the tapes until the NTSB does late in the investigation.

The answer, of course, is just to prohibit go-arounds to make life easy for ATC. THEN we can work on that whole Pilot in Command thing. :no:
 
mikea said:
The answer, of course, is just to prohibit go-arounds to make life easy for ATC. THEN we can work on that whole Pilot in Command thing. :no:
Click to expand...

Hey, that just solves all the problems, especially at the NY airports! You should write your congressman, I'm sure the ATA and AOPA would get behind that! :hairraise::no::goofy:
 
mikea said:
They don't release the tapes until the NTSB does late in the investigation.

The answer, of course, is just to prohibit go-arounds to make life easy for ATC. THEN we can work on that whole Pilot in Command thing. :no:
Click to expand...
I notice that this 'near miss' issue pops up a week after a bunch of press about how go-around procedures need to be updated. Just a little to convenient.
 
Ok I'm a bit confused here. Seriously. The guy from the controllers union was reaming the FAA but wasn't it his controllers that 1) cleared the Cayman Airlines jet to land and 2) cleared the LAN Chilie jet to take off on converging runways?
 
KennyFlys said:
They couldn't have gotten the tape from the FAA under FOIA?
Click to expand...

Take a look at the link on the NATCA press release. The FAA tapes aren't released to the media until NTSB investigates, as Mike mentioned. Also, the controller audio quality is the same as the pilots in the clip...the official tapes have a crystal clear quality on the controller side since that's where they're recorded.
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
Take a look at the link on the NATCA press release. The FAA tapes aren't released to the media until NTSB investigates, as Mike mentioned. Also, the controller audio quality is the same as the pilots in the clip...the official tapes have a crystal clear quality on the controller side since that's where they're recorded.
Click to expand...
Ahhh... Okay. I had never thought of that. Thanks Jason.
 
AdamZ said:
Ok I'm a bit confused here. Seriously. The guy from the controllers union was reaming the FAA but wasn't it his controllers that 1) cleared the Cayman Airlines jet to land and 2) cleared the LAN Chilie jet to take off on converging runways?
Click to expand...
It's the FAA that dictates the procedures the controllers are to follow, though, right? That's why NATCA is pointing fingers at the FAA. At least as far as I understand it.
 
AdamZ said:
Ok I'm a bit confused here. Seriously. The guy from the controllers union was reaming the FAA but wasn't it his controllers that 1) cleared the Cayman Airlines jet to land and 2) cleared the LAN Chilie jet to take off on converging runways?
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's what the facility SOP dictates as normal operating practice. Controllers are essentially forced to practice the somewhat dicey procedure the FAA put in place. Too many variables to point blame at the moment with so little information.
 
Last edited:
gprellwitz said:
It's the FAA that dictates the procedures the controllers are to follow, though, right? That's why NATCA is pointing fingers at the FAA. At least as far as I understand it.
Click to expand...

That's how I understood it (correct me if I'm wrong, Jason). The controllers were doing what they were told and following SOP, it was just a bad (or at least imperfect) SOP coming from the FAA to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Teller1900 said:
That's how I understood it (correct me if I'm wrong, Jason). The controllers were doing what they were told and following SOP, it was just a bad (or at least imperfect) SOP coming from the FAA to begin with.
Click to expand...

Correct, it's a documented procedure in the facility SOP. Unfortunately controllers have little to no say on these documents. Yes, that's the FAA for you.

It is a dangerous operation, nonetheless. Boston used to run a related operation using CRDA (Converging Runway Display Aid) number of years ago which creates ghost targets along the final for an intersecting runway to tightly sequence arrivals to multiple runways. The controllers in A90 (Boston TRACON) found it to be so unsafe that they finally convinced the FAA to longer use it a few months after its initial implementation (yes, it took that long).

Whenever you have an aircraft going missed with a departure on an intersecting or parallel runway, it is most always going to be an interesting situation. One of the most important issues I focused on during much of my tower training on VATSIM was a slight variation of this scenario.
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
Correct, it's a documented procedure in the facility SOP. Unfortunately controllers have little to no say on these documents. Yes, that's the FAA for you.

It is a dangerous operation, nonetheless. Boston used to run a related operation using CRDA (Converging Runway Display Aid) number of years ago which creates ghost targets along the final for an intersecting runway to tightly sequence arrivals to multiple runways. The controllers in A90 (Boston TRACON) found it to be so unsafe that they finally convinced the FAA to longer use it a few months after its initial implementation (yes, it took that long).

Whenever you have an aircraft going missed with a departure on an intersecting or parallel runway, it is most always going to be an interesting situation. One of the most important issues I focused on during much of my tower training on VATSIM was a slight variation of this scenario.
Click to expand...

It has always amazed me how Boston can land 22L AND 27, simultaneously (traffic on 22L has a LAHSO) while departing 22R. Anyone goes missed and it's going to be a long afternoon for a lot of people! I can't even imagine having to routinely use the setup at JFK.

What was the configuration that they scrapped months after the CRDA came into use? Do these airports still use a CRDA type system to help judge the spacing, or are they not allowed to push them that close anymore?
 
FWIW: We haven't talked about this in class yet.

I am not sure any comments I make will be constructive right now (now or ever, for that matter) . I will see if I can get a hold of someone who knows the game and see what I can dig up.....

Everybody loves to speculate, off the record.....

--Matt Rogers
 
Last edited:
wouldn't have made sense to tell the departing jet to reject the take off, because the probably were not past V1 when the other went missed, or am I wrong?
 
Don't think they can tell a crew to reject a T/O. Can cancel a T/O clearance, but once brakes are released it's a PIC decision AFAIK.
 
Teller1900 said:
It has always amazed me how Boston can land 22L AND 27, simultaneously (traffic on 22L has a LAHSO) while departing 22R. Anyone goes missed and it's going to be a long afternoon for a lot of people! I can't even imagine having to routinely use the setup at JFK.

What was the configuration that they scrapped months after the CRDA came into use? Do these airports still use a CRDA type system to help judge the spacing, or are they not allowed to push them that close anymore?
Click to expand...

They used it primarily in the 33L/27 configuration, but it was also functional in the 22L/27 + 22R config. Basically if you launch a departure off 22R with someone on final to 22L, you better make sure you assign a diverging heading or else someone is going to have a bad day. Same sort of scenario with aircraft on final to 27.

PHL still uses CRDA on a regular basis for sequencing 35 arrivals.
 
JFK event: NO DEAL!

The planes were 300' and .4 to .6 mile apart. Sounds close to most folks, but at JFK, there is a procedure to handle this situation. As of right now, it appears the controller handled the incident according the the procedure as soon as he became aware of the go-around.

This is pretty much all public record type stuff, so if you're following the incident at all, this is not really news.... Avweb has had this since yesterday, but is was news to me today so here it is for the POA board....

--Matt Rogers
 
ahh... that isn't as close as it seems. I klnow JFK can get tight, they just tried to make it seem too tight.

and that must be a boat load of new controllers if that is the worst thing they have seen.
 
Yeah,

The Pilot part of me is saying, "HOLY CRAP, half a mile to a heavy!". But the trainee controller side is saying, "Really now, is that what all the fuss is about?"

There are a lot of new controllers out there, but it's not like we go through school, arrive at the tower and then start pushing planes around the sky. There is a pretty lengthy training and certification process that takes from 1-3 years to get through. I think that the media seems to be latching on to the whole "controllers don't have experience" thing a little too much these days.

Anyhow, that's just my opinion (not the opinion of any federal agaency.....)B)

--Matt Rogers
 
The rogue said:
Yeah,

The Pilot part of me is saying, "HOLY CRAP, half a mile to a heavy!". But the trainee controller side is saying, "Really now, is that what all the fuss is about?"

There are a lot of new controllers out there, but it's not like we go through school, arrive at the tower and then start pushing planes around the sky. There is a pretty lengthy training and certification process that takes from 1-3 years to get through. I think that the media seems to be latching on to the whole "controllers don't have experience" thing a little too much these days.

Anyhow, that's just my opinion (not the opinion of any federal agaency.....)B)

--Matt Rogers
Click to expand...


Not to mention they seem to be latching on to the "go-arounds are putting thousands at risk very day" routine. It has made two news cycles in two or three days; it's going to be their focus for a while, I bet.
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
Of course both NATCA, the Associated Press, and FOX news all took our clip without any credit or permission from us (LiveATC.net). Sigh.
Click to expand...

Call 'em on it. I'm sure you have a lawyer on LiveATC who could draft a nice little note to send to them. It would be fun to bust their balls a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top