Westjet Runway Incursion at LAX (The bomarc et al distraction thread)

[dfish]

A packed WestJet plane from Calgary nearly collided with another airplane that was barrelling down a Los Angeles runway at 240 kilometres per hour, officials said Friday.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/08/17/westjet-miss.html

Dave F.

[Avman]

Does the fact that it was "packed" have any bearing on the incident? :ugh:

Not shooting the messenger, just commenting on the press statement.

[green granite]

Does the fact that it was "packed" have any bearing on the incident?From the publics point of view yes, the more people that would have been killed the greater would have been the disaster, And after all papers write articles to be read by the general public not just people involved with aviation.

In Aviation terms no it doesn't.

[Brian Abraham]

LAX seems to be building a reputation. How many is that in quite recent times?

Edited to answer my own question. 8 times this year says the article.

[bomarc]

actually there is a very tiny reason why that term is helpful...I grant that it is tiny.

if the plane had been empty, it probably would have landed in less distance, (reduced Vref) taking a different taxiway...perhaps closer to other plane, with less of a chance to avoid.

granted, tiny.


vegas a few days ago, LAX now...the big bang is coming.

[Chris777]

Yes, Avman, the fact that it was "packed" is important.

Why? Because you may remember that "packed" means "full of passengers". Yes, passengers, those people whose safety you are LEGALLY obliged to protect while commanding an aircraft.

Chris

[ironbutt57]

Unfortunately Bomarc, I think you are right...it's on the way

[bomarc]

Ironbutt 57:

my guess:

it will be at a large international airport in the USA. That it won't be due to an english problem directly. ATC usually watches the foreign non english first language planes pretty close...but by watching one a little bit closer, they will be distracted from the real boom that is about to come.

boston
lax
san francisco
o'hare

are my 4 guesses.

and I don't want it to happen.

[PaperTiger]

I've asked this before and never got a satisfactory answer. Specifically at LAX (SEA, ATL and others) why are arrivals on the outer parallel and departures on the inner ? Swapping the usage would mean incursions such as this would be impossible.

Anyone ?

[Idle Thrust]

Excellent question Tiger.

Also the US generally requires you to stay on the tower frequency until clear of both (or all) parallels. This is not always true internationally, in fact most airports want you on ground immediately after clearing the active upon which you just landed.

Why can we not have standardization? Or do I make a funny?

[Avman]

Oh I'm so stupid! But wait a minute, if the "packed" reference was so important with regard to the Westjet why did we not get a load description of the NWA aircraft then? Perhaps it was half packed?

Chris 777 retort:

Why? Because you may remember that "packed" means "full of passengers". Yes, passengers, those people whose safety you are LEGALLY obliged to protect while commanding an aircraft.

In my world Chris legal obligation remains uniform and has nothing to do with the number of souls on board the aircraft.

Bottom line, an incident occurred and needs to be fully investigated. The seriousness of the incident is just as high whether the two aircraft were fully loaded or not.

Conclusion: "packed" has no bearing on the seriousness of the incident.

[RobertS975]

Paper Tiger asked: "I've asked this before and never got a satisfactory answer. Specifically at LAX (SEA, ATL and others) why are arrivals on the outer parallel and departures on the inner ? Swapping the usage would mean incursions such as this would be impossible."

The answer is really quite simple... using the outer parallels for landing allows for simultaneous instrument approaches. Using the inner parallels would not work as they are too close to each other.

[bomarc]

so, for years technology has held the promise of a solution...but we still have problems.

the FAA is afraid of another controllers' strike like in the early 80's...so instead of investing in first class people, they invest in machines.

how easy it would be to get a man, with a radio (that's RT to you) binoculars, and two big flags...one red, one green.
station them at each intersection. ATC is still responsible for the clearance to cross, but the guy with the flags could still stop you...he would be the backup set of eyes for atc from a differtent view point. if he gave you the red flag (illuminated at night) stop...PERIOD, green is good provided ATC has given the equivelent of green via radio.

Flag man is also maintaining a listenting watch on the radio.

ok, gvie the flag guy some high powered anti noise headsets too!
there would be no need for a new machine...just good people.

[AtoBsafely]

My understanding is that the inner runways are used for departures priimarily due to noise abatement - keep the noisy takeoffs away from the airport boundaries. At LAX the gotcha is how close the runways are: you are entering the inner parallel almost as soon as you exit the outer landing runway.

Anyway, with the frequencies and facilities as overstretched as they are there would still be incursions if arrivals were on the inner parallels.

Be careful.

[TopBunk]

Bomarc

.. and of course, people are infallible:ugh:

Looking back at the developments since I started flying (ignoring FMC's, map displays, reliable engines, Cat 3 ILS's etc), for me the two most significant are EGPWS and TCAS - both of which are technology items.

If you want to introduce a human element, how about not giving a landing clearance when you are #9 at 40 miles? The US of A may shift more 'tin per km3' than elsewhere, but it really could do with looking at 'best practice' elsewhere rather than thinking 'we are the best', you aren't necessarily. You may be at some things, but your culture leads you to believe that because you are #1 (for the moment) most powerful nation, that you must know best.

This, to me, is just as bad as the Far/mid Eastern 'the captain knows best' attitude, where a co-pilot will not speak up and let the aircraft crash rather than criticise a more senior pilot.

[bomarc]

Top Bunk:

I agree with you. Landing clearance should be reasonably expected on approach and given when the tower has you in sight (if vmc) and has visually cleared the runway.

TCAS is very nice. enhanced ground prox is too. but what would be really nice is to not overburden an airport to allow competition to reduce air fares.

Shall I tell you about the time I was cleared for takeoff, beautiful clear day, with a fuel truck stopped 3000' ahead of me on the runway?

Or the time I was cleared to land/cleared for the approach to runway 9r and a United DC10 was cleared for takeoff on 27left? Both times I informed ATC that something was wrong and they insisted that I didn't know what I was talking about. (in both cases the controllers were decertified the same day)(both before TCAS)


Pushing more tin per mile (or km if you like) is not something to be proud of (ok, maybe for the Berlin airlift). Reduce operations, demand the highest respect for rules by pilots and ATC, proper RT technique (american RT phraseology can be awful!)

whadya think?

[bomarc]

isn't it funny? I've often thought of pprune as a place like a crew room...someplace where we can speak to each other as we would in a crewroom.

but, somehow, only scholary articles can be posted to something called RUMORS and NEWS...at least in the view ofthe moderator.

perhaps one percent of all posts would qualify as that.

I believe trying to solve aeronautical problems using statistics is all well and good. NTSB reports and the like are very helpful. But just chatting about things while we wait, may actually provide a hint for a fellow pilot to avoid becoming a newsmaking statistic.

so, I've been banned from the real thread...and when the collision happens to make news, what will we all say?

[Avman]

It's Danny's toy and he's the boss. The only problem is trying to gauge his (and other moderators') mood of the day. Just like football referees, moderators can be inconsistant. We have to live with it.

[john_tullamarine]

The application of the rules here is pretty flexible.

(a) posts need to be reasonably polite and non-inflammatory

(b) no overt antipathy directed at any individual .. ie play the ball, not the man

(c) some technical relevance. So, for instance, this thread started off more suitable for R&N but tracked into some technical areas .. so it can stay here ..


Not too sure just what the previous two posts are driving at ?

[HotDog]

how easy it would be to get a man, with a radio (that's RT to you) binoculars, and two big flags...one red, one green.
station them at each intersection. ATC is still responsible for the clearance to cross, but the guy with the flags could still stop you...he would be the backup set of eyes for atc from a differtent view point. if he gave you the red flag (illuminated at night) stop...PERIOD, green is good provided ATC has given the equivelent of green via radio.
Flag man is also maintaining a listenting watch on the radio.
Bomarc, you forgot to mention the man with with a ringing bell walking in front of the aircraft taxying to the stand.:rolleyes:

[dfish]

I posted this in R and N, I don't know how it ended up in here.

Dave F.