EVA JFK near miss. Really?

[armchairpilot94116]

Was it really a near miss?

http://www.nypost.com:80/seven/12112007/news/regionalnews/near_miss_at_jfk_226386.htm

http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5gNedObjBYLRvDNtejZ2i--1sO84QD8TFL3080

[Continuous Ignition]

I had just happened to be listening to www.liveatc.com JFKTower link when that went down. I was trying to get a mental picture of what transpired but there was an American Eagle who went around at the same time. The EVA was inbound from JFK and the Eagle EMB135 was inbound from upstate New York...

[CityofFlight]

I would love to hear from our PPRuNe ATP's here whether wake turbulence would be a potential factor or whether they think the FAA is making is covering their "bee-hinds".

[Brian Abraham]

From Avweb today.

FAA Shrugs Off NATCA Safety Concern

Two jets landing on perpendicular runways at New York's Kennedy Airport on Sunday afternoon were never in danger of colliding, the FAA said on Tuesday, contradicting an assertion by the National Air Traffic Controllers Association that both aircraft barely escaped a midair. "It was a non-event," FAA spokesman Jim Peters told The Associated Press, after reviewing the radar data. "There was no danger under the conditions that took place Sunday." NATCA spokesman Doug Church told AVweb that a 747 cargo flight was landing on 13L when the crew initiated a go-around. At the same time, an Embraer 135, landing on perpendicular runway 22L, also went around. The two airplanes barely missed each other, Church said. "It was very, very close ... Controllers at JFK do not believe simultaneous approaches to perpendicular runways -- in effect putting planes headed towards one another -- is safe." Peters told the AP that landing on perpendicular runways is not a problem.

The FAA will talk to the controller involved, Peters said. The two runways at JFK do not intersect.

[Avman]

"It was a non-event," FAA spokesman Jim Peters told The Associated Press"

Well there you go then, case closed. By the way, who is this Jim Peters? One of the cleaners?

[RAT 5]

Schiphol have a radar system that allows such a combination of approaches. The a/c approach on 18 or 36 and on 27. However, they can be dispalyed as if approaching on the same rwy with a reduced separation, possibly 2nm. In this way radar can position the a/c on perpendicular ryw's so if they both G/A they will have suffiecient separation. It's only a software thing, and as brother Bill G resides in USA, if they have it in old EU why not in today USA?

[TopBunk]

The FAA will talk to the controller involved, Peters said. The two runways (13L&22L) at JFK do not intersect.

WTF ..... they may not intersect in that the end of 13L tarmac is before the 22L tarmac crosses it, but I humbly suggest that in the event of a go-around of 13L you WILL cross 22L (either using the VFR or IFR G/A profiles).

If, at the same time, an aircraft also goes around from 22L, you have a serious compromise of the separation:ugh:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<The a/c approach on 18 or 36 and on 27. However, they can be dispalyed as if approaching on the same rwy with a reduced separation, possibly 2nm. >>

Used to do this many yeara ago at Heathrow with 23L and 28L combination. We only had our brains, no software and it used to work pretty well. Of course, the groundspeed on each approach was quite different as 23 was only used in a howling SW wind. The trick was to get two inbounds on final approach at almost the same range on both runways and let the G/S sort it out. Great fun!!

[CityofFlight]

Top Bunk....your points factor into my still proposed question...

To any Pro's...How much of a concern exists in the way of wake turbulence when a G/A takes place such as this? An RJ in the aftermath of a 747 G/A, seems a collision may not have been a factor, but an RJ is no match for a heavy's vortex. What could've happened if the RJ didn't take such evasive action?


Thnx,
CoF

[Huck]

I may be one of the few who has flown through the wake of a C-5 in a Cessna 172. Made me bonk my head on the ceiling, even though my lap belt was tight.

I have also experienced 757 wake turbulence in a Canadair Regional Jet.

A 747 on the go would be a concern, but not a death sentence. I would be very quick to make sure the flight attendant was strapped in.

Crossing perpendicularly (as I did with the C-5) causes some incredible pitch bumps, but maintaining attitude and maybe adding a little power would save the day.

Just don't do anything foolish - we had a guy firewall (and ruin) two engines on an Embraer Brasilia in such a scenario. He claimed his airspeed went to zero. This while pitch and power remained essentially constant.

The bottom line: it's an unexpected speed bump at 60 mph on a wet road. It won't be pleasant, but if you don't overreact you may live to tell the tale....

[CityofFlight]

Thanks Huck.

This was mentioned earlier as a reason for the pilot of the RJ and his decision to initate a G/A. It seemed logical to me, but many of the comments centered around collision and the FAA dismissing it as impossible. I just wondered whether an event could occur without a collision while the RJ was landing into the turbulence. Based on your reply, sounds like it just would've been a landing that passengers would've never forgotten. :ouch: