NTSB Investigating Near Midair Collision at JFK

[Two's in]

NTSB Advisory
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.

[pattern_is_full]

Some additional from AP (edited to remove duplication with original post):

"Federal Aviation Administration officials said Monday the planes came no closer than 300 feet vertically and no more than a half-mile horizontally. But air traffic controllers said the planes came within 100 feet vertically and there was no observable distance horizontally between them, sending the controllers scrambling to put the planes on divergent headings.

“Tower controllers intervened to attempt to resolve the conflict, assigning both aircraft diverging headings,” NTSB said. “The closest proximity of the two aircraft has not yet been determined.”
A spokesman for Cayman Airways said the company is disputing the classification of the incident as a near airborne collision.
“We’re treating it as a non-issue,” said Olson Anderson, the airline’s vice president of flight operations.
According to Anderson, the pilot of Flight 792 said the plane’s Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System, or TCAS, did not issue a warning. TCAS analyzes the projected flight path of approaching aircraft to alert pilots to potential collisions.

But Doug Church, a spokesman for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, said the three controllers in Westbury, N.Y., who observed the incident told him they saw the two planes converge from two blips to a single blip on their radar.
The planes “passed on top of each other ... There was nothing discernible in terms of any space,” Church said. “It sank the hearts of every one of them. It was something they had never seen in 70 combined years of experience.”

[haughtney1]

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

When will they learn at JFK?:ugh:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I've seen and been involved with similar situations at Heathrow between traffic landing on 23 and 27L.... No problem. Controllers don't "scramble" to sort out problems. Providing the aircraft can be clearly seen by the controller(s) concerned there is no laid down separation standard and clear instructions are issued to resolve any conflict. Surely experienced pilots know this?

I don't understand the bit about the controllers seeing the flights merge on radar. It was daylight and "VFR" so were these tower controllers or radar controllers downstairs in the dark? Tower controllers simply look out of the window to see that aircraft are safe - the fact that they may merge on radar is irrelevant.

Sounds so much like the "4 seconds from disaster" situation I was involved with at Heathrow. Nobody knew about it until the trash papers' 6 inch headlines next day.

[point8six]

Same 'close proximity' happened in the 90's when a BA 747 -100 went around from the VOR 22L and conflicted with a departing a/c from 13R. That was not 70 years ago! Some people have short memories.

[anotherthing]

Who said anywhere it was 70 years ago?

[ratarsedagain]

Nobody did!
It was something they had never seen in 70 combined years of experience

[macker]

But Doug Church, a spokesman for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, said the three controllers in Westbury, N.Y., who observed the incident told him they saw the two planes converge from two blips to a single blip on their radar.
The planes “passed on top of each other ... There was nothing discernible in terms of any space,” Church said. “It sank the hearts of every one of them. It was something they had never seen in 70 combined years of experience.”Speaking as both tower and radar controller, I wonder what the JFK tower controllers think of this gem? Aircraft passes nearly overhead another at the field following go-around and surprise, surprise the blips merge.

Who cares what the radar controllers thought? A radar blip can measure up to half a nautical mile wide depending on the range of the display.When these nasty situations happen, it's the tower controllers who have to resolve it by looking out the window. Been in the tower, done that.

Of course I don't want to take anything away from the seriousness of an incident like this, but that comment really makes me wonder...

[anotherthing]

It is all a bit silly - I remember before fully processed radars were introduced (not that long ago at some military establishments) that when the book stated for certain situations that we had to provide 5000' separation between aircraft and blips could not merge we often wound in from a 40 or 60 mile range to a 5 or 10 mile one and turned the gain down - to prove the required gap... obviously we had to be bored to be bothered to do it... it's down to interpretation and knowing the relevant rules...

[groundbum]

this "news" is symptomatic of how these days there is too many news channels trying to fill too many radio slots, podcasts,web pages,24hour tv etc etc!

I'm in amazement with the BBC right now about the "child thrown out of wedding story". Okay so a wedding someplace 2 weeks ago, a screaming child was asked to leave as he was disrupting a service. Why is this news?!

So far the BBC has had this as a call in item on Radio 2, has had on news.bbc.co.uk and has started a "have you say" chat thing on the web. It's ridiculous how much rubbish they have to persue to fill the space they've created (at our demand I suppose).

All these near misses and so forth are merely symptomatic of this, and I suppose it's going to get worse. Almost as bad as watching American TV with ad's every 2 minutes.

G

[kotakota]

Ho hum , another near miss after a go around at JFK , not the first , certainly not the last . Still the airport I fear most - the scene of my worst RA thanks to the controllers.

[West Coast]

Almost as bad as watching American TV with ad's every 2 minutes.


A pain, but a small price to pay to not have the government fund it like the beeb.

[Flap62]

I would suggest tatthe majority of contributors to this thread so far have not operated into or out of JFK.

This airport is without doubt the biggest shambles in the western world. Their management of runway changes is laughable!

Their management of multiple runway ops is a joke!

Anyone recently timed their departure rate? - pathetic!

The comments of - well it was daylight, never mind that the blips merged is perhaps based on an assumption of service that is sadly lacking at JFK.

[wiggy]

Flaps62...Yep, it is not without some degree of irony that JFK is now known to many of our outfit's Eastern Seaboard regulars as "Lagos-West".

I can accept it's a busy place and know that the ATCers are under a hell of a lot of pressure but whenever somebody decides using 13R for departure and the 22's for arrival they are setting themselves up for the sort of "event" described in the first post (and I accept that decision is probably buried in the midsts of time or whenever it was the preferential runway allocation was decided).

Standing by to be flamed by the "come to the States then you should bring your A game" brigade.

[the heavy heavy]

ditto flaps 62.

jfk = amateur hell hole.

recently heard of an American Airlines asking for a ground controller change as the guy sounded like he was either on crack or in the middle of a nervous breakdown!

as for their idea of controlling the merging of AC on to the CRI when it's busy, poor weather and getting dark...... do they use darts or a horoscope? track miles, u must be kidding, i doubt they even know till your over the lead in's!

if it wasn't for the wonderful friendly TSA staff, the ease of the road journey into town and the warm welcome that new yorkers keep for visitors i'd avoid it at all costs!:O

[Phil1980's]

Wait I downloaded 12:30 LOL...I'll download 00:30 :p

[Phil1980's]

I heard it on the archives and it didnt seem too bad...they had lots of time to say their stuff even before headings were given...the cuban maintained 1000ft as atc instructed...the tower had time to tell him about 3 secs later that they need a hard left turn...
he talks to the other aircraft explains
"traffic is on missed approach off of 22L he's turning south start your right turn to 170 now...Aircraft "starting 170 now"...
That's it...there was a little tremour going in his voice but it seemed ok especially if they had a 6 sec gap from talking to cuban and the other

[ok1]

Just for the record, the ATC tape is here: http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kjfk/KJFK-Twr-Jul-06-2008-0030Z.mp3
The incident is at about 6 minutes into the tape.

It gives me the impression that at JFK they just sequence the traffic in minimum possible spacing for each runway not taking into account what would happen in case of a go-around. Can this sort of near midair potentially happen anytime there is a go-around with this runway configuration or there must have been another factor in this case?

[Renjay]

Why were the tower controllers not applying crossing runway separation standards? I know the black stuff (the physical runways) does not actually intercept, but the OLS and the PANS OPS areas for the two runways would definitely intercept. This would make them crossing runways as far as ICAO is concerned, so why not the FAA?

If you apply the ICAO crossing runway standards then you take into account go-rounds. I understand that the FAA has its own rule book but.........

[HM79]

To set the record strait the BAW 747 that went around on ry 22l was a 400 and the reason he went around was that the ac recieved and a ccepted a frequency change to the tower, never checked on the frequency and went around due not having a landing clearance, The 13r departure was a Tower Air 747-200 going to the west coast.


To Flip62 I'm sure that Lagos doesn't run 1400 flights a day with another airport 8 miles away called LaGuardia perhaps you've heard of it. If you would like to share some of your runway and traffic management suggestions I'll be more than happy to listen them face to face while giving you a tour of the tower and showing you first hand the operation.


Just to give you that happy feeling next time you fly into the states remember that the atc system has lost almost 3,000 atco's in the last few years and at JFK 40% of the atco's are trainees.


To "the heavy heavy" the same invitation apply's to you I would welcome the oppportunity to show you the game from the other side of the glass an I even promise not to tell everyone that you think we are all a bunch of amateurs.:D

[Ex Douglas Driver]

“We’re treating it as a non-issue,” said Olson Anderson, the airline’s vice president of flight operations.
According to Anderson, the pilot of Flight 792 said the plane’s Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System, or TCAS, did not issue a warning. TCAS analyzes the projected flight path of approaching aircraft to alert pilots to potential collisions.

Perhaps the lack of TCAS alert would be due to them being inhibited at low altitudes?

TCAS RAs are inhibited below 1000ft and switches automatically to TA only, and TA voice alerts are inhibited below 500ft.

[Brian Abraham]

From Avweb today.

Was JFK Incident A Near-Midair Or Not?

The NTSB said on Tuesday it is investigating a near midair collision at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York on Saturday in which two airliners flew in close proximity to one another -- but the FAA says no such incident took place. The NTSB, citing "initial reports," said that at 8:36 p.m. local time on July 5, a Cayman Airways 737-300 and a Linea Aerea Nacional de Chile 767-300 "almost collided." The 737 was on approach to Runway 22L, then executed a missed approach and conflicted with the 767 departing Runway 13R. "Tower controllers intervened to attempt to resolve the conflict, assigning both aircraft diverging headings," the NTSB said. "The closest proximity of the two aircraft has not yet been determined." The National Air Traffic Controllers Association issued a news release on Monday saying that "the radar targets of both jets merged on top of each other and [controllers] estimated their closest proximity at 100 feet. ... Controllers at both JFK Tower and New York TRACON all used the word 'ugly' to describe the incident." FAA spokesman Jim Peters told The Associated Press, in a story published Tuesday, that radar data show that the aircraft came no closer than 300 feet vertically and a half-mile horizontally, and there was no potential for conflict. On Tuesday, NATCA spokesman Doug Church told AVweb, "We stand by our story: Planes were separated by 100 feet in altitude and there was NO discernible lateral separation on radar."

Church said he has been in contact with five controller eyewitnesses who all agreed "it was the ugliest incident they have ever seen." And he added that the FAA can set the record straight by releasing the radar tapes of the incident. "When will they do that?" he asked. The NTSB said it will issue a preliminary report on the incident later this week. At the time of the incident, the NTSB said, the weather was VFR with 6 miles visibility and haze. There were no reported injuries or damage to the aircraft.

[the_hawk]

can someone please explain HM79's post - am I lost in translation or is he talking of another incident of late?

€: ah found it, post #5 :hmm:

[point8six]

HM79 - thanks for setting the record straight and you are correct about the BA circumstances. In 30 years of safe flying in and out of NY (EWA and JFK), I have always been 'looked after' by NY TRACOM and the airports above, and in all weathers. The poster who described it as Lagos west obviously has not operated to Lagos very often!
I can't recall who coined the phrase but -
"If man does not learn from history, then he is bound to repeat it".
I'm sure the NTSB investigation will reinforce separation rules in use.

[Flap62]

HM79,

Thank you for your kind invitation to visit the tower however any spare time in NY is occupied on a bus fighting your appaling transport network or sitting in a queue for two hours to taxy out for a scheduled operation.


So how does your movement rate compare to Heathrow?

Let's face it, a great deal of your problems are caused by the insistance on using the VOR13L arrival - a procedure which has no place in a modern airport operating heavy jets. This means that the arrival rate is slower than it need be and if the weather drops at all you are often faced with a sudden switch to ILS 22L. So now you have taxied lots of aircraft for the 13s, you are still arriving 13L so can't turn the departing aircraft round to get to 22L!!

Trust me, your airspace is no different or busier than a lot of places and yet you seem to make a song and dance about it.

Your movement rate in no way justifies 2 hour taxy times (and if you introduce any weather that can be conservative) and you have an appaling record of taking people out of order.

Before a long night in the seat, trust me, it really grips your sh*t when you are gate held due to another runway change and someone beside you asks for push 45 minutes after you and gets airborne 15 minutes before you!!!

Before bitching about how busy you are, come to a modern airport where controllers without egos get on with the job in a safe and professional manner.

[HM79]

I am not sure of EGLL's movement rates and therefore will not comment. I do know that at JFK we move between 85 and 90 ac an hour. I agree that the vor 13l is an arcane procedure but if we land on the ils to both 22l & 22r our dept rates are reduced and you encounter 2 hour taxi times. Also the proximity of the 22's neccessitates crossing all 22l arr across the dept runway and with ac taxing on engine to save fuel the crossing times are at times excessive.

I'm not really sure where the "bitching" comment came from but again Flip with your aviation experience I'm sure you could provide some helpfull suggestions but I guess I missed them in your response. If you find the time when your next at JFK I'm sure I could route you around our "appaling transport network or sitting in a queue for two hours to taxy out for a scheduled operation." Unless you would prefer to enjoy the anonimity and safety of flaming from a distance!!!

[armchairpilot94116]

2nd near collision at JFK airport - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080711/ap_on_go_ot/jfk_near_collision)

[pattern_is_full]

Yep! OOoops, they did it again! (Too bad there's no "Britney" icon)

"I can't recall who coined the phrase but -
"If man does not learn from history, then he is bound to REPEAT IT"."

Oh the irony of that post!


George Santayana, BTW, wrote "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it." in The Life of Reason in 1906

[Airbubba]

This odd item is on the AP wire:

July 11, 2008
AP Withholds JFK - Near Collision story
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 9:39 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON -- Withhold the JFK-Near Collision story, V1282. The timing of the incident is in question.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-JFK-Near-Collision-WITHHOLD.html

[pattern_is_full]

Here's The NY Times OWN version - not sure why they dumped the AP:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/nyregion/12jfk.html?ref=nyregion

The delta flight corresponds in time and # to a Shannon-JFK flight (ongoing to Tampa).

[PantLoad]

I just love it when the rest of the world tells us how messed up we are.

We don't know how to control air traffic, nor do we know how to fly airplanes.

And this mindset is, somehow, all our fault, too.

So many threads I've read here in PPrune like this.....

What a shame...



PantLoad

[jetopa]

Dear PantLoad,

stop whining! It's pathetic and doesn't lead anywhere. You (= the inhabitants of the US) are neither better nor worse than all the others. We, the rest of the world, just happen to love your bureaucracy, the TSA, your political correctness and your Federal Government since January 2001.:ok:

From my personal experience, steering an airplane to the US is mostly a joy due to efficient ATC and good communication. I'll never forget the busy ATCO's in Las Vegas who many years ago accomodated me in my C152 inbound for a full stop landing at McCarran.

Listening to the infamous recording of lost Chinese pilots on JFK's GND-freq. one couldn't help but getting the impression, that employing standard ICAO phraseology and deliberately speaking out clearly and intelligebly would help when foreign pilots are present (= most of the time). It sems to work very well in Amsterdam, Frankfurt and the London area where it can be busy as well.

And to HM79: next time I'll be in the vicinity of NYC, I'd be happy to pay you a visit...

[PantLoad]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx