NTSB Investigating Near-Miss @ Burbank (merged)

[GarageYears]

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

NTSB INVESTIGATING NEAR COLLISION OF JETLINER AND SMALL
PLANE OVER AIRPORT IN CALIFORNIA

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

The National Transportation Safety Board has opened an
investigation into the near collision of a commercial
jetliner and a small private plane at the intersection of
two active runways at Burbank’s Bob Hope Airport in Southern
California.

At about 10:58 a.m. PDT on April 19, Southwest Airlines
flight 649, a Boeing 737-700 (N473WN) inbound from Oakland,
carrying 119 passengers and a crew of five was landing on
runway 8 while a Cessna 172, in the departure phase of a
“touch and go” on runway 15, passed over the 737. A “touch
and go” is a practice maneuver in which an aircraft briefly
lands on the runway before accelerating and becoming
airborne again.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration, the
airplanes came within 200 feet vertically and 10 feet
laterally of each other at the runway intersection. No one
was injured in the incident, which occurred under a clear
sky with visibility of 10 miles.

NTSB investigator Betty Koschig, an air traffic control
specialist based in Washington, is traveling to Burbank
today to begin the investigation.

Improving runway safety has been on the NTSB's Most Wanted
List of Safety Improvements since 1990:
NTSB - Most Wanted (http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/mostwanted/runways.htm)

Any more perspective? Sooner or (preferably much) later one of these incidents is going to go wrong. :ooh:

- GY

[AEST]

Southwest Jet Was Within 200 Feet of Plane, U.S. Says (Update1) - Bloomberg.com (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQwNkINAc7qk&pos=9)

[Piper_Driver]

Burbank is a controlled airfield therefore it sounds like another ATC problem. :uhoh:

Because of the vertical separation cited I am wondering if the tower told the Cessna to go around. I've had that happen to me before when the controller messes up their estimate of where the traffic on an intersecting runway will coincide. When it's happened to me ATC usually lets me know soon after I'm established on final - before I get within a couple hundred feed of the ground.

[bubbers44]

Landing at Long Beach on 30 in a Lear Jet one day a Cessna was landing on a crossing runway 25L and told to go around. He didn't so yelled at my pilot buddy "Stop this MF now and we skidded to a stop half sideways just before the intersection as they staggered off 50 ft off our nose. Sometimes you are controlling a vast range of pilots ranging from pros to amateurs so you have to expect things to go wrong sometimes.

[Robert Campbell]

It seems to me to be a go around by the Cessna. Let's wait for the tape.

[criss]

bubbers44, seems the screw up happened earlier. What if, for any reasons, you had to go around as well? Was it really a Cessna pilot to blame?

[bubbers44]

Doesn't seem the 200ft encounter at Burbank was that big a deal. Non of the pilots involved had a problem with it. Did they?

[bubbers44]

criss, We were never advised of this conflict until about to flair for landing. The Cessna was told to go around but didn't. We did just fine slamming on the brakes and not causing an accident. I would do the same thing again.

[criss]

Bubbers, you're just making my point. You're blaming the Cessna pilot, for me, from your description, it was a clear ATC mess up. First, as you say, you were never told about the other traffic. And when was the Cessna told to go around? From what you say, probably quite late, someone trying to save his day.

[411A]

Eight out of ten of these kinds of incidents are ATC problems....so I'm told by a senior FAA inspector.

[protectthehornet]

if there is a collision or near collision at an FAA ATC airport...it is almost always an ATC error.

Bubbers was on his toes ( Litteraly )...and all pilots must be on the lookout for ATC errors that might put the pilots in danger.

Always a WHAT IF must be in your mind...WHAT IF ATC tells someone to go around and they don't? Do you want to measure professionalism at that instant...or can you imagine the controller making a radio call while the plane intended to receive the call might be transmitting and blocking the go around call?

be careful out there...ATC screwups can kill you.

[Red Four]

Wait for the investigation.

Is it possible the C172 pilot did not report final? Or did not orbit extend/downwind as instructed? Yeah, sure probably ATC should have done better, but there may be a whole lot of reasons leading to the incident that have not yet come out.

[Basil]

Just as an example: When on a short ground tour as an RAF ATCO I'd a student in a Chipmunk fail to obey repeated instructions to remain clear of the circuit. As a result an operational four jet returning from task short of fuel was forced to go around.

My opinion? Don't mix ab initio students with big jets.

[Basil]

I presume one can request to be controlled in English at Beautiful Burbank? :}

[Crash and Burn]

Merely speculation: perhaps the controller had intended to say "cleared to land and hold short" with a brain / tongue interface failure.

This procedure is not something we employ on this side of the pond but when considering the aerodrome layout and common aviation practices in the USA, perhaps it was just a slip of the tongue with potentially catastrophic consequences.

[mm_flynn]

Merely speculation: perhaps the controller had intended to say "cleared to land and hold short" with a brain / tongue interface failure.
I would be very surprised if a controller speaking with circuit traffic (i.e. traffic that has requested touch and goes) to have brain fade if he meant to say Land and Hold Short.

214's interpretation of the tape is correct - it is actually quite clear American. Interestingly at 29:10 SW649 seems to be having a routine conversation about his gate and at 29:50 15R is still in the circuit for a second landing/T&G (he has been cleared 'for the option' - which in English means, you may execute a touch and go, stop and go, low pass, go around, or full stop landing what ever you wish).

Neither of these communications sounds unusual or like either crew felt that they had a close encounter. I don't know what the minimum separation requirement is for a departing aircraft overflying a landing aircraft - however, based on the tapes everyone seemed to have been accepting at the time.

[bubbers44]

Having landed at Burbank many times both general aviation and airline a B737 landing on 8 would be down to taxi speed crossing 15 and could easily hold short if advised. The touch and go Cessna on 15 would have been at least 200 ft crossing 8 so there was no danger. Why make this a near miss when it clearly wasn't? Like the SFO incident, hopefully everyone has forgotten by now, lets study real incidents, not just the hyped up news reports.

[bubbers44]

411A, notice that if 8 out of 10 times it is an ATC error, 10 out of 10 fatalities are pilots and their passengers.

[MU3001A]

This one involving potential conflict with a firetruck.

Report: Pinnacle CRJ2 at Detroit on Dec 4th 2009, fire truck cleared to cross runway during departure roll (http://avherald.com/h?article=42a95a0b&opt=0)

[bubbers44]

Burbank seems pretty benign compared to this non newsworthy event. Pilots should never let a controller affect their safety of flight. Trust, but verify, comes to mind.

[Pugilistic Animus]

My opinion? Don't mix ab initio students with big jets

we do and we don't; a student pilot is allowed in Class B.... but not really.... is how the law is written, because most fields don't allow it; and if it's allowed it's only because the departure route may extend through class B and it must be specially endorsed,...

in the USA once your a PPL; you're a pilot in command...period!

[Pugilistic Animus]

I hate to do this, but here YouTube - ATC@FRG - "77F get off the rwy!" (by aldo benitez) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKR-Vj5H8u8&feature=related)

definitely a problem here!!!!

and yes I know this is in every CRM-course:rolleyes:

http://www.pprune.org/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=5656866
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtfFFcjuvn4)

[mary meagher]

Lots and lots of municipal airports mix light aircraft and big jets. Gives a certain frisson when ATC asks you to expedite as you are tooling down the centre line in your Cessna, because there is a 737 right behind you....

Nevertheless some habits built up at an uncontrolled airfield can come in handy. Accept the instruction, AND verify! comes to mind. I did get told off at Ann Arbor, Michigan, after a long long solo flight from New Jersey in a clapped out 152 with a horrible overhead speaker. Thought ATC told me to cross the active, actually he had asked me to hold short.

I crossed. And was asked to please telephone the tower as soon as shut down. Said he, "I told you to hold short!" Said I, "I'm very sorry, I misunderstood. But I did look out carefully to make sure nobody was coming!!"

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<I crossed. And was asked to please telephone the tower as soon as shut down. Said he, "I told you to hold short!" Said I, "I'm very sorry, I misunderstood. But I did look out carefully to make sure nobody was coming!!" >>

That, Mary, is the best thing I've ever heard to reinforce my opinion that you never mix clockwork mice with big jets!!

[mm_flynn]

<<I crossed. And was asked to please telephone the tower as soon as shut down. Said he, "I told you to hold short!" Said I, "I'm very sorry, I misunderstood. But I did look out carefully to make sure nobody was coming!!" >>

That, Mary, is the best thing I've ever heard to reinforce my opinion that you never mix clockwork mice with big jets!!So a mouse pilot doesn't correctly hear a clearance and the controller doesn't hear/appreciate the wrong read back. It is not like there is no history of Jet pilots misinterpreting clearances, crossing active runways, getting their flight number muddled, loosing track of the aircraft they are visually separating from, etc.

The US has a long track record of a globally leading safety record while maximising the use of aviation assets for all parts of the aviation community. And in this particular case, there is no indication either the Jet or mouse pilot did anything incorrectly (not even sure there is anything actually wrong at all - but we will wait for the NTSB who has the facts to make that conclusion).

[Basil]

PA,
in the USA once your a PPL; you're a pilot in command...period!
Yes, same in the UK. Nevertheless, a busy airport operating jet transports is not the place for a relatively inexperienced PPL.

Yes, one or two very good CRM reminders in your: http://www.pprune.org/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=5656866

mm_flynn,
It is not like there is no history of Jet pilots misinterpreting clearances, crossing active runways, getting their flight number muddled, loosing track of the aircraft they are visually separating from, etc.
Yup to all! and as an easily frightened Brit in the US, I usually declined 'Follow the . . . ' and elected to stay with radar vectors

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

mm flynn OK, but still find it scary that a pilot who may have been unsure of an instruction thinks it OK to "look out carefully to make sure nobody was coming!" and do what they think may be right..

[mm_flynn]

HD

I hope the point Mary was making was 'just because ATC says its OK to do something you should have a good look to make sure'.

I have on several occasions been clear to land behind crossing traffic and from my perspective it looked a lot more like 'cleared to t-bone the crossing traffic' In these cases I have been quite happy to go around rather than try and make a tight crossing.


If the point was 'if unsure of what ATC said, guess but take a look and see' :eek: then I am in exactly the same boat as you.

[protectthehornet]

Mixology:

Dear Heathrow director...poster MARY has a good, simple (and hence better) concept.

ATC cleared me for takeoff...I looked out my front windshield to see a fuel truck (bowser to you) stopped right in the middle of the runway.

If I had blindly accepted the clearance, I would not be here to write THIS. Neither would my passengers.

Here, in the USA, going to a busy airport in a little airplane is a good way of gaining experience and confidence for the day you will be flying an airliner into the same airport. Certainly you must prepare. Certainly ATC should watch for proper response from all pilots.

Flying is open to all in the USA, and it seems to work darn well. Some of the european ways don't make sense to me at all...so that's the story.

The Burbank incident could easily have been two 737's rather than a cessna and a 737. It could have easily been two cessnas rather than a 737 and a cessna.

Now, the big question is what happened and how do we avoid what caused it without giving up flying freedom.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Now, the big question is what happened and how do we avoid what caused it without giving up flying freedom.Which, like the right to arm bears, or bare arms, is of UTMOST importance to US pilots:=

There is obviously something amiss:

once cleared across an active RWY in front of a [landing or departing**] Gulfstream

** I blanked out and I can't actually remember whether it was a TO or landing wrt the Gulfstream reversers deployed???, nobody could say anyway????

further, I was on Grd and that other plane was on Twr

but I think that this time it's in the ATC I'm not questioning their competence since i can't do their job I'm questioning the FAA and the 'ATC-system'

[Basil]

To put it bluntly, there is no substitute for watching your ass!
BUT:
T/O - passing100kn in a 757 - van drives across runway (keeps going - fortunately).
T/O - passing100kn in an L1011 - notice Alpha Jet lining up at other end (continues turn and exits).
Flying through cloud in my favourite TMA - silhouette of B727 climbs past on starboard side.

[mary meagher]

It is quite easy to keep clockwork mice away from Heathrow, Gatwick, etc etc. The landing fees.

But I am happy that some heavy jet posters agree that it is a good idea to look out for yourself as well, assuming VFR, of course. I did get the IR in Texas, but one is so rarely welcomed into the system in the UK, that mine has withered on the vine. Seems to me downright sensible, if you have the time and the airspace, to monitor clockwork mice as well.

I tried 3 times to avoid cloud by entering Birmingham airspace a few years back. The enroute controllers did not seem particularly busy, however, "Permission denied!" And permission denied, and permission denied, whereupon a Speedbird on frequency chimed in - "You're not in America now, you know!"

......yes, they do it differently over there.

[bubbers44]

I have flown hundreds of miles in the US in corporate jets with two and four engines with no clearance. Just take off VFR and if convenient pick up the IFR clearance once airborn or just stay below 18,000 ft and enjoy the flight. I got a call just before the Super Bowl in the 70's asking how soon I could fly from SNA to LAS in a Citation jet. I told them an hour and a half so went to the airport, took off single pilot and picked up the passengers and FO on a mechanicalled Lear Jet an hour and a half later. Didn't call ATC until 100 miles out of Las Vegas.

We really like our system of flying here in the US. Mary should come back here. She seems to fit in perfectly with a system that uses a lot of common sense and doesn't get too wrapped around the axel with excessive control of airspace usage.

When we transitioned to airline flying we still respect the light aircraft that are enjoying the airspace.

[criss]

I think some of you are mixing the issue, or posting things irrelevant to the topic. Some are advocating differences that do not exist.

Both systems have good and bad sides - I would take some parts of American system any day, would make my job and life easier. But any system is only as good as it users, and sometimes it seems people try to squeeze and bend it to much, and such incidents happen

[bubbers44]

The BUR incident was a 737 rolling out at low speed on the ground getting ready to turn into his gate off rwy 8. The Cessna was making a touch and go and if he was at 200 ft crossing 8 he probably wasn't concerned about the 737. I don't think either pilot was concerned about their safety under those circumstances. Why did this become a news event?

In the US most incidents go unreported because they aren't really safety related but maybe broke some rule. For some reason this one made the news.

[Piper_Driver]

I think the major point to make here is that you should always keep situational awareness of traffic in either VMC or IMC. There have been several times when I was given a clearance to either take off or land by ATC and opted to either wait or to go around because I didn't like the margins I was given. ATC isn't responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. You, the PIC, are. When in doubt ask for a different clearance.

[Yankee_Doodle_Floppy_Disk]

The BUR incident was a 737 rolling out at low speed on the ground getting ready to turn into his gate off rwy 8. The Cessna was making a touch and go and if he was at 200 ft crossing 8 he probably wasn't concerned about the 737. I don't think either pilot was concerned about their safety under those circumstances. Why did this become a news event?

Where I work, this would appear to be a loss of runway separation.
Either the B737 should have held short of the intersection until the Cessna had passed through (irrespective of height), or the Cessna should have landed and held short for the B737 to cross. Once the Boeing had vacated the intersection, the Cessna could have been allowed to continue.

I'm curious to know if US ATC procedure allows the events as they occurred or if the Controller was expected to arrange something similar to my suggestions.

Whilst, these pilots might have been unconcerned, what would be the outcome, if the Cessna had got airborne and then had an engine failure?

As far as looking for yourself, when a Controller clears you to proceed, I'm all for that, but proceeding because you didn't hear the clearance, but it looks OK to you is completely different. :=

[PA-28-180]

"For some reason this one made the news."....just a thought, but it's probably because currently, runway incursions are a 'hot button' item for the NTSB in their relentless 'turf war' with the FAA.....:sad: