Close call over NYC...any further info?

[Paishinel]

FAA investigating jets' close call over NYC
June 24, 2013, 8:12 amAP



tweet

Email
Print
Rating:
Rate It
NEW YORK (AP) -- The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating why two airplanes came too close to each other over New York City last week.

A Delta Air Lines Boeing 747 arriving at John F. Kennedy International Airport came close to a Shuttle America Embraer E170 departing from LaGuardia Airport at around 2:40 p.m. on June 13, the FAA said in a statement Friday.

The planes were about a half-mile apart horizontally and 200 feet vertically, the FAA said. The required separation is 3 miles horizontally or a thousand feet vertically.

The FAA said the aircraft were "turning away from each other at the point where they lost the required separation." Both aircraft landed safely.

Delta declined to give details, including the number of passengers on board, pending the FAA investigation. The Shuttle America jet was operating as a Delta Connection flight and is equipped for 69 people. The Delta 747 can hold 376 passengers.

Jason Rabinowitz, editor of the aviation news website NYC Aviation, reviewed air traffic control audio and radar tracking data and concluded the pilots and controllers acted professionally in an unusual sets of circumstances brought on by strong winds.

"The traffic controllers did a very good job," he told The Associated Press, noting that traffic is extremely heavy at the two airports. "It was handled very well. ... They did take immediate action to prevent anything from happening in very unusual circumstances."

The close call happened because the Delta jet and an American Airlines flight preparing to land on a parallel runway broke off their approaches to JFK almost simultaneously, he said.

The American flight was instructed by the control tower to make a right turn and attempt another landing. When the Delta pilot seconds later said he needed to circle, the tower told him to make a left, Rabinowitz said.

That left turn put the Delta jet closer to departing traffic from LaGuardia. The Delta pilot then turned right hard, but 747s aren't "the most nimble aircraft in the sky," Rabinowitz wrote, and that allowed the Delta and Shuttle America airplanes to wind up too close to each other.

Rabinowitz said there was a moment the two aircraft were at nearly the same altitude and headed for each other, but the controllers and both pilots were aware of the conflicting traffic and both jets were turning away from each other.

The Delta flight originated in Narita, Japan; the Shuttle America was heading for Jacksonville, Fla.

[Cyrano]

More detail (less sensationalistic): Close call between Delta 747 and Shuttle America E170 - what really happened? (http://www.nycaviation.com/2013/06/close-call-between-delta-747-and-shuttle-america-e170-what-really-happened/)

[ATC Watcher]

Very well handled I would say reading this report ( if factual) .

Ensuring separation of Go arounds is one of the most difficult thing to do from an ATC point of view as everyone is on different fequencies.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Visual separation in the vicinity of an airfield if everyone knew what was happening.

[cwatters]

The reports above suggest that the Delta 747 and JFK tower knew what was happening and had it all under control. Was the Embraer and LGA similarly aware of what was happening? Can't see a reference to that.

[aterpster]

Heathrow Director:

Visual separation in the vicinity of an airfield if everyone knew what was happening.

They were IMC.

[aterpster]

cwatters:

The reports above suggest that the Delta 747 and JFK tower knew what was happening and had it all under control. Was the Embraer and LGA similarly aware of what was happening? Can't see a reference to that.

Not at all the case. IMC.

JFK Tower already had a go-around in progress on 4R. DAL 747 decided to go around on 4L. Instead of climbing him runway heading he turned him left to heading 250 into LGA airspace. That would have been okay had the tower kept the 747's left turn going to 150 or so. But on heading 250 he was pointed directly at the just airborne commuter jet. The separation got down to 300 vertical and 1/2 mile horizontal.

That is zip in the clouds and pointed nose to nose. Also, it was more or less over a ballpark with a baseball game in progress, FWTW.

This is all from a New York controller on another forum.

[Basil]

On the basis of reports here and separation achieved, definitely a bit of a "Phew!"

[pattern_is_full]

I take away three things from this incident:

Perhaps the least obvious is that, given the recent spate of approaches pressed to the limit with embarrassing consequences, here were two crews (the JFK traffic) that were willing to push the TOGA button and break off landings they decided were not going to work. That's a positive sign.

As to the main event, my first question is why LGA and JFK were using what amounted to "crossing runways" (13 at LGA, 4L/R at JFK). I see references to strong and gusty winds, but no reference to wind direction.

If the LGA and JFK flights had been operating in parallel (all using runways 13 or 4), the conflict would never have developed. And presumably the winds, whatever they were, favored one or the other.

That is a question, not a criticism, since I am certainly not privy to the other operational considerations that NYC controllers have to juggle, nor their internal procedures and guidelines for handling them.

Finally, LGA and JFK, due to their proximity and heavy traffic, will always be a "flying circus" waiting to happen. It is actually rather amazing it happens so rarely. The London complex (EGLL/EGLC/EGKK) has a similar problem, although their runways are always aligned, which at least makes the potential conflicts obvious, repeatable, and something that can be planned for.

I wonder whether LGA and JFK will eventually need to be considered - from the ATC point of view - one "superairport," with a master "tower" more tightly coordinating takeoffs and final approaches.

[JW411]

Well, it was some time ago and maybe things have changed but I was based at JFK for three years and it was not unusual for them to be using three runways at once.

For example, landings on 22L, take-offs on 22R and landings on 13L.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<The London complex >>

Don't forget Northolt...

[pattern_is_full]

Don't forget Northolt...


Well, I did - but I won't now. :ok:

I was based at JFK for three years and it was not unusual for them to be using three runways at once.

For example, landings on 22L, take-offs on 22R and landings on 13L.

Yep - that has factored into internal conflicts at JFK (last-minute GA on 4L/R conflicting with climbouts on one of the 13s). And for all I know LGA was doing something similar this day (landing 4, TO 13). Exactly the kind of "other considerations" I wanted to leave room for.

[RoyHudd]

Why 2 simultaneous go-arounds on parallel runways? Just curious. I am sure all will be revealed after the enquiry, so my question may be premature, but I am interested in why this took place.

[Hotel Tango]

Why 2 simultaneous go-arounds on parallel runways?

It may (or may not) have been for two completely different reasons. Considering the vast amount of parallel landings at JFK, say in one year, it's inevitable that once in a blue moon you're going to have simultaneous GAs.

I wonder whether LGA and JFK will eventually need to be considered - from the ATC point of view - one "superairport," with a master "tower" more tightly coordinating takeoffs and final approaches.

That's going to be one mighty high Tower ;)

[filejw]

Roy...TRW ..W/S and one A/C was dumped on the ILS high and close to FAF.

[LEGAL TENDER]

The London complex (EGLL/EGLC/EGKK) has a similar problem

If a Gatwick go around gets in the way of a Heathrow departure it's a pretty crazy go around!!! Or a very slow climb on departure from LHR ;)

You have 40km runway to runway between Gatwick and Heathrow, about 34km Between Heathrow and City. And mostly same alignment of runways, while you have 17km between JFK and LGA and crossing runways.
That's half / less than half the space. Can't compare the 2 (or 3)!!!

[westhawk]

In addition to the close proximity of JFK to LGA, EWR is quite nearby and the busiest GA airport in the world (TEB) lies between them! Add in FMG and HPN for good measure and it's easy to understand why NY TRACON has little time for idle chit-chat. No doubt at least one FAA controller is going to take a hit for having a separation deal. That's just how the FAA usually rolls...

[West Coast]

Business Aviation Airports: A Contrast to the Commercial Airline Hubs | Legislative & Regulatory Issues | NBAA - National Business Aviation Association (http://www.nbaa.org/advocacy/issues/essential/airports.php)

TEB is busy, but it isn't close to being the busiest.

[No Fly Zone]

OMG! Now #AvGeek/bloggers (Rabinowitz) are considered ATC experts? I must have missed the memo about Jason's formal training and extensive experience in the busy NE corridor. Lots of possible 'expert' sources to consult and quote, by a geek/blogger (one of the very best, for sure) may not be the best choice. :ugh: I think we can do a tiny bit better with our 'expert' sources.

[westhawk]

TEB is busy, but it isn't close to being the busiest.

Well, right you are! :ok:

I guess it just seems like it. Having been based at VNY for many years, it seemed busy, but rarely would any serious delays occur due to traffic. East coast airport ops just seem "busier" to me I guess. :)

[West Coast]

Yeah, a bit more laid back out here on the left coast.

[BARKINGMAD]

It's known as "Pushing Tin", and this situation will continue at NY, Paris and other crowded 'spaces until the accident, as there's too much money to be made in the meantime.

No bent metal & blood means no Tombstone Imperative, so nothing will change until that event.

Doubtless the smooth suits who run the worst-case scenarios are comfortable with the odds of this scene producing a collision?

P S. Why am I expected to maintain a HEADING post go-around when my flightpath is more reliable if I'm asked to maintain a TRACK? ATC may not be aware of where the wind is taking me and this could generate the example of the NYC incident. :confused:

[BOAC]

a much aired topic on PPRune and each time we try it seems ATC are split 50/50 as to whether they expect us to shoot off downwind or track the centreline like gods.

[Ian W]

@Barkingmad

Why am I expected to maintain a HEADING post go-around when my flightpath is more reliable if I'm asked to maintain a TRACK? ATC may not be aware of where the wind is taking me and this could generate the example of the NYC incident. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

You are asked to maintain a heading because the ANSPs including FAA do not appear to have really understood RNP. A missed approach should follow a standard RNP procedure that is already setup in the FMC.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Why am I expected to maintain a HEADING post go-around when my flightpath is more reliable if I'm asked to maintain a TRACK? ATC may not be aware of where the wind is taking me and this could generate the example of the NYC incident. >>

You are told to fly headings precisely because ATC know the wind and what it's effect is going to be. That's how I and my colleagues functioned all the time I was in the job, both as a tower and radar controller.

[BOAC]

You are told to fly headings precisely because ATC know the wind and what it's effect is going to be. That's how I and my colleagues functioned all the time I was in the job, both as a tower and radar controller. - that's fine from your Heathrow chair, but pilots fly a bit further away than that, and I believe the last time this came 'up' it was Canada that wanted track??. I cannot spend time searching for all the relevant threads but I know it is not quite as parochial as you think.

[ATCast]

P S. Why am I expected to maintain a HEADING post go-around when my flightpath is more reliable if I'm asked to maintain a TRACK? ATC may not be aware of where the wind is taking me and this could generate the example of the NYC incident. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

You are told to fly headings precisely because ATC know the wind and what it's effect is going to be. That's how I and my colleagues functioned all the time I was in the job, both as a tower and radar controller. ATC will ask you to fly heading because every aircraft indicates heading (by certification). Not all aircraft can fly a track. Maintaining a list of who can and who can't is less practical than just using heading.

[BOAC]

ATCast - regardless of 'gizmos', any pilot who cannot maintain runway centre-line in a cross-wind simply should not be in the seat.

[caber]

Maintaining centerline is one thing, but not every go around or departure involves tracking the centerline.

[aterpster]

caber:

Maintaining centerline is one thing, but not every go around or departure involves tracking the centerline.

Not to mention strong winds increase in velocity and shift direction as the departure climb increases. Then, there is the issue of IMC.

[Basil]

On a GA, flying a track in a fairly basic aeroplane would need guidance, e.g. the loc beam from the opposite runway - example: backtracking Kai Tak 31 loc on take off from 13 through the Lei ye Mun gap. Anything else is an informed guess - which will usually be good enough.

[bigjames]

interesting you mention kai tak 13. in that case you did (and still do!) have TD at 12 o'clock and a fairly simple radial to fly.

[1Charlie]

The heading given after missed approach will be to keep you separated from other aircraft either departed before you, or from another runway. Headings are used in the same fashion as radar controllers use headings to maintain separation. If there was no pertinent traffic you will fly the published missed approach.

[bubbers44]

Missed approaches are caused by all kinds of reasons. Loss of visibility, loss of navigation capability, wind shear and unstabilized approaches so not all aircraft on a missed approach can fly a track, all have a compass. One aircraft flying a track and the other flying a heading on parallel runways isn't going to work. I was the last flight into PHX one night in an MD80 with an approaching thunderstorm using parallel runway approaches. As I cleared the runway all power went out to ATC, runway lights, taxiway light, everything. It took several minutes for backup power to come on and all arriving flights were going around because of no nav guidance. They were all saying we can't do the missed approach because of weather but no response so they just turned away from the storm with no ATC. The ILS was down too so how could they fly a track if the thunderstorm would have allowed them to?

[Basil]

bigjames,
On 13 departure the 31 backbeam was specified as the nav aid to track through the gap. The TH would be less accurate. IIRC, the TD was off to the left a bit.
On a GA the TH was used for tracking. I knew someone from another airline who forgot to turn right on the IGS GA - frightened the c**p out of the local controller as he went over the tower! :ooh:

[BOAC]

Just found an old (2005) thread which is possibly still relevant.

2 posts copied here

1 From 'Asia'
DEPARTURE TRACKING
Where a SID or departure clearance specifies ‘maintain runway heading’ it is implicit that a drift correction
will be applied in order that runway track is maintained.

The exceptions are USA and Canada, where the requirement is that runway heading be flown without
drift correction.

2 from 'the far east'
This was done to death in a similar thread about a year ago. It's down to whether the country you are flying in uses PANSOPS or TERPS. PANSOPS specifies 'maintain runway track' after departure or go around, TERPS specifies 'maintain runway heading', i.e. no drift correction! This does sound strange, especially somewhere like Taipei where you are noticably drifting toards the mountains on a cross wind departure, it is correct.

The countries which use TERPS are North, Central and South American countries (inc Canada), Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and military airfields in the Phillipines. The rest of the world uses PANSOPS, although the Asian countries which use TERPS are planning to swap to PANSOPS in the future. If you're unsure, check the margins of your Jepp plates (if you use them). They will tell you.

Confusing, ain't it? I understand 'maintain runway heading' is no longer an approved ATC instruction in the UK?

[DOVES]

We all know the difference between heading and track.
If Mr. Controller says: "Maintain runway heading..." is there any doubt? (Also because he may have said, or is saying, or will say the same instruction to a nearby traffic.
ATCast - regardless of 'gizmos', any pilot who cannot maintain runway centre-line in a cross-wind simply should not be in the seat.
25th Jun 2013 19:07
: I've always had installed the rearview mirror on my liner.

"CHILDREN OF MAGENTA LINE" Again?

I confirm that departing from Kai Tak Rwy 13 we had to follow the 31 Rwy Back beam (and there was a reason!)

[BOAC]

If Mr. Controller says: "Maintain runway heading..." is there any doubt? - you did read NO 1 didn't you?

[JW411]

I really don't understand the problem.

Runway heading means exactly that.

You are in very controlled airspace so any attempt at creative interpretation could leave your nearest and dearest in deep trouble when the lawyers prove that you did not follow instructions when the subsequent collision occured.

Having gone-around at Kennedy twice in my three years there, I certainly did not think that being "creative" was an option.

It was ESSENTIAL to do exactly what the man told you to do and quickly.

[BOAC]

...and apparently correct for TERPS/Kennedy - no drift applied, but in 'Asia'? Where a SID or departure clearance specifies ‘maintain runway heading’ it is implicit that a drift correction
will be applied in order that runway track is maintained.Does anyone know? Any 'Asian boffins' around?

[DOVES]

@BOAC
I can feel the smell of Cicero’s “Partitiones oratoriae”: You answer with a question. But I will answer.
I might say no and not a comma would change in the value of my question. But I say yes, and, without pontificating, I will add: No one is infallible, not even an air traffic controller.
I’ve always had a good care of my life.
For instance when it came to divert in order to avoid a cumulonimbus cloud I never asked for a clearance; I simply informed the ATC of my intentions.

[MikeNYC]

OMG! Now #AvGeek/bloggers (Rabinowitz) are considered ATC experts? I must have missed the memo about Jason's formal training and extensive experience in the busy NE corridor. Lots of possible 'expert' sources to consult and quote, by a geek/blogger (one of the very best, for sure) may not be the best choice. :ugh: I think we can do a tiny bit better with our 'expert' sources.

Someone's got a bone to pick it seems. Where's the better source available? One of the other principals in that site is a Flight Dispatcher in NYC. Surely they've got access to decent information.

[aterpster]

Sounds to me like a sudden and potentially dangerous situation was well handled by all involved :D

Mostly well handled by Lady Luck.

[aterpster]

Atcos involved didn't make the procedures they operate under (ie what runways in use at the 2 airfields simultaneously). Had a double GA and had to do some rapid thinking to resolve. We've all been in sudden and extremely stressful situations, no point in thinking about how you got there, just resolve situation and give out later.

Worst case scenarios should always be planned for, however management are not always willing to do this when they can run with their new procedures to their bosses and show how many more movements they can get with their bright idea and get themselves promoted. I don't work in the States and I don't know what the procedures in NY are, I'm just trying to make a point in general.

You can go to skyvector.com and check out the layout of KJFK and KLGA.

The correct course of action would have been to direct the 747 to maintain runway heading and climb to X,XXX. Normally, the 747 would have been directed to turn right to approximately 070 but that was precluded by the parallel runway go-around in progress.

Instead, the controller turned the 747 left to a heading of 250 which, except for Lady Luck, would have resulted in a mid-air.

[aterpster]

Were 4L/4R being used for departures? If so then the Atco involved was in a tight place. Initially you would say a less severe left turn or runway heading would have been more appropriate, but depends on what was going on with the crossing runways........

I don't know for certain about that, but in view of the wind they were most likely using 13R for departures.

[fmgc]

If Mr. Controller says: "Maintain runway heading..." is there any doubt?

There is now!! I thought I knew exactly what to do, this is why I shouldn't read Pprune!!

[DOVES]

Did you know?:
NTSB recommends changes after near misses on go-arounds - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2013/July/2/ntsb-recommends-atc-changes.aspx?WT.mc_sect=sap&WT.mc_id=130704epilot)

I didn't!

Current ATC rules ensure safe separation during arrivals and departures, but do not, the NTSB said, adequately account for aborted landings. “In such situations, a flight crew performing a go-around may be put into the position of having to execute evasive maneuvers at low altitude and high closing speeds with little time to avoid a mid-air collision,” the NTSB said in a press release.