Near Collision at BOS between Aer Lingus and US Air
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing I have often heard said by pilots is: If JFK was located in a "foreign" country, American Pilots would refuse to fly there on the grounds that it was seriously deficient in so many aspects.
I have to admit, when flying the Canarsie approach, in marginal visibility, with a tailwind, with the instruction from ATC to "keep your speed up" and still waiting to be told if it will be the left or right runway that you will be landing on, I have asked myself the question "what am I doing here?" or "is this any way to be operating in the 21st Century?".
Some of our American friends seem to be suggesting in various posts, that operating on the edge / keeping things JUST this side of safe/pushing crews to their "A" limit is a good way to do business. Excuse me if I disagree.
It shouldn't be a game of "how many, how fast, how hot, how clever!" Otherwise, there will be the occasional "how shocking!!"
I have to admit, when flying the Canarsie approach, in marginal visibility, with a tailwind, with the instruction from ATC to "keep your speed up" and still waiting to be told if it will be the left or right runway that you will be landing on, I have asked myself the question "what am I doing here?" or "is this any way to be operating in the 21st Century?".
Some of our American friends seem to be suggesting in various posts, that operating on the edge / keeping things JUST this side of safe/pushing crews to their "A" limit is a good way to do business. Excuse me if I disagree.
It shouldn't be a game of "how many, how fast, how hot, how clever!" Otherwise, there will be the occasional "how shocking!!"
AMF-that was an excellent explanation of how to use the ATC system in the northeast. Many airports have so much traffic, even far from that area, that you must always question whether you were switched to tower freq. Scanning the two or three tower freq's on the approach chart can help us decipher which one, when they blurt out "contact 118.3 over 'Mafia' (at ORD)". So long Meigs Field.
Considering the number of airports in a small area, how does the number of high-performance aircraft movements per day compare with northwestern Europe? Say, between Brussels and Frankfurt etc?
Considering the number of airports in a small area, how does the number of high-performance aircraft movements per day compare with northwestern Europe? Say, between Brussels and Frankfurt etc?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KSA
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M. Mouse......
There's nothing arbitrary and no need to be disturbed....I readback everything except in those rare circumstances where the controller himself is not requiring them, if I'm interrupting his dialogue, or it's clearly irrelevant and doing so will either prevent me from staying ahead of the airplane or divide up cockpit duties in such a way to be detrimental to safety in a critical phase of flight...such as 3 miles past the point of being told to contact tower by appch because the freq is too jammed to do it (at that point, you don't want two pilots working 2 different freqs on short final, one who is flying the airplane). That defies logic.
Stu.....
Thanks for the link. You'll notice in Incident 5 that the crew's readback interrupted the controller's transmission so the controller never heard it. Mis-hearing the clearance and reading back a too-low altitude didn't avert the CFIT. No doubt the crew interpreted the controller's silence to their assumed-to-be-transmitted-and-heard readback as affirmation, and re-inforced in their own minds what was unfortunately a mistake.
The unfortunate irony is that it was the quick-draw readback transmission itself that interrupted the controller's re-iterated critical instruction....."report level at three thousand feet".
The glaring difference with that incident and what I've been saying is that the CFIT took place in a NON-radar environment. I specifically refered to under radar control, where the controller observes your compliance.
Non-radar, that crew should have picked up on their own interpretation error, given that they thought they heard clearance to a lower altitude than what their charts/plates would have indicated was allowed when established on a route/arrival/approach. In that case we're wholly responsible for our own survival when it comes to avoiding terrain, and that means adhering to min altitudes and staying established. Instead of reading-back in that case, they should have noted this conflict and queried the controller. Unlike a mere readback such as they gave, a controller's silence in response to a question will generate more questioning. And of course, descending before sorting it out is always out of the question.
The controller didn't query the apparent (to him) lack of a readback by the crew. I specifically indicated in a previous post that in a non-radar environment readbacks are indeed the best tool for the controller raise the probability of compliance and that communication took place. Unlike all the examples given by others regarding ORD, NYC, etc....that controller was blind, and therefore should have indeed queried the crew. No disagreement there.
However, the main causal factor was mis-hearing the clearance, and it only serves to highlight that BOTH pilots must focus and maintain a disiplined listening watch, and confirm between themselves they heard the same thing. This is essential, and of paramount importance because "T-ing" until you're blue in the face doesn't make up for sloppy CRM where both pilots don't hear and confirm between themselves.
In this accident the controller DID issue the correct instruction after all, and the main breakdown leading to this CFIT wasn't R/T dicipline, but lack of CRM and situational awareness.
There's nothing arbitrary and no need to be disturbed....I readback everything except in those rare circumstances where the controller himself is not requiring them, if I'm interrupting his dialogue, or it's clearly irrelevant and doing so will either prevent me from staying ahead of the airplane or divide up cockpit duties in such a way to be detrimental to safety in a critical phase of flight...such as 3 miles past the point of being told to contact tower by appch because the freq is too jammed to do it (at that point, you don't want two pilots working 2 different freqs on short final, one who is flying the airplane). That defies logic.
Stu.....
Thanks for the link. You'll notice in Incident 5 that the crew's readback interrupted the controller's transmission so the controller never heard it. Mis-hearing the clearance and reading back a too-low altitude didn't avert the CFIT. No doubt the crew interpreted the controller's silence to their assumed-to-be-transmitted-and-heard readback as affirmation, and re-inforced in their own minds what was unfortunately a mistake.
The unfortunate irony is that it was the quick-draw readback transmission itself that interrupted the controller's re-iterated critical instruction....."report level at three thousand feet".
The glaring difference with that incident and what I've been saying is that the CFIT took place in a NON-radar environment. I specifically refered to under radar control, where the controller observes your compliance.
Non-radar, that crew should have picked up on their own interpretation error, given that they thought they heard clearance to a lower altitude than what their charts/plates would have indicated was allowed when established on a route/arrival/approach. In that case we're wholly responsible for our own survival when it comes to avoiding terrain, and that means adhering to min altitudes and staying established. Instead of reading-back in that case, they should have noted this conflict and queried the controller. Unlike a mere readback such as they gave, a controller's silence in response to a question will generate more questioning. And of course, descending before sorting it out is always out of the question.
The controller didn't query the apparent (to him) lack of a readback by the crew. I specifically indicated in a previous post that in a non-radar environment readbacks are indeed the best tool for the controller raise the probability of compliance and that communication took place. Unlike all the examples given by others regarding ORD, NYC, etc....that controller was blind, and therefore should have indeed queried the crew. No disagreement there.
However, the main causal factor was mis-hearing the clearance, and it only serves to highlight that BOTH pilots must focus and maintain a disiplined listening watch, and confirm between themselves they heard the same thing. This is essential, and of paramount importance because "T-ing" until you're blue in the face doesn't make up for sloppy CRM where both pilots don't hear and confirm between themselves.
In this accident the controller DID issue the correct instruction after all, and the main breakdown leading to this CFIT wasn't R/T dicipline, but lack of CRM and situational awareness.
Last edited by AMF; 7th Jul 2005 at 06:14.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, what a lot of noise!
Some info: LAX changes runways to help get you
on the same complex as your gate. BOS uses two tower frequencies as a solution to prevent runway incursions. Looks like it needs some changes. 15R is not used often, only for acft that can't depart on the other runways due to WAT limits.
As a foreigner living and flying in the USA, I find it hard to believe some of these wild tales.
I fly in and out of BOS and LGA frequently. The controllers treat us well. They expect that your flying skills are somewhat beyond the full flaps ref + 5 on 20 mile final though.
I enjoy the opportunity to fly the River visual at DCA, the Expressway visual at LGA and the Canarsie at JFK. But then we do these things in the simulator too. Proper training helps. On the occasion that more is asked of us than I feel comfortable with, we tell the controller and get a different clearance. They are usually polite about it. Occasionally someone is a bit short about it, but I don't let that get my panties in a knot. If you can't do it, or don't feel comfortable doing it, don't accept it. The PIC is the final authority.
If you didn't like how you were handled, have you ever asked ATC for a telephone number after landing? They will gladly give you one and you can discuss how the procedures do not work with your companies procedures etc. ? If you haven't, don't bitch about it here, you should have talked to the folks who needed to know.
Yes, it is different in the USA than in the UK. There are a lot more airplanes here than anywhere else. In fact there are probably more airplanes in California than in Europe.
I have flown all over the US, canada, Mexico, Central America, Caribbean and Europe. I have enjoyed it all. It is a little bit different in each country. And on the overnights I even found some places they drive on the other side of the road.
Some info: LAX changes runways to help get you
on the same complex as your gate. BOS uses two tower frequencies as a solution to prevent runway incursions. Looks like it needs some changes. 15R is not used often, only for acft that can't depart on the other runways due to WAT limits.
As a foreigner living and flying in the USA, I find it hard to believe some of these wild tales.
I fly in and out of BOS and LGA frequently. The controllers treat us well. They expect that your flying skills are somewhat beyond the full flaps ref + 5 on 20 mile final though.
I enjoy the opportunity to fly the River visual at DCA, the Expressway visual at LGA and the Canarsie at JFK. But then we do these things in the simulator too. Proper training helps. On the occasion that more is asked of us than I feel comfortable with, we tell the controller and get a different clearance. They are usually polite about it. Occasionally someone is a bit short about it, but I don't let that get my panties in a knot. If you can't do it, or don't feel comfortable doing it, don't accept it. The PIC is the final authority.
If you didn't like how you were handled, have you ever asked ATC for a telephone number after landing? They will gladly give you one and you can discuss how the procedures do not work with your companies procedures etc. ? If you haven't, don't bitch about it here, you should have talked to the folks who needed to know.
Yes, it is different in the USA than in the UK. There are a lot more airplanes here than anywhere else. In fact there are probably more airplanes in California than in Europe.
I have flown all over the US, canada, Mexico, Central America, Caribbean and Europe. I have enjoyed it all. It is a little bit different in each country. And on the overnights I even found some places they drive on the other side of the road.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: England
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMF,
I agree with you, right up to the very last bit.
The point of the document, and this branch of the discussion, is that poor R/T by the controller was a major contribution. He did not follow the readback rules. If he did, he would have heard the fact that an enormous error had occured (how does anyone start a published procedure by blindly descending to 400'?) and he may have been able to save the day. He didn't listen to the readback properly.
I see the point of view you are expressing. It's just that over here we consider proper readback (and listenback) to be an improvement to safety that is big enough to not only make it worthwhile, but mandatory.
I appreciate the outstanding issues here (BOS); was poor R/T discipline a contributory factor? Don't know. Will it take a mid-air at a major US airport before someone decides that readback of clearances is mandatory in the US?
If the system is too clogged to allow readbacks, then the system needs changing. The UK is also suffering from this - in particular some London frequencies are too busy - but we will not scrap the readback rule because it is just too important. We have to improve the system by means of more controllers with more frequencies. As usual, money is the problem.
I particularly liked this document, where this primary concern is one of liability, not safety! God bless Am.......
Stu
I agree with you, right up to the very last bit.
and the main breakdown leading to this CFIT wasn't R/T dicipline
I see the point of view you are expressing. It's just that over here we consider proper readback (and listenback) to be an improvement to safety that is big enough to not only make it worthwhile, but mandatory.
I appreciate the outstanding issues here (BOS); was poor R/T discipline a contributory factor? Don't know. Will it take a mid-air at a major US airport before someone decides that readback of clearances is mandatory in the US?
If the system is too clogged to allow readbacks, then the system needs changing. The UK is also suffering from this - in particular some London frequencies are too busy - but we will not scrap the readback rule because it is just too important. We have to improve the system by means of more controllers with more frequencies. As usual, money is the problem.
I particularly liked this document, where this primary concern is one of liability, not safety! God bless Am.......
Stu
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMF quote:Tower's expecting you...he knows you're coming...controllers share information.
AMF:Lucky these twrORD controllers shared their part of information!!! And their supervisors what were they doing? Drinking
cofee or smoking a cigarette? In what type of "comfort level" were they? I don't think we allready treated that part of
the topic: all controllers are human and make mistakes (like all pilots make mistakes-that's why we are 2or3) but aren't
they followed by supervisors who should have broken the chain of errors that lead to an accident?
Even I agree in the app switching to twr case safety isn't really reduced without read-back and complying like you say is
their most important issue I think crews should be put in the picture in advance about it. What if in the Atis they would,
starting from a certain level of business, advise everybody "after being instructed to contact twr by app no readbacks are
requested" ? As we are all used to make readbacks all the time and almost everywhere you just do it and sometimes block the
frequency and use even more time!! Then it has an adverse effect! When are readbacks essential and when are they not??
Common sense maybe for you flying in there twice a week but ORD might be a very occasional destination for many pilots; some
people might not know the way they operate there every day and know what they are expected. I guess I know better then you
the way ATC wants me to operate at the apts I am flying to 5 times a month.
If deviating from standard way of operating let people know.
Another question: isn't there a way of reducing frequency occupation? Adding frequencies or is that a bad idea?or does that
cost too much? Or does that make controllers earn less money?
By the way I have nothing against US ATC, all the contrary. I think they are very good and helpfull.
HD: How many "descent on the glide"-"AFTER the departing...line up " UK differences are there? Please let me be MEGA-
dangerous and respond to your colleagues "BEHIND the...line up and wait BEHIND"-"cleared for the ILS" because pilots
fly to many countries and we can't adapt to every country's small caprices. Nevertheless I think UK atc is very well too.
AMF:Lucky these twrORD controllers shared their part of information!!! And their supervisors what were they doing? Drinking
cofee or smoking a cigarette? In what type of "comfort level" were they? I don't think we allready treated that part of
the topic: all controllers are human and make mistakes (like all pilots make mistakes-that's why we are 2or3) but aren't
they followed by supervisors who should have broken the chain of errors that lead to an accident?
Even I agree in the app switching to twr case safety isn't really reduced without read-back and complying like you say is
their most important issue I think crews should be put in the picture in advance about it. What if in the Atis they would,
starting from a certain level of business, advise everybody "after being instructed to contact twr by app no readbacks are
requested" ? As we are all used to make readbacks all the time and almost everywhere you just do it and sometimes block the
frequency and use even more time!! Then it has an adverse effect! When are readbacks essential and when are they not??
Common sense maybe for you flying in there twice a week but ORD might be a very occasional destination for many pilots; some
people might not know the way they operate there every day and know what they are expected. I guess I know better then you
the way ATC wants me to operate at the apts I am flying to 5 times a month.
If deviating from standard way of operating let people know.
Another question: isn't there a way of reducing frequency occupation? Adding frequencies or is that a bad idea?or does that
cost too much? Or does that make controllers earn less money?
By the way I have nothing against US ATC, all the contrary. I think they are very good and helpfull.
HD: How many "descent on the glide"-"AFTER the departing...line up " UK differences are there? Please let me be MEGA-
dangerous and respond to your colleagues "BEHIND the...line up and wait BEHIND"-"cleared for the ILS" because pilots
fly to many countries and we can't adapt to every country's small caprices. Nevertheless I think UK atc is very well too.
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The vast difference between attitudes towards certain ATC centres in the states ( or anywhere else ) is probably down to " better the devil you know " . Regular operators into anywhere know the traps and pitfalls and effortlessly avoid them. Those of us who use these places less frequently don't see the crazy clearance coming so easily and certainly don't appreciate it.
Something that hasn't been mentioned here is the overall trend within the industry to the margins of safety. This cannot be good. More operators are getting close to 900 hours annually from their crews. As the low cost virus spreads more skippers experience more pressure in areas such as MEL and fuel decisions. The nearest suitable airport often isn't in the minds of your bosses thus adding further pressure.
Lots of groups are under constant relentless pressure in IR forums ( look at FR ) and now it seems morale is nothing more than an unecessary cost. In Ireland there is a concerted campaign by one national newspaper to demean our profession as much as libels laws permit. Thank you MOL.
All of the above contribute to constantly increasing stress levels which are not helped by " you gotta bring your A game " type comments.
Something that hasn't been mentioned here is the overall trend within the industry to the margins of safety. This cannot be good. More operators are getting close to 900 hours annually from their crews. As the low cost virus spreads more skippers experience more pressure in areas such as MEL and fuel decisions. The nearest suitable airport often isn't in the minds of your bosses thus adding further pressure.
Lots of groups are under constant relentless pressure in IR forums ( look at FR ) and now it seems morale is nothing more than an unecessary cost. In Ireland there is a concerted campaign by one national newspaper to demean our profession as much as libels laws permit. Thank you MOL.
All of the above contribute to constantly increasing stress levels which are not helped by " you gotta bring your A game " type comments.
I am just a poor amateur pilot, so have nothing to contribute on what happened in BOS, nor on procedures in various airports around the world. What I write below is simply an observation as a PAX and a question. My observation seems to match what pilots have written earlier in this thread on arrival procedures at ORD. <end of disclaimer>
I'm a fairly frequent PAX to LHR and ORD (KLM, Lufthansa, BA), and have often found the approach and landing at ORD interesting to the point that I'd not do stuff like that to passengers in my C172.
Last time was rather interesting. We circled, turned left, turned right, generally wandered arond the area for 20 minutes, probably at 3000' - 5000'. Then suddently all at once: Engines to idle, gear down, flaps all the way out, speedbrakes out, 45 degree turns initiated with ailerons to the stops, rapid deceleration, reduced G's.
The turn on final was quite steep and made at around 1500'. The final was no more than 2-3 NM, a little more than the length of the runway. Bursts of thrust being applied frequently. We landed hard and late with heavy braking.
Why am I writing all of this ?
Because I could see on many passenger's faces that they were NOT at all comfortable with this, and that's my point.
(When we departed again, as we crossed another runway on the takeoff run, there was another B747 seconds from touching down on that runway. Also rather uncomfortable.)
No, I'm not scared of flying, neither as a PIC nor as a PAX. (I've lived in HKG and flown in and out of Kai Tak)
No, I'm not saying this was unsafe in any way.
I'm just asking, why does this have to be so at ORD when other fairly large airports can bring down their traffic in an seemingly much more nice and orderly manner ?
I am assuming the brace position now and preparing to receive any replies :-)
I'm a fairly frequent PAX to LHR and ORD (KLM, Lufthansa, BA), and have often found the approach and landing at ORD interesting to the point that I'd not do stuff like that to passengers in my C172.
Last time was rather interesting. We circled, turned left, turned right, generally wandered arond the area for 20 minutes, probably at 3000' - 5000'. Then suddently all at once: Engines to idle, gear down, flaps all the way out, speedbrakes out, 45 degree turns initiated with ailerons to the stops, rapid deceleration, reduced G's.
The turn on final was quite steep and made at around 1500'. The final was no more than 2-3 NM, a little more than the length of the runway. Bursts of thrust being applied frequently. We landed hard and late with heavy braking.
Why am I writing all of this ?
Because I could see on many passenger's faces that they were NOT at all comfortable with this, and that's my point.
(When we departed again, as we crossed another runway on the takeoff run, there was another B747 seconds from touching down on that runway. Also rather uncomfortable.)
No, I'm not scared of flying, neither as a PIC nor as a PAX. (I've lived in HKG and flown in and out of Kai Tak)
No, I'm not saying this was unsafe in any way.
I'm just asking, why does this have to be so at ORD when other fairly large airports can bring down their traffic in an seemingly much more nice and orderly manner ?
I am assuming the brace position now and preparing to receive any replies :-)
Guest
Posts: n/a
handflying, you might find Appendix 1 of the UK Radio-telephony Manual of interest.
Faire d'income: Yep. Yesterday DTW Michigan only had light rainshowers forecast, but within about 30 minutes level 6 thunderstorms developed (after landing waited one hour on ramp-it was shutdown). We must know what nearby airports are suitable alternates (mostly when no alternate airport or fuel is planned, as is quite common, even if light rain is in forecast) for any place. If we had come in about ten minutes later, we would have asked ATC whether the full length runway was available at Toledo, Ohio, maybe Windsor, Ontario. We had just told DTW Approach that we needed to go to Toledo, and suddenly 
they said that we could get into 03R with limited vectoring.
Never use up most of your cont. fuel far from your destination.
they said that we could get into 03R with limited vectoring. Never use up most of your cont. fuel far from your destination.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 6th Aug 2005 at 05:59.
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: Canada
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GargleBlaster,
The biggest reason you experience things such as you did at ORD is the airport layout. Have a look at the ORD layout and then have a look at the ATL layout or the LAX layout
Some airports are just more difficult to control than others. Putting 982,000 aircraft movements per year into ORD must be extremely difficult for ATC. There is even talk about reducing the flights allowed into ORD.
http://www.faa.gov/news/reduce_delay...HareNotice.htm
The biggest reason you experience things such as you did at ORD is the airport layout. Have a look at the ORD layout and then have a look at the ATL layout or the LAX layout
Some airports are just more difficult to control than others. Putting 982,000 aircraft movements per year into ORD must be extremely difficult for ATC. There is even talk about reducing the flights allowed into ORD.
http://www.faa.gov/news/reduce_delay...HareNotice.htm
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Guys, according to the KORD-Case that is not an ATC-Problem.
Just behind RWY 09L/T is a small town.
By a lawcase the inhabitants of this town managed to have a 3000ft-Minimum-Rule, meaning that airplanes have to have at least 3000ft while passing the city-center.
So Pilots do not have a chance for a straight approach, you guys have to descent very hard in the Final Section.
A Lufthansa-Pilot once told me that he passed the IM at about 1300ft that day
- so in this case you can not really blame the ATC.
Around CHI there are some more law-based operational constraints so that T/O mostly are done by full-power-rollings
to climb with high rates and avoid passing sourrounding towns to low
Just behind RWY 09L/T is a small town.
By a lawcase the inhabitants of this town managed to have a 3000ft-Minimum-Rule, meaning that airplanes have to have at least 3000ft while passing the city-center.
So Pilots do not have a chance for a straight approach, you guys have to descent very hard in the Final Section.
A Lufthansa-Pilot once told me that he passed the IM at about 1300ft that day
- so in this case you can not really blame the ATC.Around CHI there are some more law-based operational constraints so that T/O mostly are done by full-power-rollings
to climb with high rates and avoid passing sourrounding towns to low
Join Date: May 2000
Location: US
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Click on the link to see article on the New procedures at BOS Logan
(Just when you thought this thread went away.)
Check 6
(Just when you thought this thread went away.)
Check 6
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In many cases, pilots have acknowledged tower instructions to stop short of an active runway, but for unknown reasons did not stop or took wrong turns onto active runways.
The reason is the practice by ATC of regularly using runways as taxiways.
Yes Yes, I know, it expedites the flow, blah blah.
But thats the reason.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Old Lyme, Connecticut
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Article in today's NY Times on high error rates at TRACON in New York. Also on the backbiting and long-simmering dislike between the controllers and the FAA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/13/ny...gewanted=print
On at least 13 occasions since July 11, air-traffic controllers have mistakenly ordered airplanes to fly too close to one another in the skies above New York. Those incidents, about six times the average error rate, are prompting more intense finger-pointing between two longtime opponents - the controllers' union and the Federal Aviation Administration.
The F.A.A. and the controllers have a long history of animosity, but the rift between the two widened early this year when the federal agency began to reduce staffing levels, an effort to gain greater control over the New York Tracon.
.....
During low-traffic hours, the F.A.A. has sometimes put one controller in charge of an area that is normally split into two sectors, or has assigned one controller to a sector that is often managed by two. But under the new schedules, union officials say, it is doing both far more often.
.....
In June, the F.A.A. said that abuse of sick leave and overtime was common at the Tracon. That volley followed complaints by the Tracon's controllers earlier in the year of dozens of "operational errors," cases in which controllers directed planes so that they flew closer to each other than regulations allow.
The F.A.A. and the controllers have a long history of animosity, but the rift between the two widened early this year when the federal agency began to reduce staffing levels, an effort to gain greater control over the New York Tracon.
.....
During low-traffic hours, the F.A.A. has sometimes put one controller in charge of an area that is normally split into two sectors, or has assigned one controller to a sector that is often managed by two. But under the new schedules, union officials say, it is doing both far more often.
.....
In June, the F.A.A. said that abuse of sick leave and overtime was common at the Tracon. That volley followed complaints by the Tracon's controllers earlier in the year of dozens of "operational errors," cases in which controllers directed planes so that they flew closer to each other than regulations allow.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<I know the reason! The reason is the practice by ATC of regularly using runways as taxiways. >>
Maxalt..... they just may not have another option so don't blame ATC please. They have to do the best they can with the concrete they're given. Runway 23 at Heathrow was regularly used for taxying while it was still an active runway and this must apply to hundreds of airports around the world.
Maxalt..... they just may not have another option so don't blame ATC please. They have to do the best they can with the concrete they're given. Runway 23 at Heathrow was regularly used for taxying while it was still an active runway and this must apply to hundreds of airports around the world.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Not Ardua enough
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First post for me here I'm not qualified to comment on the airmanship or ATC involved in this.
However I did want to highlight the use of Automatic Dependant surveilance broadcast software ( ADS-B) this is basically an addon for TCAS 2000/3000 T2CAS. It's a software enhancement that uses Surface area movement management and spacing techniques to provide clear indications to crew of runway incursions on the ground and/or spacing problems in the approach phase. The display can be dedicated or used as part of an EFB.
Some features :-
On the ground runway incursions typically produce a red marked runway on an airport plan depiction
In the approach phase it will greatly improve CDA's and typically provide 90 sec spacing in good wex and 105 Sec spacing in poor wex. The system gives you the speed distance and identity of the A/C in front and will also provide speed commands. Slow down Speed up . You never know we might even get to the point where we don't need controllers. Just really good pilots. In fact we might not even need them. Just really good engineers...
and UPS are testing it next year.
However I did want to highlight the use of Automatic Dependant surveilance broadcast software ( ADS-B) this is basically an addon for TCAS 2000/3000 T2CAS. It's a software enhancement that uses Surface area movement management and spacing techniques to provide clear indications to crew of runway incursions on the ground and/or spacing problems in the approach phase. The display can be dedicated or used as part of an EFB.
Some features :-
On the ground runway incursions typically produce a red marked runway on an airport plan depiction
In the approach phase it will greatly improve CDA's and typically provide 90 sec spacing in good wex and 105 Sec spacing in poor wex. The system gives you the speed distance and identity of the A/C in front and will also provide speed commands. Slow down Speed up . You never know we might even get to the point where we don't need controllers. Just really good pilots. In fact we might not even need them. Just really good engineers...
and UPS are testing it next year.
Last edited by ARINC; 13th Aug 2005 at 22:54.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...tugs
This seems all very well from the flight deck point of view - but what about tug drivers crossing the active when not cleared to do so?