"2 close calls in one week jolt O'Hare"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rotornut
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for that but for some reason I managed to get the article without registering or logging in. Anyway here it is:
2 close calls in one week jolt O'Hare
Planes aborted takeoffs to avoid collision, feds say
By Jon Hilkevitch
Tribune transportation reporter
Published March 25, 2006
Twice this week planes were forced to abort takeoffs at O'Hare International Airport to avoid colliding with other aircraft, the Federal Aviation Administration said Friday.
In one close call, two airliners that were mistakenly instructed to take off at the same time on crisscrossing runways came within 100 feet of each other before the pilots were alerted and stopped their planes near the runway intersection, officials said.
Tuesday's near collision ranks in the most serious category of runway incursions--situations where two aircraft are in the same area at the same time.
Incidents of such severity occur, on average, less than one time for every million takeoffs and landings, said FAA spokesman Greg Martin in Washington.
"It's extremely rare. We have gone an entire year without having a serious incident like that at any U.S. airport," he said.
The other incident, on Thursday, involved a plane sent to taxi across an active runway where another plane already had started its takeoff roll, the FAA said. The planes came within about 600 feet of each other.
"Both incidents look to be air-traffic controller errors," said FAA spokesman Tony Molinaro in Chicago. He said an FAA investigation is under way.
No one on the four planes was injured. But the incidents are considered so disturbing, and perhaps fit into a pattern of increasing runway incursions across the country, that the National Transportation Safety Board said it will dispatch investigators to O'Hare next week. The board typically responds to fatal accidents.
"We are sending investigators because O'Hare had two major runway incursions in one week," said safety board spokeswoman Lauren Peduzzi in Washington.
Seven runway incursions--five caused by controller errors, one by pilot error and one from an errant vehicle--occurred at O'Hare last year, the FAA said. The airport handled 972,246 flights last year. Not counting the incidents this week, four incursions, all controller errors, have taken place so far this year at O'Hare, the FAA said.
The incident on Tuesday began at 4:20 p.m., when an Airbus A319 operated by Lufthansa taxied onto Runway 4 Left and waited for a plane that had landed to exit the runway, the FAA said.
A Delta Connection regional jet also taxied onto intersecting Runway 9 Left while it waited for a plane to depart.
A controller--who is new to O'Hare and was being trained by a veteran controller--then cleared the Lufthansa plane to take off, the FAA said.
Thirty-five seconds later, the same trainee controller cleared the Delta Connection jet for takeoff on the intersecting runway, the FAA said.
Another controller noticed that both planes were rolling on a collision course, and the takeoff instructions to both airplanes were canceled, the FAA said. Pilots on both planes applied full braking.
"They stopped themselves just short of the intersection," Peduzzi said.
The planes ended up only 100 feet apart, the FAA said.
Another close call
Two days later, another close call occurred.
At 9:07 a.m. Thursday, a controller directed a United Airlines Boeing 737-300 to taxi onto 4 Left. The same controller instructed another plane, an Airbus A320 operated by United's low-cost carrier Ted, to taxi across 4 Left toward another runway, the FAA said.
Fifteen seconds later, the controller cleared the 737, carrying 111 passengers and five crew members bound for Washington, for takeoff, the FAA said. Twenty-two seconds later, the co-pilot of the 737 saw the Airbus, carrying 156 passengers to Orlando, moving toward the runway and advised the O'Hare tower that his plane was aborting its takeoff.
The planes came within 600 feet of crashing, the FAA said.
Pilots to be interviewed
The safety board's probe into the two incidents will involve reviewing radio communications and radar tapes. Officials also will interview the pilots and the air-traffic and ground controllers on duty in the O'Hare tower, Peduzzi said.
The airport's aircraft movement surveillance system will be studied to determine whether it alerted controllers to the potential collisions.
The runway safety technology that the FAA has deployed at O'Hare has no capability to recognize traffic on intersecting runways, officials said.
The equipment, called the Airport Movement Area Safety System, alerts controllers to a potential collision with as little as eight seconds of warning. It leaves little time for controllers to radio the warnings to pilots.
"The incidents at O'Hare this week point to the urgent need for new technology that lets pilots directly see other aircraft on the airport surface," said Pete Janhunen, a spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association, the largest airline union.
"The pilot is at the throttle. The pilot can avoid these things."
----------
[email protected]
2 close calls in one week jolt O'Hare
Planes aborted takeoffs to avoid collision, feds say
By Jon Hilkevitch
Tribune transportation reporter
Published March 25, 2006
Twice this week planes were forced to abort takeoffs at O'Hare International Airport to avoid colliding with other aircraft, the Federal Aviation Administration said Friday.
In one close call, two airliners that were mistakenly instructed to take off at the same time on crisscrossing runways came within 100 feet of each other before the pilots were alerted and stopped their planes near the runway intersection, officials said.
Tuesday's near collision ranks in the most serious category of runway incursions--situations where two aircraft are in the same area at the same time.
Incidents of such severity occur, on average, less than one time for every million takeoffs and landings, said FAA spokesman Greg Martin in Washington.
"It's extremely rare. We have gone an entire year without having a serious incident like that at any U.S. airport," he said.
The other incident, on Thursday, involved a plane sent to taxi across an active runway where another plane already had started its takeoff roll, the FAA said. The planes came within about 600 feet of each other.
"Both incidents look to be air-traffic controller errors," said FAA spokesman Tony Molinaro in Chicago. He said an FAA investigation is under way.
No one on the four planes was injured. But the incidents are considered so disturbing, and perhaps fit into a pattern of increasing runway incursions across the country, that the National Transportation Safety Board said it will dispatch investigators to O'Hare next week. The board typically responds to fatal accidents.
"We are sending investigators because O'Hare had two major runway incursions in one week," said safety board spokeswoman Lauren Peduzzi in Washington.
Seven runway incursions--five caused by controller errors, one by pilot error and one from an errant vehicle--occurred at O'Hare last year, the FAA said. The airport handled 972,246 flights last year. Not counting the incidents this week, four incursions, all controller errors, have taken place so far this year at O'Hare, the FAA said.
The incident on Tuesday began at 4:20 p.m., when an Airbus A319 operated by Lufthansa taxied onto Runway 4 Left and waited for a plane that had landed to exit the runway, the FAA said.
A Delta Connection regional jet also taxied onto intersecting Runway 9 Left while it waited for a plane to depart.
A controller--who is new to O'Hare and was being trained by a veteran controller--then cleared the Lufthansa plane to take off, the FAA said.
Thirty-five seconds later, the same trainee controller cleared the Delta Connection jet for takeoff on the intersecting runway, the FAA said.
Another controller noticed that both planes were rolling on a collision course, and the takeoff instructions to both airplanes were canceled, the FAA said. Pilots on both planes applied full braking.
"They stopped themselves just short of the intersection," Peduzzi said.
The planes ended up only 100 feet apart, the FAA said.
Another close call
Two days later, another close call occurred.
At 9:07 a.m. Thursday, a controller directed a United Airlines Boeing 737-300 to taxi onto 4 Left. The same controller instructed another plane, an Airbus A320 operated by United's low-cost carrier Ted, to taxi across 4 Left toward another runway, the FAA said.
Fifteen seconds later, the controller cleared the 737, carrying 111 passengers and five crew members bound for Washington, for takeoff, the FAA said. Twenty-two seconds later, the co-pilot of the 737 saw the Airbus, carrying 156 passengers to Orlando, moving toward the runway and advised the O'Hare tower that his plane was aborting its takeoff.
The planes came within 600 feet of crashing, the FAA said.
Pilots to be interviewed
The safety board's probe into the two incidents will involve reviewing radio communications and radar tapes. Officials also will interview the pilots and the air-traffic and ground controllers on duty in the O'Hare tower, Peduzzi said.
The airport's aircraft movement surveillance system will be studied to determine whether it alerted controllers to the potential collisions.
The runway safety technology that the FAA has deployed at O'Hare has no capability to recognize traffic on intersecting runways, officials said.
The equipment, called the Airport Movement Area Safety System, alerts controllers to a potential collision with as little as eight seconds of warning. It leaves little time for controllers to radio the warnings to pilots.
"The incidents at O'Hare this week point to the urgent need for new technology that lets pilots directly see other aircraft on the airport surface," said Pete Janhunen, a spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association, the largest airline union.
"The pilot is at the throttle. The pilot can avoid these things."
----------
[email protected]
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those guys are under enormous pressure to move an awful lot of traffic. Perhaps the more liberal attitude of the US regulator is what promotes the errors.
To quote the boss of a very busy US facility during a visit last year, "We don't do ICAO here". I accept that ICAO is not as progressive as it should be and I suspect it holds many of us back to a lower common denominator than is ideal and it may be this that is the fundamental failure. I think to tar the coalface ATCOs might be uncalled for.
Point 4
To quote the boss of a very busy US facility during a visit last year, "We don't do ICAO here". I accept that ICAO is not as progressive as it should be and I suspect it holds many of us back to a lower common denominator than is ideal and it may be this that is the fundamental failure. I think to tar the coalface ATCOs might be uncalled for.
Point 4
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Incidents of such severity occur, on average, less than one time for every million takeoffs and landings, said FAA spokesman Greg Martin in Washington.
"It's extremely rare. We have gone an entire year without having a serious incident like that at any U.S. airport," he said.
"It's extremely rare. We have gone an entire year without having a serious incident like that at any U.S. airport," he said.
I'm sure this kind of incident has occurred twice before these two in the US in recent months. One was at Boston - Logan and I can't recall the location of the other but, It appears to be a growing problem; especially on runways that cross each other.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Toronto
Age: 57
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other incursion you may be thinking of was at LAX but involved closely spaced parallels and not crossing runways.
Incursions and their prevention is a hot topic here too. Transport Canada and Nav Canada have lots to say on the subject.
The use of "taxi into position and hold" is also mentioned insofar as aircraft should not be allowed to line up on the runway if there will be a delay to their departure. 3 minutes is a recommended maximum and the instruction should include the reason for the delay and the anticipated length of the delay. Seems much more common sense than stopping its use altogether.
In relation to the ORD incident, what was the trainee's instructor doing? It seems the conflict was spotted by another controller not the trainee or their instructor. Troubling.
Incursions and their prevention is a hot topic here too. Transport Canada and Nav Canada have lots to say on the subject.
The use of "taxi into position and hold" is also mentioned insofar as aircraft should not be allowed to line up on the runway if there will be a delay to their departure. 3 minutes is a recommended maximum and the instruction should include the reason for the delay and the anticipated length of the delay. Seems much more common sense than stopping its use altogether.
In relation to the ORD incident, what was the trainee's instructor doing? It seems the conflict was spotted by another controller not the trainee or their instructor. Troubling.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: EGKK
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again I'll go on the record, lives will have be lost before the FAA steps in and regulates USA RT standards to an acceptable, safe level, bringing them in line with European standards.
What worries me is that as one who operates there, it could be my life.
This is not just simple and all to easy Yank bashing, but cold professional fact.
As a starter(feel free to follow with an example), if you are number 4 on finals at 12 miles with 3 aircraft ahead, one on the runway, you cannot be cleared to land! But you will be!
What worries me is that as one who operates there, it could be my life.
This is not just simple and all to easy Yank bashing, but cold professional fact.
As a starter(feel free to follow with an example), if you are number 4 on finals at 12 miles with 3 aircraft ahead, one on the runway, you cannot be cleared to land! But you will be!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Robin Hood country.
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QAR ASR. This is all about too many aircraft, intersecting runways, and not enough space. A change in procedure is perhaps appropriate, but how does a change of RT possibly help? There is absolutely no confusion as to what is being said, the problem is with the infrastructure that's trying to accommodate it.
As for your landing clearance scenario, you do have the preceding aircraft in sight under VMC when it's issued don't you? IMC with no visual contact you'll be instructed to continue, which isn't the same as cleared to land.
As for your landing clearance scenario, you do have the preceding aircraft in sight under VMC when it's issued don't you? IMC with no visual contact you'll be instructed to continue, which isn't the same as cleared to land.
Location, Location, Location
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If it moves, watch it like a hawk: If it doesn't, hit it with a hammer until it does...
Age: 60
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This type of incident seems to have a theme:
Multiple departing traffic on intersecting runways, each departure runway being controlled by an ATCO on a separate frequency.
Since Logan and O'Hare have had incidents recently one would hope that procedures are under review for these kind of operations.
There is an inherent danger in this kind of airfield setup but safety need not be compromised as long as the procedures and inter-controller communication issues are adequately addressed and resolved.
Multiple departing traffic on intersecting runways, each departure runway being controlled by an ATCO on a separate frequency.
Since Logan and O'Hare have had incidents recently one would hope that procedures are under review for these kind of operations.
There is an inherent danger in this kind of airfield setup but safety need not be compromised as long as the procedures and inter-controller communication issues are adequately addressed and resolved.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armpit
I have some sympathy with your feelings - believe me, I do. I just have difficulty with what amounts to a broad personal attack on the individuals who are trying to make the best of an inadequate situation. It is surely the FAA who carry the responsibility and it is they who should be lobbied?
Being involvd in future UK ATC system design I can tell you we are not whiter than white ourselves. Last week I was effectively told that mitigation of a clear risk I had identified would be achieved by ATCOs not turning traffic too early in an environment that relies on tight vectoring to deliver our own overburdened capacity.
I object in the strongest possible terms to ATCOs (or Aircrew for that matter) being exposed to a compromised system's design so that other needs can be met. It is not right to put people in a position where they are not allowed to be human.
.4
I have some sympathy with your feelings - believe me, I do. I just have difficulty with what amounts to a broad personal attack on the individuals who are trying to make the best of an inadequate situation. It is surely the FAA who carry the responsibility and it is they who should be lobbied?
Being involvd in future UK ATC system design I can tell you we are not whiter than white ourselves. Last week I was effectively told that mitigation of a clear risk I had identified would be achieved by ATCOs not turning traffic too early in an environment that relies on tight vectoring to deliver our own overburdened capacity.
I object in the strongest possible terms to ATCOs (or Aircrew for that matter) being exposed to a compromised system's design so that other needs can be met. It is not right to put people in a position where they are not allowed to be human.
.4
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: EGKK
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XL5 why issue conditional clearances, it only leads to ambiguity, which in high density environments leads to possible confusion and misinterpretation. Leaving scope for error and potential disaster, absolute clearances which due to the human element are not perfect, but surely do greatly reduce the margin for error.
The set up in the US can work well on a good day, but has very little allowance for the lowest common denominator. The below average guy on bad day, and through any number of influences we are all capable of being the below average guy.
The set up in the US can work well on a good day, but has very little allowance for the lowest common denominator. The below average guy on bad day, and through any number of influences we are all capable of being the below average guy.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Thrid rock from the sun
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crowded Skies
Well it goes to prove that there are only a certain amount of aircraft that can fit SAFELY into a sector of airspace at one time. This system of operation leaves no room for the imminent errors!!!!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QAR:I refer you to the 'Monarch Incident at Gib.' thread plus many others on French ATC, the last major mid-air (or ground) collisions being in Europe (DHL, SAS, CDG Shorts360), etc.
Enjoy your high horse.
You have to be joking, right?
BTW, I'm a Brit, and I've never, ever, had a problem over here. It's no better or worse than anywhere else, but if you're of the pre-disposed mindset 'everything the yanks do is cr@p' then there's no persuading you.
Armpit has some valid points about ATC here, but I have not flown often enough to other countries to begin to compare and evaluate, except to Canada at times, and find the ATC excellent.
It might be that the pressure for productivity/flow control requires controllers to often barely state or smear the name in the callsign, i.e. "----east 929 turn 15 degrees right." "----east 529 descend/maintain FL 230". Before we can acknowledge, partly due to controllers using two or three different frequencies, another pilot transmits and blocks the reply.
But on the otherhand, we have one airplane to manage, and they have several at one time. Their ability to coordinate the three and four-dimensional changing puzzle (in good weather-how about in bad?) amazes me.
It might be that the pressure for productivity/flow control requires controllers to often barely state or smear the name in the callsign, i.e. "----east 929 turn 15 degrees right." "----east 529 descend/maintain FL 230". Before we can acknowledge, partly due to controllers using two or three different frequencies, another pilot transmits and blocks the reply.
But on the otherhand, we have one airplane to manage, and they have several at one time. Their ability to coordinate the three and four-dimensional changing puzzle (in good weather-how about in bad?) amazes me.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: EGKK
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RRAAMJET, those incidents you quote included a mix of at least 2 languages. The system in force in europe would be better if the europeans(ok, French and Spanish) stuck to ICAO procedures and communicated in English allowing all on frequency to build a mental picture of the events occuring around them.
Considering the number of people who ae actually operating in a second language is proof of how well it can work. In the USA the majority of guys are operating in their first language and still get into all sorts of a pickle.
No high horse only a justified sense of superiority provided by the consumate profressionals who manage our airspace.
Considering the number of people who ae actually operating in a second language is proof of how well it can work. In the USA the majority of guys are operating in their first language and still get into all sorts of a pickle.
No high horse only a justified sense of superiority provided by the consumate profressionals who manage our airspace.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Thrid rock from the sun
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cop on
Guys,
Lets not let the thread descend into the Brits vs Yanks or vice versa. Have a bit of Cop On. This Airspace is Ultra Busy and European Airspace will become a lot busier too. We need construct comment and ideas, not a childish slagging match.
P
Lets not let the thread descend into the Brits vs Yanks or vice versa. Have a bit of Cop On. This Airspace is Ultra Busy and European Airspace will become a lot busier too. We need construct comment and ideas, not a childish slagging match.
P
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...the majority of guys...still get into a pickle." Hmmmm....perhaps a little exaggerated, methinks, or is it just your crew that gets into a pickle 'the majority' of the time?
Ultimately, the success/failure of any ATC system is measurable by movements per hour/ corpses and wreckage. In this dynamic, your consumately perfect linguists in Europe are trailing over the last decade. It's one thing to use perfect ICAO radio procedures, but if it still doesn't prevent the mating of two aircraft then ultimately it's a failure. Simple as that.
I'm beginning to think your exposure to US ATC is rather limited. Perhaps you should experience a tornadic supercell event during rush-hour at DFW (6000 movements per day through Fort Worth airspace) and see how well they handle literally hundreds of holds and diversions in a very short space of time utilizing perhaps only one or two of their normal gateposts. And no bent metal...
