NTSB Investigating Near Midair Collision at JFK
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“We’re treating it as a non-issue,” said Olson Anderson, the airline’s vice president of flight operations.
According to Anderson, the pilot of Flight 792 said the plane’s Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System, or TCAS, did not issue a warning. TCAS analyzes the projected flight path of approaching aircraft to alert pilots to potential collisions.
According to Anderson, the pilot of Flight 792 said the plane’s Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System, or TCAS, did not issue a warning. TCAS analyzes the projected flight path of approaching aircraft to alert pilots to potential collisions.
TCAS RAs are inhibited below 1000ft and switches automatically to TA only, and TA voice alerts are inhibited below 500ft.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Avweb today.
Was JFK Incident A Near-Midair Or Not?
The NTSB said on Tuesday it is investigating a near midair collision at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York on Saturday in which two airliners flew in close proximity to one another -- but the FAA says no such incident took place. The NTSB, citing "initial reports," said that at 8:36 p.m. local time on July 5, a Cayman Airways 737-300 and a Linea Aerea Nacional de Chile 767-300 "almost collided." The 737 was on approach to Runway 22L, then executed a missed approach and conflicted with the 767 departing Runway 13R. "Tower controllers intervened to attempt to resolve the conflict, assigning both aircraft diverging headings," the NTSB said. "The closest proximity of the two aircraft has not yet been determined." The National Air Traffic Controllers Association issued a news release on Monday saying that "the radar targets of both jets merged on top of each other and [controllers] estimated their closest proximity at 100 feet. ... Controllers at both JFK Tower and New York TRACON all used the word 'ugly' to describe the incident." FAA spokesman Jim Peters told The Associated Press, in a story published Tuesday, that radar data show that the aircraft came no closer than 300 feet vertically and a half-mile horizontally, and there was no potential for conflict. On Tuesday, NATCA spokesman Doug Church told AVweb, "We stand by our story: Planes were separated by 100 feet in altitude and there was NO discernible lateral separation on radar."
Church said he has been in contact with five controller eyewitnesses who all agreed "it was the ugliest incident they have ever seen." And he added that the FAA can set the record straight by releasing the radar tapes of the incident. "When will they do that?" he asked. The NTSB said it will issue a preliminary report on the incident later this week. At the time of the incident, the NTSB said, the weather was VFR with 6 miles visibility and haze. There were no reported injuries or damage to the aircraft.
Was JFK Incident A Near-Midair Or Not?
The NTSB said on Tuesday it is investigating a near midair collision at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York on Saturday in which two airliners flew in close proximity to one another -- but the FAA says no such incident took place. The NTSB, citing "initial reports," said that at 8:36 p.m. local time on July 5, a Cayman Airways 737-300 and a Linea Aerea Nacional de Chile 767-300 "almost collided." The 737 was on approach to Runway 22L, then executed a missed approach and conflicted with the 767 departing Runway 13R. "Tower controllers intervened to attempt to resolve the conflict, assigning both aircraft diverging headings," the NTSB said. "The closest proximity of the two aircraft has not yet been determined." The National Air Traffic Controllers Association issued a news release on Monday saying that "the radar targets of both jets merged on top of each other and [controllers] estimated their closest proximity at 100 feet. ... Controllers at both JFK Tower and New York TRACON all used the word 'ugly' to describe the incident." FAA spokesman Jim Peters told The Associated Press, in a story published Tuesday, that radar data show that the aircraft came no closer than 300 feet vertically and a half-mile horizontally, and there was no potential for conflict. On Tuesday, NATCA spokesman Doug Church told AVweb, "We stand by our story: Planes were separated by 100 feet in altitude and there was NO discernible lateral separation on radar."
Church said he has been in contact with five controller eyewitnesses who all agreed "it was the ugliest incident they have ever seen." And he added that the FAA can set the record straight by releasing the radar tapes of the incident. "When will they do that?" he asked. The NTSB said it will issue a preliminary report on the incident later this week. At the time of the incident, the NTSB said, the weather was VFR with 6 miles visibility and haze. There were no reported injuries or damage to the aircraft.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can someone please explain HM79's post - am I lost in translation or is he talking of another incident of late?
€: ah found it, post #5
€: ah found it, post #5
Last edited by the_hawk; 11th Jul 2008 at 08:35.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: cloud 9
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HM79 - thanks for setting the record straight and you are correct about the BA circumstances. In 30 years of safe flying in and out of NY (EWA and JFK), I have always been 'looked after' by NY TRACOM and the airports above, and in all weathers. The poster who described it as Lagos west obviously has not operated to Lagos very often!
I can't recall who coined the phrase but -
"If man does not learn from history, then he is bound to repeat it".
I'm sure the NTSB investigation will reinforce separation rules in use.
I can't recall who coined the phrase but -
"If man does not learn from history, then he is bound to repeat it".
I'm sure the NTSB investigation will reinforce separation rules in use.
HM79,
Thank you for your kind invitation to visit the tower however any spare time in NY is occupied on a bus fighting your appaling transport network or sitting in a queue for two hours to taxy out for a scheduled operation.
So how does your movement rate compare to Heathrow?
Let's face it, a great deal of your problems are caused by the insistance on using the VOR13L arrival - a procedure which has no place in a modern airport operating heavy jets. This means that the arrival rate is slower than it need be and if the weather drops at all you are often faced with a sudden switch to ILS 22L. So now you have taxied lots of aircraft for the 13s, you are still arriving 13L so can't turn the departing aircraft round to get to 22L!!
Trust me, your airspace is no different or busier than a lot of places and yet you seem to make a song and dance about it.
Your movement rate in no way justifies 2 hour taxy times (and if you introduce any weather that can be conservative) and you have an appaling record of taking people out of order.
Before a long night in the seat, trust me, it really grips your sh*t when you are gate held due to another runway change and someone beside you asks for push 45 minutes after you and gets airborne 15 minutes before you!!!
Before bitching about how busy you are, come to a modern airport where controllers without egos get on with the job in a safe and professional manner.
Thank you for your kind invitation to visit the tower however any spare time in NY is occupied on a bus fighting your appaling transport network or sitting in a queue for two hours to taxy out for a scheduled operation.
So how does your movement rate compare to Heathrow?
Let's face it, a great deal of your problems are caused by the insistance on using the VOR13L arrival - a procedure which has no place in a modern airport operating heavy jets. This means that the arrival rate is slower than it need be and if the weather drops at all you are often faced with a sudden switch to ILS 22L. So now you have taxied lots of aircraft for the 13s, you are still arriving 13L so can't turn the departing aircraft round to get to 22L!!
Trust me, your airspace is no different or busier than a lot of places and yet you seem to make a song and dance about it.
Your movement rate in no way justifies 2 hour taxy times (and if you introduce any weather that can be conservative) and you have an appaling record of taking people out of order.
Before a long night in the seat, trust me, it really grips your sh*t when you are gate held due to another runway change and someone beside you asks for push 45 minutes after you and gets airborne 15 minutes before you!!!
Before bitching about how busy you are, come to a modern airport where controllers without egos get on with the job in a safe and professional manner.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not sure of EGLL's movement rates and therefore will not comment. I do know that at JFK we move between 85 and 90 ac an hour. I agree that the vor 13l is an arcane procedure but if we land on the ils to both 22l & 22r our dept rates are reduced and you encounter 2 hour taxi times. Also the proximity of the 22's neccessitates crossing all 22l arr across the dept runway and with ac taxing on engine to save fuel the crossing times are at times excessive.
I'm not really sure where the "bitching" comment came from but again Flip with your aviation experience I'm sure you could provide some helpfull suggestions but I guess I missed them in your response. If you find the time when your next at JFK I'm sure I could route you around our "appaling transport network or sitting in a queue for two hours to taxy out for a scheduled operation." Unless you would prefer to enjoy the anonimity and safety of flaming from a distance!!!
I'm not really sure where the "bitching" comment came from but again Flip with your aviation experience I'm sure you could provide some helpfull suggestions but I guess I missed them in your response. If you find the time when your next at JFK I'm sure I could route you around our "appaling transport network or sitting in a queue for two hours to taxy out for a scheduled operation." Unless you would prefer to enjoy the anonimity and safety of flaming from a distance!!!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE ANother one!
Yep! OOoops, they did it again! (Too bad there's no "Britney" icon)
"I can't recall who coined the phrase but -
"If man does not learn from history, then he is bound to REPEAT IT"."
Oh the irony of that post!
George Santayana, BTW, wrote "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it." in The Life of Reason in 1906
"I can't recall who coined the phrase but -
"If man does not learn from history, then he is bound to REPEAT IT"."
Oh the irony of that post!
George Santayana, BTW, wrote "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it." in The Life of Reason in 1906
Last edited by pattern_is_full; 12th Jul 2008 at 06:03.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
This odd item is on the AP wire:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/wash...-WITHHOLD.html
July 11, 2008
AP Withholds JFK - Near Collision story
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 9:39 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON -- Withhold the JFK-Near Collision story, V1282. The timing of the incident is in question.
AP Withholds JFK - Near Collision story
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 9:39 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON -- Withhold the JFK-Near Collision story, V1282. The timing of the incident is in question.
Here's The NY Times OWN version - not sure why they dumped the AP:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/ny...l?ref=nyregion
The delta flight corresponds in time and # to a Shannon-JFK flight (ongoing to Tampa).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/ny...l?ref=nyregion
The delta flight corresponds in time and # to a Shannon-JFK flight (ongoing to Tampa).
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just love it when...
I just love it when the rest of the world tells us how messed up we are.
We don't know how to control air traffic, nor do we know how to fly airplanes.
And this mindset is, somehow, all our fault, too.
So many threads I've read here in PPrune like this.....
What a shame...
PantLoad
We don't know how to control air traffic, nor do we know how to fly airplanes.
And this mindset is, somehow, all our fault, too.
So many threads I've read here in PPrune like this.....
What a shame...
PantLoad
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: where the money is
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear PantLoad,
stop whining! It's pathetic and doesn't lead anywhere. You (= the inhabitants of the US) are neither better nor worse than all the others. We, the rest of the world, just happen to love your bureaucracy, the TSA, your political correctness and your Federal Government since January 2001.
From my personal experience, steering an airplane to the US is mostly a joy due to efficient ATC and good communication. I'll never forget the busy ATCO's in Las Vegas who many years ago accomodated me in my C152 inbound for a full stop landing at McCarran.
Listening to the infamous recording of lost Chinese pilots on JFK's GND-freq. one couldn't help but getting the impression, that employing standard ICAO phraseology and deliberately speaking out clearly and intelligebly would help when foreign pilots are present (= most of the time). It sems to work very well in Amsterdam, Frankfurt and the London area where it can be busy as well.
And to HM79: next time I'll be in the vicinity of NYC, I'd be happy to pay you a visit...
stop whining! It's pathetic and doesn't lead anywhere. You (= the inhabitants of the US) are neither better nor worse than all the others. We, the rest of the world, just happen to love your bureaucracy, the TSA, your political correctness and your Federal Government since January 2001.
From my personal experience, steering an airplane to the US is mostly a joy due to efficient ATC and good communication. I'll never forget the busy ATCO's in Las Vegas who many years ago accomodated me in my C152 inbound for a full stop landing at McCarran.
Listening to the infamous recording of lost Chinese pilots on JFK's GND-freq. one couldn't help but getting the impression, that employing standard ICAO phraseology and deliberately speaking out clearly and intelligebly would help when foreign pilots are present (= most of the time). It sems to work very well in Amsterdam, Frankfurt and the London area where it can be busy as well.
And to HM79: next time I'll be in the vicinity of NYC, I'd be happy to pay you a visit...
