Near Collision at ORD July 21, 2008
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Near Collision at ORD July 21, 2008
NTSB Press Briefing
Living in the states, it seems like I read about near collisions at either ORD or JFK on a monthly basis. In this case, an American Eagle ERJ-145 was departing on 32L, while a Lear 60 was landing on9R. I am non-pilot, but when looking at the runway lay out, it just looks dangerous to my novice eye.
Are there any other airports out there that increase the "Pucker Factor" for you professional pilots when you know you have to operate into them?
Living in the states, it seems like I read about near collisions at either ORD or JFK on a monthly basis. In this case, an American Eagle ERJ-145 was departing on 32L, while a Lear 60 was landing on9R. I am non-pilot, but when looking at the runway lay out, it just looks dangerous to my novice eye.
Are there any other airports out there that increase the "Pucker Factor" for you professional pilots when you know you have to operate into them?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Cheque List. My company makes it clear that we will not accept LAHS (Land and hold short clearances) but American ATC still forget from time to time.
Anywhere with converging or crossing runways, overconfident/overworked controllers, busy airspace, VFR traffic flying near IFR traffic.... So that's most of the major US airports then.
Anywhere with converging or crossing runways, overconfident/overworked controllers, busy airspace, VFR traffic flying near IFR traffic.... So that's most of the major US airports then.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORD - six runways 09R/27L, 10/28, 04L/22R, 04R/22L, 14L/32R, 14R/32L (seventh (09L/27R) under contruction) all in use at the same time
and with various simultaneous crossing operations requiring LAHSO
Must be an operational nightmare for ATC, I agree. I am not surprised that there are 'incidents' on a fairly regular basis, but as with most things, until there is a mid-air collision, I don't suppose much incentive will exist (sadly) for any real changes. Movements = revenue = capitalism.
and with various simultaneous crossing operations requiring LAHSOMust be an operational nightmare for ATC, I agree. I am not surprised that there are 'incidents' on a fairly regular basis, but as with most things, until there is a mid-air collision, I don't suppose much incentive will exist (sadly) for any real changes. Movements = revenue = capitalism.
I don't suppose much incentive will exist (sadly) for any real changes. Movements = revenue = capitalism.
A repeat of the disaster at Tenerife!!!!
I am Totally against LAHSO--Pilots--- Say No to LAHSO
PA
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that pilots should know the limitations and restrictions they have .. Its not the controllers fault that some gung ho pilot accepts a LAHSO clearance and isn't able to comply. the pilot could have easily said no to the clearance and had the full use of the runway! the safety of the aircraft and it's passengers is always up to the highly trained crew in the front of the plane .. no one else can be at blame
to the clearance and had the full use of the runway! the safety of the aircraft and it's passengers is always up to the highly trained crew in the front of the plane .. no one else can be at blame
