GarageYears

************************************************************

NTSB INVESTIGATING NEAR COLLISION OF JETLINER AND SMALL
PLANE OVER AIRPORT IN CALIFORNIA

************************************************************

The National Transportation Safety Board has opened an
investigation into the near collision of a commercial
jetliner and a small private plane at the intersection of
two active runways at Burbank’s Bob Hope Airport in Southern
California.

At about 10:58 a.m. PDT on April 19, Southwest Airlines
flight 649, a Boeing 737-700 (N473WN) inbound from Oakland,
carrying 119 passengers and a crew of five was landing on
runway 8 while a Cessna 172, in the departure phase of a
“touch and go” on runway 15, passed over the 737. A “touch
and go” is a practice maneuver in which an aircraft briefly
lands on the runway before accelerating and becoming
airborne again.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration, the
airplanes came within 200 feet vertically and 10 feet
laterally of each other at the runway intersection. No one
was injured in the incident, which occurred under a clear
sky with visibility of 10 miles.

NTSB investigator Betty Koschig, an air traffic control
specialist based in Washington, is traveling to Burbank
today to begin the investigation.

Improving runway safety has been on the NTSB's Most Wanted
List of Safety Improvements since 1990:
NTSB - Most Wanted

Any more perspective? Sooner or (preferably much) later one of these incidents is going to go wrong.

- GY

AEST

Southwest Jet Was Within 200 Feet of Plane, U.S. Says (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

Piper_Driver

Burbank is a controlled airfield therefore it sounds like another ATC problem.

Because of the vertical separation cited I am wondering if the tower told the Cessna to go around. I've had that happen to me before when the controller messes up their estimate of where the traffic on an intersecting runway will coincide. When it's happened to me ATC usually lets me know soon after I'm established on final - before I get within a couple hundred feed of the ground.

bubbers44

Landing at Long Beach on 30 in a Lear Jet one day a Cessna was landing on a crossing runway 25L and told to go around. He didn't so yelled at my pilot buddy "Stop this MF now and we skidded to a stop half sideways just before the intersection as they staggered off 50 ft off our nose. Sometimes you are controlling a vast range of pilots ranging from pros to amateurs so you have to expect things to go wrong sometimes.

Robert Campbell

It seems to me to be a go around by the Cessna. Let's wait for the tape.

criss

bubbers44, seems the screw up happened earlier. What if, for any reasons, you had to go around as well? Was it really a Cessna pilot to blame?

bubbers44

Doesn't seem the 200ft encounter at Burbank was that big a deal. Non of the pilots involved had a problem with it. Did they?

bubbers44

criss, We were never advised of this conflict until about to flair for landing. The Cessna was told to go around but didn't. We did just fine slamming on the brakes and not causing an accident. I would do the same thing again.

criss

Bubbers, you're just making my point. You're blaming the Cessna pilot, for me, from your description, it was a clear ATC mess up. First, as you say, you were never told about the other traffic. And when was the Cessna told to go around? From what you say, probably quite late, someone trying to save his day.

411A

Eight out of ten of these kinds of incidents are ATC problems....so I'm told by a senior FAA inspector.

protectthehornet

if there is a collision or near collision at an FAA ATC airport...it is almost always an ATC error.

Bubbers was on his toes ( Litteraly )...and all pilots must be on the lookout for ATC errors that might put the pilots in danger.

Always a WHAT IF must be in your mind...WHAT IF ATC tells someone to go around and they don't? Do you want to measure professionalism at that instant...or can you imagine the controller making a radio call while the plane intended to receive the call might be transmitting and blocking the go around call?

be careful out there...ATC screwups can kill you.

Red Four

Wait for the investigation.

Is it possible the C172 pilot did not report final? Or did not orbit extend/downwind as instructed? Yeah, sure probably ATC should have done better, but there may be a whole lot of reasons leading to the incident that have not yet come out.

Basil

Just as an example: When on a short ground tour as an RAF ATCO I'd a student in a Chipmunk fail to obey repeated instructions to remain clear of the circuit. As a result an operational four jet returning from task short of fuel was forced to go around.

My opinion? Don't mix ab initio students with big jets.

Basil

I presume one can request to be controlled in English at Beautiful Burbank?

Crash and Burn

Merely speculation: perhaps the controller had intended to say "cleared to land and hold short" with a brain / tongue interface failure.

This procedure is not something we employ on this side of the pond but when considering the aerodrome layout and common aviation practices in the USA, perhaps it was just a slip of the tongue with potentially catastrophic consequences.

mm_flynn

I would be very surprised if a controller speaking with circuit traffic (i.e. traffic that has requested touch and goes) to have brain fade if he meant to say Land and Hold Short.

214's interpretation of the tape is correct - it is actually quite clear American. Interestingly at 29:10 SW649 seems to be having a routine conversation about his gate and at 29:50 15R is still in the circuit for a second landing/T&G (he has been cleared 'for the option' - which in English means, you may execute a touch and go, stop and go, low pass, go around, or full stop landing what ever you wish).

Neither of these communications sounds unusual or like either crew felt that they had a close encounter. I don't know what the minimum separation requirement is for a departing aircraft overflying a landing aircraft - however, based on the tapes everyone seemed to have been accepting at the time.

bubbers44

Having landed at Burbank many times both general aviation and airline a B737 landing on 8 would be down to taxi speed crossing 15 and could easily hold short if advised. The touch and go Cessna on 15 would have been at least 200 ft crossing 8 so there was no danger. Why make this a near miss when it clearly wasn't? Like the SFO incident, hopefully everyone has forgotten by now, lets study real incidents, not just the hyped up news reports.

bubbers44

411A, notice that if 8 out of 10 times it is an ATC error, 10 out of 10 fatalities are pilots and their passengers.

MU3001A

This one involving potential conflict with a firetruck.

Report: Pinnacle CRJ2 at Detroit on Dec 4th 2009, fire truck cleared to cross runway during departure roll

bubbers44

Burbank seems pretty benign compared to this non newsworthy event. Pilots should never let a controller affect their safety of flight. Trust, but verify, comes to mind.