Close call over NYC...any further info?

[DOVES]

@BOAC
I can feel the smell of Cicero’s “Partitiones oratoriae”: You answer with a question. But I will answer.
I might say no and not a comma would change in the value of my question. But I say yes, and, without pontificating, I will add: No one is infallible, not even an air traffic controller.
I’ve always had a good care of my life.
For instance when it came to divert in order to avoid a cumulonimbus cloud I never asked for a clearance; I simply informed the ATC of my intentions.

[MikeNYC]

Originally Posted by No Fly Zone

OMG! Now #AvGeek/bloggers (Rabinowitz) are considered ATC experts? I must have missed the memo about Jason's formal training and extensive experience in the busy NE corridor. Lots of possible 'expert' sources to consult and quote, by a geek/blogger (one of the very best, for sure) may not be the best choice. I think we can do a tiny bit better with our 'expert' sources.

Someone's got a bone to pick it seems. Where's the better source available? One of the other principals in that site is a Flight Dispatcher in NYC. Surely they've got access to decent information.

[aterpster]

Sounds to me like a sudden and potentially dangerous situation was well handled by all involved

Mostly well handled by Lady Luck.

[aterpster]

Atcos involved didn't make the procedures they operate under (ie what runways in use at the 2 airfields simultaneously). Had a double GA and had to do some rapid thinking to resolve. We've all been in sudden and extremely stressful situations, no point in thinking about how you got there, just resolve situation and give out later.

Worst case scenarios should always be planned for, however management are not always willing to do this when they can run with their new procedures to their bosses and show how many more movements they can get with their bright idea and get themselves promoted. I don't work in the States and I don't know what the procedures in NY are, I'm just trying to make a point in general.

You can go to skyvector.com and check out the layout of KJFK and KLGA.

The correct course of action would have been to direct the 747 to maintain runway heading and climb to X,XXX. Normally, the 747 would have been directed to turn right to approximately 070 but that was precluded by the parallel runway go-around in progress.

Instead, the controller turned the 747 left to a heading of 250 which, except for Lady Luck, would have resulted in a mid-air.

[aterpster]

Were 4L/4R being used for departures? If so then the Atco involved was in a tight place. Initially you would say a less severe left turn or runway heading would have been more appropriate, but depends on what was going on with the crossing runways........

I don't know for certain about that, but in view of the wind they were most likely using 13R for departures.

[fmgc]

If Mr. Controller says: "Maintain runway heading..." is there any doubt?

There is now!! I thought I knew exactly what to do, this is why I shouldn't read Pprune!!

[DOVES]

If Mr. Controller says: "Maintain runway heading..." is there any doubt?

Did you know?:
NTSB recommends changes after near misses on go-arounds - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

I didn't!

Current ATC rules ensure safe separation during arrivals and departures, but do not, the NTSB said, adequately account for aborted landings. “In such situations, a flight crew performing a go-around may be put into the position of having to execute evasive maneuvers at low altitude and high closing speeds with little time to avoid a mid-air collision,” the NTSB said in a press release.