FAA to probe near-collision involving Midwest jet
 

Oct. 27, 2009 8:32 a.m. | The Federal Aviation Administration is looking into why a Midwest Airlines jet on the runway at the Los Angeles International Airport nearly collided Sunday with a Northwest Airlines jet.
Midwest flight 1503 had just arrived from Milwaukee when the Embraer E-190 came less than 100 feet from colliding with a Northwest Boeing 757 that was rolling down the runway to take off for Honolulu, according to the Contra Costa Times newspaper.
The paper quotes a FAA spokesman as saying the Midwest jet's pilot had been told to turn onto another taxiway and stop, but the plane continued toward the path of the Northwest jet. An air traffic controller noticed and ordered the Midwest jet to stop.

Just another instance of landing aircraft forgetting to hold short of the inner runway at LAX. How many times is this gonna happen before something changes??

I know that the pilots screwed up, but this keeps happening and it is a crappy system. I'm sure it will take a major accident for the FAA to finally do something about it. :ugh:

Was this Midwest....or the replacements (Republic), that are putting the Midwest pilots out on the street?

Mods - Shouldn't "LAX near collision after runway incursion" be a sticky by now?

"...I'm sure it will take a major accident for the FAA to finally do something about it. :ugh:..."



Thirty four killed when USAir landed on top of Skywest on 24L at LAX nearly 20 years ago. So I'd say that was pretty major.....

Shouldn't there be a system of 'traffic lights' at every junction that would show red (or green) if the route was closed (or clear)?

I'm sure that there is already sufficient technology onboard to enable an automatic system to track aircraft on taxiways.

If not, then all routes that lead directly onto active runways should show red. That's not beyond capabilities, Shirley?

Totally agree with G-CPTN's post....how difficult is it to put red stop bars on all runway access taxiways and end this glaring oversight. So easily and cheaply cured, so why isn't it mandated NOW?

Don't they already have the Traffic light system at Singapore & London Heathrow?

For the love of god ... as movable ballast, may I ask:

Are there any pilots left out there who actually know what they're doing?

"Oh, it's not the pilots' fault, there should be traffic lights at crossing points." How much brain power does it take to look out of the window when approaching a runway - whether cleared to cross or not? A great big 757 thundering towards you should give you a clue that you may need to stop!

"Oh, it's not the pilots' fault, the runways should be lit better than the taxiways then we poor pilots won't be confused and land on the wrong one".

"Oh it's not the pilots fault, the government should have sent fighter jets up to attract their attention and alert them to the fact that they'd missed the destination airport by 150 miles."

OK, rant over, but the question remains.

I hope that cathartic rant made you feel better. However, it is misplaced.
Flying is not 'safe'. The lack of fatal incidents is due to a slavish dedication and analysis of every accident to identify all the human, social, CRM and mechanical factors that led to it and try to avoid them in the future. (febrile rants like yours notwithstanding)

Every line in a pre-flight checklist is inked with the blood of innocents who died before.

A series of conducting wires under the tarmac at strategic intervals can magnetically deduce the exact location of every aircraft w/o need for radar or self-reporting.

Traffic lights..who needs em?

"Oh, it's not the pilots' fault, the runways should be lit better than the taxiways then we poor pilots won't be confused and land on the wrong one".

Shouldnt they be? (better lit I mean?)

EVERYTHING can ultimately be charged to pilot error. Hero Sullengberger, perhaps according to your way of thinking, should have known he was in a Migratory Bird Route and been more situationally aware in the 1st place!

But the fact is, the engine shut down is an automatic Airbus protection mechanism (protect the engines - **** the pax!) and the NWA 150 mile excursion exposed flaws in the system as well. Pilots WILL fall asleep, pilots (AND copilots) WILL break regs, and become distracted, throwing it back at pilots saying its THEIR JOB and not making changes to the system will only lead to death, later

No, it can't.

But when, on the occasions that it is pilot error, there is still a culture among (other) pilots of denying the fact.

That's my point.

Actually seeing that 757 thundering toward you is a lot harder than it sounds. Due to the angle that highspeed taxiways intersect runways and the speed of approach of the 757 and the fact that you have to look where you are going it is difficult to look over your shoulder to see the approaching aircraft. All the more reason to stop unless you know for sure you are cleared to cross.

Well, no. It really doesn't.

Ever stood between multiple closely spaced railway tracks with trains coming in both directions and had to figure out where to go to keep from getting run over?

With arriving traffic landing at 150 mph and departing traffic using the same runways, and taxiing traffic going every direction at once during normal routine business, one is faced with a spiderweb of taxiways that all look very similiar. Radio traffic is fast enough paced at KLAX that it's one of the few places where pilots don't even read back their clearance. Simply their aircraft number and transponder code...there simply isn't time to do any more...and pilots are advised as much over the ATIS information system.

Traffic moving to the runway frequently must cross multiple runways, or stop between them, and exiting traffic must do so at high speeds, often across other runways or to intermediate taxiways that separate them.

Runway incursions have been the hottest topic with the FAA for several years now. Because of the education effort and awareness campaigns, the number of incursions is dropping.

When landing and taxiing clear on a high speed runway exit, it's often difficult to tell which aircraft are where. If it were just one 757 to watchout for, that might be fine. However, there may be 30 757's, all moving in different directions, to say nothing of a seaof EMB-XXX's, MD-80's, 747's, 737's, 777's, A-320's, etc, all in motion. Some of traffic may be on the same frequency, but as one clears the runway, usually it isn't.

Runway signage and markings can be misinterpreted.

Devices such as illuminated stop bars are safet oriented, and have proven very helpful. Let's face it, we don't fly in a vacum. When we fly, we have an airplane around us, adequate radar and radios, engine instruments, airport diagrams, and even external equipment like airport and runway lighting. Stop bars are a part of this system, as are lead-in lights and stop bar lights. Tools for doing the job.

Brize Norton RAF base in the UK, one of the busiest, has traffic lights....seems an obvious safety measure.

kenhughes,
A couple of other situations which make it impossible to have visual contact wth traffic on the runway, either landing or departing are:
Reduced visibility.
Undulating runway when traffic is in the dip.

We should always strive for excellence and zero accidents however, for anyone, including pilots, who thinks we're bad, try reading Dr Phil Hammond's book about failings in the UK NHS: 'Trust Me I'm (still) a Doctor'

Don't forget that the wingspan of a distant aircraft can be way less that the visual width of a cockpit window divider post.

It's not exactly easy to pick up a couple of wing tips growing either side of a_over_the_shoulder window post.

Been there, done that, greyer as a result.

It was a Republic E190 in Midwest colors - not that it was their damned idea to put Midwest pilots on the street. We have management to thank for that. If you'd like to sign up for that particular flame war, the peanut gallery at flightinfo would be more than happy to accommodate you.

Back on topic: LAX ground traffic CF + Crew that had likely landed at said airport only enough times to count on one hand = Potential for fun times on takeoff roll.

Yes, it can. If you are unable to do so you only lack imagination.

You are ranting away a perfectly sound suggestion to install a simple, yet effective safety-enhancing device.

Apparantly you rather blame the pilots than seriously and pro-actively try to think about ways to improve the safety of the aviation system. Unfortunatly, that simple-minded judgemental attitude has cost lives in the past and will cost lives in the future.

Since you yourself may be one of those future victims, your rant is pretty ignorant and very counter-productive.

It is realtively easy to blame, much more difficult to identify opportunities without blame and these internet aviation discussion threads in general seem to completely miss any opportunities for how to fix a problem short of saying someone should throw money at it.

That's why safety problems go on for years until somebody figures out what to do about them.

<<A series of conducting wires under the tarmac at strategic intervals can magnetically deduce the exact location of every aircraft w/o need for radar or self-reporting.>>

How is the aircraft identity derived from such a system? Given a busy airport with maybe 20-30 aircraft taxying at the same time aircraft which mis-route have to be quickly identified to ATC.