2nd near miss at JFK


#1

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080711/ap_on_go_ot/jfk_near_collision


#2

That would have been a disaster for Delta.


#3

New procedures at JFK…as if they needed more delays.


#4

Wow! robbreid slacking again!


#5

Please… :unamused:

On Friday, the Delta jet, a Boeing 757, and the Comair plane, a Bombardier CRJ9, came within 600 feet of each other vertically and a half-mile horizontally, the FAA said.

We…and I mean everyone who flys…have the potential to fly with less separation than that, and have legal separation. As a matter of fact, last week over ADS I flew directly over the top of a Cessna 172 with 500’ vertically between us. And it was legal separation for the VFR conditions.

This is just more fear mongering… Some idiot Continental passenger cries to the media about go-arounds and all of a sudden it’s a big hot button. The ignorance has got to stop. Go-arounds happen everyday, all over the country. 99% of the time safe separation is not compromised…including today’s JFK incident.


#6

ATC Tape


#7

I fully concur with that, and I’m not even a pilot. But I see this stuff happening all the time around here, and it’s a non-issue. Helicopters arriving/departing KSEE are usually required to cross the parallels midfield at 900’ msl, field elevation 388’. A difference of 512’ vertical separation IF traffic is rolling. It would be less if the typical cessna/cherokee was already airborne by the 17 intersection. Non-event.
At KSAN I see a lot of transitions over the airport (Delta crossing), some at 1000, with oncoming traffic at 1500, all the while a 757 is flaring over the threshhold directly underneath. It’s VFR. Non-event. Move along, nothing to see here. Eyewitless News…


#8

That’s what I was thinking. This kind of news is robbreid’s forte.


#9

Exactly! At HPN we call this…Friday! Come on people, airplanes taking off and landing on crossing runways often get close. Kinda the nature of the beast. The real question is why, with 2 sets of parallel runways, does JFK continue to do this? It doesn’t seem as if the are landing on BOTH the 13s and departing on BOTH the 4s when this stuff happens.


#10

Actually when I read a half mile, I thought hmmm. I’ve seen them that close in Toronto lots of times.

Here is ANN’s take; Click Here.

As for me, I was over at Downsveiw Airport, which is the Bombardier Plant were they assemble the DHC-8-400’s and the Global Express. Also on the field is Toronto Aerospace Museum.

They have a 1943 Stinson Reliant that just came out of a two year restoration. They flew it yesterday to the Genesee County Airshow in New York State. However to get it onto the runway, we had to take down a fence, push the plane thru the hole in the fence, and spin it around on the wet ground. That plane was heavy . . .

So I was a little tired from pushing, but if the near miss had a been a biz jet, I’d have been there!!!


Aircraft in the parking lot.

Finally on the airside of the fence.

Croatia Airlines returning from test flight.

Challenger taking forever as the Stinson is on Empty and needs to
go over to Buttonville for fuel before heading to New York.

That is my story, and I’m sticking too it!!!


#11

It always sounds like the same controller on the tapes at JFK. That guy needs a day off.


#12

You guys are mixing your apples with your apples.

These were two IFR aircraft. That’s the difference.


#13

Yikes, this is from todays Dublin News;

Around 170 passengers travelling from Ireland to New York escaped injury yesterday when the plane they were travelling in almost crashed with another aircraft.

The Delta Flight 123 from Shannon Airport to JFK came within a half mile of crashing with a regional jet when the pilot aborted his landing in heavy congestion.

According to the US Federal Aviation Administration the Boeing 757 came within 600 vertical feet and a half-mile horizontally of the other jet.

It is the second such incident at JFK in a week forcing the FAA to change their takeoff and landing procedures.


#14

Not in terminal airspace under VMC.


#15

More sensationalistic ignorance from the media. :unamused:


#16

So, what IFR separation was being supplied before the aircraft were turned?


#17

Standard terminal separation was provided up to the point of the go-around. At the point of the go-around, whether it is initiated by the pilot or instructed by the controller, the controller provides intructions to maintain safe separation. Safe separation essentially means, so they don’t hit each other. The go-around is a non-standard procedure however, the majority of the time it is a very controlled one.

Remember…a go-around is a visual manuever, conducted in VMC. A missed approach is an instrument procedure conducted in IMC. During IMC operations terminal aircraft separation changes and procedures change to meet the separation requirements. VMC allows for increased operations, therefore reducing delays, by having the ability to see and avoid other traffic. But in order for it all to work, everyone must play their part in the chaotic orchestration…on the ground, in the air, and in the tower. When someone gets out of rhythm, a go-around can be the result. This is what happens when the airlines schedule 100 operations in a time span that can only accomodate 50.

The point being in this case is that the two aircraft were not in danger as they didn’t encroach VFR separation minimums under the VMC conditions they were in. So it’s not a near miss, near hit, or whatever you want to call it.


#18

The reason this is a big deal is that they are 2 IFR air carrier aircraft. Doesn’t matter what the weather is.

A tower controller can use visual separation only when:

7−2−1. VISUAL SEPARATION
Aircraft may be separated by visual means, as
provided in this paragraph, when other approved
separation is assured before and after the application
of visual separation. To ensure that other separation
will exist, consider aircraft performance, wake
turbulence, closure rate, routes of flight, and known
weather conditions. Reported weather conditions
must allow the aircraft to remain within sight until
other separation exists. Do not apply visual
separation between successive departures when
departure routes and/or aircraft performance preclude
maintaining separation.

The key phrase there is “when other approved separation is assured before and after the application of visual separation”.

The tower could not apply visual separation in this case, since they had no “assured” IFR separation at the beginning.

All they had here was “hope they don’t hit” separation.


#19

Firstly, as I stated; “a go-around is a visual manuever” and does not require or ensure IFR separation.

Secondly, from your quote above “when other approved separation is assured before and after the application of visual separation” Once a go-around is initiated, other approved separation is provided by the very intent of a controller instruction.

There is nothing to be gained by confusing this situation with semantics. A go-around is conducted due to unplanned circumstances, and is a non-standard VFR procedure which then warrants non-standard separations to avoid a collision.

My whole point is that the 757 and the RJ came no closer to each other than other aircraft do under legal VFR separation. A comparison made to point out that aircraft pass that close, or closer to each other all of the time and it’s not considered a near miss. It’s only become a “big deal” because the ignorant media has created that perception. These occurrences are nothing new, the media has now just chosen to sensationalize them.


#20

These are two IFR aircraft. Neither is VFR.