JFK Near miss Cayman vs LAN Chile


#1

natca.net/mediacenter/press- … spx?id=521

4-5min into this audio
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kjfk/KJFK-Twr-Jul-06-2008-0030Z.mp3


#2

WOW! That would have been ugly…you could hear the controller just flipping…I know those guys really hump up there I can’t imagine how that felt.


#3

The question is…why did Cayman 792 have to initiate a missed approach on their own, in VFR conditions…creating the conflict.


#4

Too high, too fast maybe? I know those 737 “classics” don’t have the best slowing capabilities in the world…


#5

Updated: FAA says no near-miss at JFK

The Associated Press July 7, 2008

http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080707/NEWS/80707023


#6

An unstabilized approach will muck things up everytime. Go-arounds happen…they’re a fact of life. A majority of the time they are never an issue.

Let’s move on… :angry:


#7

Because I have all this time on my hands I was listening again to the recording, and the this is what I picked up:
@ 4:13 in LAN is given position and hold
@4:47 in Cayman calls and says he’s crossing Rushy for the VOR, no response from tower
@4:55 LAN clear t/o
@5:45 Cayman keys the mic and begins to talk
@6:00 twr gives the abrupt command for the cayman to turn and maintain 1000’
@6:25 twr tells the LAN to turn due to the missed aprch by the Cayman.

The twr answered and cleared the hvy AF to land imm. after the initial call by Cayman to the tower. Sounds to me like in the height of the calls, twr just didn’t hear Cayman, he kept coming on the aprch. did not get clear to land so he had to go around…sound logical?


#8

flightaware.com/resources/airpor … WY+22L/pdf

If Cayman was at RUSHY, doesn’t that cross indicate “Decission height”?

No clearance to land means he was pouring on the fire and going around.


#9

I think you might be right…I didn’t hear a cleared to land for Cayman, either…


#10

RUSHY is the Final Approach Fix (FAF) at 5 miles DME from the VOR. MAHAL is the missed approach point.

Agreed that the tower controller did not respond to Cayman 792’s call at RUSHY as he was a little busy. However, there was ample dead airtime following to call the tower again. I put this on the Cayman crew for not trying another call to the tower before initiating their own go-around. You can surmise by the next Cayman 792 transmissions that there was a crew disconnect going on.


#11

I agree that Cayman might have been “behind the airplane” and been more aggressive…

There could be a lot more here…the weather sounds like a factor for the arrivals…one aircraft says he picked up the runway at 800 feet…so if Cayman was behind the power curve the weather didn’t help him.

I wondered who the extra voice was just after the incident ( something about climb to 5000). Was the controller here a trainee with an instructor? Or was that a supervisor?

There was a lot going on (several of his departures hadn’t been switched to the NY Tracon yet, several arrivals…etc).

Also note how quickly the controller was relieved, so the tower knew that something serious had happened. That is standard procedure after an incident.

And, what was the staffing in the tower? How many eyeballs were looking out windows? Did the controller have a co ordinator helping him out with departure co ordination, etc? Why was only one local working instead of two at eight o’clock at night? I haven’t listened very closely, but it sure sounds like two locals about 10 minutes after the incident.


#12

I’m not sure if that recording is only the tower. Some of those LiveATC recordings are scanners that cut off or miss transmissions.


#13

It’ll be interesting to see what the NTSB comes up with.