Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 28, 2014, 08:38:04 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: LiveATC.net Flyers Released!  Please click here to download & print a copy and be sure to post at an airport near you!


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  "Close Call" at BOS - 3-6-07
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: "Close Call" at BOS - 3-6-07  (Read 10169 times)
PHL Approach
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743



« on: March 08, 2007, 02:24:38 PM »

We made the news again!

Link fixed:
http://www.southofboston.com/articles/2007/03/08/headlines/news/news01.txt

Here's a clip of the incident. I did alot of splicing from both the Final Vectors freq and Local Control freq. You might ask yourself why the landing clearance isn't in there. Seems that it got cut off and isn't in the archive.

Enjoy,
EJ

IMO, the DAL pilot seemed to not really understand the visual sep applied. Oh course I doubt this will become a big deal. Hence why I said in the subject "Close Call".
« Last Edit: March 08, 2007, 08:12:14 PM by PHL Approach » Logged
Biff
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 373



WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2007, 05:03:19 PM »

Yikes.

Your link is a little wonky.  Here's the corrected link.

Logged

cactushp
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174



« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2007, 05:48:53 PM »

Interesting. It appears uncertain wether Delta was issued visual separation witht the ERJ, although the ERJ had visual. Also, the Delta pilot was issued ILS approach clearance, so that means that he had to stay on the localizer....but it did not look like he did.
Logged

Scott Mulhollan
VATSIM ZAB
P50 TRACON Streamer
ogogog
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120



« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2007, 06:51:43 PM »

i dont get it were was the near miss the 145 was vis on the 757, just because delta got an RA dosnt mean there was a deal.
Logged
Babaloo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2



« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2007, 07:59:04 PM »

no error here ! the RJ is maintaining seperation, the DAL was told this, however he still must respond to the TCAS alert --happens all the time .
Logged
Walters
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31



WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2007, 10:02:29 PM »

must be company policy for pilots to respond to tcas b/c those two planes would be diverging (slightly) if they were both on thier final appch courses
Logged
digger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 281


« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2007, 12:17:20 AM »

Question--How come Chataqua didn't also get an RA?     huh
Logged
PHL Approach
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743



« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2007, 08:40:17 PM »

Question--How come Chataqua didn't also get an RA?     huh

That's my question! Maybe he did, but theoretically he was the one maintaining the visual. I guess he really didnt care...? Maybe he got an RA but of course had the 75 in sight still. Anyone pull up Passur? It's quite interesting to synch up to the original archives.
Logged
tag18
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #8 on: March 10, 2007, 09:32:54 PM »

I was actually on that DL flight...

Babaloo shacked it with his response.

The "maintain visual separation" responsibility was with the RJ as part of their visual approach clearance - and as best I can tell, they did it (even if it triggered the RA).

It's not common to be cleared for an ILS approach while instructed to "maintain visual separation" as ATC is providing separation by issuing the ILS approach clearance (they know exactly where the traffic is flying). Personally, I've never been instructed to "maintain visual separation" while on an ILS approach.

All in all it wasn't a big deal, other than the fact that we ended up getting re-vectored for a 20-mile final due to traffic volume into Boston.
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2007, 02:49:44 PM »

I heard something similar to this last year on the Syracuse, NY, feed. 

There was a C172 just north of the airport with a CFI and student aboard practicing some maneuvers while ATC was vectoring a Dash-8 (60 seat or so high-wing prop aircraft acting as a regional carrier for USAirways) nearby for approach.

Despite being VFR, the C172 was given the restriction of 2,000 feet and below to which the CFI acknowledged.  The controller then pointed out the traffic to the Dash-8.  A few seconds later the Dash-8 pilot called traffic in sight and then the controller responded with, "Maintain visual separation with the C172, cleared for the ILS 28 approach."

Perhaps a minute passed when all of a sudden the irate pilot of the Dash-8 calls approach to let them know they were responding to an RA from their TCAS.  The pilot then attempts to blame the C172 pilot for "getting too close to their aircraft" and the pilot goes on to berate the controller.  The controller calmly responded with the fact that the C172 was maintaining 2,000 feet and below and had not gone any higher during the incident.

"WTF, Dash-8 pilots??" I was thinking as I heard this on the frequency.  Didn't you just call traffic in sight minutes earlier and acknowledge the instruction to maintain visual separation? 

My guess as to what really happened?  Both pilots of the Dash-8 went back to eyeballs inside the cockpit after acknowledging the visual separation while they briefed and prepped the approach and were jarred back into reality when their TCAS screamed.

I should have made a clip of that exchange for here, but at the time I didn't think of it.
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!