Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 16, 2014, 03:44:55 AM
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
| |-+  Listener Forum (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  JFK Near Miss
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: JFK Near Miss  (Read 16297 times)
DairyCreamer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


« on: December 10, 2007, 10:26:06 PM »

Near Miss at JFK WABC coverage:

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=5825926

Anyone hear this live?

~Nate
Logged
aevins
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 253



« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2007, 11:36:51 PM »

First in almost 3 years, I hope we have audio
Logged
DairyCreamer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2007, 11:38:04 PM »

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kjfk/KJFK-Twr-Dec-09-2007-2030Z.mp3

Start listening around 22 mins about.

EVA 747 and an American Eagle.  Actual incident starts at  24:20 with EVA saying he's going around.

~Nate
« Last Edit: December 10, 2007, 11:40:11 PM by DairyCreamer » Logged
athaker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 288



« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2007, 11:38:47 PM »

Here it is:
(Should so have been studying for finals instead of doing this)

The two aircraft were EGF753 and EVA632.  Eva, landing 13L calls go around first, then EGF, landing 22R.

By my calculations, it occurred at about 2053Z, 12/09/07.

The clip is in real time from the beginning until both aircraft are sent over to departure.  I then cut to and left in the immediate next transmissions by that controller, out of extreme respect for him.  His voice goes right back to that normal, confident level.  He definitely ate his wheaties, and I give him a serious high-five.
Logged
Lezam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 392


KJFK Stream Feeder


« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2007, 12:35:34 AM »

Now the question is, was this pilot or controller error?
Logged

moto400ex
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 227


« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2007, 01:35:50 AM »

How could this be controller error?  The only error could think of was the EVA jet pilots not landing. How did the pilots of the eagleflight jet know to go around?  It was deffinetly a good decision to avoid wake turbulence.  Speaking of wake turbulence got to experience some a couple weeks ago from a  cessna citation and I was in a piper warrior.  Not a good feeling when you get tossed around uncontrollably.  Cant imagine being in the wake of a larger jet.
Logged
DairyCreamer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2007, 08:41:15 AM »

Now the question is, was this pilot or controller error?

From the sound of it on the radio, not a bloody chance it is really controller error.  The BTA shouldn't have executed a go around.  However, it's the pilot's perogative.  And the converging runway procedures are just begging for this sort of thing to happen.  MEM had its day in the "converging sun" a few months back when one tried to go around right in to the path of an aircraft landing at a 90* angle.

What pisses me off is the WABC news story where the FAA said "both pilots asked for and got permission" to do a go around.  Such BS.

Wouldn't be surprised if they try to pin this on the controller as well at some level.

~Nate
Logged
dorishd
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 61



« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2007, 09:37:27 AM »

below is the track of both flights

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/EGF753/history/20071209/1950Z/CYUL/KJFK

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/EVA632/history/20071209/1453Z/PANC/KJFK

you can clearly see the go around for EGF753.  EVA632 go around is hard to see due to the scale.
Logged
cool92092
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6



« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2007, 09:41:43 AM »

The problem is not the pilot, the problem is not the controller, the problem is the stupid media that turn everything into a witch hunt. Close calls happen everyday, in every field not just in avaition and in my opinion when a close call doesn't turn into an accident, it becomes a terrific learning experience.  I listened to the transmission a couple of times and couldn't really hear anything out of the ordinary, a situation occurred, the controller reacted to the situation, the pilots responded, everything was back to normal. Sure the orders were expedited but that's what you have to do to keep things safe.
The problem gets exacerbated because everything in aviation is a gray area to the lay people. When they hear jargon like min fuel and lost separation they think that their world is going to end and the media just gives them what they want, someone to blame for their irrational fear. Part of me likes the fact that only a small number of people know the intricacies of how the airspace system functions, another part would like more people to know so that they stop this mass paranoia/histeria. -- side note, the movie "the mist" has some great clips about how a mass of people is so primal and instinctual, just reminds me of how they react to the media's coverage of aviation --

Another thing that I'm going to rant about is the term "Near miss". Is everyone so illiterate these days they don't know the difference between a near miss and a near hit?
Logged

-"Nxyz Do you require any assistance?"
-"ugghh.....Standyby"
dorishd
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 61



« Reply #9 on: December 11, 2007, 10:03:22 AM »

Quote
mass paranoia/histeria


Is there really mass paranoia/histeria? I think most people will see this on the news, or read about it and not think twice about flying. When you go through an airport, do you see people hunched over, rocking back and forth, afraid to fly? Do you hear of hysterical passengers on flights? There is a natural fear of course, but in my opinion the mass paranoia and mass hysteria is blown out of proportion.  Does anyone agree/disagree?
Logged
DairyCreamer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


« Reply #10 on: December 11, 2007, 10:20:11 AM »

The problem is not the pilot, the problem is not the controller, the problem is the stupid media that turn everything into a witch hunt. Close calls happen everyday, in every field not just in avaition and in my opinion when a close call doesn't turn into an accident, it becomes a terrific learning experience.  I listened to the transmission a couple of times and couldn't really hear anything out of the ordinary, a situation occurred, the controller reacted to the situation, the pilots responded, everything was back to normal. Sure the orders were expedited but that's what you have to do to keep things safe.
The problem gets exacerbated because everything in aviation is a gray area to the lay people. When they hear jargon like min fuel and lost separation they think that their world is going to end and the media just gives them what they want, someone to blame for their irrational fear. Part of me likes the fact that only a small number of people know the intricacies of how the airspace system functions, another part would like more people to know so that they stop this mass paranoia/histeria. -- side note, the movie "the mist" has some great clips about how a mass of people is so primal and instinctual, just reminds me of how they react to the media's coverage of aviation --

Another thing that I'm going to rant about is the term "Near miss". Is everyone so illiterate these days they don't know the difference between a near miss and a near hit?

First, they (controllers, the FAA, media, etc) have been calling them "near misses" for ages.  The long-standing question has been why we don't call them near hits, but, alas, the term near miss remains.  They call them near misses for asteroids too.  Go figure.

Second... converging operations that are conducted in this manner may be "common," but that doesn't necessarily mean they are safe.  Again, go back to what happened at MEM earlier this year.  They had been running these operations consistently for a long time under the guise that the FAA gave them a waiver to do it and that it was a safe operation.  Well, if that a/c had climbed and not stayed low to the deck on the go, there'da been a catastrophy.

Last night, if the EGF had gone around sooner and higher than they did, they might well have smacked the 747, and we'd have a very interesting news day indeed.  They got lucky, that wasn't safe.

This isn't mass paranoia or histeria, this is an issue of raw safety.  Again, I don't think it was the controller's fault.  I don't even really blame the pilot, even though IMO the EGF should have just landed.  Of course, there's no way to replay the decision making in the EGF's cockpit based on what they saw, heard, and otherwise.  The controller obviously wanted them to continue and land, presumably because the EVA would have been well clear while climbing. EGF felt otherwise, and planes got uncomfortably close.

Controllers don't get the OMG WTF tone in their voice for no reason.  Even if the situation is tight but controllable, usually things will stay on the level.  I think the evidence is clear that $h|t was going down there for about 30 seconds.  I don't blame the controller or pilots.  It's the procedures in place that may well be changing now that something like this is being exposed.  To go back to the MEM thing, once that incident hit the news, their converging operations stopped.

~Nate
Logged
w0x0f
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 316



« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2007, 11:46:19 AM »

First, they (controllers, the FAA, media, etc) have been calling them "near misses" for ages.  The long-standing question has been why we don't call them near hits, but, alas, the term near miss remains.  They call them near misses for asteroids too.  Go figure.
The FAA (AIM 7-6-3) and most controllers refer to these incidents as Near Midair Collisions (NMAC.)  The media and the public generally refer to these incidents as near misses.

  To go back to the MEM thing, once that incident hit the news, their converging operations stopped.
 
This is very similar to the MEM incident.  The Converging Runway Display Aid (CRDA) was implemented to solve that problem and resume converging operations.  CRDA projects ghost targets onto a controllers scope to hit gaps on a converging runway so that ties such as this do not occur.  I've used CRDA and really not a big fan.  Some people love it.  I'm not sure how it would work at JFK, but it may come up in future media reports.

w0x0f   
Logged
RV1
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2007, 11:55:48 AM »

In my opinion, it's kudos to the EGF pilot. Smart move. The wake turbulance and jet blast created by a 747 going around at that altitude would be incredible, and then you factor in the EGF trying to land as well. It would be enough to severely damage the EGF if not flip him over. Imagine the pilot trying to decide where to point his plane in order to avoid the Boeing Bullseye in front of him, and the turbulance caused by said Bullseye. Simultanious Operations On Intersection Runways, SOIRS have been used for many years, and there has always been the potential for problems should both airplanes go around.
My favorite has always been SOODRs. (Simultanious Operations on Opposite Direction Runways).
  It wasn't the controllers fault. It wasn't the pilots fault. It was the asphalt.
Logged

Kick butt, take no names, they dont matter anyways
w0x0f
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 316



« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2007, 12:52:31 PM »

After checking the preliminary news reports today, it appears that Sen Chuck Schumer is pushing hard for ASDE-X at all of the NY area airports.  ASDE-X is nice technology, but it wouldn't have prevented the incident on Sunday. 

The NMAC on Sunday is a result of trying to put too many aircraft into an airport that was not designed to handle this volume.  Perpendicular operations are inherently dangerous.  Unfortunately, this is how they have to do it at JFK.  You have to consider not only the runway configuration, but also the close proximity of LGA and EWR, not to mention the other high volume general aviation airports close by. 

The controllers at the NY TRACON and all of the towers in the NY area work their butts off every day to make this thing work.  They do an incredible job under less than ideal conditions.  I am amazed that we don't have incidents such as this occurring more often.  The bad news is that more controllers are retiring as soon as they are eligible due to the lack of a contract with NATCA and the oppressive work rules imposed upon the controllers.  Things will only get worse before they get better.  Newly hired trainees are not ready to fill the void that is left.

w0x0f         
Logged
kaktak1
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2007, 07:22:40 PM »

But you must imagine the kind of pressure/stress/anxiety that those controllers go through.
Logged

If black boxes survive air crashes — why don't they make the whole plane out of that stuff?
Pages: [1] 2 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!