Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 25, 2016, 06:51:30 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: No coverage in your area? If you are near your local airport contact us to learn about becoming a volunteer


+  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 29230 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: 255



« 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: 339



« 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: 339



« 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?
digger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 281


« Reply #15 on: December 11, 2007, 09:41:37 PM »

Quote
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?


The phrase uses a noun ("miss"), modified by an adjective ("near"). The adjective describes the distance involved.

It's a miss, at a distance that is not far, but near. It makes every bit as much sense as "near hit".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/near

Logged
athaker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 288



« Reply #16 on: December 11, 2007, 10:22:08 PM »

I say EVA couldn't handle the 13L Canarsie approach  wink
Logged
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #17 on: December 13, 2007, 01:01:29 PM »


Non issue;

Quote
NEW YORK - The Federal Aviation Administration said Tuesday that two jets landing on nearby runways at Kennedy Airport were never in danger, contradicting assertions by the air traffic controllers' union and a lawmaker that the planes almost hit each other.

A 37-seat American Eagle commuter jet and a Boeing 747 EVA Air cargo jet were cleared to land Sunday afternoon on runways that are perpendicular but don't intersect, said a spokesman for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.

The commuter jet's pilot decided not to land, fearing the effects of turbulence from the 747, the union spokesman said.

U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer on Monday said the two jets nearly collided, and he demanded the FAA immediately install the most advanced anti-collision technology at the region's three major airports — Kennedy, LaGuardia and Newark Liberty.

But FAA spokesman Jim Peters said Tuesday that after reviewing radar data from Kennedy, the agency concluded the two jets were never in any danger.

"It was a nonevent," Peters said. "There was no danger under the conditions that took place Sunday." 
Logged
DairyCreamer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


« Reply #18 on: December 13, 2007, 01:07:50 PM »

Riiiight.  A non-issue after the fact.  Always easy to say for the FAA.

If the two aircraft hadn't maneuvered as much, or the visibility had been worse, could have easily had an aluminium shower.

~Nate
Logged
mhawke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 106


« Reply #19 on: December 13, 2007, 01:32:55 PM »


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?

Saying "near hit" would be incorrect.  "Hit" means the strike has occured.  To saying near hit would simply mean you were close together when you hit.  (Which is already assuming since you have hit)  You would have to say they "nearly hit".


Anyways, I'm not a controller or pilot (didn't stay at Holiday Inn express either).  But I have to agree with other writers who said these things should be made public.  I hear them on here and other places all the time and it does not change my willingness to fly.  I still have faith that the pilot wants to do the right thing, along with everyone else.  I rest on the fact that the pilot is in the same plane as I am, and wants to get to the ground safely as much as I do.

But as a consumer and citizen, I want to know what is going on.  I hear all the controllers comlaining about working conditions, time on shift, etc.  The only way any of that is going to change, is through the public outrage.  Its sad to say, but the only thing that will cause that public outrage is events like this frequently getting made public.  Them getting blown out of proportion just helps fuel that fire.

I realize that those stories in public put the controllers in a bad light, and I would react negatively also, but in the end they are what is going to cause the flying public to put pressure on the government for change.


Again, just the ramblings a non-controller, non-pilot, frequent business traveler who loves to fly....
Logged
RV1
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #20 on: December 13, 2007, 07:17:55 PM »

It may seem that the media over dramatizes these events, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Yes, it's newsworthy, but it'd be even more so if the airplanes hit. John Q-Public has no idea how close airplanes get on a regular basis. Yes, with less than required seperation. It happens more and more. Unfortunately, when a controller speaks out about how bad it's getting, most people think it's just an overpaid, underworked , whiny controller wanting more money. If the public knew the actual facts, instead of what the FAA has told the media in order to paint the controllers as such, then there would be less people angry at the controllers, and more people really pissed at the FAA! We DO NOT all make $165K per year (if we did, I'm still waiting for the other half of my pay from last year), we work more than 45 minutes per hour, especially when we're short staffed and trying to accomplish training. Another thing to remember, no matter how much time we spend on position, we can pack a entire days worth of work into one 2 hour stint! Last home game, I was sequencing number 17 for the back course... It is the public that can get some of these things fixed, not controllers, remember, we can't strike or do job actions, we can get fired at the drop of a hat. It would be better if the public got involved NOW, and talk to your congressmen to get things fixed, before the near misses or near midairs become hits and collisions. Either one isn't too far in the future.
Logged

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

Posts: 288



« Reply #21 on: December 14, 2007, 02:52:41 AM »

CNN finally got around to it, calling it "Breaking News"

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/12/13/todd.airport.near.misses.cnn

Sounds like they might have used our clip...
Logged
Vince717
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #22 on: December 14, 2007, 01:26:50 PM »

Thanks for posting the information. I was able to view the Video's but the audio files are not
available! I don't know if this is due to the fact the JFK feeds were not available during that
period or is tied in to the maintenance that was being done on the website recently?

Vince717
Logged
steve_tus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #23 on: December 14, 2007, 03:57:34 PM »

Any truth to the rumor of a ground collision early this morning at JFK with a B6 Embraer and a Cargo 747?
Logged
cessna157
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708



WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 14, 2007, 05:21:50 PM »

I have a couple problems with this clip, but first I agree that there was no controller error here.  As a regular JFK flyer, I fail to understand why the EGF went around. 
First, why did the 747 go around?
Second, the controller merely gave a traffic advisory to the EGF that there was a 747 off to the right that was going around.
Third, why did the EGF go around?  If Eagle was landing on 22L, the go around from 13L would be well overhead.  Wake turbulence would not be an issue unless the EGF were to go around into the wake.
As I wasn't there, I don't have the sight picture of the situation.  It sounds as if after the controller issued his traffic advisory, he might have seen the Eagle start to go around, which is why he said they were cleared to land.
pure speculation though
Logged

CRJ7/CRJ9 F/O, Travel Agent
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 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!