Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 02, 2014, 07:39:41 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: NEW Follow LiveATC updates on Twitter and Facebook


+  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 17283 times)
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: 177


« 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
BWilliams
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #25 on: December 14, 2007, 08:55:11 PM »

In my non-pilot opinion, it really doesn't sound like it was a HUGE deal just from the clip.  Any idea of the actual separation at their closest? 

From what I hear, tower was just trying to give Eagle an idea of what was around them, and when the Eagle started to go around, it sounded more like the controller was just worried what the planes were going to do. 

Hazardous and nerve-wracking, yes, but not not an IMMEDIATE danger. 
Logged
digger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 281


« Reply #26 on: December 14, 2007, 09:45:17 PM »

Quote
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.

It's hard to know exactly how it looked to Eagle flight.  Had Eva Air landed, they'd almost certainly have passed above the wake, but where might that wake have been since the 747 was going around? If you think about, they were low, slow, and all dirtied up for landing. That's probably the last place you'd want to encounter the wake from a 747...
Logged
w0x0f
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 322



« Reply #27 on: December 16, 2007, 05:46:38 PM »

Meanwhile, back at the FAA...

Logged
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!