2 Jets at LAX Were 82 FT Apart

[SEVEN]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/FAA-2-jets-were-only-about-82-apf-3444908831.html?x=0&.v=2


Wow....that was really close.

 

[M-crit]

Why don't the take off on the outer most runways at LAX, and land on the innermost thus eliminating the need to cross in active runway after landing?

 

[nerjdriver]

It doesnt matter. Why didnt the RAH pilots pay attention......Im sure they were too busy stroking their egos with the 190.

Unacceptable.

 

[crashpad]

The pilots in question; what were their qualifications? What is the action taken by the FAA? What action will be taken by their management?

 

[SEVEN]

The pilots in question; what were their qualifications? What is the action taken by the FAA? What action will be taken by their management?

This will be covered by the ASAP most likely. This situation differs from the NWA incident. That was intentional disregard for safety and reckless. This was not intentional. Probably retraining and a letter of warning from the FAA for not following ATC clearance. I could be wrong though.

 

[Stifler's Mom]

is this another case of LAX not having a parallel taxiway to roll out on to?

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

This will be covered by the ASAP most likely. This situation differs from the NWA incident. That was intentional disregard for safety and reckless. This was not intentional. Probably retraining and a letter of warning from the FAA for not following ATC clearance. I could be wrong though.

You're probably correct. That's why it's so key to make sure both pilots communicate and verify each crossing as well as maintain heads up.

 

[InTransit]

Why don't the take off on the outer most runways at LAX, and land on the innermost thus eliminating the need to cross in active runway after landing?

This is the less cluttered and ultimately safer method. There are a number of reasons: Landing aircraft are typically furthered from airport (terminal) obstructions (consider low-vis approaches), parallel approach margins are increased, landing aircraft use high-speed taxiways that are less congested than the inner taxiways, departing aircraft are not required to cross runways individually and in step with landing aircraft spacing (increasing ATC workload).

 

[WayBack]

They were probably checking the latest FI.com info on their iPhones.

 

[Minimaniac]

I am never sure why so much effort is wasted on figuring the exact separation between aircraft. It was a runway incursion, ATC was required to intervene, and there was an actual conflict that could have been catastrophic. Does it matter if it was 82 ft vs. 100 ft. vs. 20 ft?

 

[viper548]

Why don't the take off on the outer most runways at LAX, and land on the innermost thus eliminating the need to cross in active runway after landing?

You have to cross runways either way. Crossing planes to get to the outboard runway would decrease the departure rate.

 

[viper548]

is this another case of LAX not having a parallel taxiway to roll out on to?

A different article said Republic landed 25L and failed to hold short of 25R. There is a parallel taxiway between those runways.

 

[Stifler's Mom]

A different article said Republic landed 25L and failed to hold short of 25R. There is a parallel taxiway between those runways.

Thanks Viper.

 

[ual321]

How could two Midwest professionals allow this to happen, I mean, the combined experience level between the two..........oh wait a minute......sorry it was a rent-a-crew.

 

[RobCat]

How could two Midwest professionals allow this to happen, I mean, the combined experience level between the two..........oh wait a minute......sorry it was a rent-a-crew.

Last I checked RAH owned that route, plane, and crew.

 

[AirBill]

How could two Midwest professionals allow this to happen, I mean, the combined experience level between the two..........oh wait a minute......sorry it was a rent-a-crew.

So what's these guys' excuses?

On July 11, 2007, at 1437 Eastern daylight time a runway incursion occurred at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Airport, (FLL), Fort Lauderdale, Florida between United (UAL) flight 1544, an A-320 and Delta Airlines (DAL) flight 1489, a Boeing 757. The incident occurred in day visual flight rules conditions, visibility 10 miles, scattered clouds at 4,800 feet.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this incident as follows:

The probable cause of this incident was the United flightcrews' inadvertant entry onto an active runway.

 

[chqflyer]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33652981/ns/travel-news

 

[Baronman]

Last I checked RAH owned that route, plane, and crew.

Unfortunately.

 

[AirBill]

Baronman
Registered User

Posts: 229
Civ/Mil: Civ
A/C Flown: Kite, Katana
Ratings: Recreational Pilot

Uh-huh. Real expert here.

 

[airplane wizard]

Why don't they takeoff on 7/25 and land on 6/24 or visa versa. They would still have 2 rwy's each for departures and arrivals, but wouldn't have to cross an active as much