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?