Near Miss at LAX? True or False?

[flx757]

Several hundred feet is a little different than 50-100 feet..

Yep. That's why the investigators at the NTSB wil rule out most "eyewitness" accounts. They are so unreliable and most often contradictory. It is by far their least reliable bits of information gathered during an investigation. Even though they may interview hundreds or even thousands of eyewitnesses, very little usable information is gained from them.

Even though these witnesses believe that they are telling the truth, and usually honestly believe that what they are saying is accurate, it is often clouded by emotion and misunderstandings.

The running joke among investigators is "how many 'sputterers' did you interview today?". A reference to the unending number of "eyewitnesses" to any accident who report the aircraft's engine(s) "sputtering" just before the accident.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

I wanna know Navy boy why you are flying Dash 8's with all those aircraft you have listed and whom are you flying for?

Guess ya just can't pull off a good fraudulent resume these days.

 

[English]

Geez, Hugh, everyone thinks you are a fraud! I think you are keeping your secrets way too well! Keep up the good work.

Cathay 747400, you really have no clue about our buddy Hugh.

 

[Cathay747400]

Huh?

I have no clue? So am I to understand that he is an expert on aviation including Asian carriers. He knows all about flying heavy jets. He is typed in the L188 and DHC-8 and has vast experience and knowledge with 3000 hours. I guess next you'll tell me that the other guy is a NASA scientist. Please, criticize only things you can speak on with some degree of knowledge. The post about CX having a pretty good record of accidents, one a bomb and the other shot down is simply an assinine remark. If you want to enlighten me on what I am mssing, then please do so.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

If you want to enlighten me on what I am mssing, then please do so.

A fuking personality.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

And a sense of humor.

 

[homerjdispatch]

hugh,

Your last two posts just made reading the past three pages worth it.......

 

[mar]

Talk is cheap

http://www.faa.gov/apa/pr/pr.cfm?id=1877

Press Release

Contact: Fraser Jones
Phone: 202-267-3883
APA 32-04
Date Posted: August 31, 2004

U.S. Runway Incursions Continue Decline in 2003

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Runways at the nation’s airports are getting safer for the second year in a row. Runway incursions dropped 20 percent over a four-year period, according to an FAA report released today. U.S. airports recorded 324 incursions last year, of which just 32 were characterized as high risk. Those serious incidents have dropped 50 percent since 2000. For the second consecutive year, none of the most serious incursions involved two large commercial jets.

“The numbers tell the story. American runways are the safest the world has to offer,” said FAA Administrator Marion Blakey. “Pilot awareness programs and new technology continue to pay real safety dividends on the nation’s runways.”

The FAA continues leading an industry- wide effort to improve runway safety through increased education, training and awareness, along with new technology and improved airport runway markings and lighting. To prevent runway accidents, the FAA has delivered new technology called the Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS) to 34 airports, and is deploying the new Airport Surface Detection Equipment Model X (ASDE-X) to another 25 airports.

By definition, a runway incursion is when an aircraft, vehicle, person, or object on the ground creates a collision hazard, or is too close to an aircraft taking off, intending to take off, landing, or intending to land.

The 324 incursions last year were 15 less than in 2002. Under the FAA’s method of measuring incursions by severity categories from A to D, the higher-risk (A and B) incursions dropped to 32 last year, five less than in 2002. The incursion rate per million takeoffs and landings was 5.2, unchanged from 2002.

Reducing runway incursions is one critical safety objective of the FAA’s strategic “Flight Plan” through 2008. One of the “Flight Plan’s” performance targets is to reduce the number of category A and B runway incursions by a minimum of 48 percent, with no more than an average of 27 serious incursions per year by fiscal year 2008.

###

 

[Bluto]

maybe another one of those communication barrier things. Those Asian airlines are known for smashing good 747s.

It happened alright. I was on final to 24R a couple miles out and saw/heard the whole thing. The 74 was on short final to 24L when someone said, rather nervously over tower freq "Hey, that 747's going around!" Which at first, didn't seem all that weird to me. But then I heard people on freq start to talk about it. A 737 holding short of the runway estimated that the 74 missed the other plane by no more than 200 feet. Also, another crew who was on appch control when the 74 received clearance stated that they had heard them cleared for the visual to 24L. It didn't sound like a communication problem at the time, sounded more like an ATC error to me. Anyway, I can attest that it really did happen. I was wondering if it would ever come to light or get investigated, kind of eery to see how close they came.

 

[TR4A]

chperpltQuote:
Originally Posted by FAA
several hundred feet

Quote:
Originally Posted by TR4A
Asiana 744 almost tried land on a 737. Missed it by 50 to 100 feet when it went around. Some one said the details were on a Airliners Net forum.

Several hundred feet is a little different than 50-100 feet..

A 737 holding short of the runway estimated that the 74 missed the other plane by no more than 200 feet.

My report was from one of our pilots that saw it happen. 100-150 feet. The other report was from airlinersnet who said 50-100 feet.

When a 747 is going around over the top of 737 I would think it would be hard to estimate the clearence. I doubt it was several hundred feet according to ATC.

 

[chperplt]

I doubt it was several hundred feet according to ATC.

Really... You doubt that the information that FAA has from the radar screen is accurate?

I bet your the guy that saw it on fire before it crashed. Too bad it crashed because of fuel starvation.

 

[TR4A]

Really... You doubt that the information that FAA has from the radar screen is accurate?

I bet your the guy that saw it on fire before it crashed. Too bad it crashed because of fuel starvation.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040830X01323&key=1

NTSB Identification: LAX04IA302
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO
Incident occurred Thursday, August 19, 2004 in Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Boeing 737-7H4, registration: N461WN
Injuries: 182 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On August 19, 2004, about 1455 Pacific daylight time, a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-7H4, N461WN, was overflown by an Asiana Airlines Boeing 747 while the Southwest airplane was holding on the active runway 24L, at Los Angeles International Airport, Los Angeles, California. The Boeing 737 was operated by Southwest Airlines under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 121. There was no damage to the airplane nor injuries to the 182 passengers and crew. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight plan had been filed.

On August 24th Southwest Airlines safety personnel reported to the National Transportation Safety Board investigator that the captain of Southwest flight 440 reported that an Asiana Boeing 747 came with in 200 feet of his airplane while it was executing a missed approach. Southwest flight 440 was in position for takeoff on runway 24L and holding. The captain's statement indicates that he became concerned when the Asiana airplane did not come in to his view as it should have when landing on the parallel runway 24R. He began to move his airplane off the runway when the Asiana airplane overflew his, coming within 200 feet. Preliminary information indicates that the captain of the Asiana Boeing 747 identified the runway conflict and executed a missed approach.

 

[chperplt]

We must have a different understanding of the english language. I assume english is not your first language?

Out of curiosity, what makes you think the FAA got it wrong? The captain of the Southwest jet was making an educated guess. The FAA was using radar analysis to come up with their several hundred feet estimate. Maybe they pulled the FDR from the 747 and know exactly how low they got..

Either way, the FAA still knows more about the incident than you or I.. even if your friend did see it happen.

 

[TR4A]

Rotorhead

I am a product of the Southern California education system. English is my only language. I am going to believe my fellow pilots over some FAA spokeperson. What do you expect them to say? I'll wait until the final report comes out.

 

[DenverDude2002]

I have a techical question for you guys. Would the TCAS on the 744 have gone off with the Southwest 737 sitting there or is TCAS not active when a plane is on the ground? I know stupid question but Im just a stupid student pilot lol.

 

[TR4A]

I have a techical question for you guys. Would the TCAS on the 744 have gone off with the Southwest 737 sitting there or is TCAS not active when a plane is on the ground? I know stupid question but Im just a stupid student pilot lol.

No. The TCAS would not sound within 500 ft AGL. If it did you would get a Alert everytime you tried to land with an aircraft holding short. (assuming the transponder is on).

With TCAS you can see targets behind you on a limited range. On the 737NG you can actually tell if they are lined up on you. By the time you figure this out they are close to landing on you.

 

[TR4A]

NTSB Faults FAA Runway Safety Effort
November 10, 2004 A near-collision between a Boeing 747 and another plane in August has prompted US safety investigators to classify as unacceptable aviation regulators' efforts to improve runway safety.

The five-member National Transportation Safety Board was angry the incident in Los Angeles was not immediately reported and not initially classified by the Federal Aviation Administration as an air traffic control error.

At a hearing on safety priorities, some board members also questioned the accuracy of recent agency claims of considerable progress in making runways safer with technological and educational advances and a self-monitoring system for reporting controller mistakes.

Members expressed impatience with FAA efforts to reduce runway near-misses. They voted to lower the board's rating of agency progress on the problem to unacceptable from acceptable with slow progress. The board also disclosed two other near-misses in Cincinnati and Baltimore recently but it was unclear if controllers were at fault.

An accurate accounting of errors is crucial for gauging the effectiveness of aviation safety programs, including those that measure runway near-misses.

"This highly visible incident was not reported," said Debbie Hersman, a safety board member, referring to the August near-collision. "It may suggest a deeper reporting problem."

To underscore its displeasure with the FAA, the safety board released air traffic tapes on the August 19 incident at Los Angeles Airport, which investigators said would have been disastrous had the weather not been perfect.

With Asiana Airlines Flight 204, a Boeing 747, bearing down on the airport, the control tower cleared Southwest Airlines Flight 440 for takeoff on the same runway.

Seconds later the big jet pulled out of its landing approach and screamed over the top of the Southwest Boeing 737 that was holding on the runway.

"That was close," said an unidentified voice on the air traffic recording as the Asiana jetliner roared off just 200 feet above the ground.

Safety board investigator Sandy Rowlett said an automatic FAA anti-collision warning system for controllers activated as designed but was too late to help. She also said the board heard about the incident from Southwest, not the FAA.

Laura Brown, an FAA spokeswoman, defended agency progress over the years and said major runway incidents involving commercial carriers do not go unaddressed. The FAA reported a handful in fiscal 2003 and 2004. "The board is looking for a silver bullet," Brown said, explaining the response has required a coordinated mix of technology and human performance to be effective.

 

[rumorhasit]

From a guy with:

Aircraft Experience: Cessna 152,Cessna 172, Cessna 182, Thorp T-18,Piper PA28-161,PA28-181
Flight Experience: Civilian
Ratings: Student
Current Position: Staring at the Computer
Total Time: 40+

______________________________________________________________

okay tough guy what about abc news and ntsb site...are you going to post their creds on here too? It happened it was ATC error during a shift change...

 

[kilroy]

The confict between atc tapes on altitude and what pilots witness seem to about about 150 feet or so. My question on approach what kind of deck angle is a 747 approaching. I know nothing about a 747 except watching them on short final the nose is obviously much higher then the tail so if the transponder is located in the nose section the return to atc would indicated much higher then the tail of the aircraft appeared to those watching.

 

[shroomwell]

It was obviously an ATC error. However, I think people are overlooking an important fact. I don't think it was coincidence that It was a WN aircraft. Especially in CA, ATC has a kneejerk reaction to WN, it is cleared for take off and cleared direct to the marker, and thats while they are still at the gate.