Today at LAX at around 3pm, there was almost a terrible crash involving a 744 and 2 737s.

A Southwest 737 was taxiing to rwy 24L and had managed to nearly line up on its centerline. Towards the end of the runway, another Southwest 737 was crossing 24L from 24R. As these normal operations are going on, an Asiana 744 is coming down on finals to 24L at a very high rate of speed. For some reason, the Asiana 744 didn't see what was going on and continued its landing. When the pilot saw that he was about to hit the Southwest 737 that was lined up on 24L, he aborted the landing, throttled up to full power and retracted the gear. The Asiana 744s gears came within 50 feet of the tail of the Southwest 737. For some reason, the 744 was on an extremely shallow approach and was also going very fast. Many of the people on the ground were staring at this event and backing up, in fear of the 3 planes crashing into eachother. The Asiana 744 successfully aborted its takeoff, and did a steep climb out over the Pacific.

It was very scary to see a 744 come SO close to hitting another plane. The gears truly almost hit the 737s tail, and would have if the 744 captain hadn't pulled out. The consensus on the ground was that it was not Southwest's fault in the least, but rather the Asiana 744 was landing on the wrong runway. Scary situation, so I thought I'd pass it along.

I am still not sure how a pilot on final approach could not see a 737 at Center Line preparring for takeoff on the same runway. Also, considering the good weather at LAX. Very, very scary as WN has such an excellent safety record.

Yeah, part of the reason everyone thinks it was Asiana's fault was because of the perfect weather out today, and the unlimited visibility. Perhaps just as the Asiana was on short finals, the Southwest planes coincidentally entered 24L. Had they not been there, I think the 744 would have landed, and THEN realized what had happened.

First I am suprised to heard of this near miss. But I have always seen that LAX uses 24R for landing aircraft and 24L for departures. Can someone verify this.

>>>But I have always seen that LAX uses 24R for landing aircraft and 24L for departures.

That's the normal flow, but 24L is also used for arrivals at times...

I have seen 24L and R used for both T/O and landings. Seems like normal ops going on at LAX. Does anyone have any more info if the Asiana 747 was supposed to land on 24R? Or was the Southwest 737 preparing for TO delayed because they had to wait for clearance of the crossing 737 at the end of the runway? Any more info would be appreciated. I watched the Passur replay and the 747 stops moving at the threshold of the runway, and then pops back up on the screen at 1900' at the other end of the runway. Sounds like some scary stuff and reminds me of the US Air incident years ago at LAX.
-Matt

The Asiana 744 successfully aborted its takeoff, and did a steep climb out over the Pacific.

You mean LANING, right??

Anyway, that woudl be scary..

Chris

This particular Asiana flight uses 24R for landing every day. That's what initially caught my attention. 230pm-5pm is often a dead time for runway activity, so to see a 744 coming into 24L made me look. The Southwest 737 on the threshold had been sitting there for a while waiting for an American Eagle to land.

That Passur site sounds right on. I think it's pretty scary to see that the plane icon dissapears, and then reappears at the end of the runway.

I tell ya, I've never seen 744 wings flex like that. The sound of those engines going from landing to full speed was extremely impressive. The Asiana left the runway like it was leaving the scene of a crime... it bolted into the air, and just kept going, out over the ocean, before becoming a dot, and turning north near Santa Monica/Malibu.

Hey QANTAS747-438 - did you see this near incident in person? Where were you?

"so to see a 744 coming into 24L made me look."

Apparently he did see it, Jfrworld.

Airlinelover,

Im pretty sure he means takeoff.


Ive seen an incident similar to this happen at Newark... but then again, there is always something wrong at Newark   The one incident that comes to mind that scared the living crap out of me (and everyone else who was watching) is that back in the days of CO DC-10s, I was sitting at the IKEA Cafe in IKEA elizabeth spotting planes, and there were a bunch of people looking at the planes too. Well, 22L was being used for departures, and by the time people in the IKEA Cafe can see the planes on a 22L departure, they are well established on their climbout. Not this DC-10! It was still on the ground 100% by the time it reached IKEA, and only rotated within the last 200 feet of the runway.

I swore I thought I was going to see a plane crash, because you know whats at the end of 22L!!

JBLU

Jfrworld---
Yeah, I did see it in person. I was standing between gate 12 and 14 at the crown of Terminal 1. Those are the two gates that are about 300' from the runway threshold. From there, you can look west and see all of the way down the runway, and looking east, you can see the entire approach along with Downtown LA.

View Large View Medium

Photo © Sam Chui

View Large View Medium

Photo © Ken Cheung

I went back and looked at the Passur site starting at 2:55 (14:55) pacific time and at about 1505 or so you see KAL11 and AAR204 (both B744s inbound from Korea) lined up for the north runway complex. KAL11 lands, and AAR204 eventually gets down to a couple of hundred feet (as of 1510-1511) and his tag disappears. I never did see AAR204's tag reappear at 1,900 feet (on a go-around) and I played the thing for another :45 looking for AAR204's second approach, but never saw one. Shortly after AAR204's tag disappeared, two departures came off the other end of 24, one was a Sky West, and the next was a Frontier. The next was SWA485. SWA1113 came off a few minutes later.

I'm not saying that you didn't see what you claimed, I'm just trying to figure out why Passur showed you AAR204's go-around and didn't for me, nor its second approach...

If you start it at 2:50 you will see it. A few regional props come in, then a WN on 24R, then the Asiana 744. I think the exact time is 2:53pm.
-Matt

Qantas - Thanks for the additional detail. I assumed you had seen the incident in person as your initial description was vivid and eerie. I am familiar with terminal 1 at LAX as this is the WN terminal - right near the theashold.

What happens when a near incident like this occurs. For example, what happens to the WN plane? Do they take off as normal (do the passengers even know what happened? Does WN tell them?). Do they bring the WN plane back to the terminal for gather any incident reports?

Reading this, it scarily reminds me of the February, 2 1991 crash involving a USAir 737-300 and a Skywest Metroliner on those same runways at LAX. Although the USAir/Skywest accident was at night and this near miss during the day, it just shows the grim consequences of ATC separation/pilot errors.

Off of http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi_bin/view_details.cgi?date=02021991®=N388US&airline=USAir

The aircraft was cleared to land on runway 24L at LAX. The controller had also cleared a Skywest Metroliner to taxi into position and hold midpoint down the runway, with the intention of clearing it for takeoff before the USAir jet landed. The controller never cleared the Metroliner for takeoff, and at night, it was virtually invisible to the USAir crew.

Glad there wasn't a repeat...

Guess I missed it by a couple of minutes... I went back to 1450 like you said, and there it is...

There's an important piece missing to this story. Who was cleared to do what? Until we know that we can't analyse this event. Was the 737 cleared to hold short, or to position and hold? A clearance TO a runway does not mean "position and hold", it means "hold short". Is it possible that the 737 misunderstood his clearance and went "position and hold"? To avoid runway incursions, now any clearance "to" a runway means hold short, and hold short for clearance before crossing any runway (active or not) on the way. But some pilots still f**k up.

Another scenario, the SW 737 was cleared for "immediate" takeoff. That means turn on the runway and take off in one continuous movement, without stopping. This is a way to expedite a takeoff and tighten the gap between the departing and landing aircraft. However since there was another crossing aircraft, I doubt the controller would have issued such a clearance. Unless the CROSSING aircraft crossed without clearance, and the departing aircraft, on a "immediate" takeoff, had to stop to let him clear.

And I also doubt he would clear a 737 to position and hold with a 747 on short final.

This whole scenario either points to a controller error (clearing an aircraft onto a runway prematurely or trying to orchestrate things too tightly), or an error on the part of the 737 crew, that should have held short instead of lining up, or should have executed an "immediate" takeoff but held instead.

Incidentally, an aircraft on final has the right-of-way. In an uncontrolled airport the 737 would have been in the wrong for cutting off the 747. In a controlled scenario, it's up to the controller to judge separation and decide whether he has the time to line up and take-off an aircraft without interrupting the landing of the aircraft on final. And it is the perogative of the pilot-in-command to refuse the clearance if in his judgement the separation is too tight.

This scenario really doesn't point to an error on the part of the Asiana flight at all. More than likely the crew was sliding down the ILS wondering when the heck the the controller was going to clear the 737 out of the way and when it became obvious it wasn't going to happen, he aborted and went around, or the controller realized his error and told the 747 to abort and go around.

One last point, nobody on the ground is in position to judge the speed of the aircraft on final. His speed will have been set to Vref plus a correction factor for winds and gusts, and Vref is based on landing weight. Moreover, a 20 knot headwind will make an aircraft appear slower. An absence of wind or a slight tailwind may make it seem "hot". What counts is what's on the airspeed indicator in the cockpit, and that depends on aircraft landing weight.

You guys may have seen a "loss of separation" incident, or a "runway incursion" incident, but you're in no position to analyse it.

Mike
C-GTLM

I'm wondering what would have happend IF the 744 hit the 737's tail. Would it just "tear-off" the 744's landing gear or could it actually cause a crash of the 744? (assuming only the gear hit the 737, not part of the 744 fuselage)

what do you think?

Unbelievable! I hope there is a news story on this, someone post it if you find it! That had to be some sight. Not to mention those pilots in the 744 must have almost died when they saw that on their final. Glad they got clear of that WN 737 or we could have had another Tenerife!

Pilatusguy:

The gear of the 744 would have torn the tail of the 737 right off, with minimal damage to the gear, with the possible exception of the tires. The steel gear struts and oleos are much stronger than the hollow aluminum of the tail.

Still I can't really comprehend how the Asiana pilots allowed their plane to get that close to the WN B737... even if it's a mistake on either the controller or WN's part he should have gone around before waiting to come 50 feet within the B737?

Towards the end of the runway, another Southwest 737 was crossing 24L from 24R.

The Asiana 744 successfully aborted its takeoff, and did a steep climb out over the Pacific.

You mean LANING, right??
You meaning "landing", right?  

What happens when a near incident like this occurs. For example, what happens to the WN plane? Do they take off as normal
If the pilots know that the plane did not suffer any damage (as in, were they hit), yes.

(do the passengers even know what happened?
I doubt that they would have been able to see the incident since the plane was flying over them. Even if they really turned their heads, I doubt that they would have been able to even see the Asiana 744.

Does WN tell them?)
Most likely not.

I hope there is a news story on this, someone post it if you find it!
I highly doubt that there will even be a mention of it. It would hard to find people who witnessed the event and those that they do find would probably not comment, as well as all of the crew, airlines, and LAX authorities.

I am still interested in what the ATC/tower instructions were.

 
-Will

I hope there is a news story on this, someone post it if you find it!

Unless it's a slow newsday it's normally "no corpses, no story".

But if there really *was* a runway incursion, or a near-miss, or whatever you want to call it, surely there'd be an official report into it? And such report would (eventually) be made public?

Geoff M.

This sounds similar to an incident at LHR a few years back when a trainee controller was working the tower frequency with her instructor. There was a BA 744 on approach and a BD A321 holding short, the controller told the BD to line up and power up with the brakes on, the British Midland crew saw the 744 on TCAS and asked ATC to repeat, which control did so the pilots taxied out onto the runway the BA pilots somehow did not know that the BD was there (The old British Midland colours made the plane hard to spot on the dark runway), the instructor saw what was happening and told the British Midland to abort the take-off (they had already rolled a few feet) and told the BA 747 to go around, the BA crew had already saw the other aircraft and begun their go-around (just) before contoll instructed them to.

I read the AAIB report avaliable here http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_502726.hcsp

Of course, it has been a considerable amount of time since I read it but you should get the gist of it.

Phil
FlyingColours

It's interesting...after watching the go-around on the Passur monitor, I sped up the film and watched the 744 go out over the ocean and come back for a landing on 24R. Maybe it was actually the Asiana crew who got the runway mixed up.
-N243NW 

"You guys may have seen a "loss of separation" incident, or a "runway incursion" incident, but you're in no position to analyse it."

So BeechNut, what puts you into a position to analyze it vs. the rest of us? How do you know the 744 wasn't coming in "hot" or not, or that it was even lined up for correct runway? The only way to really find out would be to listen to the tapes or hear it live on the scanner. Otherwise we will never know who caused this incident. One quick question, can you explain what a position and hold is. Doesn't that clear an a/c to position itself on an active runway and wait for T/O clearance from the controller. I was just a little confused about how it was worded. Thanks.
-Matt

well, some air traffic controller had his certificate pulled today. bad show LAX ATC! also, the pilots should have known what was going on around them. it's called situational awareness and it extends beyond the cockpit!

So, this whole thing went down over the north runways, also known as 2-4L and 2-4R. As some, or most of us know, the arrival pattern to these runways puts planes right along side of In-and-Out burger. On any given day, there are a number of spotters in the small park opposite the In-and-Out burger. With some luck, someone caught, albeit on still film, evidence of this near crash. Who knows, maybe if someone caught this scenario on film, the pic will wind up on here within a few days. Gotta keep lookin out for it. Maybe get somewhat of a better feel for how close the planes really were.

Pilatusguy,

The 747, like most other major jetliners, are quite sturdy. I agree with Rarebear that minor damage to the 744 would have likely resulted. Back when the 747 was still relatively new, a Pan Am 747 taking off from SFO hit the lights and some equipment at the end of the runway after roatating late. If I recall correctly, one of two of the bogeys was/were actually pushed up into the cargo bay or maybe through the cabin floor (but I don't recall correctly). Anyway, there was significant damage (as the lights, etc. that were hit were quite a bit larger), but the plane managed to circle around and make an emergency landing. I have a book with this incident in it at home. I'll look it up and write up a clearer report when I head home.

Anyway, basically, the 744 is a sturdy aircraft and would likely be able to circle around and land safely. It would be on the ground for a little while to fix the damage, but I highly doubt that it would result in a crash.

I haven't seen records of late, but I know LAX used to lead the US in near misses. The LA area, with BUR, LAX, SNA, ONT, LGB, and numerous g.a fields is a very congested airspace.
S

Date
07/30/1971

Location
San Francisco, California

Operator
Pan American World Airways

Aircraft
Boeing 747-100

Registration
N747PA

Fatalities:Aboard
0:218

Comments
The aircraft struck approach lights at the departure end of runway during takeoff. Miscalculation of available runway length and takeoff speed by crew. Erroneous information from the dispatcher. The aircraft was named Clipper America.

http://www2.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=59825&key=0

Not sure if this link will work, you'll prob have to cut and paste. Kind of getting of the main story line at LAX though.

Edited: Forgot to mention,. this regards the Pan Am 741 at SFO mentioned two posts up

[Edited 2004-08-20 21:06:00]

"So BeechNut, what puts you into a position to analyze it vs. the rest of us?"

->I'm not. I merely pointed out some of the factors missing from the discussion that could have caused the incident. I do speak, however, from the position of a pilot and an understanding of air law and a pilot who has more than once been cut off while on short final, forcing a go-around. For example this statement in the opening post of this thread is just plane silly: "The consensus on the ground was that it was not Southwest's fault in the least". Observers on the ground are simply not in a position to judge that.

"How do you know the 744 wasn't coming in "hot" or not, "

->I don't. And as I pointed out, neither do you. My point was that it is impossible to judge whether the aircraft was "hot" or not without knowing it's landing weight, and the indicated airspeed, and that indeed, if the aircraft were close to maximum landing weight, a "hot" landing would be normal, and a slow landing, dangerous!

"or that it was even lined up for correct runway?"

->That is a possibility. But assuming he wasn't, then he wasn't at fault.

"The only way to really find out would be to listen to the tapes or hear it live on the scanner. Otherwise we will never know who caused this incident."

->The best way will be to read the final investigation report.

"One quick question, can you explain what a position and hold is. Doesn't that clear an a/c to position itself on an active runway and wait for T/O clearance from the controller. I was just a little confused about how it was worded."

->"Speedbird 123, position and hold rwy 24L" would mean taxi to takeoff position and await clearance.

"Clipper 456, cleared for immediate takeoff" means taxi onto the runway and begin take-off roll in one movement without stopping.

"Empress 789, cleared taxi to runway 24L" means you are cleared to taxi to, and *hold short of* runway 24L, and must also stop at any intersection with any runway along the way and not cross the runway without clearance.

The possibilities are that the 737 was cleared to the runway but instead of holding short, took position and held (runway incursion), or was cleared for *immediate* takeoff, but held position, or that was cleared for *immediate takeoff* but saw another aircraft taxiing across the runway that should have held short, and therefore had to stop his roll. This would ruin the controller's plan of getting the 737 off quickly without interrupting the 747's landing. And of course the 747 could have been lined up for the wrong runway but I'd be surprised, in a radar environment, that the controller would not have picked this up much earlier.

As you can see there are so many factors involved that it is impossible to blame either the controller, the 737 crews or the 747 crew.

Mike
C-GTLM

Thank god everyone on board those three planes remains alive and intact, as well as the three aircraft. This could've been one of the worst tragedies since the collision of two 747s, one for Korean Air, the other for Pan Am I thought.

" I doubt that they would have been able to see the incident since the plane was flying over them. Even if they really turned their heads, I doubt that they would have been able to even see the Asiana 744. "

Actually im quite sure the passengers would know what had happend... Considering this happend during daylight time, not only the wake turbulence of the 747 but... a huge shadow would have covered the whole aircraft for at least 1-2 seconds... If you were looking out the window, and the wing is nice and bright, all of a sudden you hear a sudden " WOOOSH " ( Cant mistake them 747's, especially the wake turbulence from a full throttle aborted takeoff ) and the whole wing and surrounding area around the aircraft takes on a shadow the shape of a plane... believe me, you'd know what happend ( And you'd be startled too ).

I would fire the pilots of the 744...it seems they had no idea what they were doing....people like that shouldn't be allowed to fly commercial aircraft. There were no problems with the flaps, landing gear, etc. Screw-ups are not acceptable.

>>>I would fire the pilots of the 744...it seems they had no idea what they were doing....people like that shouldn't be allowed to fly commercial aircraft. There were no problems with the flaps, landing gear, etc. Screw-ups are not acceptable.

It may "seem" that way, but your assumption that the 747 crew automatically was the erring party is just that--an ASSUMPTION. You can't fire folks on assumptions...   (or at least one shouldn't...)

Screw-ups are an unavoidable part of life, since humans are involved. The trick is to make your systems and processes multi-layered, so if an error is committed by one, it will caught by others. Crew-A, crew-B, the controller(s)--they're all a part of the equation...

Thrust: The collision between the two 747s was KLM (not Korean Air) and Pan Am at Tenerife on March 27, 1977. Also, you'd fire the pilots before knowing all the facts? Glad I don't work for you!

Logan

Jumbojet,

Thanks. That will save me some typing time later when I get home. Much appreciated.


My thoughts about whether the WN passengers would see the other aircraft:

Well, as mentioned, you would definitely see the shadow if you were looking out the window. If the Asiana 744 missed the WN 733 (733? 735? 73G?) tail by about 50 feet, the 744 would have only been about 120 or so feet in the air at the time. With a 231 ft wingspan of the 744, it is possible that someone could have seen it flying overhead...but they would likely have to be crouched over or really pressing their face to the glass.


This could've been one of the worst tragedies since the collision of two 747s, one for Korean Air, the other for Pan Am I thought.

The first was a KLM aircraft...on March 27, 1977...exactly three years to the day before I was born.

The talk about what would have happened had the gear actually hit the tail of the southwest aircraft is missing the point - the 747 was on final approach to landing, not takeoff. On final approach an airplane is at a speed low enough to enable descent even at 3-4 degrees noseup attitude. In a go-around situation, that descent takes some distance to arrest even without obstruction and at takeoff power. Add in a sudden impact anywhere on the aircraft that in itself would slow down the plane even further, not to mention any resulting drag caused by debris, and you've suddenly got an airplane that is likely coming down no matter what.

I have never heard of an airplane that has hit anything on final approach and not ended up on the ground. I know of *many* incidents where airplanes have hit approach lights, trees or other objects on the ground on final approach and ended up sliding down the runway or worse, buried in the dirt. This would have been a significant accident if it had occured.

Anyway, I'm not a pilot but from what I know of air accidents (I sort of study them as a hobby) I know BeechNut's right and reasonable... you really can't know who's at fault here yet. If there truly was a near-miss, it will be investigated and will show up in one of the FAA databases in the near future, and then we'll know...

The key thing missing for proper analysis of this "incident" is:

THE RECORDINGS OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PILOTS AND ATC

Without that we don't get the whole picture of what happened. It amazes me that people here are already firing pilots and LAX controllers even though they don't have all the pieces to the puzzle. Gotta love the A.net forums!



[Edited 2004-08-21 00:02:52]

I think the 744 pilots knew exactly what they were doing, more than likely they believed Southwest was to takeoff before their landing, and kept believing they would begin to roll and once they finally noticed South West was not leaving they did a go around, 50 feet is plenty of clearance in a go around. Go arounds happen all the time like that, just not quite as close as this incident.

Now what I hear though is Asiana was in fact cleared for the Outer Runway (24R) and they instead went for 24L. Now my question would be why did the ATC not inform them that they are coming in towards the wrong runway?

These posters who witnessed this occurance are merely pointing out what they've said. Whether it was really dramatic as they witnessed, (ie ATC didn't tell the Asiana to go around and did so on their own) is unknown, but for the people who have seen it. So why discredit them?

>>>So why discredit them?

This thread seems to be typical of many lately that start out with "X" info initially, and then folks end up chiming in with assumptions, and often, MISassumptions. If folks taking issue with some of those misassumptions is "discrediting", I guess that I'm guilty too, since I took issue with a guy who called for firing the 747 crew based upon the "info" he was reading on this thread.


>>>These posters who witnessed this occurance are merely pointing out what they've said.

I presume that should have read "what they saw...."

That's true, and while I appreciate their reporting what they saw. it has to be recognized that even that original post has some subjective and assumptive info...

"...at a very high rate of speed."
[How is this quantified?]

"For some reason, the Asiana 744 didn't see..."
[How does anyone NOT in the 747 cockpit know what was/wasn't seen?]

"When the pilot saw that he was about to hit the Southwest 737 that was lined up on 24L, he aborted the landing,..."
[As above, plus how does one know whether the crew initiated the go-around, or whether it was initiated by ATC?]

"The consensus on the ground was that it was not Southwest's fault in the least, but rather the Asiana 744 was landing on the wrong runway. "
[How does anyone know that this was the case, absent listening to the ATC freq?, or not awaiting investigative results?]

I mention these points to hopefully illustrate that when such "info" is posted, some questions are bound to arise, and folks asking the questions are just trying to sort through the chaff to get to the wheat, so they can figure out what really happened. There's nothing wrong with asking these kinds of questions to clarify, but when other folks chime in on what "shoulda" been done assuming the info they read was Gospel, well, then some folks are going to point that out....

As they said on X-files, "the truth is out there..." (It just doesn't seem to be here on A.net...)  

The real story will eventually come out. Thanks heavens that this one didn't have an unhappy ending...

At this point, anything that anyone could say is a possibility. After reviewing the information on that Passeur site, it appears to me that the active arrivals runway in this case was 24R but the 744 in this case was headed toward landing on the active departures runway, 24L. Like others have said before, once attempting to land on the active departures runway, 24L, the 744 aborted landing and headed back out over the Pacific to get back in the pattern for an approach on the active arrivals runway 24R....right behind a KAL 744. Just my two cents!

Oh and this is finally my first post on the discussion board.

Just to be technical, "cleared for immediate takeoff" isn't used anymore...

http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp3/atc0308.html
CLEARED FOR TAKEOFF OR HOLD SHORT/HOLD IN POSITION/TAXI OFF THE RUNWAY (traffic).

After today, I am now convinced that it was the Asiana's fault. The 744 botched the 24L landing yesterday, aborted, went around, and landed on 24R. Today, the same set up occurred: 2 Southwest 737s on 24L and out in the distance came Asiana. Except today, it landed on 24R... as it was supposed to. Looks like they finally got it right today!

After today, I am now convinced that it was the Asiana's fault. The 744 botched the 24L landing yesterday, aborted, went around, and landed on 24R. Today, the same set up occurred: 2 Southwest 737s on 24L and out in the distance came Asiana. Except today, it landed on 24R... as it was supposed to. Looks like they finally got it right today!

This still doesn't mean the controller didn't clear the Asiana 747 to land on runway 24L... this is something that happens every once in a while, usually gets caught in time before an airplane actually lands on the wrong runway, though (or maybe the 747 requested 24L and was granted their request, and the controller mixed things up). In which case it would only have been the pilot's fault if an accident actually occured (since he should have seen the 737 in time to avoid it, as he did) - the near-miss, though, would have been caused by improper instructions by ATC.

I'm not saying that's what happened or even that it's the most likely scenario. I'm just saying you really just can't make any assumptions yet, no matter what you saw today or any other day. Why would an experienced pilot, who's most likely flown this exact same route dozens or hundreds of times, suddenly try to land on 24L by mistake when he's landed on 24R every other time? We need to just wait and see what happened.

Regarding the post about ATC phraseology a couple posts above, isn't there a phrase something like "without delay" that can be added to certain instructions? I have heard this before but don't see it in the link posted.

Though I am not a certified pilot I know a few people in both the family and just from being in Aviation. Each time I flew with these people they would at least stress one point through out each leg of the flight.

It's not the ATC or other pilots job to watch your ass and your actions it's your issue. Don't take the ATC instructions such as, "Taxi to and hold short runway 32R", and think it's correct. The departure runway might be 32L at the time and that's for you to call them on it b/c after they tell you what to do there's little chance they'll realize they messed up. (Summed up of what they have collectively said).

Thus being said I think it's up to the 744 crew to land on the right runways and even if they were cleared for the runway and they are on approach to the proper runway it's up to them to make sure that the 737 made the non-delayed takeoff and that if they thought they wouldn't make it that they would call the 737 over the radio and would head to their preset R/L alt.

It might be ATC's fault for the wrong clearance but in the end it's up to the 744 crew to know what's up. The 737 crew wouldnt know what hit them until they actually got hit or the a/c got the lovely let blast from the 744. They should not have let their approach go that fast and that long be for rejecting the landing. Shame on the 744 crew and again, even if it's ATC's issue the 744 should be able to see such an a/c on the runway esp. with the time of day and the conditions. It's not like it was 1am and I know the conditions weren't 0-0.

Thanks.

UA777222

There is no doubt that the countless times I have flown to LAX to spot on the 2-4 runways that I have seen 2-4 R used as the primary runway for landing. On occassion, I have also seen, much to my surprise since it doesn't happen often, planes landing on 2-4 L. You automatically assume that something is wrong since your so used to seeing something else. Thus, it remains to be seen who is ultimately at fault here. One can hazard a guess, but thats all it is until the facts come out.

I am still having a hard time believing this, 50 feet? That is very close. I have not seen any news story or anything about this incident at LAX. Has anyone found anything official to verify this near disaster?

Wow...And I thought my "incident" was exciting. I was at DCA on Aug 10. They were landing/departing on r/w 19. While in the boarding area, I saw a CO Express flight approaching. He made the final right turn, then left, tried to straighten out, realized he wasnt going to make it safely, and did a go-around. Not terribly exciting or rare, but I saw it right in front of me.

Then, as my USAirways 737 was taxiing to r/w 19, a plane landed. We took the runway, and waited for a few moments. And waited some more. Then, then pilot revved up the engines and we.....exited the r/w. I was sitting in the right side (window), and as we turned off the r/w I noticed another plane on short final. Seems that the plane that landed before us didnt clear the r/w on time, and we had to exit to allow the plane behind us to land.

I'm rarely at DCA, but I'm sure what I described happens almost every day. Just nice to know I was on a plane that was involved in it.  

I may as well throw my two cents in here.

I was taught that most accidents occur after a chain of events; that is, more than one mistake is made by one or more people. If that holds true in this case, then a number of scenarios could have led up to this incident.

1) Asiana was cleared for the approach on 24R, but lined up on 24L. Their mistake, but why didn't ATC catch it?

2) Asiana was cleared 24L, and Southwest was ordered to hold short runway 24L. Again, why didn't ground or tower catch this? "Hold" clearances are supposed to be read back.

3) Asiana cleared 24L, Southwest cleared "to takeoff 24L , no delay". If they couldn't make the immediate roll, (because of the other 737 crossing the runway) they should have said so. Asiana may have been aborted sooner.

These are only a few of the possible things I see may have happened, but as was mentioned before, without listening in on pilot/controller comm, and a proper investigation, we may never know what actually transpired and who should share the blame. We should be thankful that SOMEONE eventually did SOMETHING to prevent an accident, if a little late in the ball game.

For the record, I do have a pilots license, but I am NOT an airline pilot.

NIKV69--- Having a hard time believing 50 feet? Then at least you know how it was to see the event. The 744 was roughly the same distance from the WN plane as the height of a 747 tail piggybacking the 737. So, rough estimate, 50 feet from the 737, and 80-100 feet off the ground.

I have looked on the internet for official word on this event as well, but then I thought to myself, why would there be? What's to report to the public? Don't fly? Watch out for Asiana aircraft? I think that's it's more of an internal news story within the confines of the airport. As with RP TPA's story at DCA, that incident didn't make it on the news, for the same reason as the LAX one. Anyway, I don't expect to hear anything about it on the news or internet.

Wdleiser said in reply #43: "50 feet is plenty of clearance in a go around."

lol... Maybe in MS flight sim. But not for any real aircraft.  


T prop.

If a Boeing 747 did indeed come within 50 feet of a 737 at LAX, I'm almost certain there will be some sort of report. That stuff does not go undocumented. Wait a few days, and if nothing comes out, then I think this story is a little too dramatic.

Then, as my USAirways 737 was taxiing to r/w 19, a plane landed. We took the runway, and waited for a few moments. And waited some more. Then, then pilot revved up the engines and we.....exited the r/w. I was sitting in the right side (window), and as we turned off the r/w I noticed another plane on short final. Seems that the plane that landed before us didnt clear the r/w on time, and we had to exit to allow the plane behind us to land.

Hey hey -- I saw that occurrence from Gravely Point (just north of the 19 threshold). Quite exciting it was too.

A 744 comes within 50 feet of a 737 has to abort the takeoff which means he was nearly on the ground, go to full throttle to escape a huge disaster and none of this makes the news? Hard to believe.

I have looked on the internet for official word on this event as well, but then I thought to myself, why would there be?

Because an airliner near-miss is a major incident and that is the FAA's job to report (I'm not sure if the FAA or NTSB actually investigates). Keep checking for it here: http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/iirform.htm

Or check the FAA's AIDS database query - this seems to provide slightly different results.

It may also show up on one of the pages here: https://www.nasdac.faa.gov/servlet/page?_pageid=213,217&_dad=nasdac&_schema=NASDAC

I checked the NMACS database and nothing there yet, but I'm not sure how they'd classify this since one of the airplanes was on the ground. A near-miss is actually not required to be reported, but whoever was not at fault in this case probably would want to report it in order to cover their own butts.

[Edited 2004-08-22 07:50:45]

[Edited 2004-08-22 07:51:14]

"A 744 comes within 50 feet of a 737 has to abort the takeoff which means he was nearly on the ground, go to full throttle to escape a huge disaster and none of this makes the news? Hard to believe."

It's not like the L.A. Times and our multiple local news outlets have an LAX bureau just waiting for a story to break. Unless a news outlet gets a tip from a passenger (most common) or airline employee (less so) or airport management (usually all we get from them are things like monthly traffic stats, construction/renovation updates, security junk)...the fact that this isn't in the news shouldn't serve to discredit the story.

And I should point out, mostly sarcastically, that if the story WAS in the news, this thread would be about how my fellow reporters got the story wrong  

whew! thank god we didnt have another tenerife. i remember on my third landing in a Cessna 152 in training a beech bonanza started its roll and i had to go around but of course this was KVAY an uncontrolled airfeild.

Nonetheless something like this would be on the news. You are going to tell me that not one passenger on either plane didn't know what was happening? This would most definitely make the news.

Was anyone at the In and Out Burger watching this happen? The thing that blows my mind is that 14:30 is a fairly quiet time at LAX and normally traffic is cleared to land 24R and to takeoff on 24L. 24L is 10,285 ft long and 24R is 8925 ft long.

Does anyone know why the 744 landed on 24L instead of the normal 24R traffic pattern? Did the 744 request the 24L landing because it is closer to the terminal? Did ATC just vector them for the 24L? I know that LAX occassionally uses 24L for landings too, but it is usually during heavier traffic times.

The reason that I ask about the In and Out Burger location is because many plane spotters and photographers listen to ATC in their cars via radio and then get out to snap pictures when they know a heavy is on her way inbound to land 24R. Was anyone listening to ATC and planespotting at In and Out Burger when this happened the other day?

Just curious...

Wish I was there! I love that place. The best burgers in the world. Wish we had it out here. It is the first place I am eating when I get to IFP. As for the incident. Still nothing on the news. I am sure pax on the 744 would have been scared out of their wits while this was happening.

"Regarding the post about ATC phraseology a couple posts above, isn't there a phrase something like "without delay" that can be added to certain instructions? I have heard this before but don't see it in the link posted."


Your not going to find it, because its not in the regs. We use the tool to help get pilots moving when we need a faster take-off but the situation doesn't require the use of "immediatley".

Hey guys, just for clarification please don't assume Asiana was in the "wrong" in trying to land on 24L. Yesterday (Aug. 22) I flew in on VS 007 (also a 744). We were landing slightly before 3pm, and we landed on Runway 24L. If traffic allows, it is more convenient to land on 24L, because then you don't have to wait for departing traffic before heading to the Terminal complex.

And just because on the go-around they landed on 24R doesn't mean that initially they weren't cleared to land on 24L.

Without listening to the tapes, everything is speculation. Monday morning quarterbacking is all too easy.

The normal flow of things is the outboards (25L & 24R) are normally used for landings and the inboards (25R & 24L) for takeoffs that's not always the case. I landed on 24L twice this week even though we always expect 24R coming down from the north. Just depends on operational need. There is also periodic maintenance closing 25L. The traffic must be accomodated somehow so runways normally used for takeoffs will accomodate landings too. Don't know if this was the case Fri though as I flew over the weekend. (Traffic metering was in effect due to the closure and we took a 50 minute delay.) In addition, it's not uncommon to have been cleared to land on one runway, but then changed over to the adjacent runway- even on short final- for traffic spacing. Asiana could have been assigned either runway or been given a runway change. Too much speculation with out those tapes.

[Edited 2004-08-24 20:10:40]

This incident as reported, sounds nothing more unusual than a loss of separation incident - not a near accident. I doubt the 747 came within 50 ft. That is dramatic flare. As Beechnut said, the Asiana pilot probably knew of the 737 sitting there several miles away the whole time. But, the whole time he is approaching, he is expecting to see the 737 depart. But the 737 does not depart. So the 747 is forced to go around. There was no near crash. I myself have seen this very thing. It happens.

I had a C-5a run its engins up over my office today, I thought it was going to land on the roof than a C-130 buzzed me flying at about 800 ft.

Weird day for Avaition

 

The difference between this and the tragic USAir/Skywest incident is that this was pilot error, while the one that actually happened was an over worked, tired ATC

I heard a few days ago from several employees, that the whole situation is very hush hush, but that neither aircraft was at fault. This doesn't say who's at fault and for what reason, but that's the buzz from the top brass.

[Edited 2004-08-25 06:44:14]

I thought I would post the latest update on the investigation;

Our flight was cleared into position and hold on RWY 24L. The crew followed the proper procedures and cleared final and had their landing lights on while awaiting take-off release. Both crew members had noticed a B-747 on final but thought it was for the outboard runway. As the crew was cleared for take-off both crew members felt that the 747 should have reached their field of vision and had not, so they elected to not advance the power and started to exit the runway. As this occurred the Asiana crew realized that there was an aircraft on their selected runway and initiated a go-around clearing the tail of our aircraft by about 100-150 feet. Our crew as well as the Asiana crew were cleared to the same runway at the same time. LAX ATC has admitted responsibility for the error which took place during a shift change. We are currently investigating this along with the company and this will very likely have some far reaching consequences in procedures at LAX. The conditions were Day VFR with good visibility and no one in the tower realized that the conflict existed.

Interesting update. It always reminds me that humans are invloved in the workings of a complex airport and humans do make errors. A little bit of complacency can turn into a huge disaster. I'm glad everything turned out OK here.

Well, I see that the whole confidentiality thing has been blown, so yes, it occurred during a shift change in the Tower to which nobody noticed the error or saw it coming.

Barney Captain: Thanks for the update. I am glad to hear that neither Southwest nor the Asiana crew was faulted. You work for an airline whose reputation ripple across the oceans and is continually being watched by LCCs and LCC-wannabes on this side of the Pacific.

If there is one lesson we can draw from this thread, it is not to pass judgement when there is neither reliable information nor authoritative statements from competent authorities.

Very quickly, several members have passed judgement - calling for the firing of the B744 crew, pronouncing them incompetent and declaring them unworthy of flying commercial airplanes. Thankfully, this was balanced by many others who contributed interesting other possible scenarios - and reiterating that these are merely possible scenarios. Great discussion in the overall analysis.

I hope that rather than calling for the firing of the ATC folks, this incident result instead in better handling-over in the transition from one shift to another, in studying the fatigue-level of ATC folks in an airport as busy as LAX (which by the way is absolute aviation enthusiast heaven) and in making aircraft crew more vigilant (as demonstrated by both the Southwest and Asiana crew in this instance).

Like many said - thank God this incident was resolved without turning into an accident.

KC Sim
Bangkok

glad to hear its not the government blaming it on "pilot error" again. i am almost expecting them to slap the controller and the 747 pilots for not "seeing and avoiding" just to keep face if the media gets a hold of this. now lets say that this happened and it was the 747's fault (which it wasn't) atc would have given them a phone # to call the crew after landing would call the number and speak with the controller and the controller would most likely inform them that he was violating them or informing the faa of his actions. its considered an incident report filed by a controller. the faa will investigate and either charge the pilots with something or not. most controllers are cool but if you endanger lives he has little choice but to violate you. its a lot of paperwork to fill out but they do have to do it. same thing with altitude deviations and whatnot.

"The difference between this and the tragic USAir/Skywest incident is that this was pilot error, while the one that actually happened was an over worked, tired ATC"

Really? So quick to call pilot error when you have none of the facts! And you want to be a trial lawyer? Perfect....

"LAX ATC has admitted responsibility for the error which took place during a shift change."
As Barney Captain has enlightened us, ATC almost created the Skywest/US Air accident all over again.....except for the outcome thanks to some WN pilots with some good situational awareness.  

As Aviasian pointed out- "If there is one lesson we can draw from this thread, it is not to pass judgement when there is neither reliable information nor authoritative statements from competent authorities."




[Edited 2004-08-26 06:48:55]

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.

Thanks Barney Captain for your good information provided to
this forum. After reading all the posts here, I saw that only a few people (like Beechnut and OPNLguy by ex.) where able to make good comments about possible scenarios of that incident! I think it is everyones right to write what he/she thinks about but what I don't like is that pilots or controllers and airlines are blamed to fast by some folks here! Next time write your theorie but don't blame somebody!

Marc

"There was no damage to the airplane nor injuries to the 182 passengers and crew."

182 on a 137 seat a/c? Must have had 132 pax on board....or a lot of stow aways in the overheads!

"I would fire the pilots of the 744..." (see reply 37)

Thrust: Now, you must either re-hire the pilots, eat crow and probably lose you job, or face a huge lawsuit from the pilots union. Welcome to the real world. And you have a RR of 25.

Logan

I have a question about ATC...Is it fine to assume that ATC did not realize the conflict until after the Asiana 747 initiated the missed approach? Also, if ATC did realize they made a mistake but did not realize it quick enough, do they just hope that it will all work out, i.e, one pilot as in the Southwest case will realize something is not right. I have never visited an ATC facility, but I always assumed the new controller received a quick briefing before plugging in. If that is the case, it seems like the earlier controller would have realized the mistake by seeing Southwest was cleared for position and hold, while Asiana was on final for the same runway. I do have one question about the Asiana crew as well. How were they able to come so close to the Southwest 737? It seems they would be aware and watching the runway to make sure if it was clear. At what point do the pilots of commercial aircraft initiate a missed approach if there is an aircraft or obstruction on the runway. Just reading the reports it is very chilling to think that there was only a 200 foot margin of error from a major disaster. Good thing the Southwest pilots were very aware of the situation.

Big article on the incident in the Los Angeles Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lax1sep01,1,910565.story?coll=la-home-local

Registration required. Try user id and password "cyberpunk".

In light of the presented investigation into this incident I'd like to thank Barney Captain for shedding some internal news on the matter at hand. In an industry where the reliance on factual matters is paramount, investigations from credible entities and any press releases from these entities should be the 'official' word about such incidents. I cringe as I read some of the erroneously judgemental posts on this thread that wrongly implicate innocent people, it makes me wonder how these posters judge others and others actions in relation their own lives. It leads me to believe that their reasoning processess are highly flawed.

I do, though, appreciate the people who refrained from judgement into this matter, and especially those who explained why they did so... It's refreshing to know that some people have some 'sense' in this world.

Aero.