RyGuy From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 180 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5959 times:
7:34 a.m. PST February 22, 2006
LOS ANGELES - Two planes came dangerously close together Friday night at Los Angeles International Airport, when a controller directed three aircraft onto a single runway at the same time. The pilots were credited with averting an accident. Officials say an air traffic controller directed a departing Skywest turboprop to taxi onto the same runway that he had cleared for a Southwest Airlines jet to land.
He also told an Air Canada jet arriving from Toronto that it could cross the other end of the runway on its way to the terminals.
A potential crash was averted when the Skywest pilot saw the incoming Southwest jet and stopped short of the runway.
Federal investigators continue to look into the incident.
The incident was similar to a near crash at the Los Angeles airport in August 2004 and a February 1991 collision there that killed 35 people.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26113 posts, RR: 77
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5903 times:
Quoting RyGuy (Reply 2): I think that this is a good article but I think it misses telling us what happened with the Air Canada plane!
He probably scooted off
Quoting KNBC: The incident was similar to a near crash at the Los Angeles airport in August 2004 and a February 1991 collision there that killed 35 people.
Actually, it wasn't that similar to the 2004 go around because it was actually the Asiana 747 that noticed the WN 737 that was actually on 24R and had to go around really fast to avoid pancaking it. This was very similar to the 1991 incident as it involved an OO turboprop (was a Metro back then, Brasilia this time) and a 737 that actually did land on top of it
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
ImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1995 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4838 times:
All the testing in the world cannot change the obvious: the controllers are human-----they can and will make mistakes. Considering the stress level most controllers endure it is a wonder more of them don't "snap".
In my opinion, most of the worlds busiest airports are always going to have a high probability of errors because of the level of their movements.
I can only pray that EVERY incident can happen without loss of life!
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
Oh, yes... You bet he did it intentionally! As a controller, nothing would make a day at the office more complete for me than being personally responsible for the deaths of over 100 people and facing manslaughter charges. "Gee honey, I had a great day at work today! I killed 100 people and will be facing prison time for manslaughter!" Are you serious with this post? Really... Are you serious? For you to even THINK this makes me all the more thankful that I'll never work with you in a facility. Rediculous.
FLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3222 times:
Quoting Rivera319 (Reply 6): I know its a very busy airport but I wonder if the controller ever did it intentionally?? You might never know. I wonder if they would make them take a drug test immidiately.
And why would a controller that probably makes upwards of $70 grand a year want to do that?
You're a little short. A local controller at LAX with all of his incentives(qualifications), bonuses, Locality Pay, and whatnot is making well over $115k a year.
Though runway incusions happen, I'll tell you that we would never intentionally jeordize a pilots' or a passengers' life. A runway incursion occasionally happens, but it was never done intentionally. There is a thing called lack of sufficient staffing and being overworked. The average person would be overworked after 2 minutes of being in that tower. No small feat regardless of experience.
Mich From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 36 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2800 times:
All ATC are perfect with perfect private lives, perfect wives, perfect credit, perfect health, perfect kids, perfect emotional health... Just peachy..
Given the information available at press time there has been no indication right or wrong as to this atc frame of mind. No need to attack an opinion here, what if he did it on purpose.. 3 planes were given clearance to use the same runway.. not 1 not 2 but 3 planes.. This person may want to go back to a crop dusting tower if he cant handle it. But the usual a.net stance will prevail that "all" aircraft industry personnel are flawless professionals that require a rigorous defense regardless of facts. Tell this to the people on those 3 planes.
Amazing that someone with an opinion here gets more ridicule then the act of incompetence itself.
To attack someones competence has many levels, this was a miss so we call it a mis communication, if it were an accident would it then be descibed as tragic. Same events with a different outcome. the only binding thought would be the pilots noticed the incoming and held short, nothing from the ATC other then putting into motion the events leading up to it.
"Great news to hear all those people are ok and no accident occurred. Furthermore we hope the controller checks out for this would be a blemish on his/her record and the industry as a whole, a miscommunication would be more believable then a purposeful event and I dare say better overall."
BigFish From United States of America, joined May 2005, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2406 times:
Quote: This works:
"Great news to hear all those people are ok and no accident occurred. Furthermore we hope the controller checks out for this would be a blemish on his/her record and the industry as a whole, a miscommunication would be more believable then a purposeful event and I dare say better overall
Wow...nothing like someone telling me how to say what I mean and dumbing it down to a sufficiently politcally correct level. Thank you.
There's nothing that's going to go on his record because nothing happened. Someone caught the problem, and fixed it before a serious conflict occured. Chances are, he's either at work, or going to be at work tonight, controlling airplanes.
LongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4708 posts, RR: 43
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2274 times:
Quoting BigFish (Reply 19): Chances are, he's either at work, or going to be at work tonight, controlling airplanes.
I recall several years ago when landing at YEG, we were about 2 miles back from runway 30, and then did a go-around, and announced that to the tower. She asked why were doing a go around when we were cleared to land. We replied, "because there is an aircraft on the runway" ... silence.
Then a male controller came on, and cleared us over to departure for the second approach.
After landing, I was asked to call the tower on the telephone.
When talking with them, my approach was that mistakes happen. That is why there is more than one controller and more than one pilot .... one of us will catch the error. And, God knows, ATC has caught my errors more than once.
But .... he said she was off duty now, (with pay), pending an investigation. Would the same thing not happen at LAX?
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
BigFish From United States of America, joined May 2005, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2209 times:
Quote: But .... he said she was off duty now, (with pay), pending an investigation. Would the same thing not happen at LAX?
It all depends on how the ATM (Air Traffic Mngr.) wants to handle it. With the FAA being so stretched thin for people and manning, it's probable that it's business as usual. Unless there was an real aviation hazard created, some facilites simply can't afford to suspend their people and keep the facility properly manned or staffed. Controllers are generally on position for an hour to 2 hours followed by a 30 to 60 minute break.
The REAL crisis is the manning and the staffing. I can't tell you how many major Class B facilites that SHOULD be running with at least 2 ground controllers but can barely man one due to staffing shortages.
I've always thought that it's going to take a mid-air catastrophe to happen in a terminal environment to get the FAA to get the proper staffing levels.
Soccer11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2142 times:
I have found that the Controllers in the US ATC system are some of the most professional and competent in the world. Accordingly, I find it impossible and ludicrous that an individual would intentionally make decisions that led to the situation being discussed. Mistakes happen. However, it's also very easy to blame the management system in place for the errors of the day. If staffing is indeed the reason for errant decision making, aren't the Controllers that continue to work in that situation a part of the problem also? Controllers are responsible for communicating decisions with lives in the balance. If they are knowingly working in conditions that could lead them to make a disastrous decision, in my belief they are enabling the problem. I couldn't reason it in my mind if, due to exhaustion from staffing shortages, my decisions led to a fatal accident, but it was OK because I was doing my best under the conditions.
I do not have enough info to pass judgement, but sometimes you just have to accept that a human error has taken place and accept responsibilty for it.
MakeMinesLAX From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 553 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2087 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 3): Quoting RyGuy (Reply 2):
I think that this is a good article but I think it misses telling us what happened with the Air Canada plane!
He probably scooted off
The depiction on the newscast that I saw indicated the AC 319 was already crossing 24L, so the WN 737 turned right onto one of the connecting taxiways. I'm not certain how accurate this was, however, since it was shown to be one of the high-speed variety that slants, and the WN pilot would need to have executed a greater-than-90-degree turn to stay on the pavement. This doesn't seem possible if it was traveling beyond taxi speed.