Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Close Call @ LAX  
User currently offlineRivera319 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 10 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6134 times:

Don't know if anyone has posted this yet but there was a very near crash at LAX yesterday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11498561/sterday.

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26338 posts, RR: 76
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6109 times:

Quote:
directed a departing Skywest turboprop to taxi onto the same runway that he had cleared for a Southwest Airlines jet to land.

I have a feeling that OO drivers keep an extra eye out for 737s



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineRyGuy From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 180 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6009 times:

KNBC-TV
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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just so you dont have to keep going back and forth!

I think that this is a good article but I think it misses telling us what happened with the Air Canada plane!

Yes that was a close call... All these things remind me about that KLM crash a few years back when the plane wallaped another taxiing aircraft!

Thanks

RyGuy  Wink



From somewhere out there...
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26338 posts, RR: 76
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5953 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
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21458 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5893 times:

I heard about this on a local news commercial a few days later, but they were showing video of a CO 738 taxiing as their bump footage, and only mention a near collision of an "LAX BOUND FLIGHT."


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offline747srule From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 429 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5609 times:

LAX generally is in the top echelon of runway incursions. Just another day at the office!!


Jesus is the way,the truth,and the life
User currently offlineRivera319 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 10 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5526 times:

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.

User currently offlineAirlineAddict From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 419 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5360 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Rivera319 (Reply 6):
I wonder if they would make them take a drug test immidiately.

Maybe a depression test?!?


User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6099 posts, RR: 31
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5280 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Can anyone direct me to a sight where there is info. about the Asiana go-around to avoid the collision?
Thanks



MGGS
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26338 posts, RR: 76
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5259 times:

Quoting Rivera319 (Reply 6):
I wonder if they would make them take a drug test immidiately.

Yes, and a breathalizer

Quoting Rivera319 (Reply 6):
I know its a very busy airport but I wonder if the controller ever did it intentionally??

I really doubt it.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently onlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2425 posts, RR: 23
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4888 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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! twocents 



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineSWAOPSusafATC From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4474 times:

Anyone know what time it happened?

SWAOPSusafATC


User currently offlineYhz78 From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4223 times:

Here is a link to a recreation of the Asiana and Southwest near collision......http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2004/LAX04IA302/lax_web01.wmv


Canada Rocks! From the west coast to the best coast!
User currently offlineLxlgu From South Africa, joined Sep 2000, 1085 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4196 times:

Happened around 2250 local time

Flights involved UA 6631 LAX to SANTA BARBARA

WN 2081 from TUSCON

AC 558 from TORONTO

Cheers!
Tony


User currently offlineBigFish From United States of America, joined May 2005, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3642 times:

Quoting Rivera319 (Reply 6):



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.


User currently offlineFLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3272 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?


User currently offlineBigFish From United States of America, joined May 2005, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3070 times:

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 15):

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.


User currently offlineMich From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 36 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2850 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.

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."


User currently offlineYVRtoYYZ From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 652 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2607 times:

Anybody get an audio copy from liveatc or something for us to hear?

-YVRtoYYZ


User currently offlineBigFish From United States of America, joined May 2005, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2456 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.


User currently offlineLongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4883 posts, RR: 43
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2324 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
User currently offlineBigFish From United States of America, joined May 2005, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2259 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.


User currently offlineSoccer11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2192 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.


User currently offlineMakeMinesLAX From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 559 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2137 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.


User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3539 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1997 times:

Quoting MakeMinesLAX (Reply 23):
would need to have executed a greater-than-90-degree turn to stay on the pavement.

Greater or lesser? Lesser = sharper turn....



PHX based
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Close Call At LAX posted Mon Jun 7 1999 23:16:14 by United777
Third "Close Call" Investigation At ORD posted Wed Mar 29 2006 22:37:12 by Airwave
Close Call For SAA Crew posted Mon Feb 13 2006 09:22:09 by JoKeR
Close Call At MDW Last August... posted Thu Jan 26 2006 04:17:16 by 777fan
Israir Close Call At JFK In July posted Sun Jan 8 2006 04:46:34 by Wjcandee
Close Call At JFK? posted Tue Nov 1 2005 12:53:22 by Pmg1704
Accomodations Close To LAX? posted Wed Jul 20 2005 04:32:28 by Kkfla737
Accomodations Close To LAX? posted Wed Jul 20 2005 04:28:02 by Kkfla737
Close Call At DAL At 1635 Local posted Tue Jul 12 2005 23:43:54 by Texan
Close Call At MDW - Is This Normal? (with Photo) posted Sun Jun 19 2005 08:46:13 by AndrewUber