Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B6 Mid Air "near-misses"  
User currently offlineJuan911411 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 19 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4551 times:

JetBlue responds to incorrect New York Post story
6/11 5:00pm

Today the New York Post ran an article on airline near-misses that contained erroneous data on two JetBlue flights. The Post alleges that JetBlue experienced two near-misses in the New York area in May.

In the first alleged incident, the Post reports that a JetBlue flight came within 800 feet vertically and 30 feet horizontally of another aircraft. In the second alleged incident, the Post claims that a JetBlue flight came within 500 feet vertically and 2.5 miles horizontally of another aircraft.

Fact: Near Mid Air Collisions are defined by the FAA as a combined vertical and lateral separation of 500 feet or less.

Fact: JetBlue did not have any Near Mid Air Collisions in May as defined by these specifications.



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


The background information shared below on this issue was discussed at length with the Post on Friday, but they neglected to incorporate it into today's story.

The following details are from investigations of the two JetBlue flights in May and the separation data comes directly from the FAA (with their calculations coming from ATC radar recordings):

Flight 575 on 5/1/07 out of SWF (Stewart/Newburgh) had a recorded closest separation of 200 feet vertical and 0.83 nautical miles (5,043 feet) lateral. That's a combined separation of approximately 5,046 feet which is just over one statute mile. This falls far outside the FAA's 500 feet criteria of a Near Mid Air Collision.
The second flight was 591 out of HPN (White Plains) on 5/8/07. This flight experienced traffic approximately 5 miles south of EWR during climbout. Here the closest recorded separation was 600 feet vertical and 1.92 nautical miles (11,666 feet) lateral which is a combined separation of approximately 11,681 feet (just over two statue miles).
The FAA's investigation into these incidences is ongoing; however, our analysis of the data shows that these flights encountered air traffic but are not categorized as Near Mid Air Collisions per the FAA's criteria.

JetBlue works closely with our pilots and the FAA to investigate any event that appears to have come close to a Near Mid Air Collision. Our pilots are trained to handle any event and our customers were never in danger. The safety of our Customers and Crewmembers is our number one priority.


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

Also check out the link for the actual article from NYPost

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06112007...larry_celona_and_chuck_bennett.htm

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGoBlue From Canada, joined Jun 2006, 216 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4416 times:

Slow news day again i would assume!

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21522 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4292 times:

I'm seeing a lot of "unidentified aircraft" in that article. VFR traffic, perhaps?

Count on the Post to sensationalize something like that.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4223 times:

This is the New York Post. It's crap. This is why any sane athlete wouldn't go to NYC to play. The Post chews them up and spins them out.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinePropilotJW From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 589 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4161 times:

30 feet is damn close though

User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4102 times:

Quoting PropilotJW (Reply 4):
30 feet is damn close though



Quoting Juan911411 (Thread starter):
In the first alleged incident, the Post reports that a JetBlue flight came within 800 feet vertically and 30 feet horizontally of another aircraft.



Quoting Juan911411 (Thread starter):
Flight 575 on 5/1/07 out of SWF (Stewart/Newburgh) had a recorded closest separation of 200 feet vertical and 0.83 nautical miles (5,043 feet) lateral. That's a combined separation of approximately 5,046 feet which is just over one statute mile.

The "30 feet" was the BS from the Post article--the actual distance was a little over 1 mile as per the above...


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4058 times:

Quoting PropilotJW (Reply 4):
30 feet is damn close though

Even if it were true, you're still 800' vertical so it's moot.


User currently offlineJetBlueAtJFK From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1687 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3854 times:

Its the New York Post. Don't even bother reading/discussing what they write. They pull stuff out of no where and rip on people all the time.

B6jfk



When You Know jetBlue, You Know Better
User currently offlineEchster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3803 times:

It's all semantics. Either way you look at it, in both cases, there was a loss of prescribed separation.

I think the reason B6 is so adamant in downplaying these incidents with the press is their new COO, Russ Chew, just started there after leaving the FAA as COO of the ATO. It was under his watch, in that role, the number of ATCers has decreased by almost 1,500. Both New York Center and New York TRACON are understaffed, resulting in combining of sectors. In other words, 1 ATCer is working the sector/traffic 2-3 ATCers used to work, usually without the D-side help.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3392 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3721 times:

You know someone should send them a note that every Jetblue plane has near misses with the ground on a daily basis... closer than 10ft at times.....


Of course since they do have to land thats a given, but don't tell the post that.


User currently offlineTZ757300 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2867 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3702 times:

800'? Yup, that sure is close...not. I would say 100' is cutting it close, but not 800. q


LETS GO MOUNTAINEERS!
User currently offlineLevg79 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 994 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3676 times:

I remember when AA B777 on its way to NRT had to shut down an engine and return to JFK, the cover page of the New York Post read "Disaster in the Sky". And then they had passengers re-tell their "horror" stories about how lucky they were to be alive. Unfortunately I can't find a link to that article. The moral is, stop reading New York Post unless you like made-up horror stories. They will find anything and make it into a horror story. I'm amazed at the number of people actually reading that paper.

Leo.



A mile of runway takes you to the world. A mile of highway takes you a mile.
User currently offlineCorey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2525 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3656 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 6):
Even if it were true, you're still 800' vertical so it's moot.

If only they got the data with aircraft flying on airways... Horizontal separation of 0'  Wink

BTW this isn't just a NY Post issue... I've seen this story on a few news channels today reporting the same thing (including two CO flights, as well as a few others)


User currently offlineDashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1519 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3624 times:

I came closer than either with a CAL 737 today. TCAS probably would have said something had it not been inop.

It was definitely not a near mid-air...


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21522 posts, RR: 55
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3445 times:

Quoting Echster (Reply 8):
Either way you look at it, in both cases, there was a loss of prescribed separation.

Not necessarily. If all those unidentified aircraft were just VFR traffic, there would be no separation called for - VFR separation is basically "see and avoid" and "don't hit the other guy", even between VFR and IFR traffic. Certainly that glider was a VFR flight.

As for the quality of the Post, well, it's a crime to use those words in the same sentence.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
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...
2 QF Near Misses In Mid-air Last Week posted Wed Oct 3 2001 05:42:44 by Jiml1126
Air Force One Near "near Miss" posted Sun May 16 1999 13:06:03 by SashA
"Idiots" In The Air posted Thu Dec 27 2001 20:16:43 by PremiereClasse
Air Canada's 2nd Low Cost Airline - "loco" Coming! posted Wed Oct 24 2001 03:45:38 by Wolfy
Air Canada Competes With Itself "tango"! posted Wed Oct 24 2001 00:21:07 by Player4keeps
Air Canada "tango" Is A Wolf In Sheeps Clothing posted Fri Oct 12 2001 16:03:30 by Player4keeps
"Air Canada Tango" Press Release posted Wed Oct 10 2001 20:47:21 by Yyz717
AC To Reveil The New "Air Canada Tango" Scheme! posted Tue Oct 9 2001 16:09:51 by Wolfy
British "Air Force One" Should Be..? posted Mon Oct 8 2001 19:07:57 by Heavymetal
Gulf Air Plans To "necessarise" Fleet Requirements posted Tue Jul 3 2001 19:50:32 by GF-A330