Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Mid-Air Incident At LAX  
User currently offlineOP3000 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1785 posts, RR: 2
Posted (4 years 11 months 4 hours ago) and read 16079 times:

Two planes - an American Eagle E135 and a LAN Airlines B763 came within 3 miles of one another while circling LAX at 7,000 feet:

http://www.miamiherald.com/business/breaking-news/story/1448051.html

LOS ANGELES -- Federal Aviation Administration officials say an error by an air traffic controller allowed a commuter plane to get too close to a Boeing 767 on approach to Los Angeles International Airport last week.

FAA spokesman Ian Gregor said Tuesday that an American Eagle Embraer E135 came within three miles of the tail of the Chilean-based LAN Airlines plane on Jan. 19 while flying at about 7,000 feet. Pilots are required to maintain five miles of separation to avoid wake turbulence that can send smaller planes out of control.

Controllers union spokesman Melvin Davis told San Diego's KGTV that controllers are overworked and understaffed. Gregor called the error "serious" but said it was not caused by understaffing and there was no imminent danger to the smaller plane.

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLrdc9 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 610 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 15831 times:

I don't know, BUT it pretty much sounds like a non-incident to me.


Just say NO to scabs.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26812 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (4 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 15739 times:



Quoting Lrdc9 (Reply 1):
I don't know, BUT it pretty much sounds like a non-incident to me.

Any loss of separation is a serious thing.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2264 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (4 years 11 months ago) and read 15529 times:



Quoting OP3000 (Thread starter):
Pilots are required to maintain five miles of separation to avoid wake turbulence that can send smaller planes out of control.

Media screw up here. The Controller, not the Pilot, is responsible for ensuring 5 miles.

Quoting Lrdc9 (Reply 1):
I don't know, BUT it pretty much sounds like a non-incident to me.

Wake Turbulence separation. Obviously 3 miles is no danger of collision. But a E135 behind a 767 could get bumpy. On final, it could get dangerous.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 2):
Any loss of separation is a serious thing.

Bull. There are procedural losses of separation that occur while aircraft are going away from each other. How would that example that be a serious thing?



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineMSYPI7185 From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 711 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 15086 times:

IMO this is a non-event. It is not a situation you want to have and the 5 mile separation is there for a reason. But in this case I believe it is the media trying to create news. I am not saying the 5 mile rule is not important, just that this is not really a news worthy event.

Later

MD


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21583 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 15046 times:



Quoting N1120A (Reply 2):
Any loss of separation is a serious thing.

Hardly. The reason they have a 5 mile factor of safety is so that a minor loss of separation ISN'T a serious thing. Now, if it were much closer than 3+ miles, maybe, but that wouldn't be just ANY loss of separation, but a major incursion.

All this really is is planted propaganda re: LAX and it's so called "crowded" nature. It's meant to help the cause of decreasing flights into LAX (despite no delays on a daily basis), and to tell the world how "overworked" the controllers are. We get this alarming stories every once in a while for this purpose.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineIsidrink From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 12 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 14908 times:

This very similar incident happened not too long ago in Mexico City. A small private plane got too close to a Mexicana 767 on approach and it crashed into the city below.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the wake turbulence because of loss of separation was determined to be the cause of the accident.
After an incident like this, this should be considered a very serious happening.


User currently offlineGentFromAlaska From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3257 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 14807 times:



Quoting N1120A (Reply 2):
Any loss of separation is a serious thing.

More so If they are at or near the same altitude with each aircraft moving at 200 MPH or faster.

At 35,000 and higher I've flown over other aircraft which seemed to be a-lot closer than 3 miles vertical. I guess it's one of those relationship to the ground things.



Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3088 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 14790 times:



Quoting Isidrink (Reply 6):
This very similar incident happened not too long ago in Mexico City. A small private plane got too close to a Mexicana 767 on approach and it crashed into the city below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDwq-qZ1y8o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT5lBg8jDL8

I too thought of the Mexico City crash when reading the posts that said it was no big deal.



The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21866 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 14714 times:



Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 7):
At 35,000 and higher I've flown over other aircraft which seemed to be a-lot closer than 3 miles vertical. I guess it's one of those relationship to the ground things.

I would hope they were a lot closer than 3 miles vertically. All you need is 1,000 feet.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineGolfBravoRomeo From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 14685 times:

That would never happen at O'Hare.

Actual transmission heard at the O'Hare TRACON: "Caution wake turbulence, you're following a heavy 12 o'clock, three...no, lets make it five miles."  Big grin

From http://www.thetracon.com/c90xmit2.htm


User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2264 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 14505 times:



Quoting Isidrink (Reply 6):
This very similar incident happened not too long ago in Mexico City. A small private plane

By your own posting, this NOT very similar. We are talking an E135 vs the "small private airplane" you indicate.

Quoting Isidrink (Reply 6):
After an incident like this, this should be considered a very serious happening.

I disagree. You cannot lump individual accidents in to one file like this. Each occurrence has it's own circumstances and cause.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offline413X3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12913 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):

All this really is is planted propaganda

What propaganda? this is reporting events that happened.


User currently offlineBorism From Estonia, joined Oct 2006, 431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 11714 times:



Quoting 413X3 (Reply 12):
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):

All this really is is planted propaganda

What propaganda? this is reporting events that happened.

Reporting events as happened in a certain way can be propaganda too.

But this is no propaganda, it's just a usual Ikramerica right-wing conspiracy paranoia.

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 11):
By your own posting, this NOT very similar. We are talking an E135 vs the "small private airplane" you indicate.

Not a huge difference between Learjet 45 and E135, you know. Totally different geography between MEX and LAX though.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26812 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 10036 times:



Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 3):

Bull. There are procedural losses of separation that occur while aircraft are going away from each other. How would that example that be a serious thing?



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):
The reason they have a 5 mile factor of safety is so that a minor loss of separation ISN'T a serious thing.

If you don't take a "minor" "procedural" loss of separation seriously, the overall standard drops like a rock and you end up with significantly more serious incidents.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):
All this really is is planted propaganda re: LAX and it's so called "crowded" nature. It's meant to help the cause of decreasing flights into LAX (despite no delays on a daily basis), and to tell the world how "overworked" the controllers are.

What in the world are you talking about? First, do you even know where L.A. Approach/Departure is handled? So Cal Approach in San Diego. Hence why this was reported by a San Diego station. You think they are interested in decreasing flights at LAX too?

The reality is that ATC IS overworked because of the Bush Administration's idiotic policies and chronic understaffing. This has become worse since the first few years of NATCA controllers are bumping up against mandatory retirement.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineN314as From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 8814 times:

I thought it was a photographer flying over LAX in a Cessna trying to capture air to ground takeoffs!  Smile

User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2264 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 8151 times:



Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
This has become worse since the first few years of NATCA controllers are bumping up against mandatory retirement.

What is a NATCA Controller?

What about the non-NATCA Controllers? Are they retiring too?



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineTrnsWrld From United States of America, joined May 1999, 959 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7714 times:

So im confused maybe I missed it but was this in the enroute or terminal environment? Enroute requires 5 miles seperation and terminal is 3. At 7,000 ft sounds like its terminal so 3 miles is just fine. Am I missing something here?

James


User currently offlineP3Orion From United States of America, joined May 2006, 544 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7391 times:



Quoting TrnsWrld (Reply 17):
So im confused maybe I missed it but was this in the enroute or terminal environment? Enroute requires 5 miles seperation and terminal is 3. At 7,000 ft sounds like its terminal so 3 miles is just fine. Am I missing something here?

In the Terminal environment, a large, the EGF jungle jet, needs to be at least 5 miles in trail of the Heavy to have lateral seperation.



"Did he say strap in or strap on?"
User currently offlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2059 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6667 times:



Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
The reality is that ATC IS overworked because of the Bush Administration's idiotic policies and chronic understaffing. This has become worse since the first few years of NATCA controllers are bumping up against mandatory retirement.

Ok. I'll buy. But Obama has been President for over a year now, and hasn't changed Bush's "idiotic policies and chronic understaffing." So you must then agree Obama thinks the staffings ok then. I mean, he hasn't change the policies, now has he?

And according to the FAA, via the avhearld.com article, the separation incident was NOT due to controller understaffing/overwork.

"The FAA reported, that the Embraer was about 3nm behind the Boeing prompting the FAA to rate the occurrence a serious incident. The error was not the result of understaffing or overworked controllers."

You can read it here:

http://avherald.com/h?article=42661af1&opt=0


But hey.. you know better than the rest of us, and as a bonus, the FAA, as usual...



As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26812 posts, RR: 75
Reply 20, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6509 times:



Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 16):

What is a NATCA Controller?

What about the non-NATCA Controllers? Are they retiring too?

NATCA = National Air Traffic Controllers Association

The union that replaced PATCO.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 19):
But Obama has been President for over a year now, and hasn't changed Bush's "idiotic policies and chronic understaffing." So you must then agree Obama thinks the staffings ok then. I mean, he hasn't change the policies, now has he?

You think a year is enough time to even put a dent in these issues? The Obama Administration already did yeoman's work in getting a real, negotiated contract in place to stem the tide of retirements and hopefully bring up the number of new hires.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 19):
And according to the FAA, via the avhearld.com article, the separation incident was NOT due to controller understaffing/overwork.

Um, this is the same FAA that unilaterally imposed an unfair contract and has not addressed staffing issues for years.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinePhxplanes From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 436 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6255 times:

I dont know how this stuff makes the news. Though it is not a good thing, this type of thing does happen every once and a while and is not worth putting on the news. I dont know who goes and tells them that type of thing.

User currently offlineSoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5185 times:

In New York,...2 miles doesn't even break the radio frequency...

User currently offlineFLY2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5020 times:

Well jeez I was expecting due to the very misleading thread title death and destruction but then I come in here to find something that doesn't even qualify as a near miss. *yawns*

Move on. Nothing to see here. Slow news day. Get out.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (4 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4542 times:



Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 23):
Well jeez I was expecting due to the very misleading thread title death and destruction but then I come in here to find something that doesn't even qualify as a near miss. *yawns*

Totally correct, the title of the post dragged me in, but this is simply a separation issue nothing more!

Quoting N1120A (Reply 2):
Any loss of separation is a serious thing

Maybe a serious thing but nothing like a mid-air in the way this situation occurred.

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 7):
At 35,000 and higher I've flown over other aircraft which seemed to be a-lot closer than 3 miles vertical.

That would equate to something like more than 16,000' feet of vertical separation! Are you kidding me!

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):
All this really is is planted propaganda

I can't agree more...can you say NATCA!

Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
If you don't take a "minor" "procedural" loss of separation seriously, the overall standard drops like a rock and you end up with significantly more serious incidents.

This is simply a loss of required separation, nothing more. Loss of separation happens daily, and some are minor as this and others more significant, but how often do you hear of them? This is propaganda, period!

Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
This has become worse since the first few years of NATCA controllers are bumping up against mandatory retirement.

Get your fact correct, the mandatory retirement age is not a Bush adminstration item, nor was NATCA in place when the first few years of controllers filled the ranks after the 1981 situation.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 20):
NATCA = National Air Traffic Controllers Association

The union that replaced PATCO.

He sure reeled you in on that one, he certainly knows what NATCA is!!  Smile

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 23):
Move on. Nothing to see here. Slow news day. Get out.

 bigthumbsup 



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
25 SPREE34 : OK. I started by quoting you in the above. I don't think you get it. It's not the "NATCA Controllers" retiring. It's Air Traffic Controllers, and pri
26 OP3000 : That's the issue - the trailing ERJ needed to be farther away to avoid possible strong turbulence from the much larger jet. Perhaps you're looking in
27 Wolflair : That's correct. A Learjet 45 got into the wake turbulence of a 767 on approach to Mexico. The incident occurred at approx. 9000' (ground elevation is
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...
Pan Am-Air Resorts At LAX posted Wed Dec 23 2009 14:17:51 by LatinPlane
US Air Incident At PHX posted Mon Apr 20 2009 18:48:54 by Cadet57
Air Jamaica At Lax posted Sun May 18 2008 18:46:27 by AAden
Incident At LAX Evening Of 3/29/08? posted Sun Mar 30 2008 20:56:20 by EI A330-200
CI Mid-air Incident posted Fri Dec 21 2007 03:06:20 by BRxxx
QF 747 Incident At LAX - OCT 15 posted Tue Oct 16 2007 01:53:32 by QANTAS747-438
Two Pilots Die In Mid-air Crash At Polish Air Show posted Sat Sep 1 2007 18:32:28 by Bofredrik
China Air 763 At LAX? posted Wed Aug 15 2007 03:40:40 by AA61Hvy
Easyjet Mid-air Incident? posted Fri Jul 6 2007 01:48:38 by Babybus
Near Mid-air Collision At TLV LY & IB posted Thu Feb 8 2007 19:19:35 by BWI757
Easyjet Mid-air Incident? posted Fri Jul 6 2007 01:48:38 by Babybus