Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1677 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 6 hours ago) and read 5343 times:
Hi All. If this has been discussed before mods please remove.
I was watching the last report from FAA about runway incursions and I have to say is a little alarming to me.
From 2007 to 2008 the incidents increased 13%, and although in 2009 there was a little improvement, the numbers are still very high, around 1.000 incidents for year ( that includes all incidents from minor to close calls ).
My concern is, with this number of incidents, a new tragedy like Tenerife Los Rodeos is waiting to happen, specially considering that the major airports ( with more heavies operating in and out ) are the ones with more active runways working at the same time, and some of this mega-hubs are under bad weather conditions frequently ( two contributing factors already in place for a major mishap ).
RL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4537 posts, RR: 13 Reply 1, posted (3 years 6 hours ago) and read 5307 times:
Sadly, im sure it will happen again someday. The highest risk places IMHO are airports like BOS, EWR and LGA where intersecting runways are used on a regular basis. However, we have seen it almost happen at lower activity places like PVD with the UA 757 and FX 727/US 737.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
Flyingfox27 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 hours ago) and read 5269 times:
Theres always the risk of something happening but dont forget that Tenerife was a chain of events that, if one of them didnt happen, ie the bomb at Las Palmas, then the two Jumbos wouldnt have even been at Tenerife, or, if the fog didnt roll in then the Tower would have warned the KLM plane in time.
It might not happen on an ordinary day at your average large hub airport like LHR, JFK, LAX, etc, more likely a chain of events would happen first, the important thing is to stop the chain from forming then you wont have the accident hopefully.
kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11957 posts, RR: 37 Reply 3, posted (3 years 6 hours ago) and read 5179 times:
Quoting Flyingfox27 (Reply 2): Theres always the risk of something happening but dont forget that Tenerife was a chain of events that, if one of them didnt happen, ie the bomb at Las Palmas, then the two Jumbos wouldnt have even been at Tenerife, or, if the fog didnt roll in then the Tower would have warned the KLM plane in time.
And at the risk of being very pedantic, it was not the incursion per se which caused the crash, since all three parties (ATC, KLM 4805 and Clipper) were aware that the PA 747 would be taxying on the runway; it was the decision of the KLM captain to take off without explicit clearance which caused that tragedy.
That said, you are correct to say that there is a major danger there. On the other hand, new technology - such as Surface Movements Radar (among others) is making a difference. The trouble is, sometimes people are too busy, too stretched (or even too stressed) to use the resources available to them and at that stage, it comes down to human failure.
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1677 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 hours ago) and read 4957 times:
Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 1): The highest risk places IMHO are airports like BOS, EWR and LGA where intersecting runways are used on a regular basis.
Those are in my list two, huge amounts of traffic, heavy snowfalls in the winter, and intersecting runways. If you add a couple of mistakes and bad luck to the equation, it's done.
Quoting Flyingfox27 (Reply 2): dont forget that Tenerife was a chain of events that, if one of them didnt happen
Yes, like all the aviation accidents in general nowadays. We have better technology ( TCAS, SM Radar and much more ), we have modern fleets with better equipment, and a lot of stuff, but the accidents don't stop 100 %, in fact this year we already saw state of art aircraft's crashing ( Ab330, B738's...).
Always hope for the best, but at the same time, you must be prepared for the worst case scenario. IMHO, the FAA analysis is very disturbing considering all the improvements and technology we have at hand.
Quoting kaitak (Reply 3): On the other hand, new technology - such as Surface Movements Radar (among others) is making a difference.
Do you remember the Malpensa tragedy ? ( Scandinavian MD-80 crash after collide on take off roll with a Citation ).
The airport had SMR, it was stored in a box for five years at the moment of the crash. After the tragedy they rushed to the manufacturer and asked for a quick implementation....but again, after the crash...
How many airports ( major airports or not so big but with high traffic values ) have good SMR technology available and fully operational ?
I'm afraid the number isn't too high, and the worst part is, the best radar in the world is useless if you don't care about it.
ANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3233 posts, RR: 14 Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 hours ago) and read 4696 times:
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 4): the FAA analysis is very disturbing considering all the improvements and technology we have at hand.
You do have to take these figures with a grain of salt, though. There is no mistaking that there has been a rise, but I don't think it's despite the technological advantages. Airports are operating at or above capacity in many places, and things like TCAS, improved ATC, new procedures, RNAV, etc, have allowed intervals between arrivals and departures to lessen more and more. We're pretty much at the bare minimum in many places. And THIS creates opportunities for incursions, if the timing can be a bit off. So while the numbers have risen, it could be a direct consequence of new technology, and may not imply an increased danger factor. If we have 13% more runway incursions, but planes are flying closer together than ever, then we haven't deteriorated as much as we think.
What surprises me is how the media decides to spin these things in the USA. Every time it happens, there seems to be a thread on a.net, and articles all over the media. My father flew into ATH during a peak time last week, and e-mailed me afterwards to say the pilot had aborted landing at the very last second (he had already flared) and that, as he climbed away, my dad could see a plane underneath them that was so close he could make out individual faces looking up at him. He said if the plane had been full (it was only about 15% full) he doesn't think the plane would have made it up in time.
www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
ferengi80 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 667 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (2 years 12 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1431 times:
I'm reminded of US1493 and SKW5569 at LAX on February 1st 1991. This was on Air Crash Investigation on National Geographic not that long ago in the UK. Accident happened when the controller forgot she had placed the SkyWest Metroliner at the threshhold, and gave clearance for the US Air 737 to land. Due to the positioning of a light assembly in front of the Tower, the controller could not see the Metroliner at the threshhold.
AF1981 LHR-CDG A380-800 10 July 2010 / AF1980 CDG-LHR A380-800 11 July 2010