Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DCA - 3 A/C Near Miss 8/1  
User currently offlineburj From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 900 posts, RR: 4
Posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 11669 times:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...8/01/gJQAxxPSQX_story.html?hpid=z1

"Three commuter jets came within seconds of a midair collision at Reagan National Airport on Tuesday after confused air traffic controllers launched two outbound flights directly at another plane coming in to land, according to federal officials with direct knowledge of the incident......"

Later in the article it says that a controller caught the problem 12 seconds before a collision.... One of these days our luck is going to run out....

[Edited 2012-08-02 03:41:27]

32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 23
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 11412 times:

"12 seconds from impact". Really, really, from impact?    That would have to just about be a perfect storm for impact. TCAS was invented to avoid IMPACT and it works pretty darn good. I love the media.

From the article if one is to believe it, sounds as if a few folks in the tower were without situational awareness. A wind shift and the local controller and/or ground controller doesn't make everyone in the cab aware of the change in weather, not good. And then a call comes from what would appear to be Potomac TRACON that they were changing the arrival flow, and that goes in one ear and out the other. mmmm

Appears a few of the facts are still undisclosed.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinemarkalot From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 11305 times:

I would think the airplanes taking off would be gaining altitude fast and be higher than the landing plane at just about every point except close to the runway. (confirmation from someone would be great)

A really bad mistake that shows how important procedures are, but I would agree the danger is hyped.



M a r k
User currently offlinetharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11269 times:

I got a little confused from the article. the inbound plane was flying northward towards the runway, then told to turn south, and then ended up northwest of the airport. are all of these directions correct?

User currently offlinesaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1609 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11212 times:

It is my experience that the controllers at DCA too often try to rush things and try to squeeze one last departure or arrival into a very, very narrow window. Lots of "Maintain visual separation with the departing 737, cleared for immediate T/O" and being on a 2 mile final and someone is "Cleared to line up and wait, be ready for an immediate". And all this when nobody is waiting. There's no lineup. So why the hurry? And even if there were a lineup rushing is usually a bad idea. I've had to go around twice on one flight due to this kind of thing at DCA.

Too much rushing and for no real good reason.

That is my experience as a frequent user of DCA.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11212 times:

Quoting markalot (Reply 2):
I would think the airplanes taking off would be gaining altitude fast and be higher than the landing plane at just about every point except close to the runway.


Exactly. Loss of lateral or vertical required separation, probably. Collision and impact, remote.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineN202PA From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1551 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11075 times:

Quoting saab2000 (Reply 4):

It is my experience that the controllers at DCA too often try to rush things and try to squeeze one last departure or arrival into a very, very narrow window. Lots of "Maintain visual separation with the departing 737, cleared for immediate T/O" and being on a 2 mile final and someone is "Cleared to line up and wait, be ready for an immediate". And all this when nobody is waiting. There's no lineup. So why the hurry? And even if there were a lineup rushing is usually a bad idea. I've had to go around twice on one flight due to this kind of thing at DCA.

Just as a guess, because once things start to back up at DCA and snowball, it becomes very difficult to clear things up and get traffic moving.


User currently offlinesaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1609 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 10991 times:

Quoting N202PA (Reply 6):
Just as a guess, because once things start to back up at DCA and snowball, it becomes very difficult to clear things up and get traffic moving.

Same as every other busy airport. But because DCA is slot controlled there is a limited number of flights anyway. Even when DCA is 'badly backed up' there are like 7 or 8 airplanes lined up. Nothing like other busy east coast airports. In LGA it is not uncommon to see 25-30 lined up for departure. Same in PHL on a bad day.

And go-arounds cause more trouble, especially with the airspace restrictions.

I'm all for reasonable, tight spacing but this whole business of launching in the jet blast and wake turbulence of the preceding aircraft just so the controller can get one more departure is lame IMHO.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlinerichierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4199 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10951 times:

Does anybody have any inside information into which flights were involved? If there were 160+ passengers in total, I assume we must be talking about about at least a couple of E-170s...


None shall pass!!!!
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 23
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10904 times:

Quoting saab2000 (Reply 7):
I'm all for reasonable, tight spacing but this whole business of launching in the jet blast and wake turbulence of the preceding aircraft



I'll buy into the jet blast, but wake turbulence with an airplane rolling down the runway and you're landing presumably in the touchdown zone of the runway, which in most cases would be the area the departure began their take-off roll?



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineboacvc10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 587 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10867 times:

could someone please link the relevant incident liveatc audio segment please, if they get a chance? thanks!

boacvc10



Up, up and Away!
User currently offlineMainland From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10764 times:

Quoting tharanga (Reply 3):

I got a little confused from the article. the inbound plane was flying northward towards the runway, then told to turn south, and then ended up northwest of the airport. are all of these directions correct?

The way I take it the inbound was via the Potomac approach but may have been expecting landing from the south since a change in direction had just been made.

Quote:
The problem Tuesday occurred about 2 p.m. as a number of inbound planes were queued up to turn above Mount Vernon, fly north over the Potomac River and land on National’s main runway.

Warrenton calls in to reverse the flow and land via the Potomac approach. At the time there must have been a queue to take off to the north. Planes on approach head to land from the north.

Quote:
“The tower agreed, but they didn’t pass it on to all the people they needed to pass it on to,” said a federal official familiar with the incident who was not authorized to speak publicly.

As a result, an incoming flight that had been cleared to land was flying head-on at two planes that had just taken off.

...

“Are you with me?” the tower controller asked the inbound pilot, checking to see whether he was tuned to her radio frequency. When the pilot acknowledged her, she ordered him to make an abrupt turn to the south to avoid the other two planes.

“We were cleared [for landing] at the river there,” the pilot said after breaking off the approach northwest of the airport. “What happened?”

After a pause, the controller said, “Stand by, we’re trying to figure this out.”

As she directed him to make a loop around the airport for a second landing attempt the pilot cautioned: “We really don’t have enough fuel here for this. We have to get on the ground pretty quick.”

So planes in the air moving to land from the north, with presumably planes still taking off to the north.

Looks like the pattern change happened almost right at 2pm on Tuesday. The closest flight with a pattern of approaching from the northwest and making a loop, albeit not fully around DCA, is:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/R...9/history/20120731/1635Z/KPWM/KDCA

(There's even a hitch to the south over Arlington) Granted though, flightaware may be imperfect.



You don't need a passport to know what state you're in...
User currently offlinesaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1609 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10647 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 9):
I'll buy into the jet blast, but wake turbulence with an airplane rolling down the runway and you're landing presumably in the touchdown zone of the runway, which in most cases would be the area the departure began their take-off roll?

It is not uncommon for them to ask a departing aircraft to maintain visual separation from the preceding departure and then clear them for T/O. As you turn up the river it is not uncommon to get rocked hard by the wake turbulence from a preceding 320 or 737. They're not heavies of course, but they still leave behind some very dirty air. Of course, I could refuse the clearance, but who wants to be 'that guy'? 



smrtrthnu
User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 2797 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10605 times:

Quoting boacvc10 (Reply 10):
could someone please link the relevant incident liveatc audio segment please, if they get a chance? thanks!

This story has a link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...PSQX_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage


User currently offlinedumbell2424 From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 865 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10506 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting boacvc10 (Reply 10):
could someone please link the relevant incident liveatc audio segment please, if they get a chance? thanks!

There's ATC clip is on the Washington Post story in OP.


Brickyard 3329 was landing, and that's all I could gather from the clip after 3 listens

[Edited 2012-08-02 07:37:32]

User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 23
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10479 times:

Quoting saab2000 (Reply 12):
It is not uncommon for them to ask a departing aircraft to maintain visual separation from the preceding departure and then clear them for T/O. As you turn up the river it is not uncommon to get rocked hard by the wake turbulence from a preceding 320 or 737. They're not heavies of course, but they still leave behind some very dirty air


LMAO....I am such the dume-ash, I was thinking of landing behind the departure not being the next to depart, sorry!   

I hear the 738's give off quite a bit of rough air when you're following them with minimum separation let alone less that minimum using visual.

Quoting saab2000 (Reply 12):
Of course, I could refuse the clearance, but who wants to be 'that guy'?



You know you secretly want to be "that guy".  



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineDBQ From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9653 times:

Quoting burj (Thread starter):
As she directed him to make a loop around the airport for a second landing attempt the pilot cautioned: “We really don’t have enough fuel here for this. We have to get on the ground pretty quick.”

Should a plane really be urgently low on fuel at just the second attempt?


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 2797 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 8822 times:

LiveATC has the recording up now: http://www.liveatc.net/recordings.php

User currently offlinegothamspotter From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 586 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7232 times:

FAA just released the radar replay with full ATC audio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLZQQHPpoc0

User currently offlinezmp0psa From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 29 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6998 times:

Once again the media trying to make this more dramatic than it actually was. The coverage I've seen in the media so far today has left out way too many details and made too many assumptions. I'm not trying to downgrade the operational error that happened, as it was very serious, but as LaHood said (claims), "“At no point were they on a head-to-head collision course.” Most of the articles coverage I've seen left this out. I also haven't heard any mention to TCAS and how that would have also helped to avoid a collision if necessary.

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 1):
From the article if one is to believe it, sounds as if a few folks in the tower were without situational awareness.

Absolutely, a loss of situational awareness and/or a lack of communication would be my guess as to a cause, without knowing the details.

Quoting saab2000 (Reply 4):
It is my experience that the controllers at DCA too often try to rush things and try to squeeze one last departure or arrival into a very, very narrow window. Lots of "Maintain visual separation with the departing 737, cleared for immediate T/O" and being on a 2 mile final and someone is "Cleared to line up and wait, be ready for an immediate". And all this when nobody is waiting. There's no lineup. So why the hurry?

I do understand what you're saying about being in a hurry when there isn't the need, but as a controller it's difficult to change the speed you work at. IMO working at a consistent and efficient pace at all times makes the jump to a rushed workload much easier and safer.

Quoting DBQ (Reply 16):

Should a plane really be urgently low on fuel at just the second attempt?

The short answer is no, the aircraft should have enough fuel to make it to an alternate airport + 30 MIN. There are a lot of variables that factor in, but if the pilot truly felt he was running that low he would have declared an emergency.

ZMP


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 2797 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6889 times:

Quoting gothamspotter (Reply 18):
FAA just released the radar replay with full ATC audio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLZQQ...Ppoc0

So that video makes it look like they didnt get within 1000' of each other.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8204 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6889 times:

It sounds like the safety margin went from 1 in 10 million to about 1 in 1,000. It's pretty serious, but it happens.

User currently offlinesandyb123 From UK - Scotland, joined Oct 2007, 1039 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6532 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting gothamspotter (Reply 18):
FAA just released the radar replay with full ATC audio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLZQQHPpoc0

Perhaps no safety breach but this ATC operator completely looses control of the situation. Confusing and frustrating for the aircraft involved.

Sandyb123



DC3, 727, 737, 744, 753, 777, A32X, A345, A388, ERJ145, E190, BaE146, D328, ATR72, Q400
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9378 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6058 times:

What appears to have happened is that the winds were calm and approach control allowed cleared an E170 on the river approach to runway 19 while the tower was operating in North flow and having departures off runway 1. It looks like a communication breakdown between approach control and the tower. Fortunately the pilots on the E170 realized what was going on along with the tower. Minimum separation requirements were exceeded, but fortunately the pilots on approach were aware of what was happening and had traffic in sight.

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 22):
Perhaps no safety breach but this ATC operator completely looses control of the situation. Confusing and frustrating for the aircraft involved.

I’m not sure I agree with that. The controller notified all aircraft of the traffic once she found out that an airplane was on approach that she did not intend to be on approach. She almost immediately gave the aircraft on approach a vector to stay clear of the aircraft on departure and the pilot indicated that traffic was in sight. The controller in the tower also suspended all departures and cleared the runway while she tried to figure out what happened.

I don’t know how you could have expected the controller to react differently when a different controller cleared an airplane for approach in the wrong direction. That E170 should never have shown up on the river approach, so she had to figure out what was happening and ensure no other aircraft were also on approach. The only thing she didn’t do was give the E170 on approach an altitude, but the pilot did the correct thing of maintain current altitude.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinecapitalflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5834 times:

She sounded amazingly calm given the circumstances and the pilot was annoyed but professional over the radio too. I am sure both had a few choice words off air. Kudos to both as a member of the flying public who has to trust these professionals.

User currently offlinetraindoc From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 337 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6013 times:

I am in DC this week and have been exercising on the Mt Vernon trail which goes along the northern perimiter of DCA. This PM (8/2) there are two media trucks parked there as well. Lot's of great take offs, but no story. Unfortunately, the media just have to make everything worse than it is.

User currently offlineatcgod From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 661 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5028 times:

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 22):
Perhaps no safety breach but this ATC operator completely looses control of the situation. Confusing and frustrating for the aircraft involved.

Clearly a mix up between the back of the room and the local controller. Sounds like a runway change had just been completed and the supervisor who is in charge of coordinating the runway change didn't correctly notify the controller of the last aircraft for the previous runway in use. The local controller sounds very surprised to hear RPA3329 on the River Visual to 19. Just my $.02. Don't be so quick to hang the controller.


User currently offlineAcey559 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1495 posts, RR: 2
Reply 27, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4510 times:

Quoting DBQ (Reply 16):

Should a plane really be urgently low on fuel at just the second attempt?

Should we, no but it happens all the time. The airline I work for is bankrupt and trying to save money any way possible and it's not uncommon to land with fuel gauges in the amber (around 1800 lbs) of gas. I talked to one captain not long ago who landed in the red with about 1000 lbs of gas on board. Weather pops up, especially this time of year, winds are different than forecast and heavy traffic volumes can turn an ordinary flight into one much more exciting. As for this incident, I was overnighting in DC and noticed they were using runway 1 for departures all day until mid afternoon. This happened as they were trying to flip the airport around. Glad nothing worse happened.


User currently offlineMcoov From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 128 posts, RR: 1
Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4320 times:

This happens to me all the time in FSX. What's the problem?   

User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 23
Reply 29, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3053 times:

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 22):
Perhaps no safety breach but this ATC operator completely looses control of the situation. Confusing and frustrating for the aircraft involved.


I disagree with your comment, the controller did what was required and worked with the cards she was dealt.

When things go wrong in the tower and you've got coordination to take place with the TRACON in order to sort the situation out it can appear someone has lost the picture when you only hear the radio calls and don't hear all the communication that is taking place both on landlines and inside the tower.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 23):
The only thing she didn’t do was give the E170 on approach an altitude, but the pilot did the correct thing of maintain current altitude.


That's correct.

Quoting atcgod (Reply 26):
The local controller sounds very surprised to hear RPA3329 on the River Visual to 19.


Ya think?   Those type of surprises are never good, but the end result was nothing close to mid air collisions or even near misses.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21092 posts, RR: 56
Reply 30, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2942 times:

Quoting atcgod (Reply 26):
The local controller sounds very surprised to hear RPA3329 on the River Visual to 19.

Except that's not exactly what he said - he just said "on the river". I hate to criticize people for phraseology, but would it have killed him to say "on the river visual 19" instead?

Quoting Acey559 (Reply 27):
The airline I work for is bankrupt and trying to save money any way possible and it's not uncommon to land with fuel gauges in the amber (around 1800 lbs) of gas.

Hopefully that's something that's going into ASAP reports, because that will eventually lead to something more serious.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinesaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1609 posts, RR: 11
Reply 31, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2860 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 30):
Except that's not exactly what he said - he just said "on the river". I hate to criticize people for phraseology, but would it have killed him to say "on the river visual 19" instead?

This. Precise phraseology matters, especially in a place like DCA.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlinecapitalflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2121 times:

Quoting DBQ (Reply 16):
Should a plane really be urgently low on fuel at just the second attempt?
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news...erseTrafficProcedure_207177-1.html

"Grizzle also said that one of the pilots in the DCA incident had reported low fuel, but the FAA found the aircraft in fact had plenty of fuel."

Why would the pilot have said he was running low if he had plenty? Was he just trying to get the tower to get him on the ground faster?

Is it any kind of violation to report false fuel levels? I guess he didn't declare an emergency (which I would assume he would have done had he actually been critically low on fuel) so no harm no foul.


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...
Near Miss Between PR And QF In LAX? posted Mon Nov 28 2011 09:46:55 by airtran737
Near Miss Ryanair Above Norway posted Wed Dec 22 2010 05:27:05 by Max777geek
Near-miss For Qantas, Virgin Blue Jets posted Wed Dec 8 2010 18:03:10 by slats
Jetblue Near Miss At BOS? posted Tue Dec 7 2010 10:00:03 by kaitak
EK A332 In Near Miss At DXB posted Sun Nov 7 2010 08:08:23 by kaitak
WN And Helicopter Near Miss At HOU posted Tue May 4 2010 18:34:51 by 71Zulu
Near Miss Over SFO posted Tue Mar 30 2010 16:53:17 by PWMRamper
Delta 757 Near Miss With Bizjet Yesterday? posted Fri Jan 29 2010 18:48:42 by RobK
Elal And Airfrance In Near Miss posted Tue Dec 29 2009 18:02:54 by Boeingforever
DEN Near Miss On 11/23 posted Wed Dec 2 2009 21:07:11 by Runga08