Juan911411
Topic Author
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:27 pm

B6 Mid Air "near-misses"

Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:59 am

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
 
GoBlue
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:27 pm

RE: B6 Mid Air "near-misses"

Tue Jun 12, 2007 7:55 am

Slow news day again i would assume!
 
Mir
Posts: 19092
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: B6 Mid Air "near-misses"

Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:42 am

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
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: B6 Mid Air "near-misses"

Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:07 am

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.
 
propilotjw
Posts: 520
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2000 1:02 pm

RE: B6 Mid Air "near-misses"

Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:30 am

30 feet is damn close though
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: B6 Mid Air "near-misses"

Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:52 am

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...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: B6 Mid Air "near-misses"

Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:08 am

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

Even if it were true, you're still 800' vertical so it's moot.
 
jetblueatjfk
Posts: 1556
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:42 am

RE: B6 Mid Air "near-misses"

Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:41 pm

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
 
echster
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:01 pm

RE: B6 Mid Air "near-misses"

Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:02 pm

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.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: B6 Mid Air "near-misses"

Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:55 pm

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.
 
tz757300
Posts: 2724
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:21 am

RE: B6 Mid Air "near-misses"

Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:03 pm

800'? Yup, that sure is close...not. I would say 100' is cutting it close, but not 800. q
LETS GO MOUNTAINEERS!
 
levg79
Posts: 918
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 10:59 am

RE: B6 Mid Air "near-misses"

Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:11 pm

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.
 
corey07850
Posts: 2335
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 4:33 am

RE: B6 Mid Air "near-misses"

Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:18 pm

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)
 
DashTrash
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:44 am

RE: B6 Mid Air "near-misses"

Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:37 pm

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...
 
Mir
Posts: 19092
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: B6 Mid Air "near-misses"

Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:14 pm

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

Who is online