FAA Investigating DL near miss over NYC
Jun 22, 2013, 5:38 pm
#31
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hell's Kitchen, NYC
Programs: NW Plat, Hilton, Avis
Posts: 660
Jun 23, 2013, 7:16 am
#33
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: BDL
Programs: skymiles
Posts: 29
There are vertical and horizontal spatial designations that airplanes are expected to maintain. When an aircraft, or both in this case, are not at or greater than the spatial parameters, it is considered a violation and based on the speed of the aircrafts and the degree of violation, it is considered a near miss.
Last edited by aua; Jun 23, 2013 at 7:17 am Reason: punctuation
Jun 23, 2013, 11:16 am
#35
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Floating around
Programs: UA 1K (1MM), DL Gold (1MM), Marriott LTT
Posts: 10,335
A few things I've always wondered about that this situation has brought to light:
1. In parallel runway landings (e.g. 4L/R at JFK or 28L/R at SFO), how do simultaneous go-arounds work? Apparently 4R turns right but 4L should also turn right unless another plane just missed their approach.
2. Why was LGA using rwy 13 which heads right into the path of 4L/4R at JFK? Both airports are close by, have the same runway setup (4/22 and 13/31) so LGA should have been using 4 as well. I'm sure winds prevented it but there are no mountains between LGA and JFK so unless there was a local seabreeze at JFK they almost always have the same winds as well. Just interesting.
3. When landing at SFO on the parallels you always hear the tower telling the aircraft that is slightly behind the other parallel landing to "not overtake the plane on your <left/right> side". I always thought this is because if both planes have to go around that they'd be able to.
Anyway, I think the FAA is probably going to change their rules about parallel landings because of this - or at least in NY when you have a situation where LGA takeoffs are heading right into the path of takeoffs/go-arounds at JFK (assuming JFK was using 4L/4R for takeoffs at that time as well). The media has made a big deal of this and now the public is worried
-RM
1. In parallel runway landings (e.g. 4L/R at JFK or 28L/R at SFO), how do simultaneous go-arounds work? Apparently 4R turns right but 4L should also turn right unless another plane just missed their approach.
2. Why was LGA using rwy 13 which heads right into the path of 4L/4R at JFK? Both airports are close by, have the same runway setup (4/22 and 13/31) so LGA should have been using 4 as well. I'm sure winds prevented it but there are no mountains between LGA and JFK so unless there was a local seabreeze at JFK they almost always have the same winds as well. Just interesting.
3. When landing at SFO on the parallels you always hear the tower telling the aircraft that is slightly behind the other parallel landing to "not overtake the plane on your <left/right> side". I always thought this is because if both planes have to go around that they'd be able to.
Anyway, I think the FAA is probably going to change their rules about parallel landings because of this - or at least in NY when you have a situation where LGA takeoffs are heading right into the path of takeoffs/go-arounds at JFK (assuming JFK was using 4L/4R for takeoffs at that time as well). The media has made a big deal of this and now the public is worried
-RM
Jun 23, 2013, 11:50 am
#36
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Kingdom of the Sun
Programs: DL GM/MM
Posts: 3,708
4R: climb to 800 on runway heading then climbing right turn to 4000 to a heading of 100. Go to the Deer Park VOR and hold.
4L: climb to 2000 on runway heading then climbing right turn to 3000 to a heading of 70 or so and then back to 62. Go to DUFFY intersection (about 14.8 miles from JFK on that 62 heading) hold.
At first glance these appear to provide adequate separation. I'd have to play with them a bit to see if they are adequate in various SA situations. And will bet the FAA will be doing that, too!
IIR, at some point fairly soon after the 747 initiated the MA for 4L, the tower gave a left turn instruction, for reasons currently unknown, deviating from the published procedure.
